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.

  Quote
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

    • Does anybody know why? Trees aren't cut down for no reason. There must have been something wrong with it (I hope that was the reason). A child was recently killed and another one injured when a tree fell in a park (not in this area). It isn't always obvious from the outside when a tree is diseased or whatever, and I imagine the council would give safety considerations priority when deciding what to do, if there was any doubt at all.
    • It looks like they have cut it down completely now 😭
    • Different people will be  involved within Thames Water. The people dealing with the leaks aren't the people encouraging less water usage. How many people have reported the Barry Road leak? By what channels? What response have they had? When we had a leak in our road which meant we had no water, several people reported it, there was good communication with TW, they explained why they couldn't come out immediately (other urgent jobs elsewhere in the area) , kept  in touch with us and fixed the leak within a reasonable timescale (hours). Someone from TW also contacted me later to make sure my water was back. But does Thames Water know about it? They aren't psychic (I presume). If nobody reports it, I also presume they won't even know the leaks are  there, unless they have some kind of central monitoring system which tells them when there are leaks in the system. To make it clear, I am not defending Thames Water as a company, which I think should never have been privatised.  But there are some things they can't be blamed for (old and disintegrating water pipe system in London) and some they can (possibly, lack of sufficient staff to deal with leaks, maybe due to trying to save money to give their shareholders more. But this is just surmise on my part - I know nothing about Thames Water).
    • Originally when the Community Notice Boards were installed, one key opened all within a certain area. As these got vandalised,, new locks were put on and keys changed.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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