Can we ban cyclists from rye lane?

[red devil]

Tufty doesn't give a toss Artful, he's just after your nuts...

[DaveR]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

^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.

[Loz]

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.

[exdulwicher]

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:

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Loz]

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/

[Jeremy]

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...

[Earl Aelfheah]

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??.

[DulwichFox]

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.

[exdulwicher]

I knew I shouldn't have read the comments on the Daily Mail website... :-(

[DaveR]

"A cyclist was jailed for 18 months today..."

Pay attention - the date on that report is June 3 2011.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[civilservant]

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

[malumbu]

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

[Blah Blah]

Good article.

[malumbu]

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."