Sabotage and hatred: what have people got against cyclists?

lonestar1

wolvoman wrote: »

The post I was replying to was asking for cyclists to be registered, insured and licensed. I was merely replying that there's no reason to suggest that is necessary at all.

The figures I quoted re-enforce that point.


Registering and licensing bikes and their owners will do nothing to help safety. It would, however, allow some angry car drivers to be less envious. But since licensing is done via VED, bicycles would be zero rated. And who do you think would pay for all the extra admin to include bicycles in the VED scheme? It wouldn't be the cyclists!

Insurance is a slightly different point, and it's one for common sense. I happen to be insured cycling, but there's little outcry for it to be a legal requirement.

I'd happily pay an extra £10 vehicle duty to cover the costs it would be worth it just to be able to easily identify bad cyclists to the police (something Ive done on occasion with drivers) currently reporting them as cyclist wearing brown shorts and red top would I imagine get you done for wasting police time.

Accountability can be a wonderful thing

lonestar1

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Your previous post suggests that if riders were all trained then you personally would give people on bikes less space. This would make the road more dangerous for vulnerable road users.


Give everyone plenty of space (1.5m) because it reduces potential harm and it's the right thing to do, not because they might not know the HC.

Theres a difference between vulnerable and being reckless because you've had no road training. I always give space for vulnerable and if Im not sure they've had training I leave as much as I can Unfortunately not everyone does the same hence my original post suggestions

brat

Cornucopia wrote: »

brat wrote: »

I see many more motorists obstructing pavements than cyclists.

I've seen/heard this argument before, and it's nonsense.

It's a statement of fact, not an argument. I see lots more cars on pavements than bikes. If you wish to disagree with that, you're wrong.

Perhaps your disagreement is in respect of my next point.

brat wrote: »

This is very likely a significant cause of pedestrian deaths.

You say

Cornucopia wrote: »

A moving bicycle is a significantly greater hazard (especially when ridden with a degree of recklessness) than a stationary car. That should be obvious."

It would be interesting to know the facts. I routinely see kids walking down residential roads when they could be walking on pavements were it not for the cars parked on them. That then place them at much higher risk simply because of the pavement parking. This may not cause many pedestrian fatalities, but it would only need to be the cause of one fatality every three years to be on a par with cycles causing fatal accidents on pavements.

More than that, cars manoeuvring on pavements IS a significant causer of pedestrian fatalities. As a pedestrian (jogger) I've had to avoid many collisions with car drivers who either want to bump up on the pavement to park, or want to drive over a pavement onto their drive.

So, I simply don't agree with your view, and I think if you give it a bit of thought, you may actually agree with me.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Unfortunately, this thread seems to be deteriorating into exactly the sort of tribal nonsense that the original article was commenting on. So well done on that.

It's important to make people realise that their anti cyclist sentiment is (allegedly) based on a perception of risk that's disproportionate to risk caused by other road user groups for which there's hardly a mention. It's already been said that motorists kill 100 times as many pedestrians on pavements as cyclists do, so why is there never the outcry against them?
Is it because we're all 'them'?

Cornucopia

brat wrote: »

It's a statement of fact, not an argument. I see lots more cars on pavements than bikes. If you wish to disagree with that, you're wrong.

Perhaps. Although you need to bear in mind that in some areas, pavement parking is mandated.

Perhaps your disagreement is in respect of my next point.

I suppose my main point is that whilst you've stated your argument in terms of fatalities (the numbers of which you don't know), the argument about pavement parking/pavement riding is not solely about fatalities - it is about nuisance.

... or want to drive over a pavement onto their drive.

So not pavement parking, then?

So, I simply don't agree with your view, and I think if you give it a bit of thought, you may actually agree with me.

I doubt it.

It's important to make people realise that their anti cyclist sentiment is (allegedly) based on a perception of risk that's disproportionate to risk caused by other road user groups for which there's hardly a mention. It's already been said that motorists kill 100 times as many pedestrians on pavements as cyclists do, so why is there never the outcry against them?
Is it because we're all 'them'?

This is a complex argument, and as I said, it's actually more about nuisance and minor injuries rather than fatalities. Add to that all the other feelings and misconceptions that exist on both sides and it is all a bit of a mess.

Even as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian, I don't know what the answer is. It seems to be caught up in basic human frailties like failing to see the other side's point, and believing oneself to be morally right (when in fact, we are talking about mere transport).

One thing I would say is that you need to think about who is doing the accusing. I don't have much time for car driver accusations against cyclists, because it is the driver who owes a duty of care to cyclists. However, when pedestrians are complaining about cyclists (as in the case of pavement-riding), then I take notice, because cyclists ought to owe a duty of care to pedestrians.

Norman_Castle

Cornucopia wrote: »

I've seen/heard this argument before, and it's nonsense. A moving bicycle is a significantly greater hazard (especially when ridden with a degree of recklessness) than a stationary car. That should be obvious.
.

I live on a busy urban road. Pavement parking regularly forces parents with pushchairs, disabled people in wheelchairs and people on motability scooters to walk in the road. A parked car may not be involved in an accident but it may be the cause of a potentially much worse accident..

Cornucopia

wolvoman wrote: »

The post I was replying to was asking for cyclists to be registered, insured and licensed. I was merely replying that there's no reason to suggest that is necessary at all.

Again, there seems to be this slightly narrow focus on fatalities. It's obvious that a cyclist+bike weighing 100kgs is not going to be as potentially damaging as a 1 tonne car, or a 20 tonne truck. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have registration for other reasons.

But since licensing is done via VED, bicycles would be zero rated. And who do you think would pay for all the extra admin to include bicycles in the VED scheme? It wouldn't be the cyclists!

My car is zero-rated, too, so I guess it wouldn't me, either.

Cornucopia

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I live on a busy urban road. Pavement parking regularly forces parents with pushchairs, disabled people in wheelchairs and people on motability scooters to walk in the road. A parked car may not be involved in an accident but it may be the cause of a potentially much worse accident..

Yes, undoubtedly. But the hazard presented by a stationary, if misplaced object and a moving object are conceptually different.

I would hope that the authorities would act with equal enthusiasm to deal with both hazards.

System

brat wrote: »

Envy/jealousy is recognised as one of the motivators of a driver's unreasonable behaviour towards cyclists.

Fred246's post indicates the arrogance of some of the cycling fraternity. Does he really think that that everybody is envious of him riding his bike.

I'll be envious of him when he can carry a 50lb load 30 miles in 45 minutes and do it multiple times in a day

Johno100

wolvoman wrote: »

The post I was replying to was asking for cyclists to be registered, insured and licensed. I was merely replying that there's no reason to suggest that is necessary at all.

The figures I quoted re-enforce that point.

Registering and licensing bikes and their owners will do nothing to help safety. It would, however, allow some angry car drivers to be less envious. But since licensing is done via VED, bicycles would be zero rated. And who do you think would pay for all the extra admin to include bicycles in the VED scheme? It wouldn't be the cyclists!

Insurance is a slightly different point, and it's one for common sense. I happen to be insured cycling, but there's little outcry for it to be a legal requirement.

I agree with almost all of the above. But what about mandatory training for anyone who wants to take to the road on their bike? I'm in favour of a CBT for cyclists based on the bikeability training course(s).

armyknife

!!!!!! wrote: »

Fred246's post indicates the arrogance of some of the cycling fraternity. Does he really think that that everybody is envious of him riding his bike.

I'll be envious of him when he can carry a 50lb load 30 miles in 45 minutes and do it multiple times in a day

Repetitive tasks performed for long hours each day; I'm guessing he wouldn't be envious of your job.