Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Now that this thread has descended into the usual pointless tit-for-tat, can I just say that as someone who cycles regularly, I really don't care what people think about cyclists and their behaviour, whether in general or me in particular. What I care about is what they do, and especially, when they are driving, are they really trying their best not to hit me with their car? I care about that a lot, both as regards cyclists in general, and, unsurprisingly, me in particular. Because unfortunately, there are people out there who are not trying their best. There are even people, thankfully very few in number, who think cyclists *deserve* to be hit, or at least be put in fear of being hit, because they do things that make them angry.


So my only contribution to this thread is to say, if the behaviour of cyclists makes you angry, leave it on here. Don't take it out on the road with you. The only thing that really matters is that we all get home safely.

^this. But also, let's do stop having these threads - it's clear that some people have a pathological dislike of cyclists and are convinced against all evidence to the contrary, that cycling poses a huge danger to other road users. We get it. there are plenty of threads on it. Let's stop now.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ^this. But also, let's do stop having these threads - it's clear that some people have a

> pathological dislike of cyclists and are convinced against all evidence to the contrary, that cycling

> poses a huge danger to other road users. We get it. there are plenty of threads on it. Let's stop now.


It's also clear that some people have a pathological dislike of motorists.


And actually, as pointed out above, I think cycling's biggest danger is to the cyclists themselves. It's just that too many of them refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and safety. It's always someone else's fault.


But, yes, stopping these threads would be a good idea.

And actually, as pointed out above, I think cycling's biggest danger is to the cyclists themselves. It's just that too many of them refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and safety. It's always someone else's fault.


Statistically, it is about 75:25 motorist:cyclist at fault so yes, you can see where that arises.

Source:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study


However I think this picture sums it up neatly:


CKb8FKaWEAAFlDq.png:medium


But yes, I agree with the above, this thread has now gone so far off its original topic and descended into the usual petty cliches. It was fun while it lasted though.

Have a safe journey hone everyone, no matter what your mode of transport.

Loz - there are not multiple threads about dangerous driving though, (despite the potential harm represented by a motor vehicle being significantly greater than that posed by a small, light, relatively slow, self propelled bicycle, as I already stated). The vitriol aimed at cycling, a relatively benign form of transport, is ridiculously disproportionate. This may be why some people get very defensive. After all, if you repeatedly single out a relatively small group of vulnerable road users in an entirely disproportionate manner, it's a natural response to be defensive. The number of threads talking about 'dangerous bikes', or 'reckless cyclists' is just silly and belies something quite dark imo.

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Statistically, it is about 75:25 motorist:cyclist

> at fault so yes, you can see where that arises.

> Source: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study


As a general rule of thumb, if a Guardian article does not link directly to to a report that it is analysing, it's probably hiding something.


Here's a good analysis of that report from a reliable, unbiased website. https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/

As far as I'm concerned, on the road, there is no "driver-vs-cyclist" debate/war, the cyclist is vulnerable and drivers have to act responsibly and give them space.


But there is an issue of some (a v small number) cyclists' respect for pedestrians.. which shouldn't be trivialised or blamed on other people...

The idea of a 'war' between motorists and cyclists is ridiculous. As Chris Boardman put it "You?ve got 2% of vulnerable road users versus 98% in two tonnes of steel. How can you possibly have a war? I think that?s called a massacre. What could a cyclist possibly do to somebody in a car??.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The idea of a 'war' between motorists and cyclists

> is ridiculous. As Chris Boardman put it "You?ve

> got 2% of vulnerable road users versus 98% in two

> tonnes of steel. How can you possibly have a war?

> I think that?s called a massacre.

What could a cyclist possibly do to somebody in a car??.


A cyclist was jailed for 18 months today after he killed a motorist who opened his car door in front of him.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394015/Cyclist-killed-motorist-road-rage-attack-driver-opened-car-door-him.html


DulwichFox.

That's a case of a murder, precipitated by a road range incident. It's interesting that you think the fact that they rode a bike is what makes them dangerous, as opposed to the fact that they were a murderer. If a murder wears shoes, does that make shoes dangerous? I think I may have been spiked.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am a car owner. I am not 'anti car'. But anyone

> with any sense can see that the potential harm

> represented by a motor vehicles overshadows that

> posed by a small, light, relatively slow, self

> propelled bicycle... and by a significant order of

> magnitude. The fact is that the amount of

> 'concern' expressed about the 'carnage' bikes

> cause, is ridiculously disproportionate. The

> number of threads talking about the 'dangers of

> bikes' is getting silly.



I am a pedestrian

i haven't driven since i got my driving licence

i think cycling is a good way of reducing one's ecological footprint

i would cycle on the road if i thought it was safe enough

i have no problem with other road users so long as they obey the rules

but...

i have a problem with anyone, cyclist or not, who behaves on the road in a way that is selfish and endangers others (or themselves)

i also have a problem with anyone who thinks it's ok to behave that way

  • 2 weeks later...

For other lovers of this most ranty thread (I am being sarccy) I thought that the attached was interesting (if a bit long)


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/feb/04/vulpine-bike-clothing-company-models-without-helmets-dont-hate-us

If you don't want to read the whole thing here is a great snippet that may remind readers of many of the people who post on this site (including me?) and particularly this thread


"Feeling pleased with my evening?s work, I headed home to finish a relaxing evening by shouting online at other imperfect people for making lifestyle choices that differ from my own. Lovely. A bike helmet debate is brewing. ?GET A HELMET, DARWIN FODDER,? I typed. Send. Smile. Another life saved.


That?s more or less what the infamous helmet debate has become. Shouty strangers shouting at other shouty strangers for choices that don?t affect the first shouty stranger?s life."

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...