UKC

More traps set for cyclists

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Trevers 31 May 2015
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> Be careful out there.


> Morons

Attempted murder, and should be dealt with as such if caught.
 Static 31 May 2015
In reply to balmybaldwin:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=616470

I'm not surprised that some people really hate cyclists.
4
 Trevers 31 May 2015
In reply to Static:


> I'm not surprised that some people really hate cyclists.

I really don't see where you're coming from or what point you're trying to make.
 Static 31 May 2015
In reply to Trevers:

As a cyclist myself I think some cyclists don't consider the consequences of their actions.
2
 Trevers 31 May 2015
In reply to Static:

> As a cyclist myself I think some cyclists don't consider the consequences of their actions.

It's a problem with human beings generally, not cyclists.

As a cyclist myself I don't think I ever deserve have my life threatened because some people are either too stupid or too hateful to discern that individuals aren't solely responsible for every single crime, inconvenience (real or perceived) or annoyance ever attributed to some riding or owning a bicycle.
1
 Static 31 May 2015
In reply to Trevers:

youtube.com/watch?v=p6sfDbPOzLU&

This clip has had 750 000 views in one week. Many of those viewers who previously felt indifferent to cyclists will now feel strongly negative towards people on bikes.
2
 Trevers 31 May 2015
In reply to Static:


> This clip has had 750 000 views in one week. Many of those viewers who previously felt indifferent to cyclists will now feel strongly negative towards people on bikes.

Poor trolling, try harder
 Ridge 31 May 2015
In reply to Static:


> This clip has had 750 000 views in one week. Many of those viewers who previously felt indifferent to cyclists will now feel strongly negative towards people on bikes.

I'm strongly negative to idiots be they on two feet, two wheels or four wheels. The next time I see some numpty driving like an idiot should I start pouring oil all over the roads?
 Trevers 31 May 2015
In reply to Ridge:

> I'm strongly negative to idiots be they on two feet, two wheels or four wheels. The next time I see some numpty driving like an idiot should I start pouring oil all over the roads?

While you're at it, don't forget to lace all pedestrianised zones with mines because there was a fight outside the pub the other night!
 Static 31 May 2015
In reply to Ridge:

Of course hating all cyclists because of the bad behaviour of a minority is a faulty generalisation. I'm not defending it. Just saying its not unconnected.
2
 Trangia 31 May 2015
In reply to Trevers:

Agreed. Should carry a min imprisoment sentence of 10 years
 The New NickB 31 May 2015
In reply to Static:

> Of course hating all cyclists because of the bad behaviour of a minority is a faulty generalisation. I'm not defending it. Just saying its not unconnected.

Of course You Tube isn't full of examples of drivers acting moronically and dangerously. You would look a bit silly if it was.
1
 Trevers 31 May 2015
In reply to Static:

> Of course hating all cyclists because of the bad behaviour of a minority is a faulty generalisation. I'm not defending it. Just saying its not unconnected.

As a serious question, do you think that this is directly related to that incident as some sort of act of retribution?
 Dave the Rave 31 May 2015
In reply to Trevers:

> As a serious question, do you think that this is directly related to that incident as some sort of act of retribution?

Interesting thought?
Dog the Bounty Hunter you may be?
 Chris the Tall 31 May 2015
In reply to Static:

> Of course hating all cyclists because of the bad behaviour of a minority is a faulty generalisation. I'm not defending it. Just saying its not unconnected.

Thousands are people are killed each year by motorists. If retribution over public safety was the motive, surely we'd see thousands of random attacks on motorists ?
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Well there are two things to look at here. First and foremost to catch and punish the perpetrators.

Secondly, we need to ask why, in some quarters, cyclists are less popular than Morris men.

Maybe 3000+ entry sportives and clubs riding 2 abreast all the time might be part of a real problem ?
6
 Chris the Tall 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

Would you be having the same thoughts if people were randomly dropping bricks off motorway bridges ?

How would you react if the culprits claimed they were only targeting the ones breaking the law ?
OP balmybaldwin 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> Maybe 3000+ entry sportives and clubs riding 2 abreast all the time might be part of a real problem ?

It might be, but I struggle to understand how setting traps along forest paths frequented by families and children is a valid response to being held up for a few minutes in the car once in a while.

I mean why aren't people out firebombing tractors? They take up a whole lane and travel much slower
 Trevers 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> Secondly, we need to ask why, in some quarters, cyclists are less popular than Morris men.

> Maybe 3000+ entry sportives and clubs riding 2 abreast all the time might be part of a real problem ?

Ok, but what's that got to do with anything? What problem?
 Clarence 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> Secondly, we need to ask why, in some quarters, cyclists are less popular than Morris men.

No we don't, we already know why. The answer is pretty much always that some people are intolerant dicks.

My local cycle lane is blocked by cars at the moment so I'm off to drown some random motorists in the canal...

In reply to GrahamD:

How many 3000+ entry sportives are there in the UK?
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Trevers:

> Ok, but what's that got to do with anything? What problem?

There, in a nutshell IS the problem. Many cyclists just can't see how their actions affect others.
4
In reply to GrahamD:

And maybe trolls are part of the real problem with the internet.



Don't use a subject like this to bring up a pathetic gripe about cyclists.
 Neil Williams 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Static:

In a civilised country, it is not acceptable to engage in violence of this (or any other) nature just because you happen not to like them or something they do. The pen is mightier...

Neil
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

There are a few at that number. A lot of the Wiggle ones for instance as well as things like London-Brighton and London-Cambridge. Latest one in the news round here is a closed road Grand Fondo round Cambridgeshire which will be a lot bigger.
1
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Byronius Maximus:


> Don't use a subject like this to bring up a pathetic gripe about cyclists.

I am a cyclist. And its exactly the place to bring it up.
2
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Clarence:

> No we don't, we already know why. The answer is pretty much always that some people are intolerant dicks.

It is not that simple. Yes, there are a few anti cycling arseholes about but most drivers are tolerent to reasonable cyclists - until faced with trying to pass inconsiderate wankers in lycra riding two abreast oblivious to others. By steadfastly denying that cyclists are not always whiter than white is why the problem escalates.
3
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Neil Williams:

> In a civilised country, it is not acceptable to engage in violence of this (or any other) nature just because you happen not to like them or something they do. The pen is mightier...

Of course there is no justification to it.
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> It might be, but I struggle to understand how setting traps along forest paths frequented by families and children is a valid response to being held up for a few minutes in the car once in a while.

It isn't. So the best thing we can do is make sure these people don't gain silent, passive support. Or to put it another way, every pissed off motorist caused by cyclist inconsiderateness is likely to be a bit less sympathy when it comes to hearing stories like this.
3
In reply to GrahamD:

> It is not that simple. Yes, there are a few anti cycling arseholes about but most drivers are tolerent to reasonable cyclists - until faced with trying to pass inconsiderate wankers in lycra riding two abreast oblivious to others. By steadfastly denying that cyclists are not always whiter than white is why the problem escalates.

Nice language

Have a read. http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-laws-according-to-highway-code.html

I reckon as a motorist cyclists 'hold me up' for about ten minutes a year - max. It's a real problem!



 elliot.baker 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Trevers:

I cycle, and I drive, and I recently had my commute time tripled because some cyclists were riding two/three abreast during rush hour on a road and the lorry and bus behind them couldn't over take so everyone on the A road had to go at bicycle speed on the way to work going at 15mph instead of 50mph.

While I understand it would be preferable to have vehicle users overtake them by being completely in the other lane, in this instance I thought this was quite inconsiderate and they could easily have moved single file to let the massive tail back over take.

Also Rule 66 here: https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71 , says they should ride single file on busy roads.
1
 Trevers 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> It is not that simple. Yes, there are a few anti cycling arseholes about but most drivers are tolerent to reasonable cyclists - until faced with trying to pass inconsiderate wankers in lycra riding two abreast oblivious to others. By steadfastly denying that cyclists are not always whiter than white is why the problem escalates.

So lycra is the uniform of a wanker, is it now?
1
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Trevers:

Most out of town wanker cyclists in the context of this thread wear lycra, yes.

Obviously there are the commuter wanker cyclists in town that don't.
5
 Trevers 01 Jun 2015
In reply to elliot.baker:

> I cycle, and I drive, and I recently had my commute time tripled because some cyclists were riding two/three abreast during rush hour on a road and the lorry and bus behind them couldn't over take so everyone on the A road had to go at bicycle speed on the way to work going at 15mph instead of 50mph.

> While I understand it would be preferable to have vehicle users overtake them by being completely in the other lane, in this instance I thought this was quite inconsiderate and they could easily have moved single file to let the massive tail back over take.

> Also Rule 66 here: https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71 , says they should ride single file on busy roads.

While I feel your frustration, that wasn't my fault, or the fault of any other cyclists, except for those two guys being selfish and belligerent.

Here's an interesting thought experiment - which class of vehicle do you think is responsible for more delays as a percentage of journey time to other road users? Cars or bicycles?
 Trevers 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

You sound like a Daily Mail reader, no offense.
2
In reply to elliot.baker:

My commute is sometimes made longer because I'm stuck behind a recycling lorry that sits in the middle of the road rather than pulling in at every opportunity. Whilst this is a minor inconvenience it does not mean that every driver of every recycling lorry is an inconsiderate idiot, in fact it means about as much as your story about cyclists holding you up for one commute.
 Trevers 01 Jun 2015
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

> Nice language


> I reckon as a motorist cyclists 'hold me up' for about ten minutes a year - max. It's a real problem!

Most 'hold-ups' caused by cyclists are of course nothing of the sort, since the driver will immediately catch up to traffic again. It's only the occasional incident such as elliot.baker reported that drivers are actually delayed by cyclists, and usually it's not out of spite.
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Trevers:

> You sound like a Daily Mail reader, no offense.

I'm curious as to why you would think that. It would be very unusual for a stereotypical Daily Mail reader to advocate looking at all sides of a situation in the desire to see all sides happier.
1
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Trevers:

> Most 'hold-ups' caused by cyclists are of course nothing of the sort, since the driver will immediately catch up to traffic again. It's only the occasional incident such as elliot.baker reported that drivers are actually delayed by cyclists, and usually it's not out of spite.

Speak for yourself. When you are the 10th car in line to overtake a cycle club on a country road I can assure you there are real delays, and frustration.

Very rarely spite, more selfishness.
2
In reply to GrahamD:

So calling a whole set of people wankers is 'looking at all sides of a situation in the desire to see all sides happier'.

Stick to internet trolling. you'll never be a politician.
In reply to GrahamD:

> Speak for yourself. When you are the 10th car in line to overtake a cycle club on a country road I can assure you there are real delays, and frustration.

> Very rarely spite, more selfishness.

I bet that happens every single time you get in your car!
 The New NickB 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> I'm curious as to why you would think that. It would be very unusual for a stereotypical Daily Mail reader to advocate looking at all sides of a situation in the desire to see all sides happier.

No, they think that they are being all reasonable and looking at all sides, before spouting a load of reactionary old guff.
 Trevers 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

Your focus on lycra as some sort of evil and the fact that you've just passed off a large group - including people who are helping to reduce congestion in towns and cities - as 'wankers' gave me that impression. Neither are actually arguments.

> Speak for yourself. When you are the 10th car in line to overtake a cycle club on a country road I can assure you there are real delays, and frustration.

But since you're approaching this with an open mind, you'd at least agree that motorised traffic causes far more delays that cyclists?
 The New NickB 01 Jun 2015
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

> I bet that happens every single time you get in your car!

It's strange, some of the routes near me are very popular with cyclists, particularly down the Calder Valley, but I cannot think of a single occasion I've been delayed by cyclist. 20 seconds maybe waiting for a safe place to overtake, but that 20 seconds is usually only 20 seconds longer I would have spent be behind a bus or car further down the road.

I'm sure more significant delays are caused by cyclist sometimes, but I've never experienced it. I have with pretty much every other form of road transport.
OP balmybaldwin 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> Speak for yourself. When you are the 10th car in line to overtake a cycle club on a country road I can assure you there are real delays, and frustration.

> Very rarely spite, more selfishness.

So do you think it's more safe (for the cyclists) to overtake a train of 10 cyclists in single file (approx. 25 meters long) or to overtake a group of 5x2 (approx. 12 m long)? (Bear in mind the reaction a driver will make if confronted with an on coming vehicle)

It's just as frustrating as a driver to be caught up behind a break down or a car accident, so why this vitriol against cyclists just going about their lawful business? Horses and riders seem to get the same treatment, as do buses.

In reality its a generally selfish attitude we all have when someone is "in our way" - ever been on a underground platform when an announcement about a suicide has come through?

Yes, cyclists could do more, but they aren't the only ones by far. Just this weekend I was tooted and shouted at by a driver desperate to join the traffic jam 20m up the road, so I let him, and promptly overtook half a mile of traffic including him

1
In reply to The New NickB:
You need to move to where GrahamD lives, then you'd see how bad it really is! Lycra, wankers, queues, selfishness everywhere. It must be horrendous, enough to make anyone slightly angry about everything.
Post edited at 13:57
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Trevers:

You are determined to paint me in the reactionary anti cyclist camp, aren't you. I wear Lycra when I cycle. I drive a car. Some lycra clad cyclists are selfish (and therefore accentuate what anti cycling feeling there is out there). Some drivers are totally intolerant.

Not very difficult is it ? not all lycra wearers are wankers, just that most out of town wankers wear lycra.
2
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Everyone here seems to be assuming that its me that is generally getting annoyed by the behavior of SOME cyclists, whereas all I'm doing is saying why there may be a growing groundswell of frustration from a widening group of motorists - which helps no-one.

Incidentally the very fact that I'm getting this 'not a problem with cyclists, its the drivers' response is exactly why there is a growing problem. Remembering that its cyclist numbers that are going through the roof right now, not the number of car drivers.
1
KevinD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> You are determined to paint me in the reactionary anti cyclist camp, aren't you.

I think your words do that.
The problem is you seem to live in an imaginary world where the nob ends are responding to reasonable stimulus and, if that stimulus was stopped, they would stop being nob ends.
Since cyclists would need to stop cycling completely to meet that requirement you sit in the anti cyclist camp.
1
 MG 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:
These threads always end up with one group arguing for a little more consideration from cyclists generally to help everyone get along being painted as utterly outrageous petrol-heads wanting to ban cyclists from the roads by another group. As far as I can see it is a tribal/religious thing - any criticism or even sensible discussion is impossible.
Post edited at 14:15
1
In reply to MG:

I'd disagree. I'm a cyclist who also drives a lot. Most of the 'anti cycling' comments I see from motorists just do not seem to affect me as a motorist in the way that seems to wind them up so much.
In reply to GrahamD:

> Everyone here seems to be assuming that its me that is generally getting annoyed by the behavior of SOME cyclists, whereas all I'm doing is saying why there may be a growing groundswell of frustration from a widening group of motorists - which helps no-one.

> Incidentally the very fact that I'm getting this 'not a problem with cyclists, its the drivers' response is exactly why there is a growing problem. Remembering that its cyclist numbers that are going through the roof right now, not the number of car drivers.

No one is assuming anything. You're the only one calling 'SOME' cyclists wankers. Show me some proof of the 'growing groundswell of frustration'. This is just your rhetoric to help reinforce your stupid comments. Cycling numbers are growing, car numbers went through the roof a long time ago and are still growing.
 elliot.baker 01 Jun 2015
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I'm not suggesting all cyclists are bad, I'm just pointing out that those handful of cyclists that day thought it was acceptable to hold up hundreds of people on the way to work. I don't think what they did, that day, is considerate road use.

I have no issue with cyclists on the road generally, and as the New NickB said, within a few seconds of passing a cyclist you have caught up with the cars in front anyway - and then at the next set of lights the cyclists will probably overtake you as well!!ha

So we should probably all just drive at 15mph and we'll get everywhere in the same time.
 Ramblin dave 01 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:
> These threads always end up with one group arguing for a little more consideration from cyclists generally to help everyone get along being painted as utterly outrageous petrol-heads wanting to ban cyclists from the roads by another group. As far as I can see it is a tribal/religious thing - any criticism or even sensible discussion is impossible.

I think what really gets peoples' backs up isn't the argument that some cyclists should be more considerate because being considerate is good. It's the argument that some cyclists should be more considerate because there may be some psychos out there who think that attempting to indiscriminately kill or maim cyclists is a reasonable response to some cyclists being inconsiderate.
Post edited at 14:34
 elliot.baker 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yeah I'd hate to see (or have inflicted on me) the damage caused by taught wire versus neck at 20mph...

Sounds like something out of the film 'The Cube'.
OP balmybaldwin 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

There's no doubt that there is a widening gulf in attitudes between cyclists and drivers.

Compromise requires movement from both sides. I don't see any offer of movement from the anti cycling lobby other than -

Use cyclepaths (regardless of their suitability - but watch-out these have carefully laid trip wires)
Pay road tax (that no one pays)
Get insurance (that most serious cyclists have anyway - it's cheap because bikes do very little damage)
Wear hi-vis (a lot do)
Wear a helmet (Most do)
don't ride 2 abreast (as the law allows)
Don't "take the lane" (as the government and every other cycling body suggest)
Don't ride in groups (even though they are easier and safer to overtake)
Stop holding up traffic (the clue is that we are all traffic)

None of this sounds like compromise to me.

For what it's worth, I do think you are on to something with regards to avoiding causing undue inconvenience, but the way to resolve it isn't for the vulnerable user group to bend over and take it.

Sportive type events are one of those things that are a bit of an oddity and can cause particular issues on specific roads on a particular day. I think its fair to say that they could do more to warn in advance that a lot of cyclist will be on those roads to give people a chance to avoid etc. I also think Sportives should be regulated to a much greater extent as there are some areas (Surrey Hills for example) that seem to have a sportive going through every other weekend in the summer - spread them out more, maybe restrict numbers more, and encourage more, larger capacity closed road events. People of course complain about closed road events too, but they are few and far between, and are probably outnumbered by Marathons/Charity Runs (I can only think of 4 including the new Cambridge one - Caledonia, Wales, Ride London, Cambridge Gran Fondo)
 MG 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Ramblin dave:

attempting to indiscriminately kill or maim cyclists is a reasonable response to some cyclists being inconsiderate.

I agree in this instance linking the OP to general frustration isn't a good idea.
1
 MG 01 Jun 2015
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> There's no doubt that there is a widening gulf in attitudes between cyclists and drivers.

> Compromise requires movement from both sides. I don't see any offer of movement from the anti cycling lobby

Good start but the last three words rather spoil things...and it went downhill from there.
1
KevinD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

> Good start but the last three words rather spoil things...and it went downhill from there.

Well lets hear your suggestion about suitable compromises?
 MG 01 Jun 2015
In reply to dissonance:

We've been through this before. I would start with more consideration from larger groups of cyclists towards cars (break up in to smaller groups, don't weave about etc.), and more serious investment in cycle infrastructure with an expectation it is used (cf pavements) rather than useless white lines.
In reply to MG:

And I thought you were going to tell us about compromises rather than what cyclists have to do to keep you happy.
KevinD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:
> We've been through this before. I would start with more consideration from larger groups of cyclists towards cars (break up in to smaller groups, don't weave about etc.),

I do have to wonder where you and GrahamD live (are you neighbours?) which has such problem with cyclists.
I live somewhere reasonably popular (particularly with groups out of north london) at weekends. Its never a major issue and certainly less so than the people lining up for the garden centres.

> and more serious investment in cycle infrastructure with an expectation it is used (cf pavements) rather than useless white lines.

so on top of that get them out of your way.
Post edited at 15:08
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

The growing groundswell of frustration is fairly obvious by the fact this thread was started to begin with, don't you think ? and the fact that local radio often has disgruntled shop owners complaining about cycle events. The story is only presented from their perspective because there is a receptive audience. Close your ears and go la la la if you like - it won't help peaceful coxistance in the long run thoug - which is presumably what you and I as cyclists AND motorists want, I presume.
1
 MG 01 Jun 2015
In reply to dissonance:

> so on top of that get them out of your way.

And we are back to tribalism...

"Them" out of "my" way? No, vulnerable road users away for less vulnerable ones. It works with pedestrians, it works with cyclists in say Denmark and the Netherlands. But propose it here and it is them and us and the discussion ends.

1
 Neil Williams 01 Jun 2015
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> Pay road tax (that no one pays)

This one annoys me. Vehicle Excise Duty is a road tax (lower-case) in that it is a tax payable for the use of the roads in certain classes of vehicle. Arguing based on the name of it is to me puerile compared with arguing the real reason why cyclists do not and indeed should not pay it - that cycles do not do any appreciable damage to the roads, and that cycling is to be encouraged because it is good for the environment, improves public health and reduces congestion and parking problems.

> Get insurance (that most serious cyclists have anyway - it's cheap because bikes do very little damage)

Nearly every cyclist has third-party legal liability cover from their home insurance - they probably don't know it!

> Stop holding up traffic (the clue is that we are all traffic)

I have mixed views on this. The Highway Code does say that a slow vehicle causing a queue (whether motorised or human-powered) should pull in from time to time to let it past. But most cyclists do not cause queues as they are, generally speaking, quite easy to safely overtake.

Neil
 elliot.baker 01 Jun 2015
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I think the solution is for all cyclists to wear suits of armor like the knights of old, to protect against the traps placed for them, and then for all cars to have big magnets on the front and back, so the cyclists can attach themselves, thereby going at the same speed as the cars and not slowing anyone down.

Patent pending.
 MG 01 Jun 2015
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

You don't think a large investment in infrastructure with an undertaking for it to be used is a reasonable compromise?
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to dissonance:

> I do have to wonder where you and GrahamD live (are you neighbours?) which has such problem with cyclists.

Cambridge is where I live. The Peak District is where I. personally have most problems with cycling groups. On the grand scheme of annoyances on the road I agree it should be small beer - but to garden centre users and Top Gear fans, its not about that. And idiots like the ones setting 'traps' get away with it because the cycling community does not always engender the sympathy or consideration I would hope for. I'm saying alienating a significant number of otherwise passive people doesn't help.
 Neil Williams 01 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

The problem is in what you mean by "cyclists".

Fast road cyclists are best on the road. But utility cyclists (the kind that needs more encouragement) are better on dedicated roadside paths to the Dutch (or to an extent the MK Redway) model. Despite using the same class of vehicle, the two needs are in some ways in conflict.

I'm really not sure of the answer (though I am myself, as a utility cyclist, a big fan of the Redways and even more so of the far better Dutch provision, and do prefer not to ride on a road if it is a legal and effective option, which it mostly is in MK and the Netherlands).

Neil
 MG 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> Cambridge is where I live. The Peak District is where I. personally have most problems with cycling groups.

I live in the Peak...
KevinD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

> And we are back to tribalism...

Considering your position that is rather rich.

> But propose it here and it is them and us and the discussion ends.

Because it wouldnt work for the cases you seem unhappy about.
It also creates additional pressure points elsewhere.
You do realise the countries you mention have rather different attitudes which extend beyond just the cycling facilities? In the major cities the car is secondary even on the shared spaces.
 MG 01 Jun 2015
In reply to dissonance:

> Considering your position that is rather rich.

How so?

> Because it wouldnt work for the cases you seem unhappy about.

Why? Where the facilities are developed properly, they seem to work fine.

> It also creates additional pressure points elsewhere.

Not if done well and, as above, cyclists accept the facilities must be used for the same reasons as if pedestrians insisted on walking down the road there would be chaos.

> You do realise the countries you mention have rather different attitudes which extend beyond just the cycling facilities? In the major cities the car is secondary even on the shared spaces.

You have a problem with that?
1
KevinD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> The growing groundswell of frustration is fairly obvious by the fact this thread was started to begin with, don't you think ?

No it doesnt. All it shows is there are occasionally nutcases who decide to attack cyclists for whatever reason. I have my doubts they are expressing their dislike of sportives.
Admittedly they might be encouraged by the hatred shown in parts of the press and local government but that doesnt show a growing groundswell of frustration.
There was a spate of attacks on the A12 a year or so back (was fun driving down there with the warning signs up) with people throwing bricks at cars. Do you feel that shows a fairly obvious groundswell of frustration with cars?

> - it won't help peaceful coxistance in the long run thoug -

What really wont help are people making excuses for the nutters.

 GrahamD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to dissonance:

I'm not making excuses for nutters. I'm saying whilst there is not a universal love of all things cycling, these nutters will not be the outcasts they deserve to be. But hey, if you don't believe there is a significant anti-cyclist undercurrent around, somewhat contradicted by "Admittedly they might be encouraged by the hatred shown in parts of the press and local government ", have it your way.
1
OP balmybaldwin 01 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

> You don't think a large investment in infrastructure with an undertaking for it to be used is a reasonable compromise?

I think the problem here is the type of infrastructure - 90% of proposals don't take the needs of cyclists properly into account. As you (I think) said, painting a white line is next to worthless, but shared use paths for cyclists doing any sort of distance are worse than useless - they give an impression bikes shouldn't be on the road, yet expect the cyclist to stop and give way every 100 yards.

A far better solution (although obviously close to prohibitively expensive) is for road lanes to be wider to allow a safe pass against oncoming traffic, and for drivers of other vehicles to expect bikes to be there

As someone said further up - one of the problems is cyclists differ in their needs - club/recreational/long distance commuter cyclists vs casual/short distance/cycling in a suit type cyclists - much the same as a busy walking pavement is useless as a running track
KevinD 01 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

> How so?

Do you really think you arent slightly tribal.

> Why? Where the facilities are developed properly, they seem to work fine.

I dont think you understand the Netherlands model very well.
Do you really think the people who froth about cyclists will be happy when they lose large amounts of roads to cycling? Do you realise that even many country roads in the Netherlands have been redesigned in such a way to put drivers off using them, mostly by making them discontinuous so not usable apart from specific access. Thats leaving aside all the 18mph limits.
Dont get me wrong it would be interesting to see but I honestly cant see it happening.

> You have a problem with that?

No but do you think it would go down well?
 MG 01 Jun 2015
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> I think the problem here is the type of infrastructure - 90% of proposals don't take the needs of cyclists properly into account. As you (I think) said, painting a white line is next to worthless, but shared use paths for cyclists doing any sort of distance are worse than useless - they give an impression bikes shouldn't be on the road, yet expect the cyclist to stop and give way every 100 yards.

I lived in Denmark for while and saw how things can work. The ingredients seem to be in busy areas

- Full separation of pedestrians, cyclists and traffic wherever possible
- Greater priority given to cyclists than here but...
- ...cyclists accepting they do have to use the provided facilities. I.e they are not batting along furiously all the time and expecting to stop at junctions etc..
- A general feeling of everyone getting on rather than mutually suspicious camps.
 MG 01 Jun 2015
In reply to dissonance:

> No but do you think it would go down well?

When I occasionally visit London, that seems to be the direction things are taking.
 solomonkey 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:
That was funny ! But , , , ,
I would expect him to pay to remove the chin shaped dent from my boot ! Maybe he could sell the vid to you've been framed to help pay the damages
 Neil Williams 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I saw almost exactly that very nearly occur to my sister (I was in the passenger seat) - single track-ish road (about 1.5 car widths) with nowhere for her to pull in. Two cyclists, one watching where he was going, goes round in the 0.5 car widths to her right. Second cyclist, looking down and pratting about with something or other, continues towards her now stationary car right down the middle of the road, and then suddenly stops and almost falls off about a metre from the front bumper.

What a muppet.

Neil
Post edited at 18:31
 Neil Williams 01 Jun 2015
In reply to solomonkey:
As would I.

I bet he was going for a Strava segment? I have no idea how you'd legislate for that, but people should not be doing that on the public road to the expense of careful and defensive riding and/or driving.

(I've come to blows about this kind of thing on here before, but my view is that racing of any kind of vehicle whether powered or not should not occur on the public road unless the road is closed for the race - it is quite simply dangerous because attention is not prioritised to safety, rather to speed.)

Neil
Post edited at 18:39
 solomonkey 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Neil Williams:

What's to stop him riding off and letting the driving instructor pay for the damages ? I saw a road racer bike nearly cause a serious crash whilst wearing headphones completely oblivious of anyone around him , definitely not cricket
 Neil Williams 01 Jun 2015
In reply to solomonkey:

Very little, other than that he would have committed a criminal offence by doing so. Fortunately he had the honour not to do this.

Neil
OP balmybaldwin 02 Jun 2015
In reply to solomonkey:

> What's to stop him riding off and letting the driving instructor pay for the damages ?

A serious concussion by the looks of it!
 Roadrunner5 02 Jun 2015
In reply to solomonkey:

Remember in some countries the driver is to blame until proven otherwise.. without a camera for this guy then what?m,
In reply to GrahamD:

> It is not that simple. Yes, there are a few anti cycling arseholes about but most drivers are tolerent to reasonable cyclists - until faced with trying to pass inconsiderate wankers in lycra riding two abreast oblivious to others. By steadfastly denying that cyclists are not always whiter than white is why the problem escalates.

Actually it is people like you, implying that attempted murder on cyclists is somehow justified by the action of the odd nutter on a bike, that might cause escalation.
 Neil Williams 02 Jun 2015
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
One thing that surprises me about debates of this nature is how so many people think explaining an action is the same as justifying it.

For example, hypothetically, if I really annoyed someone and that person had a bit of a violent streak it may explain why he then went on to assault me. It would not justify it, because in a civilised society violence cannot be justified.

Thus, if poor/inconsiderate behaviour by a subset of cyclists causes strong ill-will, and there are some people who have a violent streak, this may explain why there is violence against cyclists of this type. It doesn't justify violence against cyclists, because violence against cyclists (or anyone else) is not justified whatever the reason.

See what I mean?

Neil
Post edited at 08:19
 The New NickB 02 Jun 2015
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I bet he was going for a Strava segment?

I bet he wasn't, he wasn't going very fast, he just wasn't paying attention.
 Neil Williams 02 Jun 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

Fair point.
 Chris the Tall 02 Jun 2015
In reply to Neil Williams:

> One thing that surprises me about debates of this nature is how so many people think explaining an action is the same as justifying it.

imagine we were discussing race attacks. Now imagine if every time we had a debate about it, the discussion got hijacked by the far-right into reasons why they disliked blacks/Asians/Muslims, rather than a more constructive discussion on how such attacks could be prevented.

Yes there is a lot of anger towards cyclists, but most of it is from ignorant people you are stupid enough to believe that their life would be better if the cyclists weren't there.

 Static 02 Jun 2015
In reply to Neil Williams:

Agreed.

99.99% (estimated statistic) of Muslims are not terrorists. But the actions of a handful of religious extremists results in rising Islamophobia throughout Europe.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/8/in-muslim-neighborhoodsinpar...

No one is justifying hatred of Muslims. But the Charlie Hebdo attacks do partially explain it.

The actions of a minority can influence perceptions of a whole group of people. Stereotyping is a universal cognitive shortcut.
 Neil Williams 02 Jun 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> imagine we were discussing race attacks. Now imagine if every time we had a debate about it, the discussion got hijacked by the far-right into reasons why they disliked blacks/Asians/Muslims, rather than a more constructive discussion on how such attacks could be prevented.

I don't think that is a sensible comparison, because being black/Asian/Muslim is far less specific than being a cyclist.

But that said, it is certainly true that a very small subset of Muslims (those who engage in terrorist actions) are giving the rest a bad name and in doing so boosting the case the racists believe they have. Would you not agree this *was* to an extent similar to cyclists, where the bad behaviour of a small number of cyclists on the road is tarnishing the reputation of those who do behave properly?

And as such, do such actions not *explain* some racist attacks? I think they do. They do not justify them, as no racist attacks are justified under any circumstances whatsoever.

> Yes there is a lot of anger towards cyclists, but most of it is from ignorant people you are stupid enough to believe that their life would be better if the cyclists weren't there.

Life for a car driver would certainly be better (easier) if cyclists were not on the road, assuming they instead chose to take part in a different leisure activity instead, or used public transport. If in a congested city they used cars, the effect may of course be negative.

That is of course not a reason to get rid of cyclists, as provided they comply to the rules of the road they have a right to be there. Indeed, more of a right than the drivers, who are there only by licence.

Neil
Post edited at 11:33
 Ramblin dave 02 Jun 2015
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Thus, if poor/inconsiderate behaviour by a subset of cyclists causes strong ill-will, and there are some people who have a violent streak, this may explain why there is violence against cyclists of this type. It doesn't justify violence against cyclists, because violence against cyclists (or anyone else) is not justified whatever the reason.

The trouble is that pretty soon after you raise the point that cyclists sometimes mildly inconvenience people and this causes some ill-will, the conversation inevitably turns from being about what we as a society can do to stop nutters who think that attempted murder is a sensible response to being mildly inconvenienced and on to what we as a society can do to stop cyclists mildly inconveniencing people.

You can argue that you aren't literally blaming the victims because you keep saying "of course this doesn't justify attempted murder", but as long as you follow that up with "and now back to complaining about cyclists" then in practical terms that's what's happening.
 Neil Williams 02 Jun 2015
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> You can argue that you aren't literally blaming the victims because you keep saying "of course this doesn't justify attempted murder", but as long as you follow that up with "and now back to complaining about cyclists" then in practical terms that's what's happening.

I dislike the term "victim blaming" used in a negative manner, as sometimes it is a valid line. I certainly *do* blame the subset of cyclists who are aggressive and do not follow the rules of the road for the bad reputation cyclists have for these matters. That blame does only apply to a subset of cyclists, of course, and the well-behaved majority are victims not only of those who attack them, but also of the results of that subset of cyclists' poor choice of conduct.

There are other examples though not immediately relevant to this case. I should, in an ideal society, be able to leave my front door unlocked when I go out. However I know there exist burglars. Therefore, even if I *should* be able to leave my door unlocked and trust others will not enter without permission and nick my stuff, the fact is I *can't*. So if I did leave my door unlocked and my stuff was nicked, I should hardly be surprised about it.

Neil
Post edited at 11:48
 Chris the Tall 02 Jun 2015
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Life for a car driver would certainly be better (easier) if cyclists were not on the road, assuming they instead chose to take part in a different leisure activity instead, or used public transport. If in a congested city they used cars, the effect may of course be negative.

And that assumption is just the sort of ignorance that need to be addressed. Far too many motorists think that the cyclist, or his journey, is less important that their own. Why not assume that the cyclist has chosen not to use his car, and if they had done so the congestion would be worse ?

As for the "bad behaviour of a small number of cyclists" crap, why do we so rarely hear about the bad behaviour of a far larger number of motorists, and the deadly consequences of it. Vulnerable road users - not just cyclists but pedestrians as well, need protection, but always the discussion gets hijacked.
 Neil Williams 02 Jun 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I have a feeling we're going to permanently disagree on this one as I think we have before. All aspects of the situation, in my view, need to be discussed; we can't say we won't discuss bad cyclist behaviour just because bad motorist behaviour is perhaps more of an issue.

Neil
KevinD 02 Jun 2015
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I dislike the term "victim blaming" used in a negative manner, as sometimes it is a valid line. I certainly *do* blame the subset of cyclists who are aggressive and do not follow the rules of the road for the bad reputation cyclists have for these matters.

Apart from if it really was the case that people gave a f*ck about the rules of the road then they would be permanently frothing about car drivers.
 MG 02 Jun 2015
In reply to dissonance:

> Apart from if it really was the case that people gave a f*ck about the rules of the road then they would be permanently frothing about car drivers.

You think they aren't!?

And motorcyclists. Do they really need to scream past my house at about 15000rpm?
In reply to Neil Williams:
> One thing that surprises me about debates of this nature is how so many people think explaining an action is the same as justifying it.

> For example, hypothetically, if I really annoyed someone and that person had a bit of a violent streak it may explain why he then went on to assault me. It would not justify it, because in a civilised society violence cannot be justified.

> Thus, if poor/inconsiderate behaviour by a subset of cyclists causes strong ill-will, and there are some people who have a violent streak, this may explain why there is violence against cyclists of this type. It doesn't justify violence against cyclists, because violence against cyclists (or anyone else) is not justified whatever the reason.

> See what I mean?

> Neil

Not sure if your reply was meant for me but we seem to be in agreement.
Actually I think most people miss the point that the sort of person who does this is the same sort who drops concrete blocks off bridges onto train drivers/motorways. The idea that they have to have a grudge against cyclists for a 'reason' is spurious.
Post edited at 13:50
KevinD 02 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

> You think they aren't!?

Nope. Cant say I have seen much evidence of those ranting about cyclists doing the same about drivers. if anything they tend to fall more into the complaining about traffic enforcement camp in my experience.
OP balmybaldwin 02 Jun 2015
In reply to dissonance:

I think they do, just that they rant about everyone else's driving/speeding/texting at wheel, and seem to think it doesn't apply to them.

I do think the fall in roads policing (particularly the prevalence of speed cameras) has got to the point that many people driving today (especially new drivers) don't think there's a chance of being caught breaking the laws unless you have a crash or fail to spot the little yellow box

I started driving in the 90's. and remember being stopped and breathalysed several times in my first year of driving, and on one occasion a pc spoke to me about tyre squeal (caused by someone else) and people were genuinely wary of doing things wrong and getting caught. Since leaving Uni, in 2002 I've only been stopped once by police because I was parked up on MOD land. I can't remember the last time I saw a traffic cop car...
 Chris the Tall 02 Jun 2015
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I have a feeling we're going to permanently disagree on this one as I think we have before. All aspects of the situation, in my view, need to be discussed; we can't say we won't discuss bad cyclist behaviour just because bad motorist behaviour is perhaps more of an issue.

The problem is that the attention given to bad behaviour by cyclists is not only grossly disproportionate, it serves to reduce the pressure on the authorities to take action against the bad behaviour by motorists that puts people's lives at risk.

This guys explains it far better than I can

http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/06/bez-them-and-us/

 GrahamD 02 Jun 2015
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

FFS I AM NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE ACTIONS OF THUGS. Read the thread.
 The New NickB 02 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> FFS I AM NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE ACTIONS OF THUGS. Read the thread.

Calm down, you are only going to encourage attacks on other Graham's innocently going about their business!
 ChrisJD 02 Jun 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> This guys explains it far better than I can
> http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/06/bez-them-and-us/

Now THAT is a good article.
 wintertree 02 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> FFS I AM NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE ACTIONS OF THUGS. Read the thread.

No, no. Any debate on UKC on cycling is legally only allowed two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Nuance is a sign of weakness.

I have been idly pondering if it's time to make and sell some kind of laser obstacle detector for bicycles. The hobbyist/maker community has seen an explosion in low end laser ranging kit. Include some trajectory estimation and you could get advanced pot hole warnings and such like as well. Cars are tooling up with automatic hazard perception and breaking systems, largely intended for use at speed ranges that have significant overlap with cyclists.
In reply to wintertree:

Or you could just look at the road ahead...
 wintertree 02 Jun 2015
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Or you could just look at the road ahead...

Hah. It doesn't work so well for car drivers, and plenty of cyclists seem to have run ins with pot holes and the like. I could launch a combined LIDAR+air bag system that envelopes the cyclist in a big air-bag ball like in that bond film... Some off-road variant designed to pick and illuminate the ideal path for downhill MTB stuff - after all you get per-wheel cameras on the Evoke these days...
In reply to wintertree:

> and plenty of cyclists seem to have run ins with pot holes and the like

Usually because they have been forced into them by someone 'squeezing past'...
 wintertree 02 Jun 2015
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Usually because they have been forced into them by someone 'squeezing past'...

Ah, so you need a rear approach radar as well to warn of the motorists impeding squeeze-trajectory. Product idea's really shaping up now...
In reply to wintertree:

No, you just need to use your ears. Not have them plugged with ipod earphones...
In reply to ChrisJD:

> This guys explains it far better than I can
> http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/06/bez-them-and-us/

> Now THAT is a good article.

Definitely
KevinD 03 Jun 2015
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

His stuff is generally interesting. He also has a blog at.
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/

Which contains most of the singletrack stuff and then some more.
OP balmybaldwin 03 Jun 2015
In reply to balmybaldwin:

And another trap found...

Just as stupid, but casting the net wider with drawing pins. - http://road.cc/content/news/153384-cambridge-cycling-route-targeted-drawing...
In reply to dissonance:

Thanks.
Some interesting stuff...
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> And another trap found...

> Just as stupid, but casting the net wider with drawing pins. - http://road.cc/content/news/153384-cambridge-cycling-route-targeted-drawing...

Assuming it was aimed at bicycle tyres I wonder if the culprit would even care that dogs feet/people with thin soled shoes are the more likely casualties.
OP balmybaldwin 03 Jun 2015
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I thought it was odd that Rowing coaches are under suspicion - don't they use bikes to keep up with the boats? Maybe I misread and they are thought to be the target
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I suppose they could have been targeted by other rowing coaches
 Ramblin dave 03 Jun 2015
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Thought to be the target.

Some local residents have a reasonable amount of ill-will towards rowers with moans about everything from early morning noise to collisions with houseboats to injured ducklings, probably fuelled by a sense (which is inaccurate given the number of town clubs) that they're all a bunch of overprivileged student toffs, which ties it into a whole series of other town-vs-gown moans.
 GrahamD 04 Jun 2015
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Its an interesting article which sort illustrates what I was saying about groundswell of anti cyclist feeling. Editorial teams usually pitch programmes towards where they they think their mass audience is and in this case the editorial team clearly perceived their audience as anticycling. In an anti-cycling environment its hardly surprising that thugs can get away with it and probably get away with bragging about it down the pub.

 Chris the Tall 04 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

Don't you think that the media (and people like yourself) is playing a huge part in generating anti-cycling feeling by making a huge song and a dance about an isolated incident, but ignoring the hundreds of far more serious incidents each week caused by motorists.

In reply to GrahamD:

Yes a good article.
I just think using phrases like 'it is hardly surprising' is one step on the road to tolerance of these attitudes.
 GrahamD 04 Jun 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Don't you think that the media (and people like yourself) is playing a huge part in generating anti-cycling feeling by making a huge song and a dance about an isolated incident

Which isolated incident do you think I'm making a song and dance about ? And don't you think that the media is only people like you and I ?

Right I'm going to put on my wanker lycra gear and going for a ride.
 Chris the Tall 04 Jun 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> Which isolated incident do you think I'm making a song and dance about ?

To be honest, I thought it was you who sought to hijack this thread by posting a link to the cyclist on the pavement. I stand corrected.

> And don't you think that the media is only people like you and I ?

No. I have a soul.

> Right I'm going to put on my wanker lycra gear and going for a ride.

Me too

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...