Cycling in England 'Risking all for very little'

[Exit Stage Left]

(But the Loch Lomond path is indeed sh1te - and not in England. After a few miles I turned off it onto a glorious mountain pass road, then returned down the side of a loch. All pretty good tarmac and very quiet. )

Are you sure you're not thinking of Loch Ness, and the Great Glen cycle path?

[mattc]

(But the Loch Lomond path is indeed sh1te - and not in England. After a few miles I turned off it onto a glorious mountain pass road, then returned down the side of a loch. All pretty good tarmac and very quiet. )

Are you sure you're not thinking of Loch Ness, and the Great Glen cycle path?

Yup.

(I rode along Loch Lomond on the saturday,  then Audaxed past Loch Ness - on the A-road - on the Thursday night. It was lovely and quiet at midnight, but I gather faster riders had a mediocre experience.)

The 'other loch' in question was Loch Long to the west.

[red marley]

As a cyclist, I observe 3 categories of car/taxi drivers. It doesn't match my categorisation of other drivers when I'm in the car, but I'll skip that for now.

The worst group is a mixture of human nastiness & other psychological problems and is small - no more than 10%. [...]

That feels very different to my perception of other road users. If I really believed that one in every 10 motor vehicles was driven by 'nasty' 'bullies' with 'psychological problems' I don't think I'd ride at all (or get out of bed in the morning for that matter). And as for 'most' taxi drivers falling into that category, apart from being somewhat insulting (we have at least one taxi driver on this forum), on what basis do you come to that conclusion?

I think there is a difference between observing poor behaviour (and I'd recommend the Near Miss project for gathering data on just how prevalent that might be) and attributing malign intent. I think it is hard to be certain why someone might make a close pass, but I'd rather go though life assuming such things are through thoughtlessness than intent to endanger others. I suspect that one of the reasons members of this forum might be less inclined to behave badly driving a car is that as cyclists we are more aware of what it's like to be at the receiving end poor car driving. It's not because we are less nasty, less bullying or have fewer 'psychological problems' (whatever that means).

[Crumbling Nick]

As a cyclist, I observe 3 categories of car/taxi drivers. It doesn't match my categorisation of other drivers when I'm in the car, but I'll skip that for now.

The worst group is a mixture of human nastiness & other psychological problems and is small - no more than 10%. [...]

That feels very different to my perception of other road users. If I really believed that one in every 10 motor vehicles was driven by 'nasty' 'bullies' with 'psychological problems' I don't think I'd ride at all (or get out of bed in the morning for that matter).

You are a tad selective in your quote. You seem not to have understood that "is small - no more than 10%" does not mean 1 in 10.

Did I not make my view clear that, whatever the personalities of the drivers in this group, "The group is the one that grabs the "headlines" in the media as well as places like this part of yacf. Inevitably they contribute a lot to the near misses, but I don't think they're the biggest threat to survival on the road".

And as for 'most' taxi drivers falling into that category, apart from being somewhat insulting (we have at least one taxi driver on this forum), on what basis do you come to that conclusion?

I am utterly unapologetic. 'most' does not 'mean' all. I observe taxi drivers as a cyclist, a car driver and an occasional passenger, or even as a bus passenger. In the area where I live, I see most of them as habitual law-breakers & driving in a bullying way, while having skills that ensure that they don't get caught and don't have collisions. Many seem to be happy to offer verbal abuse. In my book that's "human nastiness". Equally some of them have been law-abiding text-book examples of good driving that respected other road users & provided a smooth ride for us passengers. YMMV.

I think there is a difference between observing poor behaviour (and I'd recommend the Near Miss project for gathering data on just how prevalent that might be) and attributing malign intent. I think it is hard to be certain why someone might make a close pass, but I'd rather go though life assuming such things are through thoughtlessness than intent to endanger others.

I suspect that one of the reasons members of this forum might be less inclined to behave badly driving a car is that as cyclists we are more aware of what it's like to be at the receiving end poor car driving. It's not because we are less nasty, less bullying or have fewer 'psychological problems' (whatever that means).

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make.

What I said was "The middle group comprises the drivers who are most likely to kill me. They're the "ordinary people" in a car. They take driving for granted, maybe find it tedious, and don't really understand the implications using a couple of tonnes of lethal heavy machinery in a public space."

That is doubtless a subjective explanation, without any scientific basis. Nevertheless "ordinary people" was consciously chosen to avoid 'them and us' misunderstandings. The problem I perceive is defined by the large proportion of drivers involved & a (guessed) low probability of a collision, which multiplies up to a much higher risk than the "nasty" drivers.

If it helps to explain my views, all 3 of the car drivers that have colllided with me over the 20 years that I've been living in Solihull have basically been nice people. That didn't stop them hitting me.

You omitted the bit which was much closer to OP "What shook me about riding in Normandy was that I never felt the need to ride assertively. It was an experience repeated a year later in the Loire valley. Both trips included riding in cities on the roads."

Incidentally, I'd looked at the Near Miss project, and it looks like a good idea. However I haven't dived in deeply enough to have any idea whether the quality of the data it collects is good enough to make it meaningful. This is the wrong thread to discuss that.

[jsabine]

That's a bit of an aggressive-defensive response to a very reasonable post by jo, IMO.

The impression you give by 'small - no more than 10%' is that you believe it's up to, and probably close to, 1 in 10. That doesn't fit my perception, which is that the outright loons and roadragers are probably 1 in 1000 at worst. (And yes, of course that's no more than 10%.)

Equally, your perception of taxi drivers is utterly at odds with mine. From Solihull, you see most of them (did I miss someone suggesting they thought most meant all? Or was that underlining more than a touch passive-aggressive) as habitual law-breakers and bullying drivers - I don't. I see many (but not most) London minicab drivers as being in a hurry and prepared to be pushy; I see black cabbies as, in general, very aware, very in control of their vehicles, and very assertive drivers, but equally ready to respect assertiveness in return. Of course there's a tiny minority of each who are aggressive, mouthy tossers - but I don't think they're worse than other groups.

As for 'ordinary people in a car' being the most likely to kill us (and others) on the road, I don't think you'll get many disagreeing with such a truism. I'm sure that the vast majority of RTCs are down to some combination of lack of awareness, lack of observation, lack of competence, lapse of attention.

I've done a lot more driving this weekend than I normally do, and I've seen a goodly number of (motorway, so highish speed) near misses that I'd be exceptionally unwilling to attribute to malice or nastiness: Mr Occam would be much happier if I were to associate them with the patent lack of awareness and judgement exhibited by a very great number of the road users sharing road space (and on occasion a driving seat) with me.

I'm interested by the implication that you ride assertively or not depending on circumstances, on whether you 'feel the need.' Perhaps our definitions of assertiveness vary, but I'd say I ride assertively almost all the time - when I don't, it's a lapse rather than a conscious choice. I find it's natural to ride in a way that maximises my visibility and controls the space I believe I need to occupy: I also find I see relatively few instances of poor driving around me.

[Crumbling Nick]

Jsabine, I'll admit that my reply was somewhat abrasive. However I was a tad fed up with disagreements about things I didn't write & didn't mean, apart from my views on taxi drivers. The fact that you've done the same doesn't help. It is unfortunate that you labelled such behaviour pejoratively when I made the same error.

The point I was trying to make is the one you agree with & believe is a truism. Defending car drivers in general by claiming that the problems are down a small minority, has occurred in yacf & elsewhere. I think it is a point worth making. I think you disagree.

To support this argument I used an upper bound for the number of basket cases which was so high that no-one would undermine the case by saying the number was too low. I don't believe it's anywhere near 10% either: certainly below 1%. Including taxi drivers, though, pushes the number up.  The difficulty over taxi drivers is that they generate perceived risk, but not much real risk, whereas the rest of this group are a real risk as well.

I have been guilty of a lack of clarity about that distinction for this group. I think the difference is less important for the other 2 groups. The numbers I presented should be seen as part of a case that the cause of most perceived risk is the same group of drivers that cause the greatest real risk. That was not clear in my wording.

I don't ride assertively or not depending on the circumstances and I didn't write that.

As for taxi drivers, we don't have black cabs or minicabs, just taxis. I haven't cycled enough in London to have much of an opinion about the taxi drivers there. It would seem to be different from what I observe here. However the 3 police drivers who have contributed so much to my training as a car driver would probably not have thought highly of pushy or assertive driving.

[jsabine]

Substantively, it seems we agree that 'ordinary people in a car' are likely to be the cause of most problems, largely because they're the biggest group of people on the road (though it's worth noting that IIRC c50% of cyclist fatalities in London involve a large vehicle). We disagree about taxi drivers - or at least perceive our local ones differently.

The rest of this post lapses into is largely semantic nit-picking and disagreement over textual analysis, so I've stuck it in spoilers.

(click to show/hide)

Jsabine, I'll admit that my reply was somewhat abrasive. However I was a tad fed up with disagreements about things I didn't write & didn't mean, apart from my views on taxi drivers. The fact that you've done the same doesn't help. It is unfortunate that you labelled such behaviour pejoratively when I made the same error.

I may be disagreeing with things you didn't write and didn't mean, but I believe I'm disagreeing with things that can reasonably be inferred from what you *did* write - and I'm happy to defend my inferences ...

The point I was trying to make is the one you agree with & believe is a truism. Defending car drivers in general by claiming that the problems are down a small minority, has occurred in yacf & elsewhere. I think it is a point worth making. I think you disagree.

I think there are two points here. First is that ordinary folk in cars cause most incidents. I do think it's a truism, but that doesn't mean I think it's not worth making the point - in fact I had two paragraphs largely restating it. Second, that people have defended drivers by claiming that only a minority are to blame. I'm not sure I've seen that, or at least I've not taken it as a general defence of most drivers. I've seen statements that the loons and psychos are a minority, and agree with them; I don't think I've seen statements blaming those same loons and psychos for enough disasters to let ordinary folk in cars off the hook.

To support this argument I used an upper bound for the number of basket cases which was so high that no-one would undermine the case by saying the number was too low. I don't believe it's anywhere near 10% either: certainly below 1%.

I didn't realise you were using an absurdly high upper bound for rhetorical purposes, as a debating device. The impression your use of 10% gave me was that you were setting an upper bound that was at least the right order of magnitude, perhaps overstating by a factor of two or so. I'd happily take 1 in 20 as fitting 'small - no more than 10%.' I don't see that as an appropriate description for 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100.

Including taxi drivers, though, pushes the number up.  The difficulty over taxi drivers is that they generate perceived risk, but not much real risk, whereas the rest of this group are a real risk as well.

Yes, but the group as a whole is small, so the 'real risk' they pose doesn't translate into a great number of RTCs. I *think* we agree on this.

I have been guilty of a lack of clarity about that distinction for this group. I think the difference is less important for the other 2 groups. The numbers I presented should be seen as part of a case that the cause of most perceived risk is the same group of drivers that cause the greatest real risk. That was not clear in my wording.

And it's still not clear to me - in fact that's diametrically opposite what I thought you were arguing. I thought you were saying that the loons and psychos who "grab the "headlines"" were the cause of most perceived risk, while the ordinary folk in cars who actually cause the most real risk were not perceived as doing so.

I don't ride assertively or not depending on the circumstances and I didn't write that.

But you did write - and repeat - "What shook me about riding in Normandy was that I never felt the need to ride assertively. It was an experience repeated a year later in the Loire valley."

To me, if you comment specifically on the experience of not feeling the need to ride assertively in one (well, two) set of circumstances, there is a very clear implication that you do feel the need to ride assertively at other times. I inferred that you felt or didn't feel the need depending on the circumstances. Perhaps you choose to ride assertively or not on a whim, as the fancy takes you, without regard to circumstance, but if not, then I stand by that inference.

As for taxi drivers, we don't have black cabs or minicabs, just taxis. I haven't cycled enough in London to have much of an opinion about the taxi drivers there. It would seem to be different from what I observe here. However the 3 police drivers who have contributed so much to my training as a car driver would probably not have thought highly of pushy or assertive driving.

I still think your original assertion that "Most taxi drivers seem to be be in the "human nastiness" category" and your "utterly unapologetic" defence of it are completely misplaced. Feel free to qualify it as applying only to Solihull taxi drivers - I'll happily accept that I can't comment on them.

And your police drivers might not think highly of pushy or assertive driving, but I bet they'd indulge in it in London if they wanted to do anything other than timidly fail to pull out of a police garage.

[andyoxon]

The "focus on pedal cyclists" pdf here may be useful  https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2013

[jsabine]

That is interesting, especially from p8 onwards.

On a bike, you're much more likely to have a multiple-vehicle collision involving a car than any other vehicle, disproportionately so even given the preponderance of cars on the road (cars ~78% of traffic, 87% of injury collisions): you are far less likely to get hit by a truck, but if you do, you'll end up dead (HGVs 5% of traffic, 2% of collisions, 23% of deaths).

And White Van Man is much less of a menace than we normally think, with both collisions and deaths little more than half what you might expect (7 & 8%, vs vans being 13% of traffic).

Unsurprisingly, the most common contributory factor to a collision is failure to look properly.

Reassuringly, the chances of being killed while cycling are exactly the same as for a pedestrian - both show 34 deaths per billion miles travelled.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think the middle group and the best group are usually the same people, and how they behave is situational.  If there under some sort of pressure - be it screaming kids, late for work, on the phone, or - most critically - afraid they'll be seen to be holding up the car behind, they're less likely to take the time to err on the side of caution.


The psychological pressure of a car behind is strong, and I expect plays a big part in those pointless "must overtake the cyclist" incidents.  It can be easily observed when you turn right off a major road, and have to wait for a stream of oncoming traffic to clear, when the last car in the stream slows and flashes you through rather than carrying on; as they don't have a car behind there's no psychological penalty for being nice.

I agree with this. There's a lot of perceived pressure from other traffic. It's one of the things that's most stressful about driving and that makes cycling much more enjoyable than driving, for me.

[Domestique]

My own view of the road the thing that disappoints me the most is the so called 'Professional drivers' ie taxis, bus, some hgv etc should imo be setting the driving standards we want to see by example, but I don't see that, I see them as some of the worst examples.
Maybe its down to where you live, or simply even when someone commits an offence it seems very difficult to convict them 

[Kim]

The psychological pressure of a car behind is strong, and I expect plays a big part in those pointless "must overtake the cyclist" incidents.  It can be easily observed when you turn right off a major road, and have to wait for a stream of oncoming traffic to clear, when the last car in the stream slows and flashes you through rather than carrying on; as they don't have a car behind there's no psychological penalty for being nice.

I agree with this. There's a lot of perceived pressure from other traffic. It's one of the things that's most stressful about driving and that makes cycling much more enjoyable than driving, for me.

Cycling isn't immune.  I'm far more likely to err on the side of caution and wait until there's a nice big gap in traffic (perhaps using the opportunity to faff about with water bottles or whatever) before pulling out of a junction on my bike if there isn't another vehicle waiting behind me.  And there's the whole being-seen-to-be-making-a-decent-effort while taking primary uphill thing.  But overall it's much less of an issue than when driving.

[Cudzoziemiec]

International comparisons have been mentioned. Of the various countries in which I've cycled and driven (and indeed walked), the one with by far the least aggressive drivers was also way the most dangerous. The danger factor coming from weak and random enforcement - weaker than the UK though the police have a far higher presence on the road than here - and chaos in individual road users' interpretation or application of practices. It also has a fairly high rate of utility cycling.

[Crumbling Nick]

Substantively, it seems we agree that 'ordinary people in a car' are likely to be the cause of most problems, largely because they're the biggest group of people on the road (though it's worth noting that IIRC c50% of cyclist fatalities in London involve a large vehicle). We disagree about taxi drivers - or at least perceive our local ones differently.

We agree on much, though there are very many questions in my mind about the differences between London & "the rest of the country" and a view that that there may well be less difference between conurbations of London & the West Midlands and, for want of a better phrase, I'll still have to call "the rest of the country"

The rest of this post lapses into is largely semantic nit-picking and disagreement over textual analysis, so I've stuck it in spoilers.

I'll agree to disagree over much of it, with the exception of one bit: -

And your police drivers might not think highly of pushy or assertive driving, but I bet they'd indulge in it in London if they wanted to do anything other than timidly fail to pull out of a police garage.

This is a major regional diffence. I'm old enough have suspected it, but hardly ever drive in London. Thanks for filling in that gap in my knowledge.

For many years it has been observable that car to car behaviour in Brum is often very co-operative. It's something my mother commented on in the 1960s, and is still evident to me in both Brum & Solilhull, after about 3 decades of living out of the West Midlands.

Pulling out of minor roads into a traffic jam queue during rush hour isn't a problem. Likewise right turns. Someone will let you in.

I think, but am not very confident, that car drivers are less co-operative with buses trying to pull out of bus stops than with cars emerging from minor roads.

I am more confident that the proportion of car drivers co-operating with other cars is higher than the numbers behaving well towards cyclists. This raises a question about Kim's comment.

I think the middle group and the best group are usually the same people, and how they behave is situational.

If the proportion of drivers who are are co-operative with other cars is higher than those who treat cyclists well, are they the same people? Obviously neither are nutters, but is that the whole story? Obviously I'm ignoring the trivial answer that other cars as opposed to bikes is situational.

[Kim]

I think the middle group and the best group are usually the same people, and how they behave is situational.

If the proportion of drivers who are are co-operative with other cars is higher than those who treat cyclists well, are they the same people? Obviously neither are nutters, but is that the whole story? Obviously I'm ignoring the trivial answer that other cars as opposed to bikes is situational.

Treating cyclists badly is sometimes part of being co-operative with other drivers.  You squeeze past the cyclist *now* so as not to hold up the car behind, for example.  The cyclist isn't part of the in-group, so carries less weight.

[jsabine]

And your police drivers might not think highly of pushy or assertive driving, but I bet they'd indulge in it in London if they wanted to do anything other than timidly fail to pull out of a police garage.

This is a major regional diffence. I'm old enough have suspected it, but hardly ever drive in London. Thanks for filling in that gap in my knowledge.

For many years it has been observable that car to car behaviour in Brum is often very co-operative.

There's a lot of co-operation in London too, but the key to taking advantage of it is that you have to be seen to be ready to do so.

Sit timidly waiting to pull out of a side road, and you'll sit for a long time.

Edge fractionally, imperceptibly forward, and someone will give you half - no, quarter - an opportunity.

Wait for them to translate it into a full opportunity, and you'll wait expectantly.

But take that quarter of an opportunity, seize it enthusiastically, and you'll find that it's miraculously transformed, and you can make progress.

I wonder if your perceived lesser co-operation with buses and with cyclists - which to a point I observe in London too - is related to neither cyclists and bus-drivers not being part of the in-group, or to less ability to take advantage of the co-operation that is offered (buses and many cyclists can't or don't accelerate as a car might to move out into a half-gap, encouraging the driver behind to make it into a full gap).

Personally, I *do* find that drivers in London are as co-operative with me when I'm on a bike as when I'm in a car - but I'm reasonably quick, and prepared to take advantage of any gaps that are even half offered.

[Crumbling Nick]

Sit timidly waiting to pull out of a side road, and you'll sit for a long time.

That's the bit that doesn't happen here.

[Crumbling Nick]

I wonder if your perceived lesser co-operation with buses and with cyclists - which to a point I observe in London too - is related to neither cyclists and bus-drivers not being part of the in-group, or to less ability to take advantage of the co-operation that is offered (buses and many cyclists can't or don't accelerate as a car might to move out into a half-gap, encouraging the driver behind to make it into a full gap).

I chose not to speculate on the psychology of this behaviour because I didn't think my evidence was robust enough to justify it.

The in-group view was always an obvious option, which doesn't mean it's wrong. But it's unproven.

I am rather perplexed by a suggested explanation (ability to take advantage of the co-operation that is offered) that is unquestionably wrong around here, but may well be valid in your area. It seems to make my evidence less robust.

[jsabine]

I chose not to speculate on the psychology of this behaviour because I didn't think my evidence was robust enough to justify it.

Herein a difference between thee and me, I fear. I'll speculate wildly, precisely because I wouldn't dignify my half-formed observations and impressions with a grand term like evidence, and in the hope of sparking discussion that may help me to clarify my thoughts.

The in-group view was always an obvious option, which doesn't mean it's wrong. But it's unproven.

I wonder if it's a question of drivers being more attuned to the needs of other drivers, so are readier to offer co-operation? They recognise that a driver stopped at a junction wants to pull out, while a cyclist stopped at that same junction might simply be admiring the view, or resting after their physical exertion of getting there.

I am rather perplexed by a suggested explanation (ability to take advantage of the co-operation that is offered) that is unquestionably wrong around here, but may well be valid in your area. It seems to make my evidence less robust.

Why do you feel it's unquestionably wrong near you? And I'm not sure that a speculative suggestion cuts to the validity of your observations.