# What are cyclists doing to help their side of the argument



## classic33 (19 Aug 2011)

Asked this by a non-cycling person, who has finally accepted the "Road Tax" situation & insurance for us to be on the road.

Obvious rebuttal of this question aside(what are motorists doing to help their cause). What are we, as cyclists doing to fight our corner & change the mindset of those who wish to ride a bike, but without regards for the rules of the road?

True we will all at sometime or other moan about what they are doing, be it pavement cycling or RLJ.

Do we wait for changes to be forced onto us or do we try & get the change done ourselves?


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

I don't quite get what you are asking



> What are we, as cyclists doing to fight our corner & change the mindset of those *who wish to ride a bike*


Why do we want to change the mindsets of those who wish to ride a bike?



> Do we wait for changes to be forced onto us or do we try & get the change done ourselves?


what changes are you referring too?


----------



## MossCommuter (19 Aug 2011)

there is no argument

some people ride bikes

some people don't


----------



## classic33 (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I don't quite get what you are asking
> 
> 
> *Why do we want to change the mindsets of those who wish to ride a bike? * _but without regards for the rules of the road?
> ...



At least qoute the question in its full form not just part of it. 

As for changes, compulsory daylight running lights, registration, MOT or similar to prove the bike is fit to be on the road & not forgetting the compulsory helmet debate. Possible exclusion from some major roads, A Roads, not motorways.


----------



## downfader (19 Aug 2011)

The law abiding majority should have nothing to worry about. However there needs to be a clear understanding from the descenters that those bad cyclists are not us, and are not encouraged. There also needs to be an understanding that when they moan about bad drivers (and they do) its often done with an element of fear that the Police will "pick" on them instead, a fear that "speeding is hard to avoid"... this is in stark contrast to most cycling communties (online and in person) who consistently repeat that the Police should and must deal with errant road use, even cyling based.

The point is that there ISNT an argument.

The majority of cyclists dont actually need their mindset changed. That there is no recognition of this shows that there is an element of bigotry, even stupidity.


----------



## fimm (19 Aug 2011)

classic33 said:


> As for changes, compulsory daylight running lights, registration, MOT or similar to prove the bike is fit to be on the road & not forgetting the compulsory helmet debate. Possible exclusion from some major roads, A Roads, not motorways.



There are cycling organisations (the CTC is one national example, and there are local ones as well) that campaign against this sort of thing. Is that what you mean? 

(Downfader, the word you want is dissenters.)


----------



## Red Light (19 Aug 2011)

classic33 said:


> True we will all at sometime or other moan about what they are doing, be it pavement cycling or RLJ.



Clearly you've done nothing or you would know about http://www.stopatred.org/

However, some road users break laws. Some of them happen to be cyclists. Some of them happen to be drivers. When I see drivers remonstrating with other drivers for speeding, sitting in the ASL, talking on their mobiles, running red lights...... I might think about remonstrating with cyclists who cross red lights or cycle on the pavement. But it hasn't happened yet so until then I will just accept that both groups have law breakers amongst them and leave it for the police to deal with.


----------



## Ian 74 (19 Aug 2011)

I don't understand this us and them thingy?

Don't most of "us" own cars drive, pay road tax and insurance?

So we should be able to see both points of view.

Saying that I have had my fair share of arguments with drivers whilst I've been out on my bike, normally after being honked at for some unknown reason and as I don't have a horn on my bike I used to wave the fingers back at them as they pasted (saying that the best course of action is to give a friendly wave and cheery smile).

Hey on the flip side seeing two cyclists pootling along side by side taking up the whole side of the road whilst you are in the car trying to get past annoys me as well, (when my wife and I are out for a spin if we hear a car coming we drop into single file till it passes then form up and carry on chatting) I don't honk my horn, I wait patiently and mutter to myself about them being ignorant bastards.... Both sets of road users do things to get on each others tits.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (19 Aug 2011)

classic33 said:


> What are we, as cyclists doing to ... change the mindset of those who wish to ride a bike, but without regards for the rules of the road?


Do you mean like http://www.sillycyclists.co.uk/ for example?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (19 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Clearly you've done nothing or you would know about http://www.stopatred.org/


----------



## Red Light (19 Aug 2011)

Ian 74 said:


> Hey on the flip side seeing two cyclists pootling along side by side taking up the whole side of the road whilst you are in the car trying to get past annoys me as well, (when my wife and I are out for a spin if we hear a car coming we drop into single file till it passes then form up and carry on chatting)



If cars can drive round with seats two abreast and one of them mostly empty I don't see why they have problems with cyclists going around with seats two abreast, both occupied. At least the cyclists are talking to each other to justify it while you in your car have no excuse for that extra empty seat that makes you so wide you can't overtake of be overtaken easily.


----------



## JonnyBlade (19 Aug 2011)

MossCommuter said:


> there is no argument
> 
> some people ride bikes
> 
> some people don't



+1 There is no argument from me. I am entitled to be on the road on my bike and that's that. I abide by the regulations of the road traffic act and my only 'crime' is that I cannot move as quick as a motor vehicle and the driver's ankles may swell and he/she become uncomfortable having to push 4-5 inches onto a series of pedals right in front of his/her feet  


Not only do I insure my bike (the loss of Stan would be too much to bear) I have public liability insurance to cover other road users should I do something stupid


----------



## Ian 74 (19 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> If cars can drive round with seats two abreast and one of them mostly empty I don't see why they have problems with cyclists going around with seats two abreast, both occupied. At least the cyclists are talking to each other to justify it while you in your car have no excuse for that extra empty seat that makes you so wide you can't overtake of be overtaken easily.



That's funny... I think it is really a question of relative speeds rather than width... My main point about the vast majority of us being drivers as well as cyclists should make use more considerate road users... (Yes I know you get the odd knob head to fond of honking his horn, or you feel the brush of the wing mirror from some spatially unaware myopic pie faced fatherless.....) In a perfect world, eh?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Aug 2011)

classic33 said:


> Obvious rebuttal of this question aside(what are motorists doing to help their cause). What are we, as cyclists doing to fight our corner & change the mindset of those who wish to ride a bike, but without regards for the rules of the road?



Some options....

Moan at them in person in real time on the basis that their knob jockery will get me tarred with their brush. Usual response to this rhymes with cough.

Encourage them to take some form of training. Usual response also rhymes with cough.

Accept that everybody who rides a bicycle isn't a cyclist and the behaviour of other people on bicycles and, indeed, other cyclists, is not my problem (in exactly the same way as I don't hold law-abiding drivers to account for the antics of their bell-end colleagues.) Usual response is me riding away with a silly smug grin on my face whilst gently shaking my head.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (19 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> If cars can drive round with seats two abreast and one of them mostly empty I don't see why they have problems with cyclists going around with seats two abreast, both occupied. At least the cyclists are talking to each other to justify it while you in your car have no excuse for that extra empty seat that makes you so wide you can't overtake of be overtaken easily.


----------



## downfader (19 Aug 2011)

I've had a "chat" to one or two cyclists that have done something illegal or dangerous... sometimes they do indeed return with "why don't you f*** off!?" Haha!

One guy lept off a pavement into my path as I followed at traffic speed down Shirley Road. He got a "Watch what you're doing you pleb!" Then 3 minutes later he goes to undertake a lorry at the lights to which I shouted at him about, not just for him but to alert the driver (who thankfully held back).

One young woman riding on the pavement up the Itchen Bridge. Cycle lane to her right, but weaving in between an elderly couple. I said "I think you should be down here, mate!" She plops down behind me. 

...cheers Fimm, btw!


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

classic33 said:


> At least qoute the question in its full form not just part of it.
> 
> As for changes, compulsory daylight running lights, registration, MOT or similar to prove the bike is fit to be on the road & not forgetting the compulsory helmet debate. Possible exclusion from some major roads, A Roads, not motorways.



I didn't understand the full question, the wording wasn't great and it was late at night 


As others have said there are various things which various groups/people are doing.
I do silly cyclists and I ask for others in a similar position to me to contribute if they can and shame as many of them as possible.


----------



## downfader (19 Aug 2011)

On the subject of MOTs for cycles I've often been asked on various news forums about it and why (or indeed moaned at). My response is that even a kid on a bike knows how to stop the thing without using the brakes. So if your brakes failed you use your feet/shoes (ground, or rear wheel wedge on tyre). 

Registration.. whats the point? Its not detered bad drivers, it certainly wont deter any bad cyclists. I've seen the Police have had no problem stopping cyclists as it is, when they actually go out and put the effort in...


----------



## JonnyBlade (19 Aug 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Usual response is me riding away with a silly smug grin on my face whilst gently shaking my head.



I find the shaky head a very powerful tool


----------



## growingvegetables (20 Aug 2011)

> What are we, as cyclists doing to fight our corner & change the mindset of those who wish to ride a bike, but without regards for the rules of the road?



About as much as responsible, careful, alert, and courteous drivers do to change the mindset of the ******* idiots in cars?


cycle/drive responsibly, etc, etc;
and make sure I keep out of the way of the dingbats.
There's any number of initiatives to support the first ... for people cycling/driving/both. But "fighting our corner", "changing the mindset" ........... naaaah! T'aint how the IAM sets out to improve driving skills


----------



## pshore (4 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> If cars can drive round with seats two abreast and one of them mostly empty I don't see why they have problems with cyclists going around with seats two abreast, both occupied. At least the cyclists are talking to each other to justify it while you in your car have no excuse for that extra empty seat that makes you so wide you can't overtake of be overtaken easily.



 Too true.


I am getting hooted at a lot at the moment for cycling on the open road as car drivers consider me to be holding them up.

When I have my _Falling Down_ moment I shall be taking a Klaxon to the morning traffic queues and getting my revenge.


----------



## GTTTM (4 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> If cars can drive round with seats two abreast and one of them mostly empty I don't see why they have problems with cyclists going around with seats two abreast, both occupied. At least the cyclists are talking to each other to justify it* while you in your car have no excuse for that extra empty seat that makes you so wide you can't overtake of be overtaken easily.*




You see I think it's on sweeping comments like that you start to potentially "lose" any argument there may be. I'm not a driver, I don't own a car, can't drive at all (there for I can't even claim that I pay for my use of the road though my various car taxes......).

However I am not so foolish as to think that none of these people would be unable to justify why they are in the car on their own, with no passenger next to them, and not on a bike/public transport instead. Thankfully the world just _isn't_ that black or white


----------



## sheddy (4 Oct 2011)

Prime time TV is the answer

I'm just hoping for a general cycling TV programme series sometime this century.
Please feel free to badger the BBC when you have a moment. http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

Other broadcasters are available. Do SKY show anything along these lines ?


----------



## BluesDave (4 Oct 2011)

classic33 said:


> As for changes, compulsory daylight running lights, registration, MOT or similar to prove the bike is fit to be on the road & not forgetting the compulsory helmet debate. Possible exclusion from some major roads, A Roads, not motorways.



In the Czech Republic and I should imagine some other countries as well it is compulsory to have your headlights on driving any motorised vehicle.
I don't think this applies to bicycles. The fact is that the majority of cyclists will ride in the dark with some form of illumination out of pure common sense.

As for having bicycle lights on all day. I say "never". Can you imagine the cost of the batteries? Who would pay for them?

That aside cycle helmets should be made compulsory, they are for motorcycles so they should be for us. Obviously that's just my opinion and I don't really want to start another pointless helmet debate. 

I also believe that provision should be made for cyclists on A-Roads. Along the A3 you are permitted to ride on the slip roads and or pavements (widened) where they occur. The trouble is that permission or provision does not extend for the length of it.
This obviously carries it's own inherent hazzards though.


----------



## gaz (4 Oct 2011)

sheddy said:


> Prime time TV is the answer
> 
> I'm just hoping for a general cycling TV programme series sometime this century.
> Please feel free to badger the BBC when you have a moment. http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
> ...



I got approached last year to do some stuff on a Cycling TV show. Not sure which channel it was for but it never took off the ground.


----------



## GTTTM (4 Oct 2011)

1512856 said:


> You are missing the point. That cars have a permanent two abreast configuration is such a normal part of the environment that it goes unnoticed. When cyclists ride two abreast, usually taking less space than a car, it is visible and often noticed as a nuisance. Pointing out that drivers are a permanent nuisance from time to time just helps to redress the imbalance a tiny bit.



Fair enough I do see your point but I still think that comments like that are like fighting fire with fire






(should add though thanks to this thread I spend the best part of the morning, nd some of the afternoon perusing all 33 episodes of silly cyclists, was both an eye opener, an "hide behind my hands" (at some of the close shaves) and an education too. 




to Gaz for that one - I thought that commentary was really well balanced


----------



## al78 (4 Oct 2011)

1512856 said:


> You are missing the point. That cars have a permanent two abreast configuration is such a normal part of the environment that it goes unnoticed. When cyclists ride two abreast, usually taking less space than a car, it is visible and often noticed as a nuisance. Pointing out that drivers are a permanent nuisance from time to time just helps to redress the imbalance a tiny bit.



The difference is that (in general) drivers are keeping up with the traffic flow whereas cyclists are mostly going much slower than the traffic flow in all but congested conditions.

If a driver is on a free flowing road and is doing 40 mph because that is the speed they feel is comfortable and safe then it makes no difference to them if the car in front is also doing 40 mph, however if they come across cyclists doing 15 mph then they have to slow down, which imparts a delay, which is where the "nuisance" mentality comes from.


----------



## Red Light (5 Oct 2011)

al78 said:


> The difference is that (in general) drivers are keeping up with the traffic flow whereas cyclists are mostly going much slower than the traffic flow in all but congested conditions.
> 
> If a driver is on a free flowing road and is doing 40 mph because that is the speed they feel is comfortable and safe then it makes no difference to them if the car in front is also doing 40 mph, however if they come across cyclists doing 15 mph then they have to slow down, which imparts a delay, which is where the "nuisance" mentality comes from.



So? I frequently get delayed having to thread my way past cars queued line astern and/or side by side, each with only one passenger in. Cars create massively more congestion and delay for each other than bicycles do.





Relative road space of the same number of pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers and drivers.


----------



## Norm (5 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Relative road space of the same number of pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers and drivers.


 Love this image!



1512863 said:


> You are doing the 'cyclists are something other than traffic' thing.


 He is, isn't he. 

I have spent, and will no doubt continue to spend, many rides with my (teenaged) son discussing the best way to negotiate with *other* traffic quickly and safely for his 3-mile intra-urban commute. This includes when to use a shared-use pavement alongside a busy NSL main road (and when it's better to use the road itself), when to ride along the right hand side of stationary / slow moving cars and when to take the lane on approaches to roundabouts and right turns.

Two of the most important things that I tell him are to wave a thanks if you see anyone who seems to have done anything to make his day easier, and that he is traffic, so he can be assertive and not get bullied out of the way.

I think that the vast majority of drivers are fine with a cyclist who gives clear signals of their actions and intentions. On one stretch into Windsor, for instance, with two fairly narrow lanes for about 250m approaching a roundabout, I've never seen or heard of any cyclist getting hassle for taking one or other of the lanes, whatever their speed. I have, however, seen cyclists who try to ride down the white line separating the lanes being passed on both sides at the same time, something which must have been pretty daunting for the poor chap involved.


----------



## pshore (5 Oct 2011)

al78 said:


> The difference is that (in general) drivers are keeping up with the traffic flow whereas cyclists are mostly going much slower than the traffic flow in all but congested conditions.
> 
> If a driver is on a free flowing road and is doing 40 mph because that is the speed they feel is comfortable and safe then it makes no difference to them if the car in front is also doing 40 mph, however if they come across cyclists doing 15 mph then they have to slow down, which imparts a delay, which is where the "nuisance" mentality comes from.



You are right there we are definitely seen as a PITA, but in my opinion we are being incorrectly blamed.

Given a standard road (one lane each way), if a car is unable to pass a cyclist, who is to blame ?

the cyclist getting in the way
a car driver for using a wide vehicle preventing themselves from overtaking.
the constant stream of cars in the oncoming lane preventing the overtake.
The point is, that a lot of our roads are running close to their maximum capacity. You could, for free flowing roads, set a minimum speed and effectively ban cycles, or you can find ways to reduce demand and increase throughput. 

I wonder what proportion of drivers would want to see us banned to solve congestion ?


----------



## al78 (7 Oct 2011)

1512863 said:


> You are doing the 'cyclists are something other than traffic' thing.



No I'm not, I am comparing one component of the traffic (a cyclist) to the average speed of the general traffic flow, and relating that as to why some drivers (not me personally) get more frustrated with a cyclist in front than a car.


----------



## Gandalf (23 Oct 2011)

Just to clarify, are we talking about the actual _average_ speed or the speed cars manage to achieve whilst pointlessly sprinting between queues and red traffic lights?


----------



## SavageHoutkop (24 Oct 2011)

Gandalf said:


> Just to clarify, are we talking about the actual _average_ speed or the speed cars manage to achieve whilst pointlessly sprinting between queues and red traffic lights?



 well said!


----------

