UKC

Im a motorist (22k miles a year) and a cyclist (2k miles a year)

I dont understand why there is such a dislike (hatred?) towards cyclists, can anyone shed some light on this for me please?

ps - anybody mentioning 'road tax' will be severely frowned upon - because it doesnt exist.

Because they hate the effortless grace as we silently glide across smooth tarmac, keeping ourselves fit, enjoying the views dressed in fashionable lycra.

Or because they think we are smug. 

Not all cyclists! Just the ones that ignore the 'rules of the road' or pedal about with no lights when it's dark or gloomy enough for cars to have their headlights on. Other than that cyclists are ace!

I was actually thinking about this last night. I did a glorious 50 mile loop from Stockport up high into the Peak District and dropping back through Macclesfield. It was stunning weather. The ride was somewhat ruined by the fact I got beeped at twice and shouted at once. First time for the crime of undertaking some queuing cars approaching a roundabout leaving Stockport in rush hour (the car driver was prob jealous); second time the guy was just a tw*t - I pulled away slowly from lights as I struggled to reclip my foot into the pedal and was in a big gear; third time the guy was just Mr Angry. He took offence that I had to move to avoid a pot hole and he was driving behind me. Shouted that I was a 'f*cking wanker' as he overtook me. 

It is sad people have such issues. Road cycling is also sadly the most dangerous sport I do because I have no control over the actions of the car drivers. I think mountain biking and climbing....even ice climbing are way safer. 

Or worried about injuring a cyclist who cuts up their inside into their blind spot whilst the driver is paying attention to the traffic ahead and the bikes and motorbikes overtaking then.

I’ve never beeped a cyclist for undertaking, but I do adjust my road positioning in a couple of traffic light queues to discourage it - and to leave a wider gap for them to safely overtake me.

Because they cycle 2 a breast when it's unnecessary (although legal) it is frustrating and they slow me down for 30 seconds of my life. 

Sits back and waits for ridicule.

If only he'd read his highway code he would know that cyclists and motorcyclists may have to swerve to avoid drains, holes or debris.

 

Filtering, legal and it makes them rage. That’s the best thing when commuting to work through the traffic.

Lots of reasons, the main one being the delay to their journey. It might only be a few seconds but to lots of drivers it feels like forever. It's been especially bad in the dales since the tour de France. I travel up there a lot for work and if you look at my kpi's on average I visit 1 less site per day between Easter and October than I do in winter. A cyclist isn't a problem, 30 seconds or so and your past but since the tour once your past on group there is another round the corner then another and another. Last night whilst out on my motorbike I passed 9 different group's on the 30 mile trip back from the pub, most of the groups had 2 or 3 cars behind them who when they could overtake would then be stuck behind the next group. 

The next reason is jealousy, Mr why should I sit in the queue when a bike can go to the front (and subsequently slow me down trying to overtake him again). You get this a lot on a motorbike as well with drivers deliberately closing the gap. Interesting note, on my speed awareness course last week about 20% of the room thought it was illegal for bikes to filter)

The next one is the bad apple's, they jump lights, hop kerbs and generally be dicks but there is no comeback because there is no way to identify them. Amusing last night though. I was at the lights with maybe 10 law abiding cyclists and a 4x4 behind us decided to drive round us and run the lights at red. Don't know what he was thinking. 

Then there is Mr "they don't pay road tax so shouldn't be on the road". No point even arguing, you can't educate a true moron. 

Before anyone thinks I am anti cycling I'm not, I do a bit myself. I am resigned to the fact that my productivity goes down on sunny days but as my customer is paying me a hourly rate I make more money. My customer passes their costs on to their customers and as its a utility company everyone is paying me to sit waiting for a safe place to pass a cyclist on a narrow road when I am in a large van. 

I was musing about this recently too.

I think it's because most of the time, when non-cyclists encounter cyclists, it's a negative experience.

I don't mean that's the fault of the cyclists (although sometimes it is) - it's more to do with cycling being 'in between' other normal modes of transport.

Pedestrians have to avoid (or worry about) being hit by cyclists, who may come up behind them suddenly and may cut across them alarmingly.

And car drivers often have to slow down behind, or take special care to avoid hitting, cyclists - who may be doing such things as cycling two or more abreast, or whizzing up inside or between them, or running traffic lights.

If every time you notice something it's because it's an inconvenience or a problem, I suppose it's natural to develop a dislike for it.

(Yes, I do cycle!)

I drive daily with a cyclist hater, and on questioning most of it is fear of how to get past them. I’ve been giving her lessons and told her that her big boss is a keen cyclist. 

She has mentioned the road tax bit and been put right.

i cycled on an A road the other night and was pleased with the width I was given as cars passed, although I was shitting myself and was looking back more than to the front.

Theres more cars now and the mobile phone useage gives me the willies.

Road tax

Bit of a strawman there ! 99.9 % of car drivers I encounter when I'm out on my bike are perfectly civil.

The thing is that most cyclist are car owners and therefore pay road tax and I I pointed out to a guy training at my workplace the other day, bikes take up an awful lot less space than cars so in effect he should be happy. While I'm on my bike I'm not in my car!! Result !!

He also made a statement that riding two abreast was illegal .....Hmmmm. 

Could it just be simmering Road rage due to general traffic congestion, finding an outlet at someone whose experience of it is different/ competing for space?

Up here (Scotland) traffic’s not great but our congestion is generally much more localised than (especially) south of the exe-teese line. I cycle a bit ( tho I’ve just sold the road bike for a new MTB) and generally get more courtesy on the bike than in the car. 

I drive and ride.

the thing that does my head in is the cyclist that waves you on when you’re behind and waiting to overtake, using YOUR own judgement! 

I don’t know the cyclist, maybe they’re a bit hungover (weekend mornings), maybe they’d had a row with the other half (mind on other things) but the times they’ve frantically waved traffic on only then for it not be safe to pass, so please, leave the judgment of the manoeuvre to the driver! 

No they dont, nobody pays road tax *harsh frowning at Ross* look it up online

Some cyclists are quite shouty and self-righteous while cycling. I know I am.

Cycled to work yesterday and one of my colleagues actually told me she hates cyclists!

Her reasoning being that she hates being held up by them when she's out in her car.

I was too stunned to really put much of a response together. Otherwise, she's a perfectly nice colleague.

If I'm on my bike, I'll sometimes wave at a car like this to indicate to them that I know they are there and I'm happy/it's safe for them to overtake - usually only if a car has been stuck behind me for a while on a windy bit of country road. I still expect the driver to use their own judgement as to whether they agree it's safe.

this is exactly why im posting this query, I just dont understand it. Being held up by a lorry, inconsiderate driver or tractor for miles on a road with no safe chance of overtaking, yes I get that, but for a few seconds or perhaps a minute at most..... no dont understand

Amusingly a driver objected to me cycling into the advanced stop zone this week.

Very rare though.

Then why wave?

If you expect the driver to use their own judgement that’s based on all other factors in terms of overtaking, the cyclist ‘waving’ them on is just unnecessary because either a, it’s so obvious the gesture isn’t required or b, it’s not clear to the driver and therefore the wave is all they have to go on (back to my original point, I don’t know the cyclist, their perception, state of mind etc) 

One time a cyclist was waving wildly around their head which I was finding slightly irritating but turns out it was a recent hatch (some kind of small fly) mildly amused by that. 

agreed I wont wave a driver on, but I will put my hand out to warn not to overtake if I can see or hear a car coming which they might not be able to

I ride a lot of country lanes and wave drivers through when they are waiting behind me and I can see the road ahead is clear. I do it and always wave a thanks for their patience and consideration....its mostly always reciprocated with an acknowledgement from the driver and I certainly appreciate it as a driver.

Well, my dislike of cyclists started as a young adult when I was almost ran over by them a couple of times crossing the road, when they'd ran a red light. It then continued as a car driver when I discovered many cyclists are apparently happy to filter down the left hand side of a left turn only lane, when they're planning on going straight ahead.

Sensible cyclists? Not a problem! It's just unfortunate that in London they're often very shouty and not very sensible.

Also ride and drive on country roads. Here’s the thing, I know the roads well and so do the drivers so they don’t need me to tell them when the ‘blind corner’ or ‘straight bit’ is coming up.

its the attitude of the cyclist that is taking the lead in the decision making which is perhaps what winds me up.

I nod to folk who stay back and overtake when it’s good for all of us, other than that I ride my bike and let the driver make the decision.

Remember those drivers do that route all the time, could be it’s the cyclist that is less familiar with the road? 

Ask her to come up with a quick breakdown on the following.

Number of times per day/total time spent held up:

(a) Behind cars.

(b) Behind bikes.

Followed by

(c) Increase to (a) if all the cyclists drove instead. 

Then tell her she's a tw*t, from me. 

I can only speak for myself and my intent, it all comes in to the same bracket for me......trying to be courteous as a cyclist and as a driver.

The wave may be the cyclist wishing to communicate that they don't mind if the driver goes past, and doesn't have to hang back?

I've actually done the wave thing myself, and paused and let a driver go past, and they've looked cheery and not stressed and waved back as they've gone past. This has happened a couple of times.

Perhaps some people just live in a happier reality than you do?  

Edit: The above is a joke, my home city is pretty friendly, and I seem to have good enough judgement to know when a driver needn't be hanging back and is being overly considerate but in a welcome way, and can go past.

I rode out to the crag on Wednesday (22 miles around) and up until almost the end I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the driving around me with no close passes and no cars pulling out at me. Unfortunately one driver had to spoil it for me by passing me as I was indicating and about to turn right. I was pretty shocked and let out a "Woah" and the driver slammed the brakes on (full ABS cut in) and shouted out the window "how am I supposed to f*cking see you you, you f*ing prick".

I'm not sure what the driver expects cyclists to do to be seen, I was cycling with the GF and between us we had 3 bright flashing rear lights and were wearing reflective clothing.

Drivers fail to see the 99.99% of cyclists who do everything right as the majority of the drivers on Wednesday night did, they just focus on the one person that did something inconsiderate or silly.

And regarding drivers not knowing the law. I attended a speed awareness course years back and I was amazed at how many people didn't even know basic things like the speed limit on a dual carriageway A road. Bring back public service broadcasting I say.

I know that car drivers have to leave a reasonable gap when overtaking, but some car drivers overtake with too much emphasis on this; thereby making more of the procedure. In order to do this, they need more space to overtake, and do not make use of reasonable passing places.(These drivers also make a bad job of other overtaking; usually by going right up the backside of the vehicle in front before moving out, rather than making a slightly longer, smoother manoeuvre which does not go right over the other side of the road.) 

Consequently, I wave on people, who appear to be waiting for a 3 car width to overtake me, as I hate them being right up my rear. (They often have been on a half mile straight stretch of road with no other vehicles on it.)

When I am a car driver myself, I hate when the car in front slows down, and then at the last minute moves out round a cyclist, without indicating. This is so silly.

Enough comments

Rob

I hate cyclists because now and again they make me 17.3 seconds late at getting to my destination.
Don't start me on horse riders ...

There is undoubtedly a small idiotic number of motorists that quite literally hate cyclists. 
However, that is perhaps equalled by the number of cyclists that perceive themselves as perfect and appear to be all too willing to blame others for their fecklessness... 

Given that travel is inherently stressful for most it is easy to see why people look for easy targets to vent anger. The daily commute in heavy traffic can be a person’s ‘peak stress’ of the day and any trivial incident can lead to irrational anger (cyclists, horses, roadworks, slow starters at traffic lights). I also suspect there is an economic argument too. I cycle and get a reasonable amount of abuse as I cycle defensively. I also drive a tractor and almost never hear a cross word or horn despite fairly big queues. One person, two modes of transport but one is associated with working. The commuter is in a hurry and leisure road users are people inconveniencing him/her as a by product of their entertainment.

Have you ever read the comments section in an article on something like police initiatives to promote safe overtaking of cyclists? They are truly terrifying. I've not seen anything like it the other way round though.

Ah. Get over yourself. There’s nothing special about cyclists. 

There’s a subset of angry motorists on the road. 

They hate everyone, cyclists, pedestrians, runners, cars that overtake them, cars that are going too slowly in front of them, traffic lights; basically anything that either impedes their progress or is going faster than them. 

You just happen to be a cyclist. 

Most of that is trolling combined with false positive (not sure that’s the right term) commenting. People who already overtake giving a wide berth don’t bother commenting, watching videos or waste their time arguing. 

I know all that but I still find it worrying that there is a subset of drivers out there who make comments of that kind. It would be interesting to see if articles in more bike friendly countries attract the same.

I wonder how many of them are actually drivers and how many of them are just fantasists who wouldn’t carry out their threats anyway.

I think it's a bad thing just saying what these people say regardless of whether they carry it out. I have this quote from Slavoj Zizek up on my classroom wall: "Words are never 'only words'; they matter because they define the contours of what we can do."

People dislike cyclists due to....no  mandatory insurance, no test before becoming a road user, aggressive  minority disregard  the highway code,slowing down traffic (riding two abreast). NOT ME THOUGH I LOVE CYCLISTS .I tend to cycle on the pavement avoids all of the above.

I am partially deaf and I hate cyclists who come up behind me without using their bells well before they reach me. If you as a cyclist are coming up behind a pedestrian please use your bell, shouting isn't always enough, for some of us it's harder to hear a human voice. If they don't react, then assume that that they may be hard of hearing, and slow right down. We do exist and it's a disability that isn't obvious, so if someone fails to get out of your way please be considerate rather than angry.

I get angry when I see a lovely lycra clad bottom on a slim athletic body...then as I pass realise it is a man. I've lost count of the number of times this has disgusted me to the point I hurl abuse out of the window.

That's why I hate cyclists.

I get that from fellers like you when I go out in my fluorescent pink winter top.

"the main one being the delay to their journey" - 99.9% of the time this is simply a temporary delay until they catch up with the car ahead of them (usually at a traffic queue).  Cars aren't delayed by bikes.

Some drivers (and enough for it to feel like most drivers to cyclists but probably a minority) are strangely territorial and believe they "own" their little patch of road in front of them and will be irrationally aggressive in its defence.  In this irrationally aggressive state they seem to forget the asymmetry of risk (to them a few scratches on the cars, to the cyclist maiming and death). 

The asymmetry of risk is all too apparent to cyclists - they always know that when they are on the road it is their death vs a scratched car and judge their margins appropriately.

Cars run over bikes, not the other way around.  If any driver here feels differently then they are simply not giving bikes enough room. If you remember it is someone's life at stake and slow down bikes don't look that threatening.

Personally, when I'm in a car and I see a bike I rejoice - there is someone taking a significant risk who would otherwise be sat on their arse in a car, in front of me, taking up the parking space I need, polluting the air I breath, using up the NHS as a result of their sloth and adding to climate change. There isn't anything about the phrase "more bikes" to (rationally) dislike.

I disagree, one is associated with the a spindly lycra clad person who can be pushed around and the other is associated with the a hairy arsed farmer who could likely wipe the floor with most dickheads in cars on their way to their terribly important lower management jobs. 

Plus you can't run a tractor over

Last week I had to take to the verge when a knob driving a Dingwall Tyres van decided he could overtake me on a long straight with a car coming towards us. He slammed on the brakes at the last minute locking up his wheels and if I hadn't nipped on to the grass he would have hit me from behind. 

And it would make a hell of a dent in their car.

Interesting that you're getting so many down-votes. 

Overtaking traffic queues is far safer than undertaking them, and as a cyclist I'm always appreciative of drivers  who go out of their way to leave me the space to do so.

After a few close calls in the early days of cycle commuting in London I decided never to undertake of I could possible help it.

It's one of my pet hates about cycle lanes... they encourage us to skulk along the kerb instead of being out in the lane and following the same set of rules as all the other legitimate road users.

Do you mean hate? Do you really hate me?

I purposely don't have bell on my bike as I genuinely feel a bit rude using it. I ride to and from work along a canal towpath which is very well used by walkers, runners, cyclists.

I will always treat other path users as I'd like to be treated by vehicles when on the road, so my approach to passing is:

If people in front are using full width of path I'll slow down, give a little shout 'morning/ hello/ just on your right etc' and continue to slow down until I'm heard or there's space the safely pass. If this means me passing at walking speed, no problem.

I'd really much prefer this than pinging a bell and speeding past expecting people to move out my way. I find it analogous to cars honking their horn to let them pass.

If there's plenty of room to pass: there usually is as most people expect higher volumes of traffic especially at peak commuting times and will stick to one side of path, I'll pass leaving enough room that is I assume comfortable, both for me (no feeling of, did I leave enough room) and other path user. Still doing this with a 'hello'. 

Isn't it all about just being generally pleasant human beings? I appreciate your point, but I'm fairly convinced if I start pinging my bell from afar for most of my journey, I'm sure to annoy just as many people! I'm pretty sure the answer is to just share our space, being aware of those around us regardless of mode.

I have also always gone with a cheery 'hello' or 'just passing on your right' etc. I always thought the cheery voice being more polite than a bell. 

However, having just read about the difference in audibility of both, maybe we should use both. A ding from further out and a cheery hello or similar once close?

Spot on!

And to Hugo - no, of course I don't really hate you! But until you actually experience the onset of hearing loss most people have no concept of just how debilitating and frustrating it is. I used not to, but take it from me it's horrible and when out walking you are frequently being startled by people, particularly runners and cyclists coming up behind you unheard.

I know it’s the internet and people like to use extremes to illustrate their point but there’s a 3rd way. Instead of slowing down and shouting, you slow down and ping your bell. 

Hmmm. That’s a very asymmetrical view isn’t it?

How many times does a dead or maimed cyclist leave a scratch on a car? In my experience seriously injuring someone with your car results in a written off car. 

An accident that only leaves a scratch on a car usually results in only a scratch to the cyclist. 

Quite rightly so.  

The only time I’ve been had over by a car, it didn’t touch me.  Their insane driving led me to a split second decision to get off the road at all costs.  

I nearly went down from a wing mirror on a close/fast pass from a car.  

Then around here you’ve got the ***** who move slowly passed then scream out of the open windows.  Hilarious that.  First few times you’re nearly over from jumping out of your skin.

I’d like to see your evidence for this. My experience, 30 yrs in the police, is that a dead or seriously injured cyclist has never resulted in a written off car, directly as a result of the collision with the cyclist. If the driver has lost control and gone on to hit a tree, that is a different issue, generally the speed the car was travelling.

However, the much more important point, in my view, is not how much damage there is to the car, but how much damage is caused to the family and children of the dead cyclist because a car driver didn’t wait a few seconds to pass safely. Obviously some are the fault of the cyclist but, again in my experience, not many. I can’t recall ever dealing with a car/cyclist accident where the driver died and the cyclist was ok.

Of course it’s asymmetrical. I think you have a worrying lack of understanding about the physics of heavy metal objects hitting lightweight meaty objects (albeit sat on some lightweight metal/carbon). I can tell you from personal experience that the incident that left me with 7 fractures in my cervical vertebrae and a severed vertebral artery (amongst other injuries) left little more than a dent and a scratch to the Audi Q5 that hit me from the side. I'd be interested in what "in my experience" is in your statement.

Since said accident the question of why cyclists are hated has been an even bigger consideration to me and is probably the biggest psychological barrier to getting back on the bike (which I haven’t done yet). No matter how well you “obey the rules” or cycle courteously there is a minority of drivers that simply hate cyclists for being on the road and it is scary. Cyclists are genuinely vulnerable and it really doesn’t take much effort to adjust behaviour to protect them better. It is also illogical behaviour for all the reasons already highlighted about fewer cars on the road and cyclists generally not slowing you down at all even if you get stuck behind them.

You're partly right but lets not forget that cyclists also occasionally do really stupid things that would leave them firmly to blame if they wound up underneath the car.

It would be hard to blame the driver that had a cyclist try to overtake (or undertake?) him round the outside at a give way T-junction this morning without anticipating that there was a good chance that the car was immediately going to turn left at the junction 50 yards up the road.

The point still stands. Had the cyclist in your example ended up under the wheels I suspect the driver would have been physically uninjured. Cycles do not pose a threat of injury or death to drivers with almost no exceptions.

Yes some people on bikes cycle badly. I don’t think that’s the point here. The point is a cyclist going about their business safely and courteously will still be disliked by a proportion of the general population for seemingly no logical reasons.

I was replying to the suggestion that bikes don't look threatening. The driver wouldn't have been injured but they would have been subjected to a lot of stress and inconvenience. Behaviour can be both threatening and frightening even if you aren't at risk of injury.

The biggest frights that I have ever had whilst driving have all involved someone on a bike or motorbike doing something monumentally dumb that required me to take evasive action to avoid hitting them.

Sadly you can say the same thing about any subset of the population, some people are just arseholes and cyclists are undoubtedly as guilty of it as anyone else.

This thread is just full of cyclists. You're unlikely to find the answer here, because every thread like this gets jumped on by 100 self-righteous, lycra clad, tosspots.

A combination of jealousy and anger/impatience, all cultivated by certain sections of the media. 

As you say, there’s generally very little logic to it. Motorists hate cyclists for law-breaking activity which generally endangers nobody, but are blinkered to law-breaking activity by other motorists which could kill people and sometimes in cases where it has. 

Or by 100 fat arsed motorists. Oh sorry, that’s probably a generalisation. I bet all 100 of your ‘tosspot’ cyclists also drive a car. 

Road Tax (it does exist I pay it by direct debit each month)

Riding as a group in the middle of the road

Not using the designated cycle paths/lanes (appreciate they are full of detritus but so are most roads)

Disregard for cars/ other road users when going up a steep hill.

Happy days ????,pleased about that.

I'm going to try a bell for Monday's commute off the back of your recommendation. If I end up with a black eye as someone doesn't take kindly to my dinging I'll be sure to let you know! 

They most likely do all drive too, but you've missed the point. You're not going to find out why non-cyclists hate cyclists, when all the responses are from cyclists!

I take it that you are a cyclist then? Plenty of comments here from drivers too. 

Thank you, glad to read that

If someone gets arsey tell them to be thankful that they could hear your bell, because some people can't hear much at all......

As from 2020, VED will be used to directly fund road building, etc. 
Still shouldn't be used against cyclists though.

Cyclists must have different physical properties to the pedestrians I hit at 20mph then. 

Really, motorists DO NOT go round intentionally hitting cyclists and believing that it’s fine because the cyclist will come off worse. For one thing the roads would be littered with dead cyclists and the injury statistics in this country are remarkably low to insignificant.

Its no surprise that militant cyclists are continually waging some kind of war if this is their belief. Too much Lycra and testosterone mixed together I think. 

This is a major reason why I don’t wear Lycra or a helmet when out on my bike.

I got taken out by a hit and run driver two weeks ago.  It f........g hurt.  My bike is trashed.  I was riding at 20mph behind a car that was doing 20 mph through a village with cars parked on the right hand side of the road. Some see you next tuesday decided to half overtake and then pull in and punt me out of the way with the wing mirror and passenger door. 

I have bought a rear view camera now - shame the bike still needs £2,000 to be spent on it.

My views:

- It's an entitlement thing - I am a driver and I am entitled to make swift progress.

- I am inside my shell - anyone not in a similar shell is worthy of little consideration.

- I must travel at at least 30 mph.

- Cyclists who ride in my way disturb my entitlement.  Cyclists who ride two abreast are an affront to my entitlement, not withstanding the fact that my vehicle is three abreast.

- and on and on, covering tax, lycra, red lights, filtering.

Yes cyclists occasionally do dim things but they are risking their own lives.  When car drivers do dim things they are usually risking someone else's life. 

That, the symmetry in risk and what it takes for the driver safe for everyone (just giving the bike space even if the cyclist is a dickhead) means that it is hard not to blame the impatient driver. 

It would be nice if everyone could just go a tiny bit out of their way not to kill their fellow person.

"The driver wouldn't have been injured but they would have been subjected to a lot of stress and inconvenience. Behaviour can be both threatening and frightening even if you aren't at risk of injury."

Solution: drive carefully, give bikes space, don't get frustrated, you won't be inconvenienced overall, stay alert, use your mirrors, keep calm.

It's not that difficult.

Because they get in the way of drivers and hold them up until they can pass and that is frustrating.

I road cycle and drive and although I have to give them some leaway being that I do exactly the same it is undoubtedly frustrating getting stuck behind a cyclist on a narrow road, particularly if you're one of several cars waiting for your turn on an overtaking opportunity.

If as a driver you didn't have any connection to cycling you could very easily see why they'd want them off the road as in thier view they are using the roads to get somewhere and getting held up by someone using the road network for a pleasure ride.

Personally when I do ride I try to keep in to side when I ride to let cars get by or wave them through when I can see ahead etc, some cyclists are worse than others just like any road users but inevitably you will always hold someone up somewhere.

Why do europeans love and respect cyclists, discuss.

Seriously?

if I only got one close pass in 1000 it would make my rides far more enjoyable, but if you dare to go out on a nice day in Peak the rate is more like 1 in 5.

there are exceptions. Last year I rode up Wrynose pass. Admittedly on a Sunday evening, so the traffic was light and not in a huge hurry, but every one of the dozen or so motorists I encountered was very courteous, and several coming the other way pulled over, wound down their windows and gave me some much needed encouragement. It was lovely, but all too rare

the problem is that if you are stuck in slow moving traffic and you see a cyclist you will blame them for your delay. Motorists have been sold a vision of the freedom of the open road and the reality is somewhat different. And yet the dream remains, gets reinforced and rarely gets challenged. Build a new road, add another lane, that will solve the problem 

if you took every cyclist off the road, removed every cycle lane, the effect on journey times would be negligible. Put every one of those cyclists in a car and then you’d notice the difference. But such thinking seems to be beyond many people 

“You aren’t stuck in traffic- you are traffic”

And even doing exactly that you still risk having a dimwit like the cyclist I described doing something monumentally stupid and ending up under your car.

It's all very well excusing it on the basis that it will be the cyclist and not the driver that will be injured or killed but It's not going to be a pleasant experince for the driver is it?

You'll be trying to tell us that income tax isnt a tax on income next   

Taxes are usually named after the thing that is taxed rather than the thing that the tax is spent upon.

The term road tax may not be 100% correct but it really isn't worth getting worked up about it.

You'll be trying to tell us that income tax isnt a tax on income next   

Taxes are usually named after the thing that is taxed rather than the thing that the tax is spent upon.

The term road tax may not be 100% correct but it really isn't worth getting worked up about it.

Glad you’re ok. I’ve nearly been hit so many times I see it as a matter of if not when I get knocked off, and just hope it doesn’t kill or seriously injure me. 

It’s amazing how many drivers just cannot psychologicallly allow themselves to sit behind a cyclist, no matter how fast you’re going. I had a driver inches from my back wheel blasting the horn at me and trying to push me too close to the parked cars we were passing. I was doing 36mph in a 30 limit. 

A significant majority of car/van/bus drivers couldn’t give a f*ck about human life if the human us riding a bike.

It’s motorists that get worked up about it. 

Returning to your previous post, I wish drivers WERE concerned about the stress and hassle denting their cars with cyclists’ skulls would cause.

Just give bikes a more time and space even if they are ridden by dimwits.

I do, but if a cyclist is riding like a dimwit, then as per the thread title, I will understandably 'dislike' that particular cyclist.
Unless of course you think all cyclists behaviour, no matter how bad, should be essentially ignored and tolerated?  That obviously doesn't mean that motorists should pass them dangerously, etc. but there does seem to be a thinking with some cyclists, that they can effectively ignore parts of the Highway Code that are inconvenient to them and expect other road users to adjust their behaviour to enable that behaviour.  
The vast majority of motorists will adjust their behaviour because they don't want to knock someone off their bike.  Doesn't mean that they like it though - why should they?
 

Car drivers (who don't ride a bike) often think that things cyclists do in the name of self preservation we are actually doing just to be awkward and difficult and because we can.

For example riding out of the gutter, filtering across for a right hand turn early (earlier than they believe is needed). And if you dont know why it is being done then its understandably frustrating

I think one thing may be that passing a cyclist demands more attention and stress for a driver than just pootling up the road.  On the one hand you don't want to be the dick who does not give the cyclist space, but on the other you don't want to be the dick who sits on someone's back wheel when you could have safely passed but are being overcautious.  Whichever as soon as you see a cyclist in front of you you have to concentrate harder and quite possibly overtake which is more stressful than...just pootling up the road.

I'm of the opinion we need some massive investment in bike only routes, both to avoid all of the bad stuff that is described upthread but also to enable lots of us to get around in a way that is better for us and better for the planet.  Will it happen?  Will it f**k.  We'll just carry on buying sh*tty metal and plastic boxes to get us from A to B and building more and more roads.  Gah.  Can you tell this is a pet peeve of mine?

So you're saying road tax is a tax on roads? How do the roads pay this tax? It should be called 'driving tax' in that case.

In the same way that we have 'Tobacco Duty' and 'Alcohol Duty' as opposed to Smoking and Drinking Taxes.  

It’s a tax on vehicle ownership and use. It’s not a measure of how much you consume or a tax on increase in wealth. 

Thing is calling it Road Tax gives some certain sorts of motorists the sense of unfettered entitlement to the road since "we pay road tax and you don't". And when this affects how they behave towards a class of road user that uses a vehicle that visibly does not attract the tax, then it does become something worth getting worked up about.

It should of course really be called "Licence fee for permission to pollute" ....

Twice I have been deliberately knocked off my bike by a motorist. Both times it was for having the temerity to filter through the traffic to make use of the advance stop box.

Both times a stationary driver beeped their horn at me track-standing while waiting for the lights to change, waved at me to jump the lights, and then knocked me off my bike when I refused to break the rules of the road. 

One of them even jumped out of his car and was standing over me screaming at me and threatening me whilst I tried to get back on my feet to defend myself.

There are drivers out there who pay no regard whatsoever to the lives of cyclists.

My dislike of motorists started when one opened a door on me when I was 11 and sent me to a and e. It was compounded when I was rear ended at a roundabout by a car doing 20mph then salt was rubbed in the wound when a van drove into me from a side road. The final insult was being taken out by an SUV mirror in Bournemouth, they didn't bother to stop. I now live an d ride rurally, mostly off-road.

there are some complete idiots out there, I was grazed by a car mirror on friday when going through a country village ( I always ride considerately for other road users as I also do a lot of miles driving as well), I flung up my hand to protest. The guy stood on the brakes (two young lads inside) and then drove at 15 mph in front of me. I guessed their intent was to wait until out the village then stop and kick the sh!t out of me so I stopped and got my phone out at which point they drove off at high speed. I did get their reg. Beats me why people take offence when someone objects to them nearly killing someone. Think something needs to be done about some of the less attractive bits of culture and behaviour in this country.

And it only applies if you use your vehicle on the road.

Were you equally vociferous when people called the community charge a poll tax?

No, it only applies if you pollute the atmosphere by using your vehicle on a road. That is why electric cars do not attract tax. 

In this case I did because I have seen this dimwit do similar at the same junction a number of times before.

However, whilst I know this and chose to relax and sit behind him for almost a quarter of a mile the poor sod that he tried to overtake didn't know this and possibly didn't even have a chance to see the cyclist.

How can you give space to someone who is reckless and aggressive enough to deliberately ride into a vehicles blind spot at a busy junction in their own attempt to shave a few seconds off their Saturday morning leisure ride?

But it doesn't apply if you pollute by using the same vehicle off road.

It's a widely used term that makes a lot of sense.

It’s a widely used term by motorists who use it to have a go at cyclists to prove they have no right to be on the road. It is incorrect and inaccurate. It’s clearly irrelevant to them that the cyclists also pay the same tax for use of their own cars. It is a pointless argument. 

If both car drivers and cyclists showed respect for each other there wouldn’t be an issue. Not so hard.

I'm sure that most of the drivers that use the term do their absolute best to keep all road users safe during their journeys.

Why try to bully them into changing a simple phrase that had been in use for a long time because of a petty battle between a tiny minority of cyclists and a tiny minority of drivers? 

Really? It seems to me that it’s the motorists using the term to try to bully the cyclist off the road. Bored with this now.

It's a tiny minority of motorists.

I'd say that its also a tiny minority of cyclists that are oversensitive about it.

Most cyclists and motorists just get on with the business of peacefully coexistence.

It's a shame that the vocal minorities on both sides manage to foster the sense of dislike that prompted this thread.

But it seems for many motorists that bad cyclist is used to represent all cyclists, but the good cyclist isn't. Re ignoring tbe highway code, same applies to many drivers, speeding, using the phone, un-insured, going through zebra crossings with people still crossing. Seen it all when cycling and when driving. 

Here's the thing. The cyclist wants to take the lead in the decision making process, as they are the vulnerable road user. 

Drivers who don't understand that wind me up.

As a cyclist I use road position, speed and over shoulder eye contact to take my lead in the overtaking process.

As a driver I ignore any waving as I either have sufficient data from my own senses for me to safely overtake, or I do not.  It would be irresponsible for me to do otherwise.

I don’t recall ever having been annoyed at a cyclist over this, but I’ve got miffed at horse riders - usually trying to wave me past when they can  (probably...)see over the crest of a hill and I can’t, and getting ever more frantic with their gestures despite me sitting well - well - back with low revs / high gear.  I understand that they can see but I refuse to drive on the wrong side of the road up a blind hill.   I can wait.

I'd like to think you are right, and in general I think you are, but you have to wonder about our culture of shared road space. I've all but given up road cycling here in the UK because that tiny minority of motorists are enough to make me wonder if it's worth it when a typical day out on all but the quietest of roads will involve several dangerously close and fast passes. Conversely, off the top of my head I reckon I've done between 80 & 90 days cycling in France (with c.10 in Italy and Spain) over the past five years and can recall two incidents where a driver has been careless/impatient and scared me, and one of them had UK plates on.

FWIW I drive a lot too and it's easy to see where that tiny minority of cyclists; the very occasional idiot who is desperate for a grievance or more likely big road pelotons who make no effort to facilitate overtaking even after an unreasonable distance, ruin it for the rest of us.

If I'm waved on/have lights flashed at me, etc. then I use that as part of my decision making process.  I certainly wouldn't take it as read that it was safe to do the manoeuvre that the other road user wants me to do. 

Exactly. 

I ran 18miles this morning. I was close passed by one 4x4, a white van passed me at well over 60mph, didn’t slow at all (contravening The highwaycode), and a BMW passed me fairly quickly and then braked hard to avoid smashing into a tractor that came around the corner. I could surmise quite a lot about white man van, 4x4s and BMWs by this if I really chose to.

I also crossed paths with over 50 cyclists. Including one peloton of around 14 riders all riding in pairs apart from one bloke who for reasons known only to himself was riding 3 abreast and weaving across the road (that was about 5 mins before the white van came past)

I saw no dead or injured cyclists in the gutter. 

Some of the cyclists returned my good morning, some of them (only lone riders, not pairs, 3s or groups)  just looked at me with stoney faces. 

Stereotyping people is incredibly lazy. 

That still doesn't work though does it? Tax is charged on the sale of alcohol and tobacco. People aren't being taxed on the purchase of roads are they? They're being taxed on the emissions level of the vehicle they have registered to drive on the road. So emissions tax seems more fitting if you're going down that route. 

Boring but true in my experience.

Just  moved to N Devon and on the rural roads drivers seem quite nice, perhaps a bit better than NE Hants. Less money, slower pace of life. Just wish the hills weren't so steep and frequent...

If someone is getting frantic about waving you through, it probably means they're afraid of the tin box behind them - which is somewhat understandable given the behaviour of some of the arseholes on the road - so rather than get miffed, give them a friendly wave after you do go past

I think the fundamental reason is that cities and road systems have been redesigned since around the mid-twentieth century with driving as the dominant form of transport. Cycling and walking are made to be subservient to the needs of cars. But, a cyclist on the road challenges that dominance, forcing a car to change how it flows. There's a power struggle there - who has the right to the road, whose needs are predominant. There's also a lot of anxiety surrounding this struggle: cyclists feel the need to cycle defensively, to avoid careless overtaking; car drivers feel they need to overtake, even when it's not safe, in case they appear incompetent.

Add to this traffic problems, longer commuting times, and the increasing mediation of driving by technology, and all this means that drivers are often "in the flow", tuned out and don't respond properly to other road users as they are only focused on the tail-lights in front of them. They then compensate for their failures in a defensive way, by blaming the pedestrian they almost ran over, or the cyclist they almost clipped.

There's no doubt in my mind that car drivers need to stop blaming cyclists - even though there are obviously incompetent or foolish cyclists - and take responsibility, recognising that they are the ones who are most likely to hurt or kill other road users simply by merit of driving an enormous, motorised hunk of metal through spaces occupied by unprotected flesh.

Just been chatting to one of my neighbours who has come home from a few days in London. Cyclist collided with the back of his almost new van causing denting and several hundred pounds of paint damage. 

When he got out to see if the cyclist was ok and to exchange names and addresses the latter told him to "sod off", jumped on his still ride able but clearly damaged bike, and cycled off down a pedestrian alleyway.

Neighbour reported it to the police who were clearly not interested.

At the moment he is in a "hate cyclist" mood.........

PS Meant to say he was stationary at the time last in a queue of traffic waiting for traffic lights.

Except it doesn't apply to many vehicles. 

It applies to all motorised vehicles. Some vehicles are zero rated at the moment but they still have to be registered on the system. 

A tendency by some to ignore rules and laws

A tendency by some to be completely indifferent to other road users and selfish towards them

A tendency by some to a smug or aggressive or supercilious attitude towards car users.

A bizarre tendancy by some to an irritating pedantic attitude to the name of taxes.

The same applies to motorists, but with a hugely enhanced risk to others. 

Definitely applies to motorists who:

- nearly always exceed the speed limit

- generally can't be bother to or don't know how to indicate

- don't use their mirrors properly

- jump red lights all the time

- drive too close, especially in the wet

None of the above would be so common if there was a bloody great spike sticking out of the middle of the steering wheel on cars.

I know 90% of car drivers have never been able to indicate properly on islands when did stopping at red lights go out of fashion?

See my third point.

So people moaning about cyclists (who tend not to harm others) is fine, while cyclists moaning about drivers (who kill hundreds a year) is smug? I can see the irrational emotion, but I’m struggling with the logic. You’re really going to have to show your working.

Where are you getting that? There are plenty of moan-worthy motorists, certainly (although not the topic of this thread so I didn’t mention them).

I don't have anything against cyclists but, like many people, I dislike inconsiderate and incompetent road users.

Unfortunately a significant number of people who travel on bikes are one or the other or both.

I fixed that for you:

Unfortunately a significant number of road users are one or the other or both

Point remains cyclists gamble with their own safety, cars users gamble with others' safety

It is not even 1% correct though. VED is based currently on emissions and is not a tax to pay for the roads you use. If you drive a zero emissions vehicle it is free.

Not really.  I can SORN my car and drive it round my orchard all day long without paying any VED, but if I want to use the roads I must pay VED.  So it may not “pay for the roads you use” (*) but it “must be paid for you to use the road”.   

A tax that you must pay to use the road?  I can’t see why anyone would be so daft as to refer to it as a road tax!

For now - I don’t see that lasting indefinitely.

(*) as general government income some VED clearly is spent on the roads.

Actually it has already ended to some extent as if you buy an electric car worth over £40k then I believe you have to pay some VED. I think the thing that irks is people thinking that paying 'road tax' gives them an exclusive right to the roads whereas in reality its used currently as a disincentive to drive a high polluting vehicle.

Nope.

The reason you can drive it on private land is only because laws have to be enforceable. No police are going to visit farms, building sites and private estates to see what vehicles are in regular use. It would be an expensive and pointless task. 

I am a cyclist, a motorcyclist, a car driver, a camper van driver and a thoroughbred white van man. I hate myself

I pretty much agree entirely.  

Total nonsense.  You appear to be suggesting the state wants to charge VED for off-road vehicles but can’t enforce it, so doesn’t.  If the state wanted to tax off-road vehicles as per on-road ones, why on earth would they allow the sale of excise free diesel oil?  That totally undermines your point.  

Nope. 

They can stop a vehicle on the road and test the diesel easily enough. They can’t go onto private land and test it. And don’t need to. 

No, my reply was considered and not just something concocted to wind people up.

People who drive cars need to be trained first and their vehicles have to be in a roadworthy condition. Anyone can jump on a bike which may be in a dangerous state of repair.

I don't see many cars driving through the city with no lights after dark but I do see that very frequently with bikes, especially at the start of the winter. Also, for example, I've never seen anyone having a conversation on the phone while holding a carrier bag containing what looked like a bundle of sticks while driving a car. I did see a someone cycling through the centre of Embra doing that.

You seem to misunderstand.  Either the state wants to tax off road vehicle use or it doesn’t.  Your view seems to be “the state wants to but it’s unenforcable”.  If the state want to tax off road vehicles use, why would they give me tax free diesel for off road use?

I wasn’t talking about the enforceability of red diesel.  

Do you understand where I am coming from?  Perhaps you have some evidence you can give me that backs your view that the state wants to charge VED for off road vehicle use but chose not to due to enforceability issues.  Good way to loose the farming vote...  

Although your red diesel reply to me is not related to my point...

I am pretty sure the excise man can and does raid private property in regards to fuel excise evasion, and that they don’t need a warrant to do so.

When you write a law, and before you pass a law, one of the tests is enforceability. 

Regardless of what the state wants to do and doesn’t want to do, laws have to be enforceable. The diesel used for commercial purposes is not subject to VAT. There’s a reason for that. 

I’m sorry.  You don’t appear to be able to offer anything in support of your view, only apparent attempts at misdirection.  Very typical of discussions around VED.  I was simply trying offer a view as to why it’s not daft to call it a road tax.

Business use and where VAT is charged is largely unrelated to fuel duty. I had been talking about fuel duty, not VAT.  I could have been clearer but I had hoped it was obvious.  Red diesel is largely cheaper because of the lack of fuel duty.  It’s still subject to VAT - albeit at a lower rate.  On road commercial use of diesel is still subject to fuel duty.

What are you on about?

Perhaps go back to my first post you replied to.  It’s clear - I say VED is not a “driving and polluting tax” because it’s only charged for driving on roads not private land.

You come up with some apparent suggestion VED would be charged for use on private land but the government can’t enforce it.

I point out if they wanted to tax off road driving they wouldn’t allow the sale of seperate fuel without a bunch of driving-on-the-road related tax.

You go off on a tangent about that, misunderstand me and also apparently confuse/conflate fuel duty and VAT.

I stand by my first post, and you seem very confused.  

No. I’m not confused, maybe you are? Fuel and vehicles used for commercial use are taxed differently. Mostly, on small scale commercial properties like the hundreds of thousands of farms, there’s a lower rate of VAT on fuel and vehicles are not subject to VED. 

VED is used to discourage people from using large polluting vehicles. Something we probably don’t want to get involved in when dealing with combine harvesters, and excavators. 

When I'm zooming down the pavement I normally ding my bell in enough time to give pedestrians a chance to dive out of my way.

It’s funny, you seemed very confused in your first response to me.  You seemed to think the government want to apply VED to vehicles used exclusively for off road use and the only reason they don’t is unenforcability.  Perhaps you weren’t clear enough.

Yes, although that lower rate of VAT is not that significant compared to the difference in fuel duty.  You do understand I assume that fuel duty is about 50% of the pump price of diesel, and is 5x lower for diesel supplied for off road use?  

Funny - that was my original point. My point was that VED is a tax one must pay to drive on the roads, hence it not being surprising that many call it a road tax.  You seemed to claim my point was wrong, as VED only isn’t collected off road because it’s unenforcable.  Even if your somewhat opaque point wasn’t nonsense, I stand by my point.  As it is, VED is paid not to permit driving and generation of pollution, but to permit doing so on the roads.

VED is used to raise tax funds.  Currently it is used to incentivise less polluting vehicles. Watch that change dramatically as ZEVs become the norm.

I am pretty sure the excise man can and does raid private property in regards to fuel excise evasion, and that they don’t need a warrant to do so.

They certainly do. Another favourite is the exhibitors entrance to agricultural shows like the Royal Welsh. My neighbour, a farmer showing horses has had his Landy checked twice for red diesel this way but they do call on farms etc too.

Changing the name is not going to change the underlying fact or peoples opinions about those who don't pay.

 Wittering on about it does irritate a lot of people who don't necessarily believe that cyclists should pay road tax and do their best to safely share the road with all other users.

Seriously - but then I don't ride in the Peak and having driven in the Peak enough times I can see that the dynamic would be different there.  I also don't tend to ride in groups of more than half a dozen (and then rarely), which will probably make the experience different as well.

I tend to ride solo, or in a group of 2-4. Makes no difference

Advice for cyclists travelling into Greystoke village green from Berrier:

It is all downhill with a blind corner at the bottom beside the pub.

When you fly into the village at high speed, remember, like most cyclists you can't stop.

So when you arrive around the blind corner at high speed and a car is turning, or a horse is in the way, or kids are on their bikes by the green, or old folks are crossing the road - what will you do?

I expect when you are confronted by any of those, you will just get irate as normal, yell and curse and stick two fingers up at the victims.

But think who is in the wrong.

That's why some cyclists are disliked.

Yours, cyclist and driver.

Because they're irrational, and either haven't thought about it at all, or have thought about it and are just as stupid and nasty as they appear.

EDIT - some of it is also a projection of their own self-loathing too.

Exactly, the lower fuel duty on red diesel is purely due to it being used by vehicles/plant not driven on public roads, (with some very specific exemptions), not because it's for 'commercial' use.

Judging from the state of the nation's driving the training seems quickly forgotten.  And I see muppets driving cars txting and holding a phone to their head while weaving around erratically every day.

I'll reiterate the point: the cyclist with a bag of sticks is mostly likely to endangering themselves, the driver, head down, texting on the move, is endangering everyone.

Rubbish. While some drivers behave badly, most don't. There are a larger percentage of cyclists who behave recklessly. How many cars do you see driving round with no lights or defective lights. How many cyclists do you see driving round with no lights or defective lights?

Cyclists who behave like dicks irritate people, I think that was the question originally asked. Yes, a crap cyclist who ends up under a bus comes off worse but also damages the person that hit them. How would you feel if the vehicle you had been driving killed someone?

Because cycists often flaunt the rules of the road, and because some are self rightious, and some are pretty aggressive or angry. And because drivers aren't properly educated about cylists and how they use the road.

Also, "road tax" might not be called road tax, and the money might not be ring fenced for road works, and the money might depend on how poulluting your car is, but you do need to pay it if you want to drive on the roads. Whereas you don't have to pay to cycle on them. So replying "road tax doesn't exist" is a bit silly, and not engaing with the otherside of the debate.

I'm a cyclist, I don't think cyclists should pay 'road tax', the world would be a better place if more cycled and less drove. But, as a group, we (including me) could be a lot nicer

83% of drivers admitted to regularly breaking speed limits, in a survey conducted by the AA.

See my point 3 higher up.

I think it's mainly because of the small number of cyclists who don't respect other road users (or their own safety).

Undertaking is fine if done sensibly. I prefer to overtake if possible because it makes you more visible, but even then you still have to watch out for people taking right turns. If the queue is short I often wait in the centre of the lane a few cars back so that I can set off in full view rather than setting off from a blind spot (especially if someone is occupying the red box)

I do cringe when I see a cyclist who is absolutely desperate to filter, filtering too fast to possibly be seen, undertaking cars that are signalling left and squeezing through the smallest of gaps to get by.

Does anybody here think that making cyclists pay tax, insurance, duty- whatever you want to call it- would alter peoples' perceptions and behaviour one jot?

I'm not smug or supercilious towards car users. After all, I am one myself.

If someone hates cyclists for whatever reason, they more or less have to hate every road user by extension since those reasons apply to everybody. If they only focus on cyclists, that shows they either haven't given it any thought, or are stupid and nasty. I am supercilious towards those people.

I made the point bluntly because I don't feel I owe any sort of understanding or empathy to the sort of people who puts my life at risk and then follows it up with verbal abuse. If they responded with an apology and a promise not to do it again, I'd wish them a pleasant day and cede them the right of way.

I should also point out that road and junction design has a lot to answer for. One of my regular routes has a five lane approach to an island with lanes (L-R) being: left only, and left and straight, straight and right and the RHS being various versions of right.

There is no safe place on a road like this for a bike. 

Filtering to the head of the queue and sitting smack bang in front of the car at the head of the queue is the safest option. Sticking the traffic and not filtering is suicide.

Erm, shitloads? One light out, one light perma-full beam, both lights perma-full beam, fog lights on full in the city to show off, running lights only at night, lights not turned on after dark. All the damn time.

Quite a few. I'd rather be hit by one of them than a car though.

Better than the person who went under it.

People always don't like somebody who behave in another way than they do. Even among motorists there will be tons of groups which hate each other (truck drivers, electric cars, women, bikers) Each group has tons of reasons to be hated)

I haven't read all of this, but flicking through I saw some discussion about how many drivers have a sense of entitlement to the roads which I think is one of the key points.

I also think that many drivers who don't cycle themselves don't understand cyclists' behaviour.  They see an erratic cyclist, not someone trying to avoid a drain cover/pothole/patch of gravel or other detritus.  They see someone obnoxiously hogging more road than they need, not realising that tarmac is often much rougher in the gutter than it is further in or that it is wise to keep out of range of opening car doors.  They see someone refusing to signal out of stubbornness, not someone who can't physically signal and brake at the same time.  Consequently a cyclist's actions aren't always in keeping with what might be expected of another driver and are therefore interpreted erratic, stubborn, rude or dangerous.  On my cycle home, there is a junction where I turn right but I am going steeply down hill and it is not easy to signal and control my speed.  It is a quiet road so usually not a problem, and if I can't get over safely I'll pull up on the left and cross the road on foot instead of forcing my way out.  It came up in a discussion at work and it hadn't even occurred to people that this might be an issue.

I try to mitigate this by telegraphing everything I do as far in advance as possible, through body language and road position as well as signalling - although of course this does rely on drivers paying attention to you too.

And you've got solid stats to back that up?

Loads. I still can't get my head around the British resistance to turn on headlights. Not quite sure why we don't just copy Scandinavia and have them come on with the ignition.

Some but fortunately not too many.

Revealing use of the passive voice there!

How many cyclists do you see steering a 2 ton lump of metal at 50 mph whilst; on their phone, smoking, talking to kids in back, drinking or eating their drive thru meal, trying to read something, applying make up, fiddling with the radio.... etc. ?? 

Cyclists only bring it up because motorists do. 

You only have to read the comments under news stories about cyclists to see that (or go on Twitter). Even where a law-abiding cyclist has been killed by a driver someone will comment on it (along with hi-viz, helmet use and jumping red lights). 

Re "keeping ourselves fit" - you see so many overweight cyclists that are carrying a lot of fat around their stomachs. I would question how fit they really are! 

That says more about social media than the relative frequency of bad drivers and bad cyclists.  At their most up their own arses cyclists and motorists are as much of a pain as each other.

I like to think I'm bike-aware, but I find driving near bikes can be fairly stressful.  I'm trying to find an opportunity to get past whilst not crowding them. At the same time I'm feeling the hate from the driver behind me for not trying to overtake more aggressively. If I do see half a chance to overtake I then have to watch for said dickhead behind me trying to blast past both of us.  That's without worrying about the cyclist suddenly doing something unpredictable.

Being stuck behind a tractor or a bus is annoying but is very different. There's obviously no chance of getting past so you might as well not worry, however they're likely to turn off or stop fairly soon.  They also tend to be going faster than most cyclists, and I'm less worried about killing someone when I'm around them.

There's plenty of inconsiderate behaviour from all types of road user. In most cases it seems to be thoughtlessness rather than deliberate, however there does seem to be a certain type of cyclist who revels in it..

I think this and Kathrync's post above sum things up pretty well.  I'd add cyclists trying to back seat drive by waving drivers past just adds more tension to the whole situation. 

Motorised and non-motorised traffic should be separated, in the same way pedestrians are separated from motorised traffic as far as possible.

Doesn't equate with dangerous driving though. Unlike cycling the wrong way down a one way street, in the dark, with no lights and wearing dark clothes for example.

Do you drive?

What proportion of cyclists do this? 

The only person who would get hurt would be the cyclist. When a motorist drives like tnuc innocent people get hurt; cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders and other motorists. 

Nah. Except for making less people cycling

I just want to pick up on a few points here, although please don't think I'm pointing fingers, you sound like a safe and considerate driver.

As you say, it's the driver behind that is the potential danger, not the cyclist. Would you feel the same pressure if it was just you and the cyclist?

Cyclists regularly need to do "unpredictable" things because bike tyres respond to the road in much higher resolution than car tyres. That's why drivers should hang back and give a car's width when overtaking (as it sounds like you do).

Tractors faster than cyclists? If we're comparing against the type of cyclist you're likely to meet on the same roads where you'd meet a tractor, I'd seriously question that assumption. I'm also not convinced that the average speed of cyclists in a city, especially at busy times, will be significantly slower than buses, or indeed cars.

There are also certain types of driver who revel indeliberately bad behaviour, and they're far more dangerous. So why focus on the cyclist?

The favourite example of the anti-cyclist ranter... I can't say I've ever encountered one in real life, yet there appears to be an epidemic of them, according to some.

Yes.

Generally just driving a car normally and within the law is more dangerous to *other people* than cycling a bike outside of the law.

It's possible to cycle the wrong way, in the dark, with no lights and in dark clothing, perfectly safely. Much like its possible to skip a light perfectly safely. 

I drive a car and I cycle. 

No it f*cking isn't.  And that sort of moronic statement is a good example of why cyclists are held in such contempt. The closest I have come to an accident in a car was exactly this situation  - unlit cyclist in black against trees.  Fortunately he hadn't changed his pedals so I just saw the reflector on one of them.    It is simply not possible to see an unlit cyclist in some situations.

I was a bit annoyed with my two friends whilst out cycling yesterday, there was a long set of roadworks so I suggested we got off and walked along the pavement rather than standing in fumes for 5 minutes. They agreed but cycled down the pavement! I walked and they both had to wait for me at the other end of the lights, stupid.

I do wish more people would realise that money from taxes is non specific and all goes in to one pot. I guess I should start saying to people who tell me I dont pay road tax that umm actually Im in the higher tax band and have to pay 40% on most of my earnings so Im technically more entitled to use the road than you

FFS- ‘cyclists held in such contempt’?? Clearly they are by you and I guess that makes you a very dangerous and bad driver around cyclists, threatening their lives and their family’s happiness. I hope you’re proud of yourself. 

Actually I find most drivers don’t hold cyclists in such contempt and both can co-exist quite happily with a bit of mutual respect. No sensible cyclist would do what is suggested above, for the record.

I completely agree. I also completely hope you don't personally hold cyclists in contempt?

I'm guessing you don't...

Fitter than if they weren’t cycling.

Car drivers: rejoice when you see a bike! it's better by far, in so many ways, than being stuck behind another car!

Treat the cyclist nicely and you my just get home without killing someone. You just need a teeny, tiny bit of transitory patience, it's not too much to ask is it?

Not as a group. There is a significant proportion who I do though, for reasons given higher.

So rather than agree cyclists should be lit, you attack those pointing it out. You are adding to the problem.

Really?  The aggression towards cyclists in your post gives you away. And if you read all my response, you would see I don’t condone the behaviour, but I see you ‘forgot’ to copy/paste that bit because it undermines your point.

Yes it is. Just the same as a pedestrian might safely walk up a one way street in the dark. You move if you see a car coming the right way and, if cycling, stay away from parked car doors.

Generally it's possible to cycle reasonbly safely without lights at night if you do so sensibly.

I agree.

Just to be clear, though, I agree cyclists should be lit at night

I'm not sure if I agree. Cars not hitting you, probably shouldn't be equated with drivers not happening to only just see you at the last minute.

Not sure I understand your comment.

But you can drive reasonsably safely without lights if you're sensible and competent cyclist. To be clear, when I say "safely", it doesn't mean cars only missing you because the driver saw you at the last moment.

It involves not being on parts of the road that a moving cars are likely to go, when there's a moving car in the vicinity, and being aware of cars, and escape routes if they do someting unexpected. Also, having an idea when you've been seen and when you've not.

I'm not encouraging doing this, but sometimes I do if I don't have lights and I need to get somewhere and the route is reasonably safe.

In which case you should slow down. 

Luckily for you it was a cyclist and not a big heavy solid object like an unlit skip...

I knew that was coming. Not matter how irresponsible and stupid a cylist’s behaviour, it just has to be the driver’s fault because all cyclists are perfect. No doubt had I hit him, you’d be clamouring for me to be convicted of at least manslaughter. Put yourself down as another number 3.

Yes, there are small, black, unlit skips everywhere.

Ah, the poor, persecuted motorist. 

I can tell you this for nothing, if you rode a few hundred miles on a bike you’d get a sense of perspective on the issue. 

Sorry, but why should a motorist be criticised for highlighting the fact that cyclists should use lights in poor light conditions?

Ive ridden many hundreds of miles, thanks.  Can you really not bring yourself to criticise cycling without lights?

Why are you mentioning that?

Read the thread, maybe do some research, have a think about it and then you might understand why cyclists (most of whom are also drivers) who regularly have their lives put at risk by inconsiderate, incompetent and sometimes wilfully dangerous drivers get pissed off with motorists on social media wittering on about bollocks in an attempt to justify their own intolerance and impatience.

What I'm saying is, one can't tell while cycling without lights where one has been fairly easily seen, or only just seen.

I get what you mean, it's just that having nearly been hit when wearing a hiviz and with a front light on the outside end of my handle bar by a car coming the other way, I'm more cagey about how in/visible I am than I once was.

Of course I can. 

It’s not the point though is it? How many cyclists get themselves killed by riding without lights versus those killed by people driving like arseholes?

Drivers will nearly hit you with their cars no matter what you’re wearing or how well-lit or otherwise your bike is. Or actually hit you if you’re unlucky. 

It’s exactly the point. Read the OP. One reason cyclists are disliked (people will naturally generalise), is some ride without lights leading to accidents and near misses. I don’t want to hit anyone, even those without lights so I am going to be pissed of both with those who cycle like this and those who defend and minimise it.

No idea, and still not the point Why not start a “why do people hate drivers” thread if that’s what interests you?

Which makes having enough lights to draw their attention seem like a sensible thing.  

Because you were defending cycling without lights...

Prat.  Menace to all other road users and pedestrians alike.

I agree you can't always tell if seen or when seen. (Also true in the day or with lights though)

I've also been almost hit with lights and high viz, in the day light with high viz etc. (Actually I've been actually hit gently by a reversing car in day so not really relevant)

And yet, it's still possible to cycle reasonably safely at night without lights. You don't go where you they might hit you if you haven't seen them, or be extra sure that they have seen you and be ready to move if you're wrong.

Put another way, in any light with or without lights, I've never had a close call while cycling defensively.

Prat, maybe - it's not good for the reputation of cyclists.

A menace to all road users and pedestrians I'm certainly not.

Do you have much experience of cycling at night without lights?

No I wasn’t. Although in the spread of offences it’s possible to commit on the roads, it’s pretty far down the list. 

Of course. 

However, I don’t think being seen is the only issue affecting how dangerously people drive around you.

Apologies if you weren't, but I don't think I was the only person who thought that was what you meant.
It's pretty high on the list of offences that can be committed by a road user and that does include cyclists.  Using the excuse that a cyclist will come off worse in any subsequent accident is pretty weak, as causing an accident is still causing an accident no matter what the outcome.
Additionally, comparing it to other offences that can be committed by motorists is again poor, as it sort of assumes that all motorists are committing those offences and no doubt, the further assumption, is that the 'real' cause of any accident would be the motorist driving without due care and attention, etc.
I don't like the actions of many cyclists, but in the grand scheme of things on the roads, they are easy to shrug your shoulders and pass off with a little bit of muttered swearing.
However, cyclists without lights is one thing that I really wish that something could be done about with such things as fines/bans/confiscation being considered.
For balance, I also wish more motorists were prosecuted for using phones and not using indicators, etc.  
 

cycling in the dark without lights, thats just silly, ive ridden 2 miles in the dark when my battery died just before I got back home and I was really uncomfortable. I now always have a backup led light front and rear that stay on the bike all year round. Theyre also very useful as 'daytime running lights' just like cars have, good for dull rainy period.

Although as pointed out lights are useless if pedestrians and motorists dont look

ah pedestrians wandering aimlessly across the road, the bane of cars and bikes alike.

We’ll have to disagree on your logic over the prioritisation of traffic offences. I’d put actions that kill other people higher, and it appears most police forces do too (at least until the Daily Mail Run the police as well as the government).

If you’d nearly been killed as often as I have by people driving like absolute cnuts, you might understand my anger over motorists on this thread excusing their hatred of cyclists by using examples which by comparison are almost inconsequential (and the statistics back that up).

I don't think anyone's expressed hatred of cyclists.  You also have some pretty skewed ideas if you think that killing someone in an accident (even if not your fault), is inconsequential.  It's a horrible idea and partly why I find attitudes such as yours to any criticism of cyclists so annoying.

So, Mr Potato, I think the UKC collective have answered your question and you should be much clearer about why all road users seem to hate each other. 

Right, someone else doing something stupid, excuses you doing something that you believe is less stupid?  Strange logic, when the outcome (as cyclists keep telling us) is potentially going to kill/injure you.
I've got absolutely no problems with dangerous motorists being prosecuted in higher numbers than they are now and in that respect, cyclists and other road users that want a safer road environment are totally correct in wanting that.
Surely though, part of that process has to be that everyone has to do their bit for that safer environment?  In the case of cyclists, is it really too much to expect them to use lights?

I think the problem is with increased stress due to road design / capacity. It's not that cyclists are particularly hated, but the combination of bikes, cars, lorries,and sometimes very fast motorbikes increases the background stress of the driver (and sometimes the cyclist), so that irrational stressed behavior ensues.

To illustrate the point imagine if the number of cars was reduced to 10% of current - do you think cyclists would be as hated? I suspect not.

How about a loose dog, deer, sheep cow? a piss head? a pedestrian on a country lane? a shed load? a recently crashed vehicle? a fly tip? a F£$%ing big pothole etc  The point is you should never drive faster than a speed that allows you to stop in the distance you can see because anything could be in the road. For your own safety let alone anyone elses.

Quite. Or a cyclist pushing his bike because his lights have failed. 

This attitude really highlights the default position of all road users where accidents are always someone else’s fault, even inanimate objects. 

“My Car was damaged by a pothole. I’m going to claim off the council.” is never “I damaged my car by driving into a pothole. I’m going to be more careful in future.”

I’m sure there are a few cyclists versions. 

But “I drove my bike wearing black with no lights and got hit but it’s a driver’s fault” rather  than “I’m an irresponsible, selfish idiot, who should be less stupid” is just fine?

I agree but we are getting into what “see” means. Seeing black on black out of headlight zone is not compatible with moving at more than walking speed. Maybe you think that’s what should happen  - 5mph max at night? 

It’s just amazing to me that so many think cylists have no responsibilities and then wonder why they re disliked.

Me neither. Everyone loves a parade!

N.B.  

There is a good cycling double standard in that example. One thing that is often sited by cyclists on here is that cars need to give extra room just incase the cyclist needs to swerve round a pothole. If the cyclist was paying attention and riding at speeds applicable to the conditions they would see the pot hole well in advance and be able to react in a safe manner. 

If they’re given the correct amount of room, it is safe for cyclists to cycle round potholes (and shards of glass or metal, broken spikes etc.). Just give them as much space as you would a car, at the bare minimum 1.5m and more if at all possible.

The safe evasive manoeuvre is then perceived by the type of driver that doesn’t give enough room as the cyclist being all over the road. As a cyclist you spend a lot of time spotting potholes and working out if it is safest to pass inside or outside, slow down or speed up depending on what cars are doing around you.

Laws of physics, innit? Bikes don't roll in straight lines, that's how they stay upright.  A swerve from a motorists point of view is a cyclist's careful change of direction - it's a speed differential thing. Leave more room or drive a narrower car.

Firstly, my comments were offered as an explanation for drivers' wariness of cyclists. I'm not suggesting they're an excuse for aggressive behaviour.  However the fact is that for all sorts of reasons cyclists are a different category of user from anything else you're likely to meet on the carriageway (I'm not saying that cyclists don't have a right to be there), and many drivers find that unnerving (myself included, and I'm a cyclist although I prefer to stay away from busy roads).

Tractors: modern tractors can go pretty fast and easily do 25-30 mph.  You seem to be suggesting that only 'serious' cyclists capable of reaching those speeds are likely to be found on the same roads as tractors. That's not my experience (I live in the country), and round where I live it's very hilly so even the committed cyclists are going slowly.  In the flatter areas there are plenty of leisure cyclists who go nowhere near the speed of even a tractor.

In the city I agree the average speed of a bike is likely to equal or even exceed that of a car.  However at the point where a driver interacts with a cyclist their speeds will be very different.  Watching the cyclist then overtake them with apparent ease at the next lights only winds some people up. Again, I'm not making excuses for them.

As for unpredictable behaviour, you seem to be talking about the fairly predictable adjustments a competent cyclist may be forced to make. I'm talking about the random behaviour, such as suddenly shooting across the road, ignoring traffic lights and give way signs, joining the carriageway without looking, and generally assuming that the rules of the road don't apply and that it's a driver's job to keep out of their way.  That also goes for riding without lights, which may often be based on the false assumption that because there is sufficient light for cyclist to see where they are going it is sufficient for them to be seen from a distance by an approaching car.

Again, I'm not making excuses for poor or aggressive driving, just offering explanations for drivers' concerns around cyclists.

1. That's just nonsense. Sometimes potholes are difficult to see. Sometimes you need to be looking at other things. Sometimes the car behind you is too close so you can't slow down when you see one. Sometimes there's a pothole on a road which otherwise is in great condition.

 Even if 1. is wrong, it's not double standards because -

2. Driving a car sometimes you don't see a pot whole. And sometimes you see it last minute and just have to hit it because it's not safe to move. But in a car this might damage your car, whereas on a bike if you don't move there's a good chance your off.

3. Bikes and cars are very different. A bike is much much much less likely to hurt somebody else. If you're on a bike a car passing close to you is scary, in away that it's not if you're driving a car. Passing close to a bike

Please read my whole post again. 

Congratulations on breathing life into an old favourite.  I love the strawman based on two sorts of road users: all cyclists and all car drivers with uncorroborated statements like "the majority blah blah".

In fact the two sorts of road users are pretty much "selfish or incompetent" and "reasonable and competent".  At the risk of making my own uncorroborated statement, I would contest that the vast majority of road users fall into the second category, whilst the first category is well  represented by all of cyclists, car drivers, lorry drivers, horse riders.

Indeed. But you need to take out the ‘Internet Factor’ where everything is stated as extremes. 

A lot of cyclists seem to enjoy making out that riding on the road is extremely dangerous and that everyone is out to get them. They’re the ones that say you must wear hi coz and helmet and take the primary position etc. 

“Swerving to avoid a pothole” is another extreme to display how dangerous the road is and how cyclists have some extra sense and are able to see and do things that normal people can’t. 

You should give them room so that if they have to move position they can. Besides it’s extremely disconcerting and selfish to pass someone very closely. 

Actually a fair few of the persecuted are firmly not in the the 'hi viz' camp, surprisingly.  Not cool, I guess.

He doesn’t do that. He picks out the bit he wants to support his cycling- hate agenda.

Having done lots of cycling myself I give them loads of room. I was just pointing out the double standard that drivers should only travel at a speed they can safely stop at no matter what may happen and pot holes were given as an example yet from the replies cyclists are fine to swerve. 

When on a bike if I see a pot hole I look behind me and if there is a motorist there I indicate and pull out in to the road to go round it. Occasionally the motorist will jump on the horn and gesticulate but most just slow down until I am past the hole then they overtake. Maybe I'm lucky that I don't get much grief from drivers, I suppose looking like a gorilla having a bad day might temper their response a bit. 

Where do you do most of your cycling? I commute daily in Bristol and given the traffic density and pothole density, it would be absolutely impossible to respond in such a way to every pothole. The safest thing therefore is just to keep to the primary position, move at the speed of the traffic with sufficient gap in front and avoid them as they come.

I think you've shown your true colours with this phrase.

Well it's not unreasonable to complain about cyclists who are invisible and also to complain about cyclists who dazzle others.  Where's the problem.

I don't know of anyone who complains about bright lycra.  THey might think somewhat overweight middle-aged blokes having a mid-life crisis look a little stupid in lycra, but that's another matter.

I gave an explanation  answering the OPs question, in part. What do you think my "true colours" are?

Agree with this. 

(despite thining that you can cycle safely without lights)

Beige, with Taupe highlights?

Sorry, couldn't resist

Someone who thinks that contempt for cyclists is the natural order of things. 

More grey with beige highlights these days

This ^^

Although there will be some moving between categories depending on mood, stress etc.

Also, an extra category for cyclists that behave in a safe manner, but that pisses alot of people off. For example, stopping at lights and the crossing slowly at green man. No chance anyone gets hurt, but it infuriates people so we shouldn't do it. (I do though but less and less, it's a hard habit to kick)

Well perhaps read what I wrote again, as I quite clearly explained that it was because of statements defending cycling without lights and said nothing about the natural order of anything.

And yet you find it "no wonder they are held in contempt"

Perhaps you meant only cyclists flouting the law (?) but in a thread that seeks to explain  'why people hate cyclists' it didn't come across like that.

Specifically yes, but as I said somewhere else, people will naturally generalize, so it explains the effect (in part) more widely too.

Anyone who goes faster than me is an idiot, anyone who goes slower than me is a fool, my journey is more important than yours.

That's the best explanation I've heard so far.

There is a deep resentment of cyclists among car drivers because cyclists don't have to deal with all the impositions placed on car drivers. Many drivers hate having to get insurance, MOT, tax, speed limits etc. and they see cyclists getting away free and hate them for it. This is the root of the moronic "pay your road tax" shout that we've all heard at some point. Of course car drivers could have the same freedom if they got on a bike, but they are not thinking this through logically. It's a visceral reaction to someone they see as breaking the rules.

Its also a hell of a strawman

My point is that these complaints (and more) could also apply to motorists, but you don't get the "why do people dislike motorists?" so something else must be going on. 

I know of some who despise any man in lycra, bright or otherwise. 

Eh!? Have you read this thread (which ostensibly  isn't even about attitudes to motorists)!!

But that's the point entirely, surely? That cyclists are singled out, and the bad behaviour of individuals is applied to the group as a whole.

You've made the point that, to Mr Angry BMW Driver, the bad behaviour of some cyclists only reinforces their preconception and helps nobody. That's entirely correct, but it doesn't answer the question of why that preconception exists, and why Mr Angry doesn't notice/care about the numerous and far more dangerous transgressions of his fellow car drivers.

It clearly hasn't come about as a result of rational thought, or an objective assessment of the available evidence.

The BBC article referenced above seems closest to an understanding of this phenomenon. We've created a car-centric society into which bikes just don't fit. By short-cutting the perceived "rules" (i.e. "road tax", registration, insurance, queuing in certain ways, breaking the rules in accepted ways) and getting ahead, cyclists upset the social order. They're therefore expected to conform (i.e. by getting out of the way of drivers) or reap the deserved opprobrium.

The way to fix it, it seems, is not through reasoned argument, but through breaking the car's status as the accepted/default mode of transport and making it easier for people to empathise with cyclists. This is why official campaigns to emphasise high viz and helmets are mostly useless, they only serve to highlight cyclist's "otherness". This is why I've often argument that learning to drive should include a mandatory period of road cycling, so new drivers have a bit more empathy with others on the road.

But I suspect Mr Angry in his BMW does notice transgressions (from his perspective) of other drivers - which is why he'll park two meters from their rear bumper in the outside lane of the motorway.  Mr Angry is a tosspot to everyone.

That's perhaps right but I don't think shouting at motorists and telling them how terrible they are is the way to do that.  For the foreseeable future we need widespread, high-speed vehicle transport if we want our economy to function.  There is no practicable way of mixing that safely with cycling if the same space is used for both.  We need, where possible to separate the two.  This requires some compromise from both groups - less road space for cars, particularly in towns, and also an acknowledge from cyclists that they won't be able to use roadspace designated for high speed cars entirely freely because of the congestion and delays this causes.  Switzerland, Denmark the Netherlands etc do this well.  It's noticeable in Switzerland most main roads have parallel small roads that may have the odd car on but are widely used by cyclists, roller-skaters etc for exercise too.

This is just it would be so easy to dislike cyclists

Anyone that has the misfortune to hit a cyclist that is using this as a shoddy justification for reckless risk taking will suffer a considerable amount of mental anguish and stress.

No road user should be taking any silly chances that risk involving anyone else in an accident.

True. Perhaps Mr. Angry was a poor example to use, because he's not representative of everyone who doesn't cycle, whereas a general misunderstanding of cycling/tendency to outgroup them is very much endemic in society. I've had friends/relatives who wouldn't dream of mowing anyone down in a car rant to me about cyclists in general, having witnessed the actions of one idiot (or in one case, the perfectly legal and correct actions of experienced cyclists).

No, but it's also the perfectly understandable reaction of someone who's just had somebody else play Russian roulette with their life.

Agreed. Quite apart from the direct benefit of reducing the likelihood of bikes and motor vehicles tangling, cycling is also normalised and there's therefore a much greater empathy between users of different vehicles (with less of a tendency to cast them in groups).

Have you really never had the misfortune to have someone step off the kerb in front of you when driving?

We could easily do this in the UK. Most towns have parallel roads that end up in the same place. Usually they’re inhabited by idiots using them as Rat Runs. Close them off to through traffic and turn them into cycle paths. There’s a lot of roads in London that have been turned into one way streets with the other side carrying two direction cycling. 

The downside is, the side roads are not very visible to road users and potential cyclists so people still think that cycling is dangerous and not many people do it, even though the cycle paths are chok full of cyclists.

have a look at Cable Street in Shadwell London on google street view.  

Absolutely.  It's all very well telling people not to shout at motorists when they have just had a near miss, and the vast majority of cyclists would absolutely agree with you when they are cosily sat on the sofa at home.  It is a very different ballgame when something has just happened and the adrenaline is surging...

I was meaning metaphorically, as in this thread, not in the heat of the moment.

Ah, ok - in that case I agree with you!

I generally would prefer solong hvs on grit  to biking on most A or even B roads.

What is?

Screw it im going to buy a unicycle and a silly hat.

Amazed at the number and variety of responses, thanks.

Will you be fitting lights to it?

This is a strawman if ever there was one:

"There is a deep resentment of cyclists among car drivers because cyclists don't have to deal with all the impositions placed on car drivers. Many drivers hate having to get insurance, MOT, tax, speed limits etc. and they see cyclists getting away free and hate them for it. This is the root of the moronic "pay your road tax" shout that we've all heard at some point."

I don't think I'm falling into that trap. What is it about my post suggests to you that I am?

FWIW I totally agree that bad cycling or walking can cause near misses that can be pretty scary for drivers, and this is definitely a bad thing. But I still think bikes and driving are very different in terms of risks of hurting/scaring other people. Risks being much higher when you drive. (I do both) 

Strawman in what way?

(I'd say it's a but silly to say "drivers" - clearly not all or even most drivers think like this, but I think there's plenty that do)

The whole article is predicated on an assumption of how motorists (no qualification to say 1%, a small minority or whatever - that is an interpretation you are putting on the article) think/feel towards cyclists without any evidence to support it.

Like so many of these articles, it is an opinion piece dressed up as factual.

The levels of risk may be different but the underlying responsibilities are exactly the same.

Clearly they're not, or you wouldn't need a licence to drive a car.

Isn't the licence there to ensure that people meet a required skill level to drive the relevant vehicle?
All road users have the same essential responsibilities in that they are expected to behave in a fashion that doesn't put themselves or others in danger.  On top of that, all road users are expected to meet certain criteria with regards to following the Highway Code, etc.

When I was a nipper (many, many years ago), we all did our Cycling Proficiency Test, to learn how to ride safely, including learning the Highway Code.
Does anyone do this anymore?  Does it still exist?

I thought your were just quoting the other guy on here.

But still, that sounds like failing to qualify what they mean by "drivers" rather than a straw man. It seems obvious to me that they don't mean all or most becuase that woul dbe absurd.

This doesn't make sense to me. We treat things differently in law, regulation and convetion/social norms for, among other things, the level of risk involved.

We often place greater responsibilities on people dealing with larger risks. This is why there's different laws (inc re respnsibility) for driving and cycling. This is why, sociallly/morally (as well as legally), drink driving is considered far worse than drink cycling. People taking others rock climbing or flying or paragliding have more responsibility placed on them than people taking a guided tour of a city.

As a motorist and a cyclist this is the where I think people on the motorist side of the debate are wrong - when you drive you have a much greater responsibility than when you cycle.

On the cylist side, I think we can be self rightious, generally annoying and do ourselves no favours by (safely) flaunting the rules of the road.

Yes. It’s called bikability. 

The lack of qualification implies the majority rather than the minority of drivers, which is a typical journalistic licence.  You chose to interpret it as a minority, but the implication is anything but that.

The strawman is what all these drivers are supposed to be motivated by based on the author's own prejudices.

He starts off on the false premise that drivers hate cyclists. Which is clearly nonsense. 

Many do, you don’t have to look very hard to find many drivers prepared to explain at length why they hate cyclists.

'Many' as a proportion of all motorists ? I don't think so - I think its actually a very low number - but then thats my opinion based on what I observe.  Other people seem to find cyclist haters at every turn.

There are a lot of drivers. Are you looking amongst your social circle or looking on the internet in places that attracts people with those feelings?

Its like going to a hospital brain injury ward to find out if there are a lot of cyclists getting brain injuries. 

Yes. Reinforcement theory and confirmation bias. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_theory

Yes, I'd choose to give him the benefit of the doubt or maybe just think he's wrong on the numbers, and then think about what he's got to say as regards the people that do actually think like that.

Perhaps you're dismissing the whole thing with an internet forum cry of STRAWMAN! is motivated by your predjudices?

Do you cycle much?

I cycle one or two times a week if I can.  Will probably do a 100km round trip commute to work tomorrow.  Why do you ask ?

I don't doubt one or two people do think that way towards cyclists, but if its one or two its in the noise.  Its irrelevant.

Try reading any article online about cycling in anything other than specialist cycling press and the comments section is around 50% these sorts of people. Abuse in the road is quite rare in my experience, but I’m sure we have all stories. Punishment passes are unfortunately less rare and plain dangerous driving more common still.

I think to dismiss it as confirmation bias is pretty idiotic. 

By definition, "these sort of people" ARE exactly the sort of people that contribute to these articles, so its a self selecting group.  Its bound to be the gob shites you hear on line rather than the old granny down the road.  To put any statistical relevance on it is pretty idiotic.

I'd say it's a lot more than one or two.

I ask because you think this is tiny minority view. It's a view I've come across reasonably often, more when Iived in London. Cycling friends have come accross it too, so I just thought that you might think it's so low because you don't cycle.

I agree it's unlikely to be a majority though.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/nov/22/cycling-road-... 

According to a very unscientific survey a quarter think cyclists should pay road tax. Could be under but more likely over, so lets say more than 10% less than 20%. I'd call it a significant minority.

There are many basic responsibilities in life that aren't the subject of legislation or licencing.

Thinking they should pay tax hardly implies hatred, or even dislike.

It isn't one or two people as you are suggesting, or even a tiny minority. Some of these articles get thousands of comments. I'm not even that regular a cyclist, but could tell you multiple stories or comments from motorists. All the evidence points to it being a significant enough issue for it to be a problem. 

There is a huge difference between thinking that someone should pay road tax and believing that the fact that it isnt currently required means that they have less rights than those who are taxed.

Ignorance and stupidity. However, such statements are often coupled with abuse that would suggest dislike.

How many cars pass you on your daily journey?

How many close passes do you experience?

How many of those close passes are deliberate acts of violence towards you?

Like I wrote upthread, the three vehicles that passed me on Sunday were just idiots their behaviour had nothing to do with me being out on the road. 

yes that's true. wouldn't be surprised if there was a brexit and hanging folk type correlation though

sure. there's also a huge difference between believing we should leave the EU and believing that we should bring capital punishment back. and yet the two views often go together

I would say that (when commuting most days) I get a deliberate close pass more than once a week, and passes that are closer than they should be more than ten a week.