Sabotage and hatred: what have people got against cyclists?

lonestar1

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

It's also illegal to drive on the pavement, but every single car parked there has done so.

:eek: Do you think the Judge will go lightly on me if I turn myself in ? Ive been driving on the pavement at least 10 times a week for the last 25 years.

Should I purchase a crane to get my car from my drive to the road in future ?

NBLondon

brat wrote: »

Our town centre is a pedestrian zone with shared use by pedestrians and cyclists and limited use to motor vehicles. Pedestrians and cyclists mix legally freely and easily, which makes me wonder if it's the illegality of pavement cycling rather than the actual risk that gets people's backs up.

Marked, shared use where everybody (OK most people) is aware and actually looks at the markings and where they are walking/riding is a great idea. It works perfectly well on some of the wide proms in seaside towns (and skateboarders use the cycle lane). What I object to is the minority of cyclists (and it may be a London phenomenon) who take it on themselves to make a pavement or other public area into shared use by bullying pedestrians out of the way. Another recent example - in a couple of places on my walk to work, the pavement is dug up and part of a traffic lane coned off to provide a temporary walk way instead. The approach from the road has a "keep right" sign to direct traffic around the cones and in one case a "No cycles" sign both pictorial and in words. In the 10 seconds it took me to walk along this stretch two cyclists ignored the signs and used it to avoid the next junction by riding directly at the oncoming pedestrians at the same speed they had previously been riding in the roadway and a third was about to do so as I got back to the pavement.
There was a definite risk there - the walkway is only wide enough for two people to pass if one or both turns to the side as you might do in a hallway.


While a certain subset of cyclists act like rectal exit sphincters - some non-cyclists will then go on to assume that all/most are. When another subset of cyclists deny this behaviour exists, or attempt to blame it on the bad behaviour of other road users, or make grandiose declarations about freedom, envy and environmental effects - that merely reinforces stereotypes.

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

Marked, shared use where everybody (OK most people) is aware and actually looks at the markings and where they are walking/riding is a great idea. It works perfectly well on some of the wide proms in seaside towns (and skateboarders use the cycle lane). What I object to is the minority of cyclists (and it may be a London phenomenon) who take it on themselves to make a pavement or other public area into shared use by bullying pedestrians out of the way. Another recent example - in a couple of places on my walk to work, the pavement is dug up and part of a traffic lane coned off to provide a temporary walk way instead. The approach from the road has a "keep right" sign to direct traffic around the cones and in one case a "No cycles" sign both pictorial and in words. In the 10 seconds it took me to walk along this stretch two cyclists ignored the signs and used it to avoid the next junction by riding directly at the oncoming pedestrians at the same speed they had previously been riding in the roadway and a third was about to do so as I got back to the pavement.
There was a definite risk there - the walkway is only wide enough for two people to pass if one or both turns to the side as you might do in a hallway.

There are clearly dramatic differences in different areas. I'm not witness to the daily city centre commute, especially one like London largely driven by the congestion charge. There seems to be a tribal/safety in numbers evolution of cycling attitudes in London that may cause some cyclists to take 'liberties' that wouldn't happen elsewhere, not routinely anyway.

I can divide the cyclists in our area into four distinct groups.

1. Sport/fitness cyclists (lycra clad), who you don't see often in town, but when you do, they are law abiding. They ride assertively, usually ~20mph, filtering when they perceive it to be safe, but don't pavement hop. Occasionally they will jump a red light if safe. I'd include road bike commuters in this group too.
2. Commuter cyclists riding hybrids of all descriptions. They usually ride cautiously and submissively. Their slower speed (10-12mph) causes them to ride close to the kerb to avoid inconveniencing traffic. Most seem disinterested in cycling, it's a necessary evil to get them to work and back. Skill levels vary dramatically. Many will hop on to the pavement for convenience/safety, but wouldn't inconvenience pedestrians. They usually stop at red lights. They are the group I deal with most, generally because their lights are often poor or non existent (and they will stop on request).
3. Family/leisure cyclists. They try to stay away from traffic as much as possible,normally using cycle paths or quiet back roads, but occasionally use quiet areas that have not been designated for cyclists.
4. Pavement cyclists, who ride cheap rusty bikes through town always on the pavement, often against the traffic flow. As a general rule, they have not passed a driving test, they are usually 14 to 25 years old and their bikes are not cared for or serviced. They are most likely to cause consternation among pedestrians, and display no knowledge of or care for the rules of the road, instead relying on a feral survival instinct. They are difficult for the police to deal with because they don't stop for you, but their actions, while abrasive to the societal norm, don't result in the number of accidents that may be expected by their lawless behaviour.

From my personal experience as a pedestrian, motorist, cyclist and traffic cop; cyclists - as a risk or concern to pedestrians or motorists - are virtually a non-issue. As a pedestrian, dog walker, shopper or runner, I am significantly more inconvenienced by inconsiderate pavement parkers, or motorists driving on pavements to park.

While a certain subset of cyclists act like rectal exit sphincters - some non-cyclists will then go on to assume that all/most are. When another subset of cyclists deny this behaviour exists, or attempt to blame it on the bad behaviour of other road users, or make grandiose declarations about freedom, envy and environmental effects - that merely reinforces stereotypes.

I agree that the behaviour of some cyclists causes some small minded motorists to tar all cyclists with the same brush. It's wrong, but I understand how and why it happens. This doesn't happen with motorists, because we are all part of the whole group of motorists. As motorists we know that not all motorists are drink drivers, disqual drivers or boy racers, because we are not part of those subsets, so we find it easier to separate these driver subsets and their incumbent risk.

I don't think that many cyclists deny the bad behaviour of other cyclists, more that they don't want to be blamed for the actions of others. We can all find reasons for and excuses for the law breaking we permit ourselves to do, like obstructing a pavement to keep the road free for traffic, increasing speed slightly beyond the legal limit on the approach to the NSL sign, cycling carefully through a red light etc etc. Other individuals may have intense dislike for some of these activities, but this is no reason for me as a cyclist to be blamed for something I don't do, just because other cyclists do.

You suggest that debate about "freedom, envy and environmental effects" have a reinforcing effect on negative stereotypes. I suspect that some motorists simply don't want to hear these indisputable facts about cycling - a)cycling offers many a real sense of freedom and vitality, b)the negative reaction of motorists to cyclists is often based on envy, and c) the environmental impact of more cyclists/less cars in the urban environment is indisputable.
The debate won't have any impact on those who are too entrenched or are completely disinterested in cycling, but they are valuable as an incentive to those who may be interested in cycling, and to inform those who are responsible for improving cycling infrastructure and the urban environment.

silverwhistle

brat wrote: »

I don't think that many cyclists deny the bad behaviour of other cyclists, more that they don't want to be blamed for the actions of others.

Amen.

There's enough non-cyclists even on this forum who perpetuate negative stereotypes.

NBLondon

brat wrote: »

I don't think that many cyclists deny the bad behaviour of other cyclists, more that they don't want to be blamed for the actions of others.

It happens often enough in these threads... usually in some form of "but drivers do worse things" or "we're less of a danger to people than car drivers are..." The acknowledgement that some cyclists are less than perfect has to be dragged out of them.

I suspect that some motorists simply don't want to hear these indisputable facts about cycling - a)cycling offers many a real sense of freedom and vitality, b)the negative reaction of motorists to cyclists is often based on envy, and c) the environmental impact of more cyclists/less cars in the urban environment is indisputable.

c) is indisputable, a) I have no argument with but b) is thoroughly disputable - it comes only from the cyclist's side of the argument and to me, often carries a childish undertone of "you're just jealous". If I wanted to experience that freedom - I'm perfectly capable of doing so - I have no need or desire to.


As for your 4 categories... In my experience - and this may be skewed to London and other sizeable cities - the commuters, both group 1 and 2, are not as law-abiding as you observe; around 20 to 25% pavement hop on a regular basis, with a subset of those appearing to consider pedestrians as an annoyance to be dodged and sworn at rather than a fellow human being. The same group (probably) also consider pedestrian crossings (pelican or zebra) to be optional. 3 and 4 exist in suburban London pretty much as you describe them.


What I haven't seen in this thread yet is the cyclist deriding the inconsiderate pedestrian who steps into the road without looking causing them to brake, swerve (possibly hit a pothole) etc. In the interests of fairness, I see some of this too. A common case is where the lights at a pedestrian crossing are green but motor traffic has stopped because of e.g. a box junction. In London, plenty of pedestrians will take this as their cue to dash across not looking for or even thinking of a cyclist (or a scooter) filtering between the stopped traffic - quite legally and safely - because their path through the junction is clear.


Where I work in Central London, there are decent cycle lanes, separated from the main traffic by a kerb. However, there is still a need for signs at pedestrian eye level to remind us to look both ways for cyclists as well as cars. And just for fun, at one point there seems to be a definite blurring of the boundaries - take a look at Google Street View at Byng Place London WC1E https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Byng+Pl,+London+WC1E/@51.523126,-0.131067,3a,75y,75.95h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9iffEj-0EtZbjP1iD96OCA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D9iffEj-0EtZbjP1iD96OCA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D68.095085%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x48761b2fb215d49b:0x8106a7061837d68d and tell me what you think of the cycle lanes...

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

brat wrote:

I don't think that many cyclists deny the bad behaviour of other cyclists, more that they don't want to be blamed for the actions of others.

It happens often enough in these threads... usually in some form of "but drivers do worse things" or "we're less of a danger to people than car drivers are..."

If you are saying that cyclists deny the bad behaviour of other cyclists, and that it's often evidenced in these threads, then perhaps you could provide a series of links.
If cyclists say "...but drivers do things worse" that's not a denial that cyclist do bad/illegal things. If cyclists say we're less of a danger than car drivers are, again that's not a denial.

c) is indisputable, a) I have no argument with but b) is thoroughly disputable - it comes only from the cyclist's side of the argument and to me, often carries a childish undertone of "you're just jealous". If I wanted to experience that freedom - I'm perfectly capable of doing so - I have no need or desire to.

I think you misunderstand the envy. It's not a jealousy of the freedom or the environmental responsibility. It's not jealousy for the fitness or the toned physique. No, drivers accord a strict moral code that they feel should apply to all. They suffer silently in junction queues or traffic jams, and have a general agreement about how and when to apply the law strictly, and when it can be relaxed a little. Virtually all car drivers accept that moral code. so when a cyclist comes along and filters past the large queue to the junction, many drivers experience a sense that this action is contrary to their moral code. When a cyclist manoeuvres through a gap that they cannot manage through, this again offends, because the cyclist is taking advantage of their smaller size. This frustration is built on envy or jealously that the cyclist is able to progress in a way that defies the unwritten motorists' moral rule book.

As for your 4 categories... In my experience - and this may be skewed to London and other sizeable cities - the commuters, both group 1 and 2, are not as law-abiding as you observe; around 20 to 25% pavement hop on a regular basis, with a subset of those appearing to consider pedestrians as an annoyance to be dodged and sworn at rather than a fellow human being. The same group (probably) also consider pedestrian crossings (pelican or zebra) to be optional. 3 and 4 exist in suburban London pretty much as you describe them.

City cycling and small town cycling are obviously very different. The difference will be in the evolution and the confidence gained by being part of a throng. Just as on the motorway where average speeds are over the legal limit through a combination of habit, example, ease, no rational correlation between the offending behaviour and risk, and the purpose is to save a few minutes, so the cyclist will take the line of least resistance especially if many others do it, and the perception of risk is non-existent.

What I haven't seen in this thread yet is the cyclist deriding the inconsiderate pedestrian who steps into the road without looking causing them to brake, swerve (possibly hit a pothole) etc. In the interests of fairness, I see some of this too. A common case is where the lights at a pedestrian crossing are green but motor traffic has stopped because of e.g. a box junction. In London, plenty of pedestrians will take this as their cue to dash across not looking for or even thinking of a cyclist (or a scooter) filtering between the stopped traffic - quite legally and safely - because their path through the junction is clear.

I was listening to Jeremy Vine on R2 yesterday talking to a blind lad about issues he has with silent electrically powered cars, one of which has knocked him over twice. Jeremy asked him about the risk posed to him by silent cyclists, and he replied that cyclists were more aware that they were silent, and were naturally more aware that pedestrians are likely to walk into their path. There is some truth in that. I routinely cycle through our pedestrian zone, and pedestrians constantly walk into my path. I just steer round them. Sometimes I go a little close to remind them that it's appropriate to look before they change direction. But I'm constantly watching them. Tbh, they are pretty predictable.

Where I work in Central London, there are decent cycle lanes, separated from the main traffic by a kerb. However, there is still a need for signs at pedestrian eye level to remind us to look both ways for cyclists as well as cars. And just for fun, at one point there seems to be a definite blurring of the boundaries - take a look at Google Street View at Byng Place London WC1E https://www.google.co.uk/maps and tell me what you think of the cycle lanes...

Your link isn't working, but I'll try to find it and respond later.

Cornucopia

brat wrote: »

If you are saying that cyclists deny the bad behaviour of other cyclists, and that it's often evidenced in these threads, then perhaps you could provide a series of links.
If cyclists say "...but drivers do things worse" that's not a denial that cyclist do bad/illegal things. If cyclists say we're less of a danger than car drivers are, again that's not a denial.

It's difficult because some of the issues are basic fundamentals regarding the physical differences between Bike and Cars, Cyclists and Drivers. These things cannot change. Other aspects of the discussion concern behaviours, which obviously can be changed.

I think you misunderstand the envy. It's not a jealousy of the freedom or the environmental responsibility. It's not jealousy for the fitness or the toned physique. No, drivers accord a strict moral code that they feel should apply to all.

I like this observation, even if I'm not convinced it is as simple as that. I think (I feel) the envy originates in both the morality you refer to, and also the relative freedom that cyclists enjoy, supported in part by their anonymity. This is why you see so many calls for cyclists to be registered, licensed and/or insured.

They suffer silently in junction queues or traffic jams, and have a general agreement about how and when to apply the law strictly, and when it can be relaxed a little. Virtually all car drivers accept that moral code. so when a cyclist comes along and filters past the large queue to the junction, many drivers experience a sense that this action is contrary to their moral code.

I think this is breaking down a bit. I tend to be more assertive in "making use of all the road space" than the average, I think. This is spurred on by advice like "merge-in-turn at the point of the lane restriction". It can still wind people up, though.

NBLondon

brat wrote: »

No, drivers accord a strict moral code that they feel should apply to all. They suffer silently in junction queues or traffic jams, and have a general agreement about how and when to apply the law strictly, and when it can be relaxed a little. Virtually all car drivers accept that moral code. so when a cyclist comes along and filters past the large queue to the junction, many drivers experience a sense that this action is contrary to their moral code.

I think I got blackballed from that club...


I don't have any objection to a cyclist (or motorcyclist) filtering or passing a queue of traffic safely and I don't have any reason to feel offended. I do object when (for example) they cut back into the line of traffic suddenly from the "wrong" side of the road because of oncoming traffic and cross at 90 degrees in front of a moving car (mine) or when they endanger pedestrians by ignoring traffic rules.


For another example - riding the wrong way down a one-way street. When no-one is around, it makes very little difference; when a pedestrian steps into the road having looked in the one direction traffic is expected from and gets a near-miss and a mouthful of abuse, that's a different matter. (I habitually check both ways because I know some London cyclists will do this but have more than once seen it happen right next to me.) I also note from online forums and shouted arguments in London streets that some cyclists believe that they are permitted to ride down any one-way street in the country in any direction irrespective of signs - what I referred to as ignorance/arrogance upthread.


I think you're right about

no rational correlation between the offending behaviour and risk, and the purpose is to save a few minutes, so the cyclist will take the line of least resistance especially if many others do it, and the perception of risk is non-existent.

plus some knowingly take advantage of the fact that it is more difficult for them to be recognised and penalised than for a vehicle with number plates - the anonymity that cornucopia just mentioned. And there's plenty of examples of motor traffic doing that too - cutting across the centre of a mini-roundabout; ignoring ahead only or filter lanes to be first away from the lights, passing the wrong side of a traffic island to overtake a queue before turning right into a side-road.

Hanky_Panky

I fall into Brat's Group 1. I also regularly visit central London with work. I don't think Group 1 exists in London. They may be wearing the same gear but their purpose is to commute. Who cycles around London for fun?

I just cannot condone some of the behaviour I see by cyclists in London on every visit I make; insane, dangerous and a whole host of other expletives.

I am convinced that cycling wise London is a microcosm and bears little relation to what I see going on in my local area (North Bucks, Milton Keynes).

Altarf

NBLondon wrote: »

A common case is where the lights at a pedestrian crossing are green but motor traffic has stopped because of e.g. a box junction. In London, plenty of pedestrians will take this as their cue to dash across not looking for or even thinking of a cyclist (or a scooter) filtering between the stopped traffic - quite legally and safely - because their path through the junction is clear.

If the cyclist is filtering, or more correctly called undertaking, then they should be taking greater care and travelling a suitably slow speed as they should be aware that pedestrians may be crossing.

Cyclists (and motorists) seem to forget that traffic lights have the force of law, but pedestrian crossing lights are merely indicative.

My personal irritation with cyclists is those who set off before the lights turn green, although when they do it is quite amusing to see the spectacular swerves as a heavy laptop backpack gets swung in their path or an umbrella seems to be aiming towards their spokes.