British Cyclists

[Walker in Eternity]

I spend a good deal of time trvelling by train and tend to walk from the train station to my destination. Who is my greatest nemesis in this journey (besides the rail companies), not evil car drivers, lorries or buses? Nope. it's the british cyclist.

At least the other forms of transport show a modicum of respect for the highway code, even if only in passing, but the amount of cyclists that don't stop at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings is amazing.

Is there a law that I am unaware of that exempts them from following the highway code and makes them exempt from any from of punishment for almost running someone over?

Futhermore, there is no more vocal group thatn cyclists when it comes to bashing the evil car driver, but as a pedestrian I say, get your own house in order before you start bashing everyone else. Let's face it if a cycling went through a red light and was knocked off his/her bike it would no doubt still be the motorists fault, even though the cyclist broke the law.

I've seen numerous cyclists using pedestrianised zones that clearly state that they are not for any form of wheeled vehicle.

So to all British Cyclists, stop complaining about how bad it is to cycle on our roads, try walking, it's much more dangerous, and cyclists are the reason.

[Liberal]

Must be universal. Here, they ignore traffic signals and all the other stuff. Plus, they become downright indignant climbing a steep hill with a sharp blind curve, wagging their asses at you while your transmission screams, "My kingdom for a moment in second gear!"

[TheLoadedDog]

Happens in Sydney too. They're a self-righteous pack of arseholes in my book.

[Argent Towers]

Agreed. They're all the same - slow, annoying road hazards that don't follow the rules, clog up traffic, and tempt you to squash them flat.

[matt]

As a British cyclist, driver and sometime pedestrian I'm afraid to say I agree with you.

I do my best. I am considerate, law abiding, stay off the pavement (sidewalk), use lights at night, stop to help stranded drivers get their cars off the road, let people know if they've a light out. Only last week I prevented a potential very nasty accident by blocking a truck in a traffic queue and informing the driver he was dragging several yards of strop behind him, and a car was now stopped on it.

But every day, I see other cyclists being twats. I wait at red lights, other cyclists just breeze by. I always shoulder-check and signal, so habitually it's automatic, other cyclists don't bother. It's a matter of education and enforcement, and there's precious little of either.

[Jennyrosity]

Mmm. For every considerate, careful cyclists, there's another 10 who are complete arseholes. There's hardly a day goes by that I'm not almost knocked over by one them shooting through a red light that apparently doesn't apply to them.

[Walker in Eternity]

Thanks for all the support, I suspected that this thread would get me a roasting, just goes to show that you never know what people will say.

[TheLoadedDog]

Thanks for all the support, I suspected that this thread would get me a roasting, just goes to show that you never know what people will say.
Surprised me too. I'm sure it's coming. They're sharpening the knives as we speak.

[Harborwolf]

They're pretty obnoxious here too. They love to ride two and three across the road and refuse to move over. One guy actually weaved back and forth across the road so I couldn't pass him. Another kid was riding in the street, hands off the handlebars, about three inches from opposing traffic.

Do these people want to get flattened?

[Princhester]

Surprised me too. I'm sure it's coming. They're sharpening the knives as we speak.


Svish, svish, svish.

[Dead Badger]

"No, no; it's alright you see, because I can see if there's anything coming! If there's no-one standing at the red light, it's fine to carry on, because those lights are just for cars. And I can just cycle round pedestrians on the crossings because I'm not as wide as a car..."

*slap*

[Trunk]

Surprised me too. I'm sure it's coming. They're sharpening the knives as we speak.

Except I don't even know what people are trying to say here. . .

Some people seem to be upset about how cyclists and pedestrians jive.

Some people are upset about kids riding no handed against traffic (yeah, no shit).

Someone's concerned about a bike swerving back and forth across the lane.

Some people are upset just about bikes running stop signs (as if cars don't it, and even so, are you just complaining about someone getting away with something, like you'ew Ferris Bueller's sister?) That's as valid a complaint as me being on my bike complaining about a car speeding.

No one actually seems to be complaining about actual legal cycling behavior as I know it and practice it.

[E-Sabbath]

And this is why I let them hit me.

I find the entertainment value is worth the bruising.

[Walker in Eternity]

No one actually seems to be complaining about actual legal cycling behavior as I know it and practice it.

Of course not, that's the point, if you cycle legally I've not got a problem, it's only the illegal type that causes difficulties.

While it is true that cars also run red lights etc, I personally have had more dangerous encounters with cycles that don't stop, both as a pedestrian and a car driver.

It might sound idealistic, but if everyone followed the rules of the road then there would be fewer accidents and at least one fewer pit threads (this one).

[Steve Wright]

Indeed. Nobody is complaining about the cyclists who aren't illegal, dangerous, or just plain inconsiderate. They're fine upstanding people. All five of them.

[Jackmannii]

I don't mind bicyclists in general. They're helping conserve gas, getting good exercise (and theoretically helping lower my health insurance bill) and if they present a bit of inconvenience when I'm driving, no big deal.

That said, there seems to be more and more attitude these days among bikers. I see more instances where they are riding two abreast in a lane, preventing you from passing. The other morning one was heading down the middle of the lane on a 45 mph road, disdaining the option of moving to the right to let faster vehicles by. But when he reached the stop sign at the intersection, Mr. I-have-as-much-right-to-the-road-as-you decided to ignore it and swing out dangerously into traffic, causing the cars behind him to slam on their brakes.

If you're going to insist on complete vehicular rights, play by the rules.

[Harborwolf]

No one actually seems to be complaining about actual legal cycling behavior as I know it and practice it.
Dead on. We're complaining about the idiot cyclists.

I don't like some dipshit weaving in front of me to keep me from passing him.

I don't like cyclists riding two or three across the lane when they are supposed to go single file.

I really don't want to watch some idiot kid get flattened because he is too cool to use his hands.

Why on earth would we complain about the cyclists that do everything properly? :confused:

[Trunk]

Why on earth would we complain about the cyclists that do everything properly? :confused:
Then basically the whole point of the thread is this, "let's point out a few illegal cycling moves and then all pretend that these actions are done by all cyclists everywhere."

Otherwise, you're just pointing out random irresponsible behavior. What's the fucking point?

Yeah, I pit people who use kitchen knives to stab others.

I pit people who walk down the street randomly throwing punches.

I pit people who fire bullets into the air.

I pit people who pee in the swimming pool.

Newsflash: some people behave irresponsibly in public. Ooo, let's pit it, and narrow it to cyclists because I know people will pig pile on that.

It's a stupid thread that gets people riled up about "cyclists" while pointing out the negative behavior of a few. And it's filled with people's "perceptions" of the proportions of cyclists who behave in this fashion.

Bully for you; you don't like cyclists who ride no-handed into traffic 3 inches from cars. Yeah, pit that.

[MrAlpen]

Mmm. For every considerate, careful cyclists, there's another 10 who are complete arseholes. There's hardly a day goes by that I'm not almost knocked over by one them shooting through a red light that apparently doesn't apply to them.

I can't believe that the ratio is 10 to 1. Maybe the other way around. Still, they're the only part of the road-using community that are not compelled to be trained, so it's not surprising that the younger ones are pretty clueless. Amongst that ones that survive into adulthood, I would be surprised if we are really seeing more than a minority at play. After all, most of them will be drivers, soo.

As a cyclist, I hear many stories about arrogant motorists: groups of two-wheelers working themselves into a froth about incidents that have happened to all of them, all too frequently. It seems to me that this is more about picking on "the others" as a form of group bonding than an objective evaluation of safety issues. Could we be on the same tack in this thread?

[Cheesesteak]

Then basically the whole point of the thread is this, "let's point out a few illegal cycling moves and then all pretend that these actions are done by all cyclists everywhere."The red-light running thing is done by cyclists about as often as car drivers exceed the speed limit. As in, it is notable when they don't. Cyclists may be great people and stand up citizens and all, but they blow reds and stops signs like there's no tomorrow.

I won't even mention the typical NYC cyclist, those guys don't follow any rules at all.

[Jennyrosity]

I can't believe that the ratio is 10 to 1. Maybe the other way around. Still, they're the only part of the road-using community that are not compelled to be trained, so it's not surprising that the younger ones are pretty clueless. Amongst that ones that survive into adulthood, I would be surprised if we are really seeing more than a minority at play. After all, most of them will be drivers, soo.

As a cyclist, I hear many stories about arrogant motorists: groups of two-wheelers working themselves into a froth about incidents that have happened to all of them, all too frequently. It seems to me that this is more about picking on "the others" as a form of group bonding than an objective evaluation of safety issues. Could we be on the same tack in this thread?

I am neither a motorist or a cyclist, and God knows I could have a good ol' rant about the wrongs of motorists everywhere, but this thread was about cyclists. As to the ratio, well, I've not gone out and done a survey, but I walk to work every morning through a busy part of London and I've yet to see a cyclist using the road responsibly.

I agree absolutely that they're helping to prevent the creation of an even-more polluted environment, and if they all followed the Highway Code, I'd be right there cheering them on. But most of them don't. Most of them are inconsiderate and downright dangerous.

Btw, in London (I can't speak for Britain on the whole), most of the cyclists on the roads are adult, not kids. Yer average London mum isn't going to yet her one extremely small child out of her air-conditioned 4x4 for even a moment, yet alone send them off on a bike onto roads where the only rule that applies is "Squish or be squished"!

[garius]

I won't even mention the typical NYC cyclist, those guys don't follow any rules at all.

They're just as bad as the London ones.

As has been pointed out already, if you're on the road then you obey the rules of the road. Sadly the majority of cyclists on my walks to work both in London and NYC seem not to realise that.

[casdave]

Cyclists are exposed to more abuse than just about any other road user except the elderly and partially disabled road crosser.

You might say some deserve it, but, the overwhelming majority of collisions between cyclists and motorised vehicles are the fault of the vehicle driver.

There are loads of numbers on this, look around.

Drivers, or at least a significant number, run their schedules so tight that almost any hold up, from a milk float to a set of lights on red, is enough to put them out.
Who gets the stick though, is it the slow wagon struggling up the hill, nah, he's too big for you to try swerve into the gutter, is it the JCB, nah, same again and you won't even scratch the paint, is it the horse, sometimes yes - but you worry as you twat your arseholemobile past with your horn blazing that the animal may do something unpredictable and damage your shiny shitwagon.

Ah, but cyclists, they slow you down also, but they can't hit you back, they can't catch you if you act like a total and utter cunt, so you force them into the gutter, rev your engine whilst following, cut them up when you are turning, ah what the hell, they are not in the same hurry as you, fuck 'em.

Basically fucking car drivers such as these are simply the stereotypical bullies, take on someone who they percieve as vulnerable, and leave the big machinery alone.

You can rant on about the antics of a minority of cyclists, and I'll find a hundred things that the minority of motorists do, and I'll label all motorists the same.
I've seen the comments stating "Oh, I really meant to say things about those naughty minority of nasty cyclists" but fuck you with a Saguaro cactus, a big old centurian, because it's clear to me that you posted without regard to most of us being perfectly law abiding, and now it's justifications after the event.

What you may not notice is that cyclists are people, and some are dicks, but, the majority are not.

What you are talking about are the ones who you see in towns and cities, perhaps going to work, whatever, and absolutely every single time you ride a bicycle in such an environment, some, nay many, fuking arsehole shithead wanking car driver, usually on their mobile phone, will cut you up, overtake and brake hard in front of you, try to simply shove you off the road, throw shite out of their windows, honk their horns when there is nowhere for the cyclist to go to get out of the way, or fail to understand that it takes loner for a cyclist to get through a junction than a car, especialy against the wind, and that is why the Amber on traffic lights means stop, not fucking go, you blasted idiots.

Its called due consideration, and once a cyclist has been shown very little of it, than you wouldn't be surprised to find the cyclist in turn shows little of the same stuff when the twat head car driver gets out of his mobile loan payment vehicle and becomes a self righteous pedestrian.

The cyclist gets this hassle every day, many times every journey, but the roads are not yours, nor are they mine, we share them, and that means cooperation.

If the car driver were more patient, they would still get to their destination on time, but with a lower blood pressure.

Fuck me, I've come across car drivers who pulled out in fornt of 48 ton artics and in the ensuing discussion with the nice policeperson, claimed they never saw the wagon coming!

Car drivers get defensive in their shiny shitmobiles, they treat them as part of their empire, a castle that must be defended against any imagined slights, they think that everyone around them is interested in what they drive and the image that their vehicle conveys, its this little Napoleon attitude that car drivers have that causes them to be such cunts.

[MrAlpen]

... Most of them are inconsiderate and downright dangerous...

It's the "most" in this sentence that seems immoderate and inaccurate. The point I was trying to make in mentioning cyclist's views of motorists is that it's very easy to bond with fellow (walkers / SDMB members / motorists) subgroups by stigmatising some other identifiable group.

Trunk and Casdave said it more clearly than I can, but statistically and empirically this demonising of "most" cyclists is evident bollocks.

[FinnAgain]

Driving to school this morning I turned a corner to find a cyclist going the wrong way, in the middle of my freaking lane! Oh, sorry, didn't realize you and your little bike own the whole fucking road. Let me just get out of your way.

Don't even get me started on the motherfuckers who weave in and out of pedestrians on the sidewalk.

[Steve Wright]

There are a lot of inconsiderate cyclists out there ... most of them? Quite possibly! I certainly never expect a cyclist to give a hand signal while turning, or to stop - or even slow down - at a pedestrian crossing; this is not prejudice against cyclists, this is the voice of bitter experience.

And, for the record, I am not, and never have been, a car driver ... but, even if I were, and even if I drove in a dangerous and inconsiderate manner, this would not excuse one single cyclist from breaking the rules of the road ...

[MrAlpen]

There are a lot of inconsiderate cyclists out there ... most of them? Quite possibly! I certainly never expect a cyclist to give a hand signal while turning, or to stop - or even slow down - at a pedestrian crossing; this is not prejudice against cyclists, this is the voice of bitter experience.

And, for the record, I am not, and never have been, a car driver ... but, even if I were, and even if I drove in a dangerous and inconsiderate manner, this would not excuse one single cyclist from breaking the rules of the road ...

Self-evidently true but totally irrelevant. The question really is what proportion of cyclists need to misbehave as you describe before it is an attribute of "cyclists" rather than "a minority of people". As a driver, pedestrian and cyclist, the vast majority of cyclists that I know are courteous and careful road and pavement users. As are motorists, motorcyclists and lorry drivers.

Every road using group that I can imagine curses the other group. HGV drivers curse motorists, motorists curse pedestrians (especially in Oxford, where everyone knows that pedestrians walk around as if they OWN the streets), pedestrians curse cyclists. And so on. It's still bollocks - you're jsut in the time-honoured tradition of persecuting the "others".

[Martha Medea]

There are a lot of inconsiderate cyclists out there ... most of them? Quite possibly! I certainly never expect a cyclist to give a hand signal while turning, or to stop - or even slow down - at a pedestrian crossing; this is not prejudice against cyclists, this is the voice of bitter experience.


::sigh:: all those years (9) in Oxford and you clearly never saw me on my bicycle, law-abiding, considerate cyclist that I was. :)

[FinnAgain]

you're jsut in the time-honoured tradition of persecuting the "others".

Am I being whooshed, or are you honestly trying to cast this in terms of some post structuralist gloss of competing naratives?

[MrAlpen]

Am I being whooshed, or are you honestly trying to cast this in terms of some post structuralist gloss of competing naratives?

Damn, how I wish I was sophisticated enought even to think like that before posting! Sadly, I am a reliably whoosh-free zone due to lack of quick-wittedness. :confused:

No, it just honestly doesn't add up to me. I'm a road user too (like the other posters who criticise cyclists), but I just don't recognise the picture that they paint. I honestly don't: I encounter dozens of perfectly reasonable cyclists every day, and the occasional nutter.

So why do people notice, amplify and recycle (!) these anecdotes as evidence of a deficiency in the class of cyclists?

[Harborwolf]

Then basically the whole point of the thread is this, "let's point out a few illegal cycling moves and then all pretend that these actions are done by all cyclists everywhere."

Otherwise, you're just pointing out random irresponsible behavior. What's the fucking point?

Newsflash: some people behave irresponsibly in public. Ooo, let's pit it, and narrow it to cyclists because I know people will pig pile on that.

It's a stupid thread that gets people riled up about "cyclists" while pointing out the negative behavior of a few. And it's filled with people's "perceptions" of the proportions of cyclists who behave in this fashion.

Bully for you; you don't like cyclists who ride no-handed into traffic 3 inches from cars. Yeah, pit that.

Are you really that stupid?

I'm not pitting every fucking cyclist, you daffy shit. I didn't even start the fucking thread. What I am posting about is stupid fucking cyclists who think that they own the road and that the rules just don't apply to them. That seems to be what everyone else in the thread is pissed about as well. It's rude, inconsiderate behavior.

So far as I know, nobody here is grabbing the big brush and trying to apply the bitching to all cyclists. Maybe you need to turn your sensitivity down a notch.

And by the way oh great god and judge of what is appropriate to the pit, I'm sorry that we didn't e-mail you to see if what was pissing us off was okay by you. Next time we'll be sure to keep you in the loop.

[Steve Wright]

Self-evidently true but totally irrelevant. The question really is what proportion of cyclists need to misbehave as you describe before it is an attribute of "cyclists" rather than "a minority of people". As a driver, pedestrian and cyclist, the vast majority of cyclists that I know are courteous and careful road and pavement users. As are motorists, motorcyclists and lorry drivers.

Every road using group that I can imagine curses the other group. HGV drivers curse motorists, motorists curse pedestrians (especially in Oxford, where everyone knows that pedestrians walk around as if they OWN the streets), pedestrians curse cyclists. And so on. It's still bollocks - you're jsut in the time-honoured tradition of persecuting the "others".Garbage. Motorists (mostly) stop at red lights and pedestrian crossings; cyclists (mostly) do not. Cyclists routinely mount the pavement (the sidewalk, to Americans), even though it's illegal; motorists do not. (Usually ... we did have one round here who was in the habit of doing so; I took down her number and reported her to the police.) This is not prejudice, this is simple observation. If cyclists want to lose their reputation for inconsiderate behaviour, as far as I'm concerned, the best way for them to do it is to stop acting inconsiderately. But they do act inconsiderately, and I can see them doing it, every time I walk down the bloody street. So don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, pal.

[MrAlpen]

Are you really that stupid?

I'm not pitting every fucking cyclist, you daffy shit. ...

Errm - well, I suppose "the British cyclist" seemed a fairly broad brush to me, I have to say! So, let me preempt Trunk by admitting to being EXACTLY that stupid! It DOES honestly seem to me that the encounters described are presumed to typify the group by most of the posters in the thread. Sorry if that's a misunderstanding.

[MrAlpen]

Garbage. Motorists (mostly) stop at red lights and pedestrian crossings; cyclists (mostly) do not. Cyclists routinely mount the pavement (the sidewalk, to Americans), even though it's illegal; motorists do not. (Usually ... we did have one round here who was in the habit of doing so; I took down her number and reported her to the police.) This is not prejudice, this is simple observation. If cyclists want to lose their reputation for inconsiderate behaviour, as far as I'm concerned, the best way for them to do it is to stop acting inconsiderately. But they do act inconsiderately, and I can see them doing it, every time I walk down the bloody street. So don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, pal.

It's definitely raining on your shoes.

I observe many motorists that use the pavement as a parking place, I ...

I can't be bothered to repudiate this drivel in detail.

The fact is that I DO NOT see the many cyclists that I encounter "routinely" behaving in this way. I suppose I may be lucky. pal.

[Steve Wright]

It's definitely raining on your shoes.

I observe many motorists that use the pavement as a parking place, I ...

I can't be bothered to repudiate this drivel in detail.

The fact is that I DO NOT see the many cyclists that I encounter "routinely" behaving in this way. I suppose I may be lucky. pal.
Either lucky, or spectacularly unobservant ...

Let me tell you something. When I moved to Oxford, and started having to leap clear of rogue cyclists every time I went out to the corner shop, I decided to keep a little count of something. I would keep a count of how many cyclists I saw signalling a turn - you know, just sticking out their hands to show which direction they meant to go in. I decided I wasn't going to be obsessive about it, I'd just see how long it took me, before I saw fifty cyclists make proper hand signals. After all, you will see more than fifty cyclists on the streets of Oxford in a couple of hours ...

Do you want to know how long it took, before the count reached fifty? Three and a half years, that's how long it took. Granted, it's not scientific - for all I know, every last one of them was making appropriate signals as soon as my eyes were off them - but, as far as I'm concerned, it's a very clear indicator that, yes indeed, a majority of cyclists don't obey the rules of the road.

And I am more inclined to believe the evidence of my own eyes, than any politically-correct blether about "persecuting the 'others'".

[casdave]

Nope, routinely ignoring traffic lights, riding of the pavement, they just don't work at all well for cyclists in Leeds, you would have to possess a death wish to behave in the manner described by cyclist bashers.

Taking your hands off the bars to indicate left and right, not a great idea in Leeds moring and afternoon rush hour traffic.

How many well designed cycle lanes do you see in the UK, the ones that mix motor traffic and cyclists, none, because all the fucking planners are wanking motorists (perhaps they should get back to designing abbatoirs){obligatory Monty Python referance}.

What the hell is the use of a cycle lane that punts you out into traffic at every junction, or crosses over pedestrian walkways.

The cycle lanes are only there to enable the local council to get a grant so they can pay their coucillors attendance money, 'cause it doesn't get spent on the roads or cycle lanes that's for sure.

Why do cyclists resort to doing the things of they are accused?

Go to Holland and see why, cyclists, pedestrians and motorists get on well, the public transport works, using cars for most 3 mile and under journeys is pointless, in fact, owning cars full time can be pointless, so there are Dutch folk who hire cars just for the weekend, or to go on holiday.

I'll bet no-one here has ever seen any form of motor vehicle parked on one of the pitifully few cycle lanes in the city, well fucking bollocks, 'cause we all know what really happens....and delivery drivers never ever park on cycle lanes or footpaths, so maybe we can say all delivery drivers, well 9 out of 10 perhaps, are inconsiderate.

How about the fact that cycle lanes are either full of glass, or full of potholes, or sunken grates, cycle lanes tend to be made up of just about the worst section of road surface available.

Have you noticed that car drivers are congenitally incapable of walking one millimetre further than they absolutely must, resulting in double and triple parking, parking on footpaths, on corners, right in front of you when you are just walking past. They cannot and absolutely must not park, oh, twenty yards aways from the fucking shithole cigs and paper shops can they?

9 out of 10 of the arsehole drivers do it, I think so therefore it must be true that 9 out of 10 drivers are arseholes.

I suggest the OP or any of you idiot cycle bashers actually take a ride in a city on a bicycle and attempt to make a journey, one, because you might find it invigorating, two, because around two thirds of all car journeys are under five miles and you are just fucking lazy fat bastards, three, to find out whats its really like so you can keep your ignorant, fuck faced, stupid, ill judged comments to yourselves when you find out what happens on the roads, and last of all, because you'll probably get a sore arse the first couple of times you ride and you'll deserve it, as it'll save me the effort from giving you one up the jacksy to fuck some sense into you.

[Neurotik]

I suggest the OP or any of you idiot cycle bashers actually take a ride in a city on a bicycle and attempt to make a journey, one, because you might find it invigorating, two, because around two thirds of all car journeys are under five miles and you are just fucking lazy fat bastards, three, to find out whats its really like so you can keep your ignorant, fuck faced, stupid, ill judged comments to yourselves when you find out what happens on the roads, and last of all, because you'll probably get a sore arse the first couple of times you ride and you'll deserve it, as it'll save me the effort from giving you one up the jacksy to fuck some sense into you.
Sorry, but I don't own a car and I ride my bike in DC a lot. And I agree with them. I don't frequently have problems with cars when I'm biking. Nor do I generally have problems with cars when I'm a pedestrian. I do frequently have problems with douchebag bikers when I'm a pedestrian. These assclowns ride along the sidewalk at a fast clip, weaving in and out of pedestrian traffic. They don't check for pedestrians at crosswalks and just zip on through, then give you a dirty look if you almost get run down.

I had one just last night come roaring down the sidewalk, yelling "On your left!" at the top of his lungs as I was walking. I jumped out of his way, just before he ran me down, but if I had been thinking quicker, I would have stuck an arm out and clotheslined the fucker. Would have got what he deserved.

[TheLoadedDog]

In fifteen years of driving around Sydney, I can remember most of the dozen or so incidents where a car has deliberately run a red light. I remember them because they left me gobsmacked with the driver's arrogance. I wouldn't be able to put a figure on the number of cars I've seen obey a red light in the same time. A hundred thousand? A million? I don't know. My brain doesn't even register red-running bicycles which, OTOH, run the reds MOST OF THE TIME. The only time they don't is when they simply can't because the intersection is too busy. This is especially fun when the guy who runs the reds on one of Sydney's busy, narrow, yet multi-laned roads is the same guy who demands a full lane "because it's my right. Neener neener neener". What happens is that it takes forever of driving at 10MPH behind this fuckwad waiting for an opportunity to overtake him because the other lane is going at highway spoeeds, and then when I finally do get that chance, I enjoy being free of him for only a few seconds until I stop at the next red, and he sails past like King Shit, then I'm stuck behind him again. Wash, rinse, repeat. I've had to overtake the same cyclist five or six times on occasion.

Personally, I think if you're over 18 and on a bicycle, you should have some sort of licence and registration if you're going to pompously demand "equal road user" rights. That would mean you can be fined for acting like a dick. It would also mean you might finally help PAY for some of the infrastructure you use. And it might ALSO mean that next time you cause an accident, one of the motorists might be lucky enough to catch your number plate as you weave off outta there.

Finally, driving a Corolla in a city full of six-cilynder big cars, SUVs, and trucks, and being an occasional bicycle erider, and frequent pedestrian (as well as bus and rail commuter), I've seen all sides of this, and I assure you I'm not a "bully in my little four-wheeled empire" or whatever the fuck it was. And having seen all sides of it, cyclists stand out time and time again as a bunch of dangerous, smug, holier-than-thou tossmonkeys who consistently place themselves far above the rules.

[MrAlpen]

...

And I am more inclined to believe the evidence of my own eyes, than any politically-correct blether about "persecuting the 'others'".

Steve, I am genuinely NOT trying to be irritating, or politically correct. What you describe simply doesn't fit with my experience. I work in a Dutch city that is full of cyclists who get along amiably enough with the other road users. A bit of give-and-take, but the various road users muddle along OK. When I am in the UK, I see the same thing (I am rarely in Oxford, I admit).

But I DO see a lot of verbal impatience amongst different classes of road users. You must see this is an issue, too? Regardless of your observations of cyclists, you KNOW that "motorcyclists" think "car drivers" are dangerous pillocks etc. That's surely at LEAST as objectively true as your observations of cyclists. Couldn't we agree that there may be some characteristics of this type of group-think displayed here?

[MrAlpen]

... Personally, I think if you're over 18 and on a bicycle, you should have some sort of licence and registration if you're going to pompously demand "equal road user" rights. That would mean you can be fined for acting like a dick. It would also mean you might finally help PAY for some of the infrastructure you use. And it might ALSO mean that next time you cause an accident, one of the motorists might be lucky enough to catch your number plate as you weave off outta there ...

I agree with this bit, anyway. Insurance and training are reasonable qualifications for the use of shared infrastructure.

[Steve Wright]

Steve, I am genuinely NOT trying to be irritating, or politically correct. What you describe simply doesn't fit with my experience. I work in a Dutch city that is full of cyclists who get along amiably enough with the other road users. A bit of give-and-take, but the various road users muddle along OK. When I am in the UK, I see the same thing (I am rarely in Oxford, I admit).

But I DO see a lot of verbal impatience amongst different classes of road users. You must see this is an issue, too? Regardless of your observations of cyclists, you KNOW that "motorcyclists" think "car drivers" are dangerous pillocks etc. That's surely at LEAST as objectively true as your observations of cyclists. Couldn't we agree that there may be some characteristics of this type of group-think displayed here?I have - in theory - nothing against cyclists. In theory, I'm all in favour of a means of transport that doesn't consume fossil fuels, and gives people much-needed exercise ... Actually, come to think of it, in practice I am, too, just in my case it's called "walking".

Trouble is, walking in Oxford, I am constantly up against cyclists who disregard the rules of the road, their own safety, and (more importantly - to me) mine. And my opinion of cyclists is, inevitably, based on my actual experience of them. (The whole business of keeping count started out as a deliberate attempt - on my part - to check my opinions, objectively: "They can't all be anti-social arseholes," I thought to myself, "perhaps if I count the ones who behave responsibly, it'll be clear that they're in the majority." So I did. And they weren't ... frankly, after the score remained in single figures after a couple of months, keeping the count became more of a private joke than anything else.)

All I can say is, people who think irresponsible cyclists aren't a genuine problem ... well, they should walk a mile in my shoes, is all. (And, by definition, I've got nothing against responsible cyclists. But if those are in the majority where you are, can you please find out what makes them that way, bottle it, and send it over here?)

[Boo Boo Foo]

Personally, I think if you're over 18 and on a bicycle, you should have some sort of licence and registration if you're going to pompously demand "equal road user" rights. That would mean you can be fined for acting like a dick. It would also mean you might finally help PAY for some of the infrastructure you use. And it might ALSO mean that next time you cause an accident, one of the motorists might be lucky enough to catch your number plate as you weave off outta there.With the exception of the last sentence, that's a spurious arguement - and here's why... clearly a cyclist causes less wear and tear on infrastructure (by orders of magnitude) than vehicles do. Yet just as clearly, almost all adult cyclists are also car owners whose cars are NOT being used when they are riding their bikes instead. By extension, probably 98% of adult cyclists are contributing to road infrastructure through a mixture of income tax and road registration licensing - it's just that they're not using their cars as much as YOU do. Further, the issue here is NOT wear and tear on the roads. It's not even the fact that cyclists run red lights. The issue here is your impatience, and the fact that YOU can't go as fast as YOU would like while other people in other lanes are going as fast as THEY would like. Don't kid yourself bucko - you might think you're making a cognitive arguement for why cyclists are a societal problem, but the reality is that you're doing a classic trap known in psychology as "projecting your aggression onto someone else".

You're lying to all of us (and yourself) if you're trying to tell us that you can drive anywhere in Sydney in peak hour above an average of say 15 mph on any given major arterial road.

Finally, driving a Corolla in a city full of six-cilynder big cars, SUVs, and trucks, and being an occasional bicycle erider, and frequent pedestrian (as well as bus and rail commuter), I've seen all sides of this, and I assure you I'm not a "bully in my little four-wheeled empire" or whatever the fuck it was. And having seen all sides of it, cyclists stand out time and time again as a bunch of dangerous, smug, holier-than-thou tossmonkeys who consistently place themselves far above the rules.Give me just 3 hours on any given intersection, and I will take literally hundreds of photos of drivers talking on mobile phones, reading maps while driving, failing to indicate, chopping other drivers off, tailgating, you name it - breaking the law left right and centre. That a cyclist runs a red light is wrong, no doubt. Overall, however, given that vehicles are innately more dangerous to other road users, let alone other pedestrians and cyclists, it's safe to say that the poor driving habits of vehicle owners is an infinitely greater societal problem than a cyclist who holds you up by 30 seconds on your drive home.

[Jennyrosity]

I suggest the OP or any of you idiot cycle bashers actually take a ride in a city on a bicycle and attempt to make a journey, one, because you might find it invigorating, two, because around two thirds of all car journeys are under five miles and you are just fucking lazy fat bastards, three, to find out whats its really like so you can keep your ignorant, fuck faced, stupid, ill judged comments to yourselves when you find out what happens on the roads, and last of all, because you'll probably get a sore arse the first couple of times you ride and you'll deserve it, as it'll save me the effort from giving you one up the jacksy to fuck some sense into you.

I don't drive. I walk just about everywhere.

I still think the majority of cyclists I encounter on an average day (and I'm sorry, Mr Alpen, but lacking a national survey of the habits of British cyclist all I can go by is personal experience) are inconsiderate arseholes.

[MrAlpen]

... but lacking a national survey of the habits of British cyclist .... Damn! We're all just going to have to go out and start Steve's counting mullarkey just to see if we're posting from different planets!

[Busy Scissors]

Riding a bike around London comes down to having a big set of the old brass danglers, pure and simple. If you don't ride aggressively you'll get hurt. Running redlights is indefensible, mind, but riding you're bike like its an eighteen-wheeler is what is takes to progress around the nation's capital in an orderly and safe fashion.

The British have the safest roads in Europe, and we still can't drive for shit. Tailgating, undertaking, refusal to be held up for ten fucking seconds in one's daily commute, using your car in an aggressive and dangerous manner that belies the fact you're a complete pussy and general discourtesy rule the day. Cyclists are the very last group of road users that need to be criticised.

[Boo Boo Foo]

I don't drive. I walk just about everywhere.

I still think the majority of cyclists I encounter on an average day (and I'm sorry, Mr Alpen, but lacking a national survey of the habits of British cyclist all I can go by is personal experience) are inconsiderate arseholes.From a logic point of view, I can't follow this. How is it that a pedestrian would have a reason to mingle with cyclists in such a way that you feel they're all inconsiderate arseholes? Are you walking on the road? Are you walking on bike paths where cyclists are flying past you at great speed? Or are you using footpaths where cyclists are forced to share those footpaths with you becase the roads are too dangerous?

If you're gonna slam someone in life because of their lifestyle choice, at least have a better reason than it's because "you don't like them".

[TheLoadedDog]

With the exception of the last sentence, that's a spurious arguement - and here's why... clearly a cyclist causes less wear and tear on infrastructure (by orders of magnitude) than vehicles do. Yet just as clearly, almost all adult cyclists are also car owners whose cars are NOT being used when they are riding their bikes instead. By extension, probably 98% of adult cyclists are contributing to road infrastructure through a mixture of income tax and road registration licensing - it's just that they're not using their cars as much as YOU do. Further, the issue here is NOT wear and tear on the roads. It's not even the fact that cyclists run red lights. The issue here is your impatience, and the fact that YOU can't go as fast as YOU would like while other people in other lanes are going as fast as THEY would like. Don't kid yourself bucko - you might think you're making a cognitive arguement for why cyclists are a societal problem, but the reality is that you're doing a classic trap known in psychology as "projecting your aggression onto someone else".

You're lying to all of us (and yourself) if you're trying to tell us that you can drive anywhere in Sydney in peak hour above an average of say 15 mph on any given major arterial road.

Give me just 3 hours on any given intersection, and I will take literally hundreds of photos of drivers talking on mobile phones, reading maps while driving, failing to indicate, chopping other drivers off, tailgating, you name it - breaking the law left right and centre. That a cyclist runs a red light is wrong, no doubt. Overall, however, given that vehicles are innately more dangerous to other road users, let alone other pedestrians and cyclists, it's safe to say that the poor driving habits of vehicle owners is an infinitely greater societal problem than a cyclist who holds you up by 30 seconds on your drive home.

Could you possibly be any more full of shit? No, didn't think so.

How much more fucking straw man can you cram into the above? While I'm busy trying to prove I'm not an aggressive driver (you have seem me drive? No.), you are left to spew forth your nonsense. Other examples of your underhanded childlike debating technique:
- You rabbit on about cyclists causing minimal wear and tear and rail against my claim that they should pay the same as car drivers. Guess what? I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I didn't give an amount. The registration and licence fees should be nominal, but the fines should be substantial (but still probably lower than for motorists). The testing to get the licence should be as hard as a car licence test,
and that licence should be taken away for multiple offences, just like a car licence can be. Riding a bicycle on a public road is not a right - a magistrate should be able to prevent individuals from doing so. At the moment, that is not possible.
You want equal rights? Then equal responsibility comes with it. Play by the fucking rules already.
- You claim I'd be driving slowly anyway in Sydney traffic. You're talking averages. Well, now I'll be travelling even slower, and so will the line of cars behind me - just to satisfy one person. Are we aggressive maniacs with small penises and chips on our shoulders? Or are we just tired commuters who don't want to get home any slower than we already do?
- Most cyclists drive cars too, you say.
So? Pay for both. No free lunch.
- Most cyclists pay throiugh income and indirect taxes.
Uh huh. Motorists do too.
- Give you three hours at an intersection.. blah blah blah
This is barely worth answering. Give me a sample of a hundred motorists and a hundred cyclists, and I might listen to you ('cept you'd not like what you'd see, so I doubt you'd share the results with me).


You are commiting the classic trap known in psychology as "being a dickhead".

[Boo Boo Foo]

The British have the safest roads in Europe, and we still can't drive for shit. Tailgating, undertaking, refusal to be held up for ten fucking seconds in one's daily commute, using your car in an aggressive and dangerous manner that belies the fact you're a complete pussy and general discourtesy rule the day. Cyclists are the very last group of road users that need to be criticised.Bullseye, my friend.

The issue here is cowardice, and taking cheap shots at people who can't defend themselves because, hey, if things go pear shaped, you can always drive off and give 'em the finger, huh?

As I noted in my earlier post, he who hasn't sinned can cast the first stone, thank you very much. Just sit on any intersection and watch in amazement at vehicle drivers. You'll see mothers hitting their kids in their back seats as they ripping through crowded traffic. People going nuts with road rage. Idiots typing in text messages on their mobile phones. Other people changing CD's in their radio and not looking where they're going. All of these people, every single one of 'em put a cyclist's life in danger way way waaaaaay out of proportion to the scratch on the car's paintjob that a collision between the two is gonna cause.

[TheLoadedDog]

Bullseye, my friend.

The issue here is cowardice, and taking cheap shots at people who can't defend themselves because, hey, if things go pear shaped, you can always drive off and give 'em the finger, huh?
Bollocks. Bollocks bollocks BOLLOCKS.

Most car/bike altercations happen in heavy traffic. Bikes can weave between cars, and if you flip the bird at one, he's likely to catch you at the next light. Cyclists have been known to punch/ spit at drivers through the open window, to key cars as they ride past, and they then ride off and are away before the drivers can even get their seatbelt off to pursue on foot.

If it was about cowardice, I'd be going after the pedestrians, no?

And don't even get me started on Sydney CBD bicycle couriers. They are aggressive and fearless. They have killed pedestrians.

[TheLoadedDog]

FTR, I'm not holding up motorists as paragons of virtue here. If this was an anti-motorist rant, I'd be right with you.


(I catch the train mostly these days)

[Boo Boo Foo]

Could you possibly be any more full of shit? No, didn't think so.More of that "projection" I see. Someone needs a hug today, huh?

- You claim I'd be driving slowly anyway in Sydney traffic. You're talking averages. Well, now I'll be travelling even slower, and so will the line of cars behind me - just to satisfy one person. Are we aggressive maniacs with small penises and chips on our shoulders? Or are we just tired commuters who don't want to get home any slower than we already do?See, now THIS is where your logic falls down. It's your choice to drive to work, not the cyclists. It's your choice to live where you live, not the cyclists. It's your choice to not use public transport, not the cyclists. It's your choice to drive a car, not the cyclists. It's your choice to drive the route that you drive on your way home, not the cyclists. And yet, somehow, the cyclist is to blame for inconveniencing your choices? I see you've later added in a more recent post that you mostly take the train nowadays, but I perceive that as being a "cover your bets" post.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The cyclist shares the road with you because he has to. Nobody who wants to live an uninjured life would willingly share a road with angry vehicle drivers unless the road system absolutely demanded it. By extension, if you're going to argue that cyclists should pay for road infrastructure, then they should also have totally safe off-lane cycling lanes everywhere that cyclists should reasonably be allowed to commute. But they don't do they? Time and time again cyclists are forced to share 18 inches of terrifying rubbish strewn gutters while massive trucks race past which are gonna kill 'em - at any second - because there simply aren't safe alternatives to ride on elsewhere.

Hence, if you're gonna argue that cyclists should pay road rego, then you should also concede that cyclists should have safer roads to ride on than the current situation forces them to ride on.

The issue here is that seemingly, someone else (namely a cyclist) is inconveniencing your choices, and you're upset about that. You can mask it any way you want, but deep down, that's what's at play here. And the real shame about is this... in the history of mankind, never has a machine more efficient than a biycle been invented as a means of transport. Nothing beats it. It's a travesty that such an efficient means of transportation is so marginalised in modern society in favour of auomobiles.

And where does it stop? Are you going to start charging pedestrians a road infrastructure fee just to walk on a footpath? Coz that's where your logic is gong here. Are you gonna start charging people the right to ride bikeways through public parks too? Your position is being driven by emotion at the moment, not by logic. The bottom line is this... if the road system didn't force cyclists and vehicles to mingle, then almost certainly, cyclists whould choose the safer route. And most likely, you wouldn't give a shit whether they were licensed or not.

Accordingly, the assertion that cyclists are dangerous is a disingenous arguement. It takes two to tango, and if there were no vehicles on the road at all, cycling accidents would be almost negligible. The problem is, people like their cars... and people in cars don't like to be inconvenienced because that's what a car is - a convenience. If it wasn't so convenient, more people would ride to work, huh?

[Dead Badger]

From a logic point of view, I can't follow this. How is it that a pedestrian would have a reason to mingle with cyclists in such a way that you feel they're all inconsiderate arseholes? Are you walking on the road? Are you walking on bike paths where cyclists are flying past you at great speed? Or are you using footpaths where cyclists are forced to share those footpaths with you becase the roads are too dangerous?Speaking solely for myself, a non-driver and mainly pedestrian (and some-time cyclist myself), I can assure you that I'm simply trying to cross the road at designated crossing points, and that I have learnt from experience that if I see a cyclist coming, I simply cannot assume that said cyclist will stop, even if I have right-of-way. I'm really sorry if this bugs you, but I can only anecdotally back up those posters who have observed that you really can't rely on cyclists to obey the rules of the road in the same way you can on motorists (at least, those rules pertaining to pedestrians). If you want to start a thread about how motorists are inconsiderate to cyclists, I'll be right behind you, but it doesn't change the fact that at least in London (where I walk), most cyclists are absolute cunts when it comes to being considerate to pedestrians. This tu quoque shit misses the point entirely.

I realise that if you are a considerate cyclist, then your perception will be that most cyclist actions are fine; but that's because most of the cyclist actions you observe are your own. I'm quite comfortable asserting that the simple majority of cyclists just don't give a shit, and this is even borne out in a sample of my own friends; college-educated professionals to a man. They will not only happily run red lights, but will justify doing so in exactly the terms I described above. A substantial number of cyclists just don't think the rules apply to them, for God-knows-what obscure distinction that makes them magically immune. I'm really sorry if this pisses you off, but it's the truth.

If you're gonna slam someone in life because of their lifestyle choice, at least have a better reason than it's because "you don't like them".I don't think being an inconsiderate twat is a "lifestyle choice". If you're not an inconsiderate twat, you should not be offended by pit threads abusing inconsiderate twats. Lots and lots of cyclists run red lights, and that's being an inconsiderate twat. Fuck 'em. They can obey the rules of the fucking road, or fucking walk. I'm sick of dodging the tossers.

[TheLoadedDog]

I actually agree with some of that. The level of claptrap, whilst still there, has gone down.

Clyclists should NOT have the same rights as cars. Equal maybe, but not the same. I support, as you know, licencing and rego for bikes. I also support cities having decent cycleways. Before you cheer about this too much, in areas where there is an alternate cycleway route, bikes should be banned from major arterial roads - at least in peak hour.

Must be said though, that I'm not hedging me bets with the train comment. Just trying to say that I have been on all sides of this equation - which is exactly the trap you wanted me to fall into with your "aggressive driver" argument, so more fool me - now I'm trying to defend myself and being pushed away from the issue at hand.

I catch the train because at the moment I have to (my wife has the car). When I DO drive, a lot of cyclists piss me off and I in no way back down from that statement, train or no.

[Neurotik]

From a logic point of view, I can't follow this. How is it that a pedestrian would have a reason to mingle with cyclists in such a way that you feel they're all inconsiderate arseholes? Are you walking on the road? Are you walking on bike paths where cyclists are flying past you at great speed? Or are you using footpaths where cyclists are forced to share those footpaths with you becase the roads are too dangerous?
Right. It must be really the pedestrian's fault. Or the motorists. Or the government's. Certainly not the cyclists, because they are all angels.

I come into contact with the cyclists when walking in a variety of ways: when crossing the street a cyclist will run the red light and nearly run me over in the crosswalk when I have the light. Or the traffic in the street is backed up and instead of staying in the street like everyone else, they'll jump up on the sidewalk to bypass it. Or, they're just too chickenshit to get in the road - even if there's adequate room for them - and jump up on the sidewalk and barrel through pedestrians.

Cyclists are, IMO, more often than not, the biggest dicks and the biggest hazards on the roadways/sidewalks. And this comes from someone who uses his bike to get around the city quite frequently.

[Boo Boo Foo]

I come into contact with the cyclists when walking in a variety of ways: when crossing the street a cyclist will run the red light and nearly run me over in the crosswalk when I have the light. Or the traffic in the street is backed up and instead of staying in the street like everyone else, they'll jump up on the sidewalk to bypass it. Or, they're just too chickenshit to get in the road - even if there's adequate room for them - and jump up on the sidewalk and barrel through pedestrians.Well that's just plain wrong. Just like a pedestrian walking up to another pedestrian and deliberately shoving them out of the way. It's just plain wrong and I don't think anyone here would try to argue otherwise.

Cyclists are, IMO, more often than not, the biggest dicks and the biggest hazards on the roadways/sidewalks. And this comes from someone who uses his bike to get around the city quite frequently.Now this second quote is far more subjective. Consider if you will, a 3 kilometer stretch of roadway in my home town. It's a two-way street, but cars are only allowed to drive in the northerly direction, while bikes are allowed to ride in the southerly direction. The street has large sidewalks on either side of the street, but pedestrians insist on walking three abreast hogging the bike lane. Who is inconsiderate at this point? Other times, you'll get mothers walking their pram on the road in the bike lane, wearing their walkman turned up loud, and we'll be flying up behind in race training, totally legally, and we'll be screaming out loud as we can "Riders! Riders! Riders!" and this typical mother will be oblivious to the world - utterly unaware of the impending danger she's placed her baby in by walking on the road ad not being able to hear anything from behind.

So, it's not one way traffic here. Car drivers are NOT inherently more polite or considerate than cyclists. And cyclists are NOT inherently more polite or considerate than pedestrians. Given the opportunity, all groups (being human) will demonstrate selfishness and self-absorption.

The trick, it seems to me, is to physically provide greater means of keeping these groups separate. Oh, and also, if I were President of the Internet, I'd be pumping out TV advertisements all the time reminding people of various road rules. I'd wager quite a decent bet that most long term vehicle drivers would NOT pass a recent "theory test" on the current rules of the road.

[Neurotik]

Well that's just plain wrong. Just like a pedestrian walking up to another pedestrian and deliberately shoving them out of the way. It's just plain wrong and I don't think anyone here would try to argue otherwise.
I know. The problem isn't that people are saying that it's OK to do that. And responsible bikers like you and Trunk would be the first to condemn it, no question. My point, and the point of many other pedestrian Dopers, is that considerate, intelligent bikers like you and Trunk are in the minority of your grouping. Or at least, not like the majority of the bikers we've come in contact with.
So, it's not one way traffic here. Car drivers are NOT inherently more polite or considerate than cyclists. And cyclists are NOT inherently more polite or considerate than pedestrians. Given the opportunity, all groups (being human) will demonstrate selfishness and self-absorption.
I'm sure you're right. But, like I said, it's just IMO. Which comes from my experience both as a biker myself and a pedestrian. I've simply had more trouble with bikers as a pedestrian than I have with pedestrians when I'm biking. But, I'll be the first to admit that I don't do nearly as much biking as you so it could just be a sample size thing.
The trick, it seems to me, is to physically provide greater means of keeping these groups separate.
I would love that. Good, solid bike lines that cars aren't allowed to park in would be a major boon to urban areas and make everyone happier.

[FinnAgain]

In many areas, adding bike lanes is simply impossible. When you've already got a town built up, there really isn't any space. What are you going to do, reduce the sidewalk by a few feet in width? Even some highways wouldn't be able to be changed. I'm living in Austin, Texas, and driving on I-35 at some stages there is simply no room to put a bike lane.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

In fifteen years of driving around Sydney, I can remember most of the dozen or so incidents where a car has deliberately run a red light. I remember them because they left me gobsmacked with the driver's arrogance.


I live in Philadelphia and I can think of a dozen deliberate runnings of red light by cars just *today*. Of course, they weren't 'really red'. just 'sort of red'. The light was yellow just a moment ago and they only had four lanes to cross.

My most major accident was with one of these pricks. This listing does not inclide those who jump red lights and are half-way through the intersection by the time it turns green. This is especially for those drivers who come up on the side of the main line of traffic in hope of jumping off in time before the first driver at the light. Quite a common habit. I'm sure both types of runners must meet from time to time, just not as often as I might like.


I wouldn't be able to put a figure on the number of cars I've seen obey a red light in the same time. A hundred thousand? A million? I don't know. My brain doesn't even register red-running bicycles which, OTOH, run the reds MOST OF THE TIME.


While I personally obey the lights I can see those who do not. However, the VAST MAJORITY of light running cyclist wait until the intersection is clear before crossing. Now, which is the more dangerous act? The ones of the drivers I described above or the actions of the cyclists? Hint: Guess which one weighs more and has all them horseypowers.


The only time they don't is when they simply can't because the intersection is too busy. This is especially fun when the guy who runs the reds on one of Sydney's busy, narrow, yet multi-laned roads is the same guy who demands a full lane "because it's my right. Neener neener neener".


Unless your laws are different is IS HIS RIGHT. Deal. If you have multiple lanes


What happens is that it takes forever of driving at 10MPH behind this fuckwad waiting for an opportunity to overtake him because the other lane is going at highway spoeeds, and then when I finally do get that chance, I enjoy being free of him for only a few seconds until I stop at the next red, and he sails past like King Shit, then I'm stuck behind him again. Wash, rinse, repeat. I've had to overtake the same cyclist five or six times on occasion.


Then I would advise remaining in the faster lane. This is not rocket science. It sounds like you enjoy the problem so that you can complain.


Personally, I think if you're over 18 and on a bicycle, you should have some sort of licence and registration if you're going to pompously demand "equal road user" rights. That would mean you can be fined for acting like a dick. It would also mean you might finally help PAY for some of the infrastructure you use. And it might ALSO mean that next time you cause an accident, one of the motorists might be lucky enough to catch your number plate as you weave off outta there.


I don't know how things are in Australia, but here in America I already pay for the roads I sue in the form of property taxes. Those drivers who claim that the gas tac or liscensing fees pay for the roads are living in a fantsy land. Don't tell me I need to pay more for the things I already use, especially when I am restricted from using many roads as it is.


Finally, driving a Corolla in a city full of six-cilynder big cars, SUVs, and trucks, and being an occasional bicycle erider, and frequent pedestrian (as well as bus and rail commuter), I've seen all sides of this, and I assure you I'm not a "bully in my little four-wheeled empire" or whatever the fuck it was. And having seen all sides of it, cyclists stand out time and time again as a bunch of dangerous, smug, holier-than-thou tossmonkeys who consistently place themselves far above the rules.

And fuck you too. I have said it before and I will say it again. While some drivers may complain about the antics of cyclists slowing them down they failt o realise that the average bike comuter (like me) could FILL THE FUCKING PIT WITH THREAD ABOUT THE ANTICS OF DRIVERS whose ignorance, mailce, and other malignments can make my day a fucking hell.

Here's an thought: Has the a passenger on a bike every thrown objects at you just for kicks? Objects that could cost you your life if they connected? Has a car ever blasted his horn at you for merely obeying a red light? Does the thought that anyone can intentionally kill you without a single consquence fom the law ever come up in your driving? Have other drivers, 100 feet behind you, ever blasted their horns at you for not staying in a certain ghetto lane even when said lane is occupied by a car, several debris, or other situations that render it unusable?

Never mind answering. I always know it is easier to blame all the cyclists.

[DSeid]

Cyclist here. And guilty as charged. I'll come to a red light and if there is no traffic I'll go. Don't do that in my car. If I have a good view at a stop sign and see that there is no traffic I'll slow a bit but roll right through. I stop completely in my car.

Does this make me a dickwad?

Maybe. But I'll second the motion that a thread on the antics of malicious and negligent drivers who put my life at risk just for the fuckin' hell of it would fill this Pit and then some.

Drivers don't consider me deserving of being on the road or of any of the protections thereof. I don't get to enjoy the protections of traffic law, so excuuuuuuse me if I take minor liberties (without endangering safety) with them.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Svish, svish, svish.

Can I borrow your number #9 flaying knife, Princhester?

[Boo Boo Foo]

My point, and the point of many other pedestrian Dopers, is that considerate, intelligent bikers like you and Trunk are in the minority of your grouping. Or at least, not like the majority of the bikers we've come in contact with.Ahhh... a salient point. It's worth noting that at the level of training and racing that guys like myself do, well you guys never see us. We're up at 4:45am in the dead of winter, on the bike by 5:05 and meeting up at some gas station in the leafy suburbs somewhere and then doing 50 + miles in the country. The only time (most normal folk) see guys like us is during that narrow window as we're headed back into the suburbs and going home to a nice warm shower before work.

And yep, when you do the sport 6 days a week, 500km per week, it's totally 100% good manners to give hand signals, and wave thanks, and acknowledge good manners to other road users. It's called "disseminating good will", and any genuinely serious training bunch will show a level of discipline and etiquette towards vehicle drivers to make the pass by a nice experience.

My point is this - the really good guys, the guys who seriously do the sport at a near "representative" level - well, you hardly ever see those guys. They're long gone by the time you've woken up. They're out in the country, on the quiet country roads, doing the miles where it's safer by veritible orders of magnitude.

And I'm one of those guys. Still, it makes me sad that such a wonderfully healthy, and efficient form of transportation is treated by town planners with such woeful afterthought. I genuinely believe that if we could provide a safe means for just 10% of the working population to commute to work via cycling, our fuel consumption and pollution and road congestion would plummet. And our communal health costs would probably plummet too.

In that context, it's a shame, a crying shame, that cyclists are so easily demonised.

[GusNSpot]

Ride a bike, used to ride a lot, one 13 month stretch it is all I had. run over once, deliberately aimed at 3 times, almost hit - hundreds, asshats crowding and attempting to dump me - hundreds.

Ride a motorcycle, still do a lot. been run over once real bad, bumped from the back trying to harm me - 3 times, asshats trying to crowd me or run me off, 5 times on my rice burner, only once on my chopper,

Been driving with a license over 46 years, maybe a hundred deliberate attempts to run me off the road

Driving a truck and pulling mobile homes. many people try to mess you up, 100+, and many pissed because you are slow.

Flying airplanes. several close calls and a few were my fault. mostly mistakes by ATC believe it or not. never believe anybody when you can look out the window.

My point. In order of unearned anger by others of any mode of transport, by far the worst and most aggressive are against me on a bicycle
next is motorcycle,
then trunks,
then cars and
flying is last , only a few times when I was pipeline patrolling and they would shoot at us. we stayed away from them until we could get the sheriff after them.

This is in Oklahoma, USA


Giant city bicyclist are a totally different breed.

I have used a 30" piece of pool cue for many things and an aggressive stance on my daily walking learned all the regular bicyclist to steer clear and I was always listening and looking. A sudden stop and taking up 'The Stance' was always productive.

It also prolly helps that I an 6'4" and 280 - 320 lbs depending. Most folks are polite to me. ;)

[TheLoadedDog]

I'm actually slightly taller, heavier than that, but I don't use it in traffic situations. Yet, I was basically accused by the pro-cycling lobby in this thread of having anger managenent issues. Umm... right.


Woah. I give up.

[Princhester]

Personally, I think if you're over 18 and on a bicycle, you should have some sort of licence and registration if you're going to pompously demand "equal road user" rights. That would mean you can be fined for acting like a dick. It would also mean you might finally help PAY for some of the infrastructure you use. And it might ALSO mean that next time you cause an accident, one of the motorists might be lucky enough to catch your number plate as you weave off outta there.

I can't be arsed with this thread for the most part, but this bit I just loved so much I had to comment.

One. Have you ever tried reporting to the police a traffic incident you have seen, by reporting a rego number?

Try it sometime. I have. I gave up after the first few times. It's pointless. The police can't be bothered because they know what is going to happen. At most, if they do contact the other party, that other party will deny what you say, and the policie will say "well there's no objective evidence, we won't be able to get a conviction, sorry".

Further, if we are going to discuss motorists and traffic incidents, do you want to name the last time you head of a cyclist doing a hit and run and leaving a motorist for dead? Hmmm, no, I can't think of an example either. Now, do we want to think about vice versa? No, I'm sure you don't want to think about that at all.

The suggestion that cyclists aren't fined because they are not registered is also total bullshit. I know cyclists who've been fined. Road users who commit offences noted by police are warned or fined. Whether in cars or on bikes.

So your suggestion that motorists are the epitomy of accountability generally or because they bear registration plates is a crock of shit.

Two. The finance argument. Cyclists should pay rego and licensing and should thereby support the infrastructure. Do I laugh or cry? Where do I start?

1/ Registration schemes cost more to run than they rake in. In other words, they are revenue negative. They do not support roads. If cyclists paid rego, they would detract from the revenue available to maintain roads

2/ Registration is necessary because cars are such dangerous brutes that they need to be registered. They are used in crime, they are often in accidents, they are worth a lot and are often stolen etc. The money lost on car registration schemes detracts from the money available for road infrastructure.

3/ I, like most adult cyclists, also drive. Only I drive less because I'm often on my bike. But I don't get a discount for that off my car registration or license. So I pay more per mile for driving my car than people who drive their cars all the time, because I mostly ride a bike. Doesn't life suck?

So get fucked.

[TheLoadedDog]

So get fucked.
Same old Princhester, I see. (Boo Boo Foo, does this count as "projected aggression"?)

[Princhester]

I always find that if one has no substantive response, it's best to ignore what you can't deal with.

[TheLoadedDog]

Oh for fuck's sake. Where do I start? I have to spend about a thousand dollars per annum on rail tickets, for which some feel-good state govt should give me enviro-credits against my car rego? Life sucks, etc? You ride a bike. I catch a train. We both own cars. And?

[Princhester]

You should start with something relevant. I'm not trying to suggest that I should get credits because I ride a bike. I'm merely illustrating the utter nonsense that is the suggestion that motorists pay some greater proportion of road funding because they pay rego. They don't.

[TheLoadedDog]

Brilliant. And more fool me for getting my sorry arse strawmanned into a debate about road funding.

So...

Under the current (quite likely imperfect) road funding arrangements (about which I am no longer going to argue in this thread), are cyclists more cavalier about the road rules than motorists? Yes, I think so. In the end, that is what I'm arguing. Neither more nor less (with the possible exception that licencing and registration is about more than state revenue. I find your claims of revenue negativity interesting though).

[Princhester]

Phfft. Strawmanned indeed. You mean you tried out an argument that didn't work, got your arse handed to you, and now want to drop it like the dead dingo it is.

[TheLoadedDog]

Huh? You've picked a non-core part of my argument regarding the OP, and tried to hammer it. You've tried to refute it with cite-less claims about revenue.. blah fucking blah. And you claim victory. Hmm..

Now then. We have a situation where everyone hates motorists. Heck I hate motorists, and I am one. So you would think cyclists would be the darling of the general public. But they've got that same general public offside. That is quite a feat.

Personally, I think that if you deny cyclists treat the road rules with contempt, you must be from another planet. I'm sick of arguing this point. If you want to claim some sort of spurious victory, go right ahead.

[matt]

As with all things, there's a range of behaviours among cyclists. The worst offenders are those who treat the whole world, roads, pavements, pedestrian areas, whatever, as a BMX obstacle course. They are comparitively rare, but god you remember them. I hate cycling anywhere near them - never know what they're going to do. Plus they never have mudguards, and throw road shit all over you if its wet.

Then there's greeny/sporty types. Cyclist with a chip, for one reason or another. Greeny types regard the road as theirs and cars as evil. Sporty types like to combine their commute to work with a time trial. I have had a lycra-clad triathelete wannabe on £2000 worth of titanium mount the curb to get past me while waiting at a red light. One of my little pleasures is passing these people on my 8-speed hub geared commuter bike - quite often they're not actually any good.

Then there's your general clueless cyclist. Someone who learned to ride as a kid, on a kids bike, but never on the road. As adults they simply acquired a bike and got on it. It's their only transport, so they don't have a driver's perspective. Their saddles are too low, they pedal with their heels, they don't know how to signal, don't know how to manage their gears, never think to shoulder check. It leaves me aghast to see cyclists with helmets on simply pull across right for a right turn without even looking. The helmets indicate some safety consciousness, but they just haven't a clue.

Finally, there's the considerate cyclists. Partly generational, you can still find a few magnificent 80-year olds sedately peddling heavy roadsters with full chaincases. They do a really wierd-looking get-off/get on manouver at junctions. They know how to signal, and to shoulder check, and wouldn't dream of running a light or cycling on the pavement. Otherwise considerate cycling tends to run in families - my mum and dad used to take us cycling on the road every week, since I was about six. Learn to cycle properly at that age and it sticks.

The answer, as I said before, is education. British schools at least try and teach everyone to swim, why not try and teach everyone to road cycle as well? The're both basic life skills. A proper cycling proficiency qualification could include the Theory section of the Driving Test, and be arranged to more than offset the cost of it when people learn to drive. Also, British universities are full of first-time road cyclists, which would be another great target area. (Steve Wright - you have my sympathy! I wonder if I notched up any on your count? ('90-'94))

[Jennyrosity]

From a logic point of view, I can't follow this. How is it that a pedestrian would have a reason to mingle with cyclists in such a way that you feel they're all inconsiderate arseholes? Are you walking on the road? Are you walking on bike paths where cyclists are flying past you at great speed? Or are you using footpaths where cyclists are forced to share those footpaths with you becase the roads are too dangerous?

If you're gonna slam someone in life because of their lifestyle choice, at least have a better reason than it's because "you don't like them".

No to all of the above. I'm the one who, after waiting patiently for the little green man, like my mother and the green cross code taught me, starts to cross the road and then has to dive into the gutter as some twat in lycra shorts wizzes past me and nearly knocks me off my feet. An older, slower or frailer person than I would not be able to get out of the way in time.

And I'm not slamming someone's lifestyle choice. I'm not anti-cyclist - I actually think there should be cycle paths all over London to enable those who wish to cycle to do so without endangering themselves or others. I am however, anti-bad cyclists. And bad motorists. And bad pedestrians - I'm well aware they exist too.

[Princhester]

The primary thrust of the OP is a crock. Have a look at these UK stats ( http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=11584&l=5).

Any pedestrian who would pit cyclists alleging they are the main concern is just plain out of touch with reality. They are pitting people who cause 0.6% of pedestrian casualties, ahead of those who cause the other 99.4%.

If you wonder why cyclists whinge about being picked on unfairly and of irrational prejudice against them, wonder no more.

And as to cyclists not following traffic laws, consider this ( http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=11585&l=5): for all that cyclists may be bad, bad dangerous outlaws, in 2003 bike/motor vehicle and bike/pedestrian accidents there were 83 deaths or serious injuries (42 pedestrians, and 41 motorists). That year in vehicle/vehicle and pedestrian accidents generally there were 24,274 deaths or serious injuries (16,970 in vehicle/vehicle accidents, 7304 pedestrians). So those law abiding motorists were responsible for a tiny 99.7% of death and serious injury on roads and footpaths, and those damn irresponsible dangerous pests, cyclists, were responsible for a whopping 0.3%.

I say pillory those peddling arseholes, pronto.

[Boo Boo Foo]

The primary thrust of the OP is a crock. Have a look at these UK stats ( http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=11584&l=5).

Any pedestrian who would pit cyclists alleging they are the main concern is just plain out of touch with reality. They are pitting people who cause 0.6% of pedestrian casualties, ahead of those who cause the other 99.4%.Yes, indeed.

In light of those sobering statistics, I get back to my original assertion that cyclists are somehow dangerous, from a motorists point of view. But before I do so, I would add that I agree inarguably that any cyclist riding at speed on a pedestrian footpath is a prick.

Anyways, I find it really interesting that it's motorists who make the assertion that cyclists are dangerous, when it's actually the cyclist who stands to get REALLY hurt if the two ever have a bingle. I mean, honestly, if you're a motorist a cyclist honestly can't do much damage to your car - maybe a shattered windscreen at worst - but unless you seriously drive off the road and over the edge of a cliff, hitting a cyclist in a vehicle is almost always gonna damage the dude on the bike a hundred fold over the damage you're gonna receive as a driver.

And yet, the common sentiment I often hear amongst many (but by no means the vast majority) of motorists regarding cyclists is "Get off the road you pricks. If I fuckin' hit ya it's YOUR fault!"

Now, I want everyone who's reading this thread to stop right there and ponder that for a second. Think about that. We've all thought it, but think about the TRUE consequences of such a sentiment. Think about the worst, most hideous war injuries from stray laser guided ordnance onto human bodies with limbs torn off and ghastly wide open flesh wounds with innards hanging out.

Well guys, THAT is what happens to a cyclist when an autombile hits you at speed. And worse yet, there's at least a 50% chance that a driver will drive off unaware of the carnage they've just done. That cyclist might have brain damage, or might not ever be able to play with their kids again. All because of a desire on the vehicle driver's part to "drive close by and teach 'em a lesson".

Trust me people... riding a bike in traffic as a form of commuting is arguably the most dangerous thing a typical member of Western society can do on a normal, regular basis. And yet, bizarrely, it's motorists who feel put out.

In closing, I would never run a red light in front of a pedestrian. That's incalculably rude. My training buddies and I always stop at lights in traffic. We always wave a sign of thanks to other motorists when courtesy is shown our way. Nonetheless, at least once a week something physically hard is thrown at us as a form of sport. Last week, it was a 12 inch spanner which went right into the shin of a young 18 year old guy in the national junior team.

I don't care what anyone says, in the grand scheme of things, cyclists are treated like shit. Cowardly strangers literally try to kill them for cheap thrills by throwing shit at 'em or trying to miss at 100kph by 5cm. The outrage in the OP in this thread is sorely misplaced I'm afraid.

[MrAlpen]

Princhester is surely correct. Whatever has sensitised you folks it isn't the reality of the accident statistics.

Regarding objective evaluation of road user behaviour (not just accident statistics), this (http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/cycling/583summary.pdf) report from TRL is one example of a survey of cyclist behaviour in areas where pedestrians and cyclists mix.

"Conclusion. The data show that the majority of cyclists modify their behaviour in response to pedestrian flow. Most cyclists at all sites dismounted or reduced their speeds as the flows of pedestrians increased. ... However a minority (mainly in Cambridge) still cycled relatively fast ... in high pedestrian flows. These cyclists tended to be young males."

It's only one survey, but it adds weight to the impression that pedestrians and motorists are sensitised to the poor behaviour of a noticeable minority.

We'd have a better street environment if ALL road users were better trained and more courteous, including cyclists. Objectively, cyclists are a LOWER risk to both pedestrians and motorists than motorists. I think we have an x-rage problem in all groups of road users, and I see that in the invective of this thread. This is a bigger worry for me as a multi-mode road user.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

The suggestion that cyclists aren't fined because they are not registered is also total bullshit. I know cyclists who've been fined.


It gets worse than fines. (http://bicycleaustin.info/justice/)

[matt]

In closing, I would never run a red light in front of a pedestrian. That's incalculably rude. My training buddies and I always stop at lights in traffic. We always wave a sign of thanks to other motorists when courtesy is shown our way. Nonetheless, at least once a week something physically hard is thrown at us as a form of sport. Last week, it was a 12 inch spanner which went right into the shin of a young 18 year old guy in the national junior team.
Fuck. That'll colour your perspective. Never had anything like that happen to me. Well, one cigarette packet, in twenty-odd years.


I don't care what anyone says, in the grand scheme of things, cyclists are treated like shit. Cowardly strangers literally try to kill them for cheap thrills by throwing shit at 'em or trying to miss at 100kph by 5cm. The outrage in the OP in this thread is sorely misplaced I'm afraid.The OP is about British cyclists. I'm thankful the situation here isn't nearly as bad as what you're describing. Or maybe I've been lucky.

[Princhester]

Thanks for that Mr Miskatonic.

I had been idly thinking about making particular comment on this:

Let's face it if a cycling went through a red light and was knocked off his/her bike it would no doubt still be the motorists fault, even though the cyclist broke the law.

but your cite prompted me to action.

Stryfe you live in fairy land. Your comment comes from the other side of the looking glass. In the real world where I live

- the police are motorheads who tend not be too keen on cyclists,

- you're lucky if a jury has a single cyclist on it, and

- every jury is likely to have some irrationally prejudiced fuckhead on it who thinks that the real threat to pedestrians is the type of road user that causes (let me mention that figure again) 0.6% of pedestrian injuries

Not that I'm thinking of anyone in particular.

[GorillaMan]

A quick point regarding funding of infrastructure: British cyclists certainly do pay their way. Road tax goes to central government, and central government only has responsibility for major highways (including motorways and many others from which cyclists are banned). All other roads are a statutory responsibility of local authorities, therefore mainly funded through council tax.

[Harborwolf]

Regular as clockworks these threads are. Nobody can actually defend the antics of the cyclists actually pitted, so we turn to the evils of The Motorists.

That's right, The Motorists. Huge packs of 'em careening down the motorways crushing old ladies and orphans. How dare you even question the poor innocent cyclists and completely ignore the danger of The Motorists? When's the last time you heard of a cyclist killing a nun? How about The Motorists? They nuns all the time. Practically a sport to 'em.

Cyclists simply cannot be inconsiderate or rude or anything but saintly because The Motorists are so much worse.

Just once I would love to see a thread about cyclists where noone compares them to motorists.

[Princhester]

Not only that but I think you'll find GorillaMan that Road Tax only pays a very small percentage of road building/maintenance costs anyway.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Regular as clockworks these threads are. Nobody can actually defend the antics of the cyclists actually pitted, so we turn to the evils of The Motorists.


Perhaps that is becuase the misdeeds of cyclists are a molehill everyone insists is Mount Everest.

By comparison, the misdeeds of motorists is a mountain everyone pretends is not there.

[Harborwolf]

Perhaps that is becuase the misdeeds of cyclists are a molehill everyone insists is Mount Everest.

By comparison, the misdeeds of motorists is a mountain everyone pretends is not there.

Yeah, but the threat of motorists is nothing compared to the threat of terrorists. Motorists are a dream compared to terrorists.

[GorillaMan]

Just once I would love to see a thread about cyclists where noone compares them to motorists.
If we hadn't got an infrastructure designed specifically around the 'needs' of motorists, often at the expense of others, and that didn't also have designed into it extra safety measures to combat the moronic motorists, then maybe we'd see the absence you desire. By forcing other users to accomodate a motorist-dominated environment, it makes the errors & selfishness of the motorists all the more apparent.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Yeah, but the threat of motorists is nothing compared to the threat of terrorists. Motorists are a dream compared to terrorists.

Are you certain? Last I checked, terrorists did not kill some 50,000 people each year in the United States alone. I think the terrorist record year was just above 3000 people killed in the US.

Try again.

[Harborwolf]

If we hadn't got an infrastructure designed specifically around the 'needs' of motorists, often at the expense of others, and that didn't also have designed into it extra safety measures to combat the moronic motorists, then maybe we'd see the absence you desire. By forcing other users to accomodate a motorist-dominated environment, it makes the errors & selfishness of the motorists all the more apparent.

But this thread isn't about the errors and selfishness of motorists is it? That just sort of got dragged in here by people who apparently think cyclists should be absolved of every behavior because motorists are worse.

That's like going into every Bush bashing thread and saying that Bush is a good president simply because he isn't Pol Pot.

[Harborwolf]

Are you certain? Last I checked, terrorists did not kill some 50,000 people each year in the United States alone. I think the terrorist record year was just above 3000 people killed in the US.

Try again.
It's not the numbers. It's the premise. A is good simply because B is worse. It's stupid.

[GorillaMan]

But this thread isn't about the errors and selfishness of motorists is it? That just sort of got dragged in here
Yeah - because the OP didn't make any mention of motorists...
I spend a good deal of time trvelling by train and tend to walk from the train station to my destination. Who is my greatest nemesis in this journey (besides the rail companies), not evil car drivers, lorries or buses? Nope. it's the british cyclist.

At least the other forms of transport show a modicum of respect for the highway code, even if only in passing, but the amount of cyclists that don't stop at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings is amazing.

[Princhester]

Regular as clockworks these threads are. Nobody can actually defend the antics of the cyclists actually pitted, so we turn to the evils of The Motorists.

Try me. The cyclists actually pitted don't exist. Read the OP. The cylists being pitted are the non-law abiding ones that (allegedly) are a real danger to pedestrians. They don't exist.

[Princhester]

Yeah, but the threat of motorists is nothing compared to the threat of terrorists. Motorists are a dream compared to terrorists.

If you want a really, really good example of your disconnect from reality, you need to think about this a bit longer. I'll give you a clue. There were 25,000 deaths or serious injuries in the UK alone caused by motorists. Now, think real hard about terrorists in the UK over the same period...

[Harborwolf]

Yeah - because the OP didn't make any mention of motorists...

Yeah, because the op completely denied that cars are capable of wrongdoing because of cyclists.

At least the other forms of transport show a modicum of respect for the highway code, even if only in passing

Princhester, how do you know they don't exist? Been stalking dopers lately?

[Harborwolf]

If you want a really, really good example of your disconnect from reality, you need to think about this a bit longer. I'll give you a clue. There were 25,000 deaths or serious injuries in the UK alone caused by motorists. Now, think real hard about terrorists in the UK over the same period...

Like I said earlier, it's not about the numbers. I know cars are far more dangerous than cyclists. It's the fucking idea that something cannot be bad simply because worse things exist.

Do you go into work related pit threads and say that a persons job isn't bad because they don't work in a sweat shop?

[GorillaMan]

Yeah, because the op completely denied that cars are capable of wrongdoing because of cyclists.
Oh, don't be silly. Has anybody claimed that cyclists are incapable of wrongdoing?

It's stupid to complain when replies compare misdeeds of cyclists with those of motorists, when the OP did just that.

[Harborwolf]

Oh, don't be silly. Has anybody claimed that cyclists are incapable of wrongdoing?

It's stupid to complain when replies compare misdeeds of cyclists with those of motorists, when the OP did just that.

Oh for god sake he's talking about his drive to work, not the broad ranging stats everyone else is reaching for. Is a little bit of hyperbole really worth this much argument?

[Mr. Miskatonic]

It's not the numbers. It's the premise. A is good simply because B is worse. It's stupid.

My first post in this thread was in response to TheLoadedDog who claimed that car drivers rarely, if ever, break traffic laws. By comparison, he claimed all cyclists break all the laws. Not only was this completely incorrect, but it was the same comparison you are now whining about.

I don't claim A is good because B is worse, I claim that A is being targeted unfairly as a threat when a much bigger one exists.

[TheLoadedDog]

The cylists being pitted are the non-law abiding ones that (allegedly) are a real danger to pedestrians. They don't exist.
My first post in this thread was in response to TheLoadedDog who claimed that car drivers rarely, if ever, break traffic laws. By comparison, he claimed all cyclists break all the laws
AAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

My head is starting to hurt. This is now starting to get surreal. No cyclist anywhere, ever, has done ANYTHING wrong. Ever. At all. Is that right?

And I'm now saying stuff I didn't say. Yes?

Hokay....

You guys have completely discredited yourselves. I'm outta this thread. Claim you've hounded me away by all means, but this has gone off into fucking cuckooland, and I trust the judgement of the several hundred sane people who have viewed this thread to be with me on this.

To the sensible cyclists out there, you have my sympathy that these nutters are on your side.

Good day to you all. Fucking fruitcakes.

[Harborwolf]

My first post in this thread was in response to TheLoadedDog who claimed that car drivers rarely, if ever, break traffic laws. By comparison, he claimed all cyclists break all the laws. Not only was this completely incorrect, but it was the same comparison you are now whining about.

I don't claim A is good because B is worse, I claim that A is being targeted unfairly as a threat when a much bigger one exists.

Actually, my post was primarily in response to Casdaves posts in the thread accusing drivers of, amongst other things, being unable to walk anywhere over one millimeter farther than they must. He also says....

I suggest the OP or any of you idiot cycle bashers actually take a ride in a city on a bicycle and attempt to make a journey, one, because you might find it invigorating, two, because around two thirds of all car journeys are under five miles and you are just fucking lazy fat bastards, three, to find out whats its really like so you can keep your ignorant, fuck faced, stupid, ill judged comments to yourselves when you find out what happens on the roads, and last of all, because you'll probably get a sore arse the first couple of times you ride and you'll deserve it, as it'll save me the effort from giving you one up the jacksy to fuck some sense into you.

[GorillaMan]

It's nice to be told you're discredited through missing the finer points of the discussion by somebody who's first contribution was
Happens in Sydney too. They're a self-righteous pack of arseholes in my book.

[Princhester]

I know you meant your terrorist example as an illustration, it's just that the example you chose says interesting things about how well you grok the proportionality of this debate.

Every human activity involves risk. Everything we do is a trade-off between time, convenience, fun etc and risk. Every choice we make about how we behave (even completely law abiding choices) has risk implications. If I decide to play a round of golf that is an utterly law abiding and socially normal activity, but creates real risks for other golfers and for people and property surrounding the golf course. I'm sure you wouldn't chastise me for making a decision to play a round of golf. Why not? According to you, I can't justify my decision simply on the basis that there are other activities I could indulge in that would create more risk.

In fact, to pretend that one can consider whether non-law abiding behaviour of cyclists is actually significantly bad without considering the surrounding matrix of risks and behaviours that we consider to be normal is unrealistic.

If it annoys you to have cyclists compared to motorists as such, instead of thinking of motorists as a specific relevant example of other road users, just think of them as an illustrative data point that shows the type of risk level that we consider acceptable and normal in average western society.

The level of threat to the OP due to cyclist behaviour is actually something close to 200 times lower than the level of threat posed by an ordinary, indeed all pervasive aspect of normal western society. Ergo, it must not be bad or threatening, in any real sense.

Yet the OP percieves it to be, and so do you.

The fact is, the operative premise is irrational.

And no I haven't been stalking dopers. I don't need to. Unless the OP's personal circumstances involve a 200/1 anomaly, the dangerous cyclists the OP perceives, do not exist.

[Princhester]

No cyclist anywhere, ever, has done ANYTHING wrong. Ever. At all. Is that right?

No one has said this. The cyclist that poses the greatest single threat to pedestrians does not exist. Deal with it.

Your head is hurting? Straw does that to me too.

[TheLoadedDog]

No one has said this. The cyclist that poses the greatest single threat to pedestrians does not exist. Deal with it.

Your head is hurting? Straw does that to me too.
Don't backpedal (fnarr fnarr, I slay me). You did not say that. You said: "The cyclists being pitted are the non-law abiding ones that (allegedly) are a real danger to pedestrians. They don't exist."

Not the "greatest danger. "A real" danger. That's what you said.

Have some self-respect, people. Suspending reality gets tiring after a bit, y'know?

Now I am outta here. Off to bed.

[Princhester]

Don't backpedal (fnarr fnarr, I slay me). You did not say that. You said: "The cyclists being pitted are the non-law abiding ones that (allegedly) are a real danger to pedestrians. They don't exist."

Not the "greatest danger. "A real" danger. That's what you said.

Have some self-respect, people. Suspending reality gets tiring after a bit, y'know?

Now I am outta here. Off to bed.

You cut the bit out of the quote where I made it clear that I was referring to the cyclists from the OP. Those cyclists are the ones that pose the greatest danger.

Further, you have no evidence that cyclists are a real danger to pedestrians. The only actual cite produced suggests they are a trivial danger, compared to any other relevant consideration. You tell us to suspend reality, but I'm not the one spouting impressions and prejudice while doing my best to ignore actual data: that'd be you.

[Princhester]

Furthermore, only The Loaded "Strawman" Dog, could read a statement that cyclists posed no real danger as a statement that no cyclist anywhere ever has done anything wrong.

Your post was crap.

[Neurotik]

The fact is, the operative premise is irrational.
Or maybe, just maybe, the OP's experience is different from the statistics at large.

And I'll back that opinion up, I've almost been hit by cyclists far more often than I've almost been hit by cars. Of course, a cyclist hitting me likely won't kill me like a car will, but that doesn't change the fact that on a day-to-day basis, cyclists are posing far more of a hazard to me than the cars.

You keep bringing up these fatality numbers like the mean anything. Of course a bike isn't going to kill me and a car will. So fucking what? If I get hit by a bike (I don't, just an example) every day, I'm going to have it out for bikers since it's a constant irritation, unlike getting hit with a car which is a blue-moon event.

On my day-to-day pedestrian journey, the fact is that a bike is a bigger hazard than a motorist for me. Not bigger in the sense that I'm in danger of being killed by one, but bigger in the sense that I've had far more close calls with them than with cars.

[Princhester]

Or maybe, just maybe, the OP's experience is different from the statistics at large.

Yeah, maybe. Maybe his/her experience of cyclist/pedestrian danger is about 100 times the norm. Doesn't seem likely though, does it?

And I'll back that opinion up, I've almost been hit by cyclists far more often than I've almost been hit by cars. Of course, a cyclist hitting me likely won't kill me like a car will, but that doesn't change the fact that on a day-to-day basis, cyclists are posing far more of a hazard to me than the cars.

What a hoot! You want to think about that a bit more? You are actually trying to argue that something that almost hits you is more dangerous than something that actually does hit you 200 times more often? Pffft.

You keep bringing up these fatality numbers like the mean anything. Of course a bike isn't going to kill me and a car will.

Well actually, no. The figure of 0.6% is derived from statistics covering all accidents, from fatal to slight injury.

If I get hit by a bike (I don't, just an example) every day, I'm going to have it out for bikers since it's a constant irritation, unlike getting hit with a car which is a blue-moon event.

Go back and read the OP. There's no mention of being hit at all. There's just a perceived danger which is out of all proportion to anything real.

Nor is the OP concerned about irritation. It's danger, danger danger. Allegedly

On my day-to-day pedestrian journey, the fact is that a bike is a bigger hazard than a motorist for me. Not bigger in the sense that I'm in danger of being killed by one, but bigger in the sense that I've had far more close calls with them than with cars.

Mmm. So in other words you are more concerned about something you are scared might happen because it seems to be close to happening (though it doesn't) than something that doesn't seem close to happening but which in fact statistics prove happens 200 times more often. Human nature, sure, but not rational.

[Neurotik]

Well actually, no. The figure of 0.6% is derived from statistics covering all accidents, from fatal to slight injury.
Fair enough, but the statistics are still meaningless as to what is a hazard to me personally on a day to day basis. What percentage of bicycle accidents actually get reported unless they cause significant injury? Probably the same percentage as pedestrians who get a slight tap from a bumper at a crosswalk: zero.
Go back and read the OP. There's no mention of being hit at all. There's just a perceived danger which is out of all proportion to anything real.
I read the OP. And I agree with it. Bikes are more of a day-to-day hazard than pedestrians in my experience. Moreover, they are a hazard beyond their representation on the streets and sidewalks. How many more cars are there than bikers? Yet, I've been either hit or nearly hit by far more cyclists than cars. Indicates to me that there's a greater concentration of asshole cyclists than asshole motorists.
So in other words you are more concerned about something you are scared might happen because it seems to be close to happening (though it doesn't) than something that doesn't seem close to happening but which in fact statistics prove happens 200 times more often. Human nature, sure, but not rational.
Sure, it's rational. Bikes have come closer to hitting me more often than cars. It's just how it is. I'm sorry that you're apparently to stupid to comprehend that - or maybe just too desperate to defend your asshole cyclist compatriots and demonize car drivers.

[MrAlpen]

And furthermore, Neurotik, when OBJECTIVE studies are done of how cyclists behave around pedestrians then they do not confirm the subjective experience that many of their critics in this thread describe.

We all tend to be irrational and unreliable observers of our own experiences. At least Steve Wright did some actual counting, but I guess infringement is easier to count than courtesy.

[GusNSpot]

Jeez folks, this is not about facts or reality, it is about fear.

Facts about flying safety per mile does nothing for the fearful flyer..... IMO and from my antidotal evidence.

If a persons never goes near a road but is on a campus where bicyclist are a constant source of perceived danger .. guess what... IMO and from my antidotal evidence.

Less see, cars that come close to bicycles on a road are scary ........ IMO and from my antidotal evidence.

Less see, cars that come close to pedestrians on a road are scary ........ IMO and from my antidotal evidence.

Most pedestrians are not on the road.

Most likely scary thing to pedestrians on walkways is a bicycle coming fast and close......... IMO and from my antidotal evidence.

Most likely vehicle to run a red light with a pedestrian in the cross walk is a bicycle .........IMO and from my antidotal evidence.

Pit threads about a fear have to be reasonable?... Not IMO and from my antidotal evidence.

::: What scares you does not scare me because I don’t do what you do, or, have not had the experiences you have, or I only go with facts, I have no fears at all, or, I’m just really really tough and smart, or If I don’t think your fear is my fear I’m going to be [i]inslutting about it...

Downtown NYC, London, etc. Is a bit different than 99% of the rest of the world...... [i]But I refuse to take that into consideration because that might mean the OP MIGHT have more of a reason to be fearful or irritated about his particular fear and post a pit thread about it.....

YMMV

[GusNSpot]

Preview is my friend............. Maybe I need more fear of ridicule.......

[Princhester]

Fair enough, but the statistics are still meaningless as to what is a hazard to me personally on a day to day basis. What percentage of bicycle accidents actually get reported unless they cause significant injury? Probably the same percentage as pedestrians who get a slight tap from a bumper at a crosswalk: zero.

Or in other words, the statistics don't suit me so I'm ignoring them. They exactly precisely represent to you what your risk is. Near enough to zip.

As for the statistics being skewed, you said it. They probably underreport trivial bike hits just as much as trivial car hits.

I read the OP. And I agree with it. Bikes are more of a day-to-day hazard than pedestrians in my experience. Moreover, they are a hazard beyond their representation on the streets and sidewalks. How many more cars are there than bikers? Yet, I've been either hit or nearly hit by far more cyclists than cars. Indicates to me that there's a greater concentration of asshole cyclists than asshole motorists.

The OP is not about this. Read the conclusion. The conclusion is that cyclists are a bigger hazard. Not that they are a lesser hazard but the hazard they pose is disproportionate to the number of cyclists. Gloss the OP all you want to try to convert it to something factual, it's crap. Deal.

Sure, it's rational. Bikes have come closer to hitting me more often than cars. It's just how it is. I'm sorry that you're apparently to stupid to comprehend that - or maybe just too desperate to defend your asshole cyclist compatriots and demonize car drivers.

I'm too stupid to understand that something that doesn't happen is more dangerous than something that does?

Let me try to illustrate how utterly stupid what you are saying is. Imagine two groups of 200 people. I shoot at and injure, kill and maim the whole of one group. I shoot near everyone in the other group, but only actually injure one of them.

Which is the more dangerous group to be in? Take your time.

[Princhester]

Yeah, sure Gus'n'spot. And if the OP had said "I am fearful of cyclists, I know I shouldn't be but I am", then I'd be all sympathy. But the OP doesn't.

Furthermore, your discussion of subjective experiences is all very well, but we are not sheep and this is the Dope. If you can't stand the facts, get out of the kitchen.

We are supposed to be 21 C humans. I would be very disappointed with myself if I ranted against someone for doing something otherwise reasonable but of which I have an irrational fear.

[matt]

Yeah, sure Gus'n'spot. And if the OP had said "I am fearful of cyclists, I know I shouldn't be but I am", then I'd be all sympathy. But the OP doesn't.The OP had specific gripes:

"At least the other forms of transport show a modicum of respect for the highway code, even if only in passing, but the amount of cyclists that don't stop at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings is amazing." This is true. It may not actually result in people getting hurt, but many cyclists do ignore lights and pedestrian crossings. In the UK the green man of the crossing is sacrosanct - there's no left on a red, it supposed to mean it's SAFE to cross. For fast people, slow people, children, the blind, the deaf.

"I've seen numerous cyclists using pedestrianised zones that clearly state that they are not for any form of wheeled vehicle. Also true. See it every weekend. The pedestrian zones in Aberdeen have bike racks within them. I will sometimes cycle to these bike racks at walking speed, if there's not too many people about, otherwise I dismount and wheel it. But plenty of cyclists weave through the peds at full tilt. I've never seen anyone actually get hit but that's not the point; it sets people on edge, makes them uncomfortable in a space where they should be able to relax. Same thing as people playing ball games in a pedestrianised area - not enormously hazardous, just irritating.

So to all British Cyclists, stop complaining about how bad it is to cycle on our roads, try walking, it's much more dangerous, and cyclists are the reason.This is bullshit of course. But it doesn't invalidate the fact that cyclists ignoring traffic rules and using pavements/pedestrian zones are a very visible, if largely harmless, nuisance. Like litter, it's a problem that would go away if people made the tiniest, fractional individual efforts to fix it.

[casdave]

Who are the utter dolts complaining about being stuck behind cyclists at ten mph ?

What kind of argument is that ?

For your information folks, the highway code quite clearly states that overtaking must only be carried out when it is safe to do so, and just because an 'obstruction' happens to be a cyclist travelling slowly does not give the motorist a licence to be a shithead.

Let's try another tack on this, if the obstruction were a milk float, would you then be complaining about it being in the way ?
....or an artic wagon ?
....or a rider on horseback - sometimes yes drivers will try, but don't like theidea of their car being damaged by up to half a ton of unpredictable muscle.

It's like this, there is no point in being impatient when being stuck behind a cyclist, the rules say that you overtake when safe, and it doesn't matter what the obstruction is, you'd simply be stuck behind any other slow moving traffic and you'd have to wait it out, so why single out the cyclist, at least show some measure of consistancy and complain about other slow moving road based obstacles - however I woud imagine that by doing so you would come across as a boorish impatient lout.

I'm with Boo Boo Foo when I was racing and riding, I'd be well away from the city, long before you lazy arsehole motorists were out of bed, and you wouldn't see me except for perhaps the last couple of miles of my ride, yet somehow I get tarred with the very broad brush painted by the OP, I fucking resent that from the inferior motoring species.

In the UK, the majority of rush hour driving is less than five miles, but motorists are simply too lazy to propel their lazy lardarses for a total of 20 minutes twice a day.(and it would be a lot less than that if they actually became fit)

You motorists are not part of the problem, you are the problem, why do you think we have congestion charging ? speed cameras ? insurance ? (actually as a cyclist I do carry insurance but that's for my benefit - mainly)

The poor inconsiderate driving habits of half asleep slow witted dumb drivers are what push cyclists off the road, and illegally onto footpaths.

What are pedestrians for the most part ?

Most pedestrians are car drivers, and having spent their commute bullying, cutting up, red light running, speeding and flipping one another the bird, they get out of their shiny shitboxes and decide that somehow none of the bad Karma they make will come back at them.

What goes around comes around, the idiot cyclist runs the risk of death and serious injury, and the idiot motorist complains about everything except their own poor behaviour, but wonders why cyclists are wound up enough to fuck them right off.

Cyclists have a real incentive to behave, just because you don't see those who do so, does not mean they do not exist, you just project you lazy ignorant ill researched and biased opinions onto anything and anyone.

If it were not cyclists you complain about, its people who don't step aside when you walk down the street, or anything that delays or inconveniences you in the slightest, its the classic motorist attitude, so many of them carry arseholeness
on to being a pedestrian.

[Jennyrosity]

There's some huge sweeping generalisations there, casdave.

I've never driven a car. I still get royally hacked off with irresponsible cyclists nearly knocking me off my feet as they shoot through red lights.

And I don't understand why you, as a cyclist, don't get just as pissed off with them. Surely, they are the reasons that the responsible cyclists get a bad name?

[casdave]

The reason cyclists get a bad name is that folk such as yourself generalise and extend your experience of cyclists to cover all cyclists.

I do not condone their behaviour, but I see lots of motorists behave far worse, all I'm doing is showing you how the arguments made in the OP would appear when applied in the same manner to all motorists.

I do think motorists as a group are generally physically lazy and selfish, they complain about traffic jams, whilst neglecting to mention their own vehicle, they want other cars off the road, but will not commit to actually propelling themselves around, they tell us how terrible the urban environment is, but won't travel on buses, trains, walk or cycle, even when these are viable alternatives, they alwasy find some part of their lives that would make public transport imposasible, and then extend it to the whole of their lives.

I have a feeling that those badly behaved cyclists are not what I would regard as cyclists in the way that an olyimpic swimmer wouldn't regard the 3 foot paddling pool hooligan as anything but a hooligan.

It's worth noting that there are plenty of piss poor pedestrains who seem to think they have the right to cross the road in front of the cyclist who they assume can easily go around them, it's happened to me many many times.

The worst pedestrians seem to be in places where cars are restricted, and there are lots of pedestrian areas, the ignorant pedestrian then extends their areas to incude trafficked routes as well.

Are all pedestrians stupid, nope, but if I were to take the OPs analogy, then I would have to state that they are, based on that persons biased and inaccurate assumptions.

I dislike the attitude of those with an engine toward cyclists, bike riders, horses.
We have the right to be there, but you wouldn't know it from the doltish posts made here.

The hype about the risk of injury from cyclists is unbelievable, from a so-called select group of intelligent posters not being able to accept from nationally collated figures from reputable sources, the risks cyclist actually pose to other traffic and pedestrians is miniscule, especially when compared to car drivers, and yet its the cyclist getting the stick - that talks to me of ignorant bias.

Tell you what, try count the number of bad car driving habits you observe in a 24 hour period, look at lack of seatbelts, mobile phone use, tailgating, doing other tasks while driving, speeding, not indicating, red light/amber light dodging, conveniently not seeing folk waiting at zebra crossings etc etc

Please count them up, and report back on the numbers, you will get a nasty surprise, I can assure you.

[threemae]

As an 8,000+ mile/year rider as well as an often pedestrian and almost daily driver, all of you saying that cyclists are the most irresponsible class of people in motion, I say go get yourself bent. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about because I can assure you that any individual with any respect for their own life will take considerably more care in traffic on a bicycle than when surrounded by 2,000 pounds of steel.

Daily, I deal with stupid or inconsiderate drivers making sudden left turns right in front of or even into me, underestimating or not even bothering to gauge my speed and pulling out in front of me, or brushing right by me without even bothering to use up the other two feet in their lane provided by the good folks over at the Colorado Department of Transportation. I could likely write a pit-thread for every single day of moderately long training that has an equal amount of merit than any other traffic-whining pit-thread. But I hold back because there are idiots, assholes, nice people, careful people, and a whole spectrum of human personalities are represented, just as in any other mode of transit.

Statistics on fatalities seem to back up our side that automotive drivers are usually at fault in fatal accidents involving cars and bicycles. So, really, this is just uninformed mouthing off about a minor annoyance in a message board.

So, a few final points:
First, how much time have you ever actually been delayed by a cyclist? People get all upset about having to pass a cyclist more than once, but what does that say about your actual speed: you haven't really lost any time at all.
Second, if these people weren't on bikes, they'd be in cars. Just like there are some assholes on bikes, there are assholes in cars too, and switching the mode of transit isn't going to make you any safer or get you to your destination any faster.
Third, none of these people want to inconvenience you or get themselves or anyone else hurt. If they decide to take an entire lane over a bridge or construction zone, understand why and just chill out for a few seconds. You'll likely be delayed by 20 seconds at most, and even then you'll probably end up behind some dump truck later down the road so that you won't lose any time at all.

Please, be considerate in your cars, don't honk unless it's for a safety reason or else a light tap if someone's riding two-abreast and doesn't notice you, remember that driving isn't a competition, and I'll do my best to ride as safely and considerately as possible and cause the least possible delays. We'll all benefit from the lower levels of traffic, reduced greenhouse emissions, and having to stare at one less flabby ass.

Thanks,
threemae

[Steve Wright]

In the course of two fairly short walks (to and from the bus station - let me repeat, I am not and never have been a motorist, I walk everywhere or take public transport), I saw -

- Six cyclists turning without giving hand signals.
- One cyclist, not turning, who couldn't give hand signals, at least not without spilling his coffee.
- One cyclist mounting the pavement, at speed, without giving any indication of his intentions
- One cyclist completely stationary in the middle of the road, ignoring the car patiently waiting to get past him, as he chatted with a mate.
- One cyclist giving a clear and unambiguous turning signal, but I have to take a few marks off her, on account of she was sailing blithely through a red light at a crowded three-way intersection at the time ...

I'd say this was a more or less typical day. Hazard? Maybe, maybe not. Thundering bloody nuisance? Absolutely.

[MrAlpen]

...
I'd say this was a more or less typical day. Hazard? Maybe, maybe not. Thundering bloody nuisance? Absolutely.

And, for heaven's sake, a MINORITY.

[casdave]

If you are not standing where I'm turning, you won't get a hand signal, were those six cyclists in a position to hit pedestrians I wonder ?

Actually, how many of those seen in total were in a postion to harm pedestrians ?

Oxford is a particular problem, and is pretty near unique in the way roads have been closed off to all traffic including cyclists.

The alternative correct routes for cyclists go the long way around, IIRC and there was some controversy about this.

It was argued that putting in cycle routes that kept cyclists aways from traffic and pedestrains would be 'a good thing' but the council just didn't want to know.

Why is it that other countries in Europe somehow can find ways to provide decent public transport, decent cycle routes and decent fottpaths, and almost banishing cars and we in the UK cannot?

Why are cyclists in Oxford taking the routes they do ? Could it be that appropriate cycle routes are not available ?

Town planners like to have things looking neat and tidy on a map, however, people are not so neat and tidy, they want to cross open space, not follow tortuous routes around edges, these are called 'desire lines'.

I personally tend to get off my bike, however, if it means walking a considerable distance in plated cycle shoes - which are very impractical for walking, then ride I shall.

Perhaps those cyclists don't have genuinely practical routes, the marked out routes provded by town planners are notoriously poor in both construction, and route, they hardly ever go where people actually want to go.

[Boldface Type]

Most car/bike altercations happen in heavy traffic. Bikes can weave between cars, and if you flip the bird at one, he's likely to catch you at the next light. Cyclists have been known to punch/ spit at drivers through the open window, to key cars as they ride past, and they then ride off and are away before the drivers can even get their seatbelt off to pursue on foot.

In counterpoint, cars have been known to deliberately wipe cyclists out, attempting to kill them. Happened to a guy I know just over a week ago. Car coming the opposite way to the cyclist crossed the road, accelerating straight at the cyclist. Impact. Cyclist survives, although will need skin grafts, and a fist-sized lump of muscle torn from his upper leg may hinder his future athletic actions.

If a cyclist behaves badly toward a driver, the driver will typically be inconvenienced (e.g., delayed). In some circumstances the driver will be inconvenienced, but the cylist killed (e.g., if the cyclist jumps a red light at the wrong time).

If a driver behaves badly toward a cyclist, the latter will quite possibly be killed.

Cyclists are vulnerable, and - alas - even cyclists who follow the law to the utmost will face all sorts of shit from motorists, shit that can easily put 'em 6-feet under. I think it's reached a stage - in some places - where there's just no point attempting to reach a compromise between cars and bikes.


If it was about cowardice, I'd be going after the pedestrians, no?

Well, no. It's far easier to get away with wiping out a cyclist than a ped.

And regarding jumping red lights: Not legal behaviour by the cyclist, but it does prevent same from delaying the car drivers behind.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

AAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

My head is starting to hurt. This is now starting to get surreal. No cyclist anywhere, ever, has done ANYTHING wrong. Ever. At all. Is that right?



Where did you get that bit of mental driftwood. Of course there are cyclists that have done wrong. Plenty of it. The problem is that the complaints about cyclists far outweigh the consequences. If cyclists cause 5% of the real problems, they get 90% of the complaints. Even fucking liberal NPR is getting into the anti-cycling mode these days.

But the bottom line is that all such complaints, when coming from drivers, boil down to the essential get offa mah road cycle-boy. In your own example you could have solved your problem by remaining in the faster lane, but you seemed to prefer compounding it by returning to the original lane over and over.

Of course, you want to boil down the problems with lawless bicycles you only have to look at yourself. In the United States, the Uniform Vehicle Code, which almost all states have boiled down their traffic laws from, was written by drivers who wrote the laws with the intent of trying to get bicycles off the road or out of their way. The result being that bicycle laws are confusing, ineptly written, poorly implemented, badly misunderstood, and so are very often ignored.

[Dead Badger]

Or in other words, the statistics don't suit me so I'm ignoring them. They exactly precisely represent to you what your risk is. Near enough to zip.Actually, you are misrepresenting the statistics you quoted, even if inadvertently. Cyclists as a group represent a lesser danger than motorists, but there are vastly fewer of them around; of course the number of accidents is going to be fewer. Moreover, their mode of transport is intrinsically less deadly, since it weighs a fraction of a car's weight, and travels at a lower speed, making it both more avoidable and less damaging in an actual collision. Thus, showing that cyclists as a group are responsible for fewer injuries does not prove that the average individual cyclist is a more considerate or responsible road user than the average individual motorist.

Purely anecdotally, I know that I've had to jump out of the way of a lot more erratic cyclists in my time than I have cars. I'm still more wary of cars, as they have a lot more potential to do me in, despite their more predictable behaviour*. However, cyclists undoubtedly piss me off more, because they often (not always) behave in ways I simply can't predict or trust. It's nothing intrinsic to cycling, it's just that cyclists don't generally get punished for running red lights or riding on the pavement (at least where I live), and they don't need licences to ride. The barrier to entry is much lower, so you get a lot more wankers cycling.

*Predictable from the perspective of a pedestrian, I emphasise. Cars tend not to cane through pedestrian crossings because they're very likely to kill someone. Cyclists, IMO, do so because they think it's not really dangerous. It's not, at least not to the same extent, but it's still reckless. I have no doubt, having cycled a fair bit myself, that some motorists are just as careless with cyclists as some cyclists are with pedestrians, but that excuses neither group.

Which is the more dangerous group to be in? Take your time.I'm far less likely overall to be killed by a shark than I am by a cyclist. Is it therefore safer to swim with sharks than walk with cyclists?

And, for heaven's sake, a MINORITY.I must humbly suggest that you have never tried walking around Oxford or Cambridge. It's an eye-opening experience, not least because if you so much as blink some cunt will bowl you over. You can keep saying "MINORITY" as much as you like, but it is at the very least a huge minority, and one which makes it impossible to predict the behaviour of cyclists as a whole, since there's pretty much no way to tell beforehand whether the cyclist approaching the crossing is a dickhead or not. I'm not exaggerating that I sometimes feel like applauding when I see a cyclist in London stop at a red light; it really is that rare. If you are not one of the light-running dickheads, I salute you, but Jeez, I seriously hesitate to describe you as the norm.

[MrAlpen]

...
I must humbly suggest that you have never tried walking around Oxford or Cambridge. It's an eye-opening experience, not least because if you so much as blink some cunt will bowl you over ...

Why don't you read TRL583 linked above? Fitzroy Street Cambridge was even in the study. The objectively observed behaviour is that cyclists slow down for pedestrians and dismount when the pedestrian density is high. There are a small number of (largely young male) cyclists who don't. They are a minority. Other studies show the same: cyclists do not TYPICALLY behave badly, but pedestrian fear that they might. It's a property of pedestrians and not cyclists, although there are exceptions.

Finally, I walked out from a city centre to my office this morning: narrow streets out to a university suburb with broad avenues. 87 cyclists observed, 14 actively "giving way" at junctions, 4 breaking rules (2 cycling in deserted pedestrianised shopping centres, 1 cutting in front of oncoming traffic and 1 looking ridiculous on a reclined bike).

[Princhester]

Actually, you are misrepresenting the statistics you quoted, even if inadvertently. Cyclists as a group represent a lesser danger than motorists, but there are vastly fewer of them around; of course the number of accidents is going to be fewer.

No I'm not. My post was a response to the OP. The OP states that cyclists are the greatest danger to him as a pedestrian. An absolute not proportionate conclusion. Thus absolute (not proportionate) statistics were all that were needed to show that the OP was crap.

Moreover, their mode of transport is intrinsically less deadly, since it weighs a fraction of a car's weight, and travels at a lower speed, making it both more avoidable and less damaging in an actual collision. Thus, showing that cyclists as a group are responsible for fewer injuries does not prove that the average individual cyclist is a more considerate or responsible road user than the average individual motorist.

Never said he was. But you might like to consider this: when wielding a dangerous object (such as a 50km/hr 1000kg car) one needs to act more responsibly and with greater consideration than when wielding a 25 km/h 100kg bike, in order to achieve a comparable level of safety for those around you. This is the factor that many try to overlook in this debate.

I must humbly suggest that you have never tried walking around Oxford or Cambridge.

I have. Spent ten days there only a month ago.

It's an eye-opening experience, not least because if you so much as blink some cunt will bowl you over.

It sounds like you've spent a fair bit of time walking around in Oxford or Cambridge. Given that you (being human) would have blinked many many times over that period, I take it that you have been bowled over many, many times. You are one unlucky bastard. There were only 159 slight pedestrian injuries caused by cyclists in the whole of the UK in 2003. Poor old Dead Badger seems to have been the victim in most of them. Or are you exaggerating wildly?

[Dead Badger]

No I'm not. My post was a response to the OP. The OP states that cyclists are the greatest danger to him as a pedestrian. An absolute not proportionate conclusion. Thus absolute (not proportionate) statistics were all that were needed to show that the OP was crap.Fair enough; I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that the greatest danger to me is cyclists. I do think that any given cyclist is more likely to actively endanger me in some manner than any given driver, however, even though the level of danger itself is less.

Never said he was. But you might like to consider this: when wielding a dangerous object (such as a 50km/hr 1000kg car) one needs to act more responsibly and with greater consideration than when wielding a 25 km/h 100kg bike, in order to achieve a comparable level of safety for those around you. This is the factor that many try to overlook in this debate.I don't think the relative lightness of cycles excuses lesser consideration on the part of their riders. Someone with a pellet gun is endangering me far less than someone with an actual gun, but I'd still like it if they didn't keep aiming at me. Just the same way, a car running over me at a traffic light will kill me, while a cyclist doing the same will only bloody hurt. But both are legally obliged to stop; it's not up to the cyclist to assess how dangerous he's being, and decide whether the pedestrian ought to take the risk. He's supposed to obey the rules of the road.

I have. Spent ten days there only a month ago.Fair enough, I guess. I spent four years there, hoofing it about from one place to t'other, and all I can say is that I guess we've formed different opinions. For some reason, it's my observation that Cambridge students are totally and utterly brainless in two main scenarios*: on a bike, and replying to email (the concept of not pressing "reply all" apparently eludes the brightest minds of our nation). The sheer number of them riding without helmets, lights, reflectors, running lights and crossings, turning against signs, riding the wrong way up one-way streets, weaving and dodging through buses etc. is insane.

It sounds like you've spent a fair bit of time walking around in Oxford or Cambridge. Given that you (being human) would have blinked many many times over that period, I take it that you have been bowled over many, many times. You are one unlucky bastard. There were only 159 slight pedestrian injuries caused by cyclists in the whole of the UK in 2003. Poor old Dead Badger seems to have been the victim in most of them. Or are you exaggerating wildly?Yes, that was dramatic licence. Well spotted. :) That's the thing, though; I'm not claiming I've been injured, since I have the wherewithal and reactions to generally jump out of the way. I have literally never had to jump out of the way of a car at a pedestrian crossing, whereas I've had to step back to avoid numerous cyclists running red lights. None of them are all that likely to injure or kill me, but I sure would like it if they'd obey the rules of the road.

* Actually, three: drinking society initiations. Jesus. :eek:

[Princhester]

I don't think the relative lightness of cycles excuses lesser consideration on the part of their riders. Someone with a pellet gun is endangering me far less than someone with an actual gun, but I'd still like it if they didn't keep aiming at me. Just the same way, a car running over me at a traffic light will kill me, while a cyclist doing the same will only bloody hurt. But both are legally obliged to stop; it's not up to the cyclist to assess how dangerous he's being, and decide whether the pedestrian ought to take the risk. He's supposed to obey the rules of the road.

This is where we differ. Most road rules were introduced to control the danger that is cars. Most of them are total overkill for bikes.

[Dead Badger]

This is where we differ. Most road rules were introduced to control the danger that is cars. Most of them are total overkill for bikes.Well, I can only disagree in the strongest possible terms. Cyclists should bloody well stop at pedestrian crossings, because those crossing signs tell pedestrians that it is safe to cross, not that it's probably safe unless there's a cyclist coming. Are you really saying that it's alright for cyclists to run red lights and pedestrian crossings if they think it's safe? If not, could you explain which road rules you think cyclists should be exempt from, and why?

[DSeid]

Just out of curiousity Dead Badger, as a pedestrian do you always wait for the green beforre you cross? Do you you never jaywalk? Do you follow all the rules all the time, and if not then which rules do you ignore and why?

No doubt cyclists should not be reckless and that a few are. And that many more bend the traffic rules on occassion at least. But not every bend is recklessness. "Most" are not reckless.

[GLWasteful]

Are you really saying that it's alright for cyclists to run red lights and pedestrian crossings if they think it's safe? If not, could you explain which road rules you think cyclists should be exempt from, and why?
Well, I can take a stab at this. On my morning commute, I make two left turns. Since the pads that allow a left turn signal aren't tripped by my weight (not that I'm not trying to change that, you understand), then I will, if there is no car behind me to trip the pad and give me a green light, run those red lights. This, of course, is after I've determined that there are no cars coming toward me, since I'm in no hurry to die. Too, since I usually am out and about early of a morn, there are damned few instances where a car comes along and helps me out.

That said, if the light sensors could be tripped by me, I would cheerfully wait for a green light. But until the road rules (written by drivers) mandate a system whereby a cyclist can affect a green light, then I will continue to break this particular rule.

Waste

[Dead Badger]

That said, if the light sensors could be tripped by me, I would cheerfully wait for a green light. But until the road rules (written by drivers) mandate a system whereby a cyclist can affect a green light, then I will continue to break this particular rule.Fair enough; if the traffic technology effectively renders the roads unusable for you, then it absolutely makes sense for you to ignore the lights. But I think this is a pretty rare example, and is one of necessity, not convenience.

DSeid, there aren't any jaywalking laws in the UK, so crossing the road on a red or not at some lights is (as far as I am aware) legal. It would be impossible to cross the road in a lot of places if this were not the case. Nonetheless, if there is a light, I wait for it. If there isn't one, I cross as safely as possible.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

I know that the plural of ancedotes is not data, but I'll throw this into the ring.

In the past week I've seen around a dozend cyclists (Texan, not British) run red lights. Net results - not much.

I've also seen two cars run red lights. Results - one minor accident and one that involved two wrecked cars and (later) two ambulances.

Cyclists are annoying, but it's cars that actually do the damage.

[GLWasteful]

Fair enough; if the traffic technology effectively renders the roads unusable for you, then it absolutely makes sense for you to ignore the lights. But I think this is a pretty rare example, and is one of necessity, not convenience.
Dunno what it's like where you are (a thousand pardons, but I've since forgotten if you're one of those being so shat upon in Oxford &/or Cambridge), but where I'm at, it's not rare. As a matter of fact, it happens all the damned time due entirely to the fact that the sensors do not register that a cyclist is sitting in the left turn lane. Or, for that matter, waiting to go directly through a light.

Cyclists should bloody well stop at pedestrian crossings, because those crossing signs tell pedestrians that it is safe to cross, not that it's probably safe unless there's a cyclist coming.
Since it appears that you are, indeed, in Britain, I must ask for clarification: Are automobiles required to stop at what you are referring to as "pedestrian crossings"? Because if not, and again, I'm coming at this from a US POV, why in hell should cyclists?

[Dead Badger]

Dunno what it's like where you are (a thousand pardons, but I've since forgotten if you're one of those being so shat upon in Oxford &/or Cambridge), but where I'm at, it's not rare. As a matter of fact, it happens all the damned time due entirely to the fact that the sensors do not register that a cyclist is sitting in the left turn lane. Or, for that matter, waiting to go directly through a light.Where I am, there are pedestrian switches and timers. I don't think I've ever seen an induction-loop-triggered light over here. Like I say; if a light is never going to go green for a cyclist, I think he's entitled to run it. I've just never seen anything like this, but I'm more than willing to take your word for it.

Since it appears that you are, indeed, in Britain, I must ask for clarification: Are automobiles required to stop at what you are referring to as "pedestrian crossings"?They are (surely otherwise they wouldn't be "crossings" in any meaningful sense). I'm talking about full-on red lights, or zebra crossings at which, if a pedestrian is waiting to cross, oncoming vehicles are obliged to give way to them. Of course I would not expect cyclists to stop where cars are not expected to. But then, I can't really see the point of a pedestrian crossing at which vehicles are not expected to stop.

[Princhester]

Well, I can only disagree in the strongest possible terms. Cyclists should bloody well stop at pedestrian crossings, because those crossing signs tell pedestrians that it is safe to cross, not that it's probably safe unless there's a cyclist coming. Are you really saying that it's alright for cyclists to run red lights and pedestrian crossings if they think it's safe? If not, could you explain which road rules you think cyclists should be exempt from, and why?

I agree that cyclists should bloody well give way when they don't have right of way. However, I think that many road rules are very clumsy for something as light and agile and narrow as a bike. Stop signs that require a complete stop, pedestrian crossings that require a complete stop if anyone is on the crossing even if they are yards and yards away are a couple of examples. Obviously, any cyclist who "plays chicken" with you on a pedestrian crossing is an arsehole, no two ways about it.

I should make this clear (if it isn't from what I just said): I have nothing good to say about cyclists who actually endanger others. I have no word against those who complain about such cyclists. But what annoys me is people (and there are numerous examples in this thread) who seem to have a petty hate of cyclists who don't follow the rules, just because they are not following the rules, even though they are not particularly endangering anyone.

[Walker in Eternity]

Thanks for that Mr Miskatonic.

I had been idly thinking about making particular comment on this:



but your cite prompted me to action.

Stryfe you live in fairy land. Your comment comes from the other side of the looking glass. In the real world where I live

- the police are motorheads who tend not be too keen on cyclists,

- you're lucky if a jury has a single cyclist on it, and

- every jury is likely to have some irrationally prejudiced fuckhead on it who thinks that the real threat to pedestrians is the type of road user that causes (let me mention that figure again) 0.6% of pedestrian injuries

Not that I'm thinking of anyone in particular.

Read my posts, I'm a pedestrian mostly. Sure I agree motorists are far from perfect and car drivers do tend to live in an insulated bubble, but in my experience the majority stop at red lights, the same cannot be said of cyclists.

I agree that cyclists get a raw deal from motorists, but as someone who walks to work each day, my biggest hazard is cycles. Looking at the statistics for injuries involving pedestrians/cyclists earlier I can only say that the statistics don't take into account near misses, of which though no fault of my own I must have on a weekly basis due to cyclists not stopping at red lights or riding at speed on a footpath. Note that's footpath, not cyclepath.

I'm not saying all cyclists are bad, but certainly the majority do not show consideration to other road users, particularly pedestrians. You are correct in your assertion that car drivers cause more injuries and deaths and often speed.

I agree with what was said earlier that dangerous cycling is a generational thing, the majority of considerate cyclists are elderly or middle aged. The worst offenders are younger and fall into the categories stated earlier.

Do they still even do cycling proficiency traiing in the Uk? When I was at school it was strongly encouraged, for our own safety as well as others. Yes I did my proficiency test (about 1977 if I remember correctly).

[Princhester]

Read my posts, I'm a pedestrian mostly.

What does that have to do with the dumbass comment you made in the post under reply, and my refutation of it?

Looking at the statistics for injuries involving pedestrians/cyclists earlier I can only say that the statistics don't take into account near misses, of which though no fault of my own I must have on a weekly basis due to cyclists not stopping at red lights or riding at speed on a footpath.

Injury statistics don't take into account non-injury incidents. No shit, Sherlock.

Non-injury incidents don't cause injury, see. Things that don't cause injury aren't dangerous. Tricky, huh?

[Walker in Eternity]

Ok to refute your refutation. In the UK within the last few years moves were made by the government to make motorists responsible for accidents with cyclists, regardless of who was at fault in the accident. I am not sure whether this actually made it to law or not and will try to find a cite to back up my assertion.

To answer your second point of course non accidents don't count as accidents (except under theHealth and Safety at work act where near misses are notifiable), but thety are only near misses because pedestrians have learned that cyclists are unlikely to stop at red lights and pedestrian crossings and react accordingly.

As far as I can see no-one here is saying that cyclists are inherently more dangerous than cars, the jist of my OP was that for my journey to work they pose more of a threat to me than cars. For the record I use pedestrian crossings where available and if not available only cross when safe to do so using the green cross code.

In fact only yesterday I after patiently waiting for the pedestrian crossing to turn green (for me) I saw a cyclist and some cars approacing the crossing. The cars stopped, but the motherfucker on the bike looked me in the eye and went straight through the (for him) red light. Luckly I had seen him coming and was expecting this type of ignorance.

Maybe I've just been unluck recently, but this is not an isolated incident, nor am I being victimised by a single cyclist, this seems to be the norm with the cyclists that I have encountered. If law abiding cyclists are offended, I'm sorry, my ire is not aimed at you, just at the people that make my journey to work unsafe.

[Walker in Eternity]

. Things that don't cause injury aren't dangerous. Tricky, huh?

Bullshit.

Near misses are only near misses for reasons stated in my previous post.

[Princhester]

I know what your impressions are, and I know what the data says.

I don't think you are coming even close to grasping the absolute ridiculousness of your OP and what the data says about it. The data does not suggest that you are slightly wrong. It does not allow room for argument. It says you are wrong by a factor of about 100 to one

Your latest dumbass theory is a joke. For it to be true, you have to assume that cars represent less of a danger to pedestrians than cars but that pedestrians are so much more careful about bikes that the result is they actually get injured by cars 100 times more.

That is one of the stupidest things I've heard this week.

You just keep digging, old son. Hopefully soon the hole you're in won't allow you to reach the keyboard and then the average IQ around here will go up a few points.

By the way, your "it would no doubt still be the motorists fault, even though the cyclist broke the law" comment is I suspect based on this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2097872.stm) proposal, which firstly covers pedestrians too, and secondly is only about insurance not inappropriate assignment of fault.

[Pushkin]

For every bad bunch of cyclists who don't stop for red lights etc there is a bunch of pedestrian's who jay walk or run across crossings when the lights are red for pedestrians and a bunch of motorists who speed, go through red lights etc.

The worst bunch of cyclists are the twats who ride those bikes with tiny wheels and very low seats (the one's that look like they're used for stunts) Their "stunts" consist of jumping off kerbs and cycling up the pavement at high speed :rolleyes:

[Walker in Eternity]

That is one of the stupidest things I've heard this week.

You just keep digging, old son. Hopefully soon the hole you're in won't allow you to reach the keyboard and then the average IQ around here will go up a few points.

.

Only if you leave.

I was not implying that cars are safer than bikes merely that for me on my journey to work its twats on bike that cause the most problems.

I don't give a shit whether you think its statistcally more likely for the general population for me on my journey the problem is asshats on bikes. I concede that there is a much greater likelihood of my being injured or killed by a motor vehicle were I to walk out in front of one, but htis rant was not about cars or about decent law abiding cyclists, just the arseholes who nearly knock me over at least once a week at present. Combine that with your asshattery in defending these gits and I have to wonder if you've understood a word I've said.

[Princhester]

I was not implying that cars are safer than bikes merely that for me on my journey to work its twats on bike that cause the most problems.

Yes, you're a hundred to one statistical blip. You're like that poor little fellow from that book (is it "The Phantom Tollbooth"?) who wanders around in a little raincloud while everywhere else is in sunshine.

Or you're an exaggerating git who's been called on it, one of the two.

[Princhester]

And to expand on that, this is what you said in your OP:

So to all British Cyclists, stop complaining about how bad it is to cycle on our roads, try walking, it's much more dangerous, and cyclists are the reason

This is what you said a couple of posts ago:

To answer your second point of course non accidents don't count as accidents (except under theHealth and Safety at work act where near misses are notifiable), but thety are only near misses because pedestrians have learned that cyclists are unlikely to stop at red lights and pedestrian crossings and react accordingly.

So what we note is that at least when it suits you, you are talking generally. You are generally trying to suggest that cyclists are the major problem to pedestrians, and you are trying to suggest that the hundred to one data against you is misleading because pedestrians in general manage to do an amazing job of avoiding accidents with cyclists.

But now you've realised that that won't fly, so you are trying to suggest that all you were ever talking about was your own rather anomalous personal experience of cyclist dangers.

Have you though about what it might mean that your experience of danger from cyclists is one hundred times that of the general population? Because it does kind of suggest to me that you may be looking in the wrong direction for the cause of the problem.

Got a mirror handy?

[Walker in Eternity]

Neither, the fact is that with the exception of car drivers who go through red lights (IMHO much fewer than cyclists) if I cross the road safely I'm in much greater danger from cyclists here.

I have never implied that car drivers are saints or that crossing a road in front of cars is safe, just that for me, using predestrian crossings on my journey to work, my greatest hazard is cyclists.

Which part of that is hard to comprehend? I'm not saying that I live in a special part of the universe in which the laws of statistics don't apply.

[Princhester]

If you just keep narrowing your position down, eventually you'll reach a point where you'll be too small a target for me to be able to attack with statistics. You're not at that point yet, sad to say.

According to this page of statistics from the UK transport department (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_031397.pdf), on pedestrian crossings in 2003 amongst pedestrians there were 78 deaths, 757 serious injuries and 3016 slight injuries.

I have not been able to find any statistics as to how many injuries to pedestrians on pedestrian crossings were caused by bikes in 2003. But hey, your position is so utterly fucked that I can afford to be generous. Let's assume that every single one of the deaths and injuries caused to pedestrians by bikes in 2003 occurred on a pedestrian crossing.

On that basis, from the same page cited by me before (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_031371.pdf) we find that there were, in 2003, 4 deaths, 45 serious injuries and 159 slight injuries to pedestrians caused by cyclists.

So even if we assume that every single one of the deaths and injuries caused to pedestrians by bikes in 2003 occurred on a pedestrian crossing (a massively favourable and entirely unjustified assumption in your favour), no more than about 6% of pedestrian crossing injuries to pedestrians are caused by bikes.

I know you are "not saying that [you] live in a special part of the universe in which the laws of statistics don't apply." [My emphasis]

But it would seem nonetheless to be the gist of your position.

[Walker in Eternity]

You just go on quoting statistics, I know what I experience every day.

In fact yesterday I almost saw Darwinism in action, one cyclist shot through a red light in front of traffic, only the fact that the evil motorist braked and stopped meant that the idiot survived, as there was no actual physical injury this will not make your statistics. I did however happen. No parallel reality, no statistical anomally, just a lucky twat who got away with it this time.

[Princhester]

Don't let the facts get in your way, by all means.

[Walker in Eternity]

I will concede though that I perhaps got carried away and overgeneralised.

I should have confined my initial rant to the idiot cyclists that I have encountered on my walk to work in Manchester UK. Happy now?

As far as I'm concerned I have had my rant about cyclists, however, if you wish to keep posting statistics I will drop in from time to time just to give you an audience.

Just out of curiosity though, have you ever been a pedestrian in the UK? It may be completely different in Oz, maybe you have a more considerate type of cyclist. I don't know, I've never been there.

As stated previously my rant was born from personal experience, you claim I'm a statistical anomally, maybe technically that's true, but if you read many of the other posts here you will see that I am not alone in my opinion

[Princhester]

I cycle to and from work every day. This involves cycling down city streets with the pavements crowded with pedestrians. Pedestrians are a pain. They tend to cut across in front of me as if I'm not there, which gives me the shits. They do this much more often than cars.

Unlike you however I tend to try to base my views on objective facts and data, not kneejerk reactions. I know that however annoying pedestrians are, the reality is that actual collisions with pedestrians are rare because both bikes and pedestrians are light and manoueverable and collisions wouldn't be that serious even if they were to occur.

Collisions with cars are actually much more likely and serious. In fact (as opposed to in impression) cars are the major danger to me.

Some of us can mould our impressions with the data, some of us throw the data out the window if it doesn't suit our impressions.

[Princhester]

I lived in the UK for three years. There's not much difference.

[Princhester]

Sorry Stryfe, I posted post #150 before I saw your post #149. If I'd seen the former before posting the latter I would have adopted a more conciliatory tone.

[Walker in Eternity]

That's ok. I'm not offended.

you are wrong about me though, I usually do take the facts into consideration. This thread started off as a rant after a particularly near miss on the way to work.

I also accept your view that from a cyclists point of view pedestrians are equally hazardous, and I accept that cars and motor vehicles are equally dangerous to both.

Rants by their very nature are not logical, if was going to analyse the problem I would have out this in GD, but I was unhappy so I put it in the pit.

In fact I was surprised that this ran on as long as it did, I had all but forgotten about this thread and suddenly there it was again. One or two of your earlier remarks got my back up and I leapt back in without to much thought I admit.

[Princhester]

I also accept your view that from a cyclists point of view pedestrians are equally hazardous, and I accept that cars and motor vehicles are equally dangerous to both.

Aaaaaaaaaaaagh!

No they are not. And you were doing so well...

[Walker in Eternity]

Ok remove equally.

Cheers