# What annoys car drivers most about cyclists?



## beanzontoast (10 Apr 2008)

I'd have to say IME it's moving to the head of a stationary queue of traffic, including being able to use bus lanes in the rush hour. Some drivers really don't like that. (Got windscreen washer sprayed at me as I passed a van driver who was stuck in a queue the other day. He found it hilarious - laughing to his mate as I looked back. Nice.).

Or maybe them being held up by a cyclist in primary position when they are desperate to overtake. I see that quite often.

(I'm not suggesting all drivers get upset by cyclists, but it's interesting to think about which are the actions that seem to set the odd ones off!).


----------



## 4F (10 Apr 2008)

I think it is the fact that they see you moving when they are queuing for lights, rab's, accidents and this for some reason winds them up. They also think they have a god given right to be on the road because they mistakingly think they have paid a road tax rather than an emission based tax.


----------



## magnatom (10 Apr 2008)

A legitimate question beanz, but I think we need to balance it with what annoys cyclists most about car drivers. I honestly think we are all as bad as each other. Some cyclists red light jump, pavement cycle etc, some car drivers speed, tailgate etc.

The problem is that the law breaking that cyclists take part in is more visible, i.e. it happens at junctions where the drivers are sitting watching them. It is more difficult to definitively say that a car driver is speeding for instance or tailgating, unless you are driving in the same direction as them, even then it is more subjective.

Just my 2p.


----------



## Terminator (10 Apr 2008)

They can wish they own the road although I try to keep out of the way of cars as they can be an offensive weapon sometimes.


----------



## User482 (10 Apr 2008)

We're fitter, healthier & faster. And better in bed.


----------



## girofan (10 Apr 2008)

User482 said:


> We're fitter, healthier & faster. And better in bed.



Tell them that if they refuse to believe this, to ask their wives!


----------



## Cab (10 Apr 2008)

Anyone have a link to the relevant TRL report handy?
Edit: Here it is, sums things up very well:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=trl+cyclist+perceptions&meta=


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Apr 2008)

The thing that annoys me (as a driver) about cyclists is the habit some of them have of wobbling about in the gutter, rather than claiming their road space. That, and their habit of waving me past. I'll decide when it's safe for me to overtake, thanks.


----------



## the reluctant cyclist (10 Apr 2008)

I definately think that what cheeses them off the most is that we don't have to pay a fee to the government to cycle on the roads but they have to pay a fee to drive on them (see how clever I am in _trying_ to avoid the road tax argument!!)

When I am driving I can't think of what a cyclist does that would cheese me off - I definately would get annoyed if they red light jumped though as I don't like other cyclists doing this.


----------



## Terminator (10 Apr 2008)

> When I am driving I can't think of what a cyclist does that would cheese me off - I definately would get annoyed if they red light jumped though as I don't like other cyclists doing this.



Same here TRC.


----------



## Cab (10 Apr 2008)

the reluctant cyclist said:


> I definately think that what cheeses them off the most is that we don't have to pay a fee to the government to cycle on the roads but they have to pay a fee to drive on them (see how clever I am in _trying_ to avoid the road tax argument!!).



Naah, thats just a dumb ass rationalisation for the anger they're displaying towards us. 

They're angry to begin with. They're sitting there, burning expensive fuel in a vehicle that is depreciating by the minute, going nowhere fast. They're tetchy, they're irritable, they're easily upset. They see a cyclist doing something vaguely different, and their view isn't at all about what the cyclist is rationally doing wrong or what there may be that makes a real difference between a cyclist and a motorist, they simply vent their frustrations towards thoe who they perceive to be different. 

And so many people are thus angry, tetchy and irritable in their cars all day that we've got a sort of national acceptance of bad road behaviour as the norm. It is expected that people will get angry at others who are different, its even tacity encouraged by referring to incidents of thuggish abuse as 'road rage'; people say 'Oh, I totally road raged at him...' as if yelling obscenities from a car window is just one of those things.

We are, as a nation, gripped by a sort of mass hysteria; get a car, drive around, conform, conform, CONFORM! And it is so pervasive that for many people mistreating cyclists is viewed as totally normal.

Its rather like racism 35 years ago. Its respectable to hate cyclists. And it has to change. And we don't change it by giving any credibility to the insane, out of proportion, snivelling criticisms from motorists.


----------



## the reluctant cyclist (10 Apr 2008)

Blimey! I suppose if you put it like that...

Should put a sign on my back saying "At least I'm not a tractor" I think they are the only thing hated even more.


----------



## 4F (10 Apr 2008)

the reluctant cyclist said:


> "At least I'm not a tractor" I think they are the only thing hated even more.



Horse boxes Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Tynan (10 Apr 2008)

every time I hear

rlj
riding on the pavement
no lights


otherwise being on the wrong end of their stupid accident


----------



## Eat MY Dust (10 Apr 2008)

What annoys car drivers most about cyclists?

I've always found that scratching your keys along their paintwork annoys them!!! (only kidding!)

I think it's the perception that cyclists are holding them up. I had a mate moaning at me that he had passed the same cyclist 15 times, it wasn't until I pointed out to him that the cyclist must have passed him at least the same number of times did he understand that they were pretty much traveling at the same average speed!


----------



## Terminator (10 Apr 2008)

What annoys me about motorists?

Mobile Phones
RLJing
Speeding 
Not concentrating for 100000 different reasons.
Unnecessary left hooks dangerous driving
Passing too close
Aggression
Idiots who shouldn't be driving...

Errr too many to mention.


----------



## summerdays (10 Apr 2008)

What annoys car drivers most about cyclists........... well apart from noticing every little mistake made by a cyclist (none made by cars of course) .......... what really annoys them is............

We are enjoying ourselves (happier, fitter etc), they are stuck in their metal shell and paying through the nose to become fatter and more unhealthy. And they don't really understand why would would be enjoying ourselves.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (10 Apr 2008)

Eat MY Dust said:


> I had a mate moaning at me that he had passed the same cyclist 15 times, it wasn't until I pointed out to him that the cyclist must have passed him at least the same number of times did he understand that they were pretty much traveling at the same average speed!


He a bit dim then, your mate? 

I know I get annoyed when they RLJ and/or have no lights (and it's dark), but that's regardless of whether I'm on my bike or in the car.


----------



## beanzontoast (10 Apr 2008)

Good point about the wobbling. When we're in the car, it's really disconcerting to see a cyclist who looks as if they're going to fall off at any moment.

I remember reading somewhere a discussion about what was called the 'controlled wobble' when setting off and it was suggested that this has the effect of making drivers give more attention to the cyclist. Sounds a bit precarious to me.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (10 Apr 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> He a bit dim then, your mate?



Not really. Think to yourself how many times you find yourself in the situation of a car passing you, for you to overtake it further down the road. In London this happens _every_ journey, but do you think that the drivers think that you are "slowing" them down, of course they do.


----------



## Twenty Inch (10 Apr 2008)

User482 said:


> We're fitter, healthier & faster. And better in bed.




My immediate thought as well. And we have buns of steel.


----------



## beanzontoast (10 Apr 2008)

Twenty Inch said:


> My immediate thought as well. And we have buns of steel.



And thighs like tree trunks.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (10 Apr 2008)

I think it is that cyclists appear to dramatically slow down their journey, and at the same time be overtaking them in town.

Motorbikes annoy cars by going too fast, cyclists by too slow.


----------



## Terminator (10 Apr 2008)

Eat MY Dust said:


> Not really. Think to yourself how many times you find yourself in the situation of a car passing you, for you to overtake it further down the road. In London this happens _every_ journey, but do you think that the drivers think that you are "slowing" them down, of course they do.




Not really.They pass me at 70mph then I catch them up.


----------



## jmaccyd (10 Apr 2008)

beanzontoast said:


> And thighs like tree trunks.



And younger looking too (just scientifically proven)


----------



## Nigeyy (10 Apr 2008)

Surprized no one else has said this: I think for some drivers, I'm not sure it's anything cyclists do, rather what they represent -something other than a motorized vehicle that is different from their experience. I know it's obvious, but it's easy to distinguish a cyclist from any other motorized transport -that's a good basis for an irrational dislike right there and then. Add in the car culture and classic case of thinking only they have the right to be on the road......

I'll also add that I believe some drivers don't like cyclists because they perceive bicycles as something they only played with as a child, and stubbornly hold to the falsehood they shouldn't be on the road.

It would be fascinating to know when these attitudes appeared as horses, carts, carriages and bicycles ruled the roads in the early 20th century.


----------



## beanzontoast (10 Apr 2008)

> It would be fascinating to know when these attitudes appeared as horses, carts, carriages and bicycles ruled the roads in the early 20th century.



Question of numbers - once, the motor car was the exception and was treated as such: now it's the horses, carts and cyclists who are the minority.


----------



## sheddy (10 Apr 2008)

Don't forget the cagers that have paid out £000s just to buy their shiny new box - and then are so frustrated when they get nowhere fast


----------



## asterix (10 Apr 2008)

> highway designs that deliberately require cyclists to
> obstruct traffic in order to produce a traffic calming
> effect should be avoided as they are likely to cause
> particular frustration to drivers;



I've often wondered who the lunatic was who first thought of the idea.


----------



## HJ (10 Apr 2008)

Drivers are sold the dream of the freedom of the open road, just look at any car ad, only to find what they have bought is a lot of sitting around in traffic jams. Then some cyclist goes past them, clearly enjoying the freedom of the road and they get upset...


----------



## Molecule Man (10 Apr 2008)

I wouldn't be surprised if most drivers would *say* that they were most annoyed by rlj-ing. However, I have lost count of the number of times I have been hooted or shouted at for actually stopping at the lights when the driver behind me would rather jump them.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (11 Apr 2008)

Molecule Man said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if most drivers would *say* that they were most annoyed by rlj-ing. However, I have lost count of the number of times I have been hooted or shouted at for actually stopping at the lights when the driver behind me would rather jump them.




LOL, I've nearly been run over a couple of times where I've been in primary position and stopped at a light that has just changed to red, and the car behind me has attempted to run it. It's not a nice sound hearing the sound of a car skidding to a stop behind you!!!


----------



## Origamist (11 Apr 2008)

We are considered the decaying matter of the transport food chain because we ride a bike. Size and speed have primacy on our roads, and as such, cyclists are perceived as a nuisance.


----------



## beanzontoast (11 Apr 2008)

I have to ask this, Origamist...

Do you ride a folder?


----------



## Origamist (11 Apr 2008)

beanzontoast said:


> I have to ask this, Origamist...
> 
> Do you ride a folder?



Yep.


----------



## beanzontoast (11 Apr 2008)

Origamist said:


> Yep.



Thank goodness - the universe is in balance as it should be!


----------



## Molecule Man (11 Apr 2008)

Eat MY Dust said:


> LOL, I've nearly been run over a couple of times where I've been in primary position and stopped at a light that has just changed to red, and the car behind me has attempted to run it. It's not a nice sound hearing the sound of a car skidding to a stop behind you!!!



I know what you mean, I've felt it necessary to jump the lights myself once or twice when it has been obvious that the car behind isn't going to stop.


----------



## MartinC (11 Apr 2008)

Motorists in the UK don't like cyclists for the same reason they don't like many things. Creating a car based transport system in the UK was a dumb idea. It's just not big enough and car drivers are competing for unavailable space. They're participating in a failed transport system which frustrates them because they're too stupid to work it out. Naturally because they're all whinging poms whatever it is it's somebody else's fault and somebody else should do something about it.


----------



## 02GF74 (11 Apr 2008)

sp what is exactly is the big deal with going though a red light?

this is done at the cyclists risk and they, knowing they will be smashed to smithereens, only do it when there is no other traffic about, so in effect it is like a normal junction but without the lights.

A lot of the time the lights are on red anyway even when there is no traffic coming across, so what difference does it make?


----------



## Carwash (11 Apr 2008)

02GF74 said:


> sp what is exactly is the big deal with going though a red light?



I'm not well up on this debate, and I'm aware it's been done to death on here before. Old hands, feel free to jump in!



02GF74 said:


> this is done at the cyclists risk



But it's often not just at their own risk - it can place others in danger too.



02GF74 said:


> only do it when there is no other traffic about



How can you be sure?



02GF74 said:


> A lot of the time the lights are on red anyway even when there is no traffic coming across, so what difference does it make?



How about, 'It's against the law.'?


----------



## beanzontoast (11 Apr 2008)

I think you covered it pretty well, Carwash!


----------



## tdr1nka (11 Apr 2008)

What annoys car drivers most about cyclists?
Our very existence surely?

But seriously I think it's for a couple of reasons, in London at least;

1/ they get snobby for us 'taking' something for free(using the roads)akin to thinking on immigrants, benefit fraudsters, the great unwashed, et al.

2/ 'collectively' we all jump lights and disobey every road law going.

For most drivers the car is an extension of their comfort zone and have little or no desire to think or be forced to think about road users outside their own little bubble.


----------



## Tynan (11 Apr 2008)

cars tend to go through lights 'late', bikes tend to go stright through them regardless of timing, there's a difference

the vast majority of rlj by bikes is absolutely safe, that's not the point, when one sort of road users see another sort routinely breaking a rule that they generally observe it's bound to cause resentment


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (11 Apr 2008)

Drivers do not just hate cyclists - everything that travels slower / faster than them gets hated in order of its relative speed to them.

People who drive at 70mph on motorways hate boyraces who drive at 85mph, who hate reps in BMWs who drive at 100mph.

All three hate cyclists, but lawabiding 70mph person less so than boyracer or rep, who hate cyclists equally because the rep is very very fast, and the boy racer want to be very very fast.

Bus drivers hate cyclists in town because they are faster than busses, but they hate cabs more because cabs are quicker.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Apr 2008)

Everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, and everyone who drives faster than me is a lunatic!


----------



## beanzontoast (11 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, and everyone who drives faster than me is a lunatic!




... and those who keep pace with you are stalkers?


----------



## Carwash (11 Apr 2008)

Tynan said:


> cars tend to go through lights 'late', bikes tend to go stright through them regardless of timing, there's a difference



But only an academic one. Both are illegal and needlessly unsafe.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Apr 2008)

Something like that!!! It was a quote, btw.


----------



## beanzontoast (11 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Something like that!!! It was a quote, btw.



... apposite too!


----------



## Tynan (12 Apr 2008)

Carwash said:


> But only an academic one. Both are illegal and needlessly unsafe.



academic? they're real differences and the ones that mattter to the question asked

your point is inane with respect, cyclists jump lights safely, you'd be insane to do it otherwise on a pushbike against cars


----------



## buggi (12 Apr 2008)

User482 said:


> We're fitter, healthier & faster. And better in bed.





Twenty Inch said:


> My immediate thought as well. And we have buns of steel.





beanzontoast said:


> And thighs like tree trunks.





jmaccyd said:


> And younger looking too (just scientifically proven)




Did i mention i was single again ???


----------



## Carwash (12 Apr 2008)

Tynan said:


> cyclists jump lights safely



I'm convinced that cyclists frequently jump the lights without injuring or hindering the progress of themselves or others. I'm not convinced that they do it without unnecessary risk.

Can you please explain, as though to a bear of very little brain, why you feel it is necessary to break the law in this way - a law designed to make the roads safe? Do you believe that cyclists are special in this regard, that the law does not apply to them? I am new to this debate, so I'm genuinely curious as to what might justify it.



Tynan said:


> you'd be insane to do it otherwise on a pushbike against cars



_'Against cars'_? I wasn't aware that it was us vs. them!


----------



## BentMikey (12 Apr 2008)

It might be safe to RLJ some of the time, but it's definitely at increased risk over waiting at the lights. You can't judge how safe cycling is from personal experience either.


----------



## Tynan (12 Apr 2008)

Carwash said:


> I'm convinced that cyclists frequently jump the lights without injuring or hindering the progress of themselves or others. I'm not convinced that they do it without unnecessary risk.
> 
> Can you please explain, as though to a bear of very little brain, why you feel it is necessary to break the law in this way - a law designed to make the roads safe? Do you believe that cyclists are special in this regard, that the law does not apply to them? I am new to this debate, so I'm genuinely curious as to what might justify it.
> 
> ...



Unnecessary risk? Strange concept, perhaps you could define the risks inherent in cycling to work that are necessary and unnecessary? Genuine question

Who said it was necessary to break the law in that way? I'm not an rljer at all, I stop for every single red light. As to justify, it saves a huge amount of time and saves an inordinate amount of stopping and starting

us v them? I assume that's a quip

If no-one is able to judge safety from personal experience that how can you say rljing increases risk?


----------



## Carwash (12 Apr 2008)

Tynan said:


> Unnecessary risk? Strange concept, perhaps you could define the risks inherent in cycling to work that are necessary and unnecessary? Genuine question



I see what you're getting at, but that's not what I mean. I was thinking more that, as I see it, RLJing puts cyclists and others at more risk of having an accident than _not_ RLJing, but gives little benefit for this (so it seems to me). Is that added risk necessary?

What I'm asking I suppose - and I realise I'm not phrasing this very well - is: *What benefit does RLJing give that justifies this increased risk? Clearly there must be one, or people wouldn't do it. But I can't see what it is.*

That, plus the fact that it's against the law and gives cyclists a bad rap (undeserved or not) seems to me to be a strong argument against it.



Tynan said:


> Who said it was necessary to break the law in that way? I'm not an rljer at all, I stop for every single red light.



Fair enough, my mistake. So just so I'm clear - you don't do it, but you do condone it?



Tynan said:


> As to justify, it saves a huge amount of time and saves an inordinate amount of stopping and starting



So it's quicker, and means that you don't have to stop so often? That doesn't seem like much of a justification to me. The same might be said of breaking the speed limit. You can't just ignore laws that you happen to find inconvenient. Traffic flow requires that vehicles pause to allow other vehicles to move. It's give and take. Why should bicycles be excluded from that?



Tynan said:


> us v them? I assume that's a quip



Of course.


----------



## tdr1nka (12 Apr 2008)

RLJ'ing is just crap.
By anyone.
Hit an amber and you're commited, go on thru.
Otherwise just stop, like everyone else has to.


----------



## cannondale boy (12 Apr 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> RLJ'ing is just crap.
> By anyone.
> Hit an amber and you're commited, go on thru.
> Otherwise just stop, like everyone else has to.



Depending on what speed your travelling at?...could be dangerous, and the driver thats behind you is thinking "why the f*** did he not just go"!  (debatable)

Just another possibility that some drivers don't like cyclists.


----------



## tdr1nka (12 Apr 2008)

cannondale boy said:


> Depending on what speed your travelling at?...could be dangerous, and the driver thats behind you is thinking "why the f*** did he not just go"!  (debatable)
> 
> Just another possibility that some drivers don't like cyclists.




I prefer not to let assumptions of what a car driver is thinking suggest the way I ride.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't?


----------



## simoncc (13 Apr 2008)

The thing most motorists complain to me about is my behaviour on narrow roads. Usually these are urban, with cars parked on both sides, leaving a narrow carriageway in the centre. As I approach an oncoming car they seem to expect me to slow down and get out of the way. I never do and the car has to stop. Occasionally I am asked by the car driver why I didn't get out of the way. I explain that the left side of the road has more than enough space for me to travel along unhindered while they need both the left side and the right side to progress, and that's why they should wait. Of course, my reasoning is not well received.


----------



## Abitrary (13 Apr 2008)

simoncc, why are you such a whinger??? I tried to read that, with honest intent, and my leg started involintarlily kicking.

Most commuters want to get from a to b without any fuss.

You my friend are going to put people off of cycling forever, if you don't shut up.


----------



## simoncc (13 Apr 2008)

Abitrary said:


> simoncc, why are you such a whinger??? I tried to read that, with honest intent, and my leg started involintarlily kicking.
> 
> Most commuters want to get from a to b without any fuss.
> 
> You my friend are going to put people off of cycling forever, if you don't shut up.




I'll think you'll find that by facing down motorists on narrow, car blocked roads you'll get from a to b more quickly. I speak fom experience. If you want to become a cyclist on today's roads then listen to the likes of me. I know what I'm talking about, and I've got the urban miles to prove it. 

If, on the other hand, you are a lifestyle cyclist with no particular place to go and with an image to uphold, then do whatever you like.


----------



## longers (13 Apr 2008)

Simon is right on this. There's a few places on my ride to work where oncoming drivers cross the centre line because of parked cars on their side of the road, they should give way to traffic that is able to proceed on their own side. They don't want to and try not to but they are wrong. I can see how it pees them off having to brake/slow down or move for a mere cyclist.


----------



## Tynan (13 Apr 2008)

Why should the bike ever give way to a car if they're not obliged to? if there's not room to pass safely I'd certainly hold primary at least

as to calling others self-gratification artists etc etc, yeah whatever, well done


----------



## gavintc (13 Apr 2008)

Having seen some of Arbitrary's early morning comments. I think alcohol or weed has influenced some of the more bizarre comments.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Apr 2008)

longers said:


> Simon is right on this. There's a few places on my ride to work where oncoming drivers cross the centre line because of parked cars on their side of the road, they should give way to traffic that is able to proceed on their own side. They don't want to and try not to but they are wrong. I can see how it pees them off having to brake/slow down or move for a mere cyclist.



Seconded. It can even be downright dangerous on roads with parked cars on both sides. You have to own the space, IMO.


----------



## yenrod (13 Apr 2008)

SimonCC#s approach is quite correct if you dont risk your life ie state the right to your space..then you wont last long, mortally.


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Apr 2008)

I'm with simoncc, I believe that any vehicle that has to cross to the on coming lane has to give way to traffic on it's own side of the road.

If someone doesn't look like giving way in these circumstances I simply stop dead in primary and wait for them to realise they can't get past and slow down before I then proceed. This usually works.


----------



## Cab (14 Apr 2008)

Simon is right. Of course in practice you want to get where you're going, so does the other guy, and you both know that you may have to compromise. If theres a gap in parked vehicles on your side but not his then use it; don't feel in any way obliged to always give way when its your priority though.


----------



## Big T (14 Apr 2008)

I find what winds drivers up the most is riding on the road, when there's shared use cycle/footway. They seem to think that because there is a cycle path then we should be on it. I even had a guy in a BT van berate me for being on the road. He even said the "bike in a red triangle" sign meant no cycling. I told him he should read the Highway Code as it actually means watch out for cyclists.


----------



## LLB (14 Apr 2008)

Tynan said:


> cars tend to go through lights 'late', bikes tend to go stright through them regardless of timing, there's a difference
> 
> the vast majority of rlj by bikes is absolutely safe, that's not the point, when one sort of road users see another sort routinely breaking a rule that they generally observe it's bound to cause resentment




I think this is a fair comment. 

I'd add that there is a lot of cycling in the pedestrian areas in my town, and also against the flow on the one way system (not by the 'serious about cycling' bunch though).


----------



## beanzontoast (14 Apr 2008)

Big T said:


> I find what winds drivers up the most is riding on the road, when there's shared use cycle/footway. *They seem to think that because there is a cycle path then we should be on it. I* even had a guy in a BT van berate me for being on the road. He even said the "bike in a red triangle" sign meant no cycling. I told him he should read the Highway Code as it actually means watch out for cyclists.



Irrespective of whether people believe in cyclists being separated from other traffic, the cycle paths on my route to work are, in the main, rendered unusable by broken glass. I've reported them, but they never stay clear for long. I doubt the average car driver gives this a thought. They just see a cyclist on the road.


----------



## jonesy (14 Apr 2008)

Big T said:


> I find what winds drivers up the most is riding on the road, when there's shared use cycle/footway. They seem to think that because there is a cycle path then we should be on it. I even had a guy in a BT van berate me for being on the road. He even said the "bike in a red triangle" sign meant no cycling. I told him he should read the Highway Code as it actually means watch out for cyclists.



Another myth doing the rounds is that a round blue sign with a cycle symbol means that use of the cycle path is mandatory, so you aren't allowed to cycle on the road next to a path with such signs...

IMO the greatly increased use of shared-use pavements in recent years has been a retrograde step for cycling- usually offering an inferior alternative to staying on the road, taking space from pedestrians and undermining our right to use the road in the eyes of motorists. It is particularly depressing that such farcilities are a common feature of the National Cycle Network, which sets a very damaging precedent to those in charge of designing cycling infrastructure.


----------



## Cab (14 Apr 2008)

mjones said:


> IMO the greatly increased use of shared-use pavements in recent years has been a retrograde step for cycling- usually offering an inferior alternative to staying on the road, taking space from pedestrians and undermining our right to use the road in the eyes of motorists. It is particularly depressing that such farcilities are a common feature of the National Cycle Network, which sets a very damaging precedent to those in charge of designing cycling infrastructure.



I agree entirely.

Cycling home today, in primary position on Milton Road, doing a decent lick, certainly enough pace such that the limiting factor on how quickly I'd get to my turn off would be traffic rather than my basic speed, I heard a beep behind me. Looked round, another cyclist was maybe 15 yards behind me in primary position, a car honking. I ignored this, other cyclist also clearly ignored it. Very soon afterwards another loud honking, I'm ware at that time that the same car is now right behind me. Overtook (I was also in primary, knowing there was a muppet with a horn behind me made that decision easy!), woman in passenger seat swearing and poinging over at the shared use path by the side of the road, driver gesturing less politely.

Of course, I caught up at the roundabout, and, of course, I waved and smiled as I sailed past them and, of course, at the junction with Arbury Road I was there WAY before they were, I had not affected their journey time in any way. But I hadn't been on the shared use path, and thats _wrong_ you know.


----------



## LLB (14 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> I agree entirely.
> 
> Cycling home today, in primary position on Milton Road, doing a decent lick, certainly enough pace such that the limiting factor on how quickly I'd get to my turn off would be traffic rather than my basic speed, I heard a beep behind me. Looked round, another cyclist was maybe 15 yards behind me in primary position, a car honking. I ignored this, other cyclist also clearly ignored it. Very soon afterwards another loud honking, I'm ware at that time that the same car is now right behind me. Overtook (I was also in primary, knowing there was a muppet with a horn behind me made that decision easy!), woman in passenger seat swearing and poinging over at the shared use path by the side of the road, driver gesturing less politely.
> 
> Of course, I caught up at the roundabout, and, of course, I waved and smiled as I sailed past them and, of course, at the junction with Arbury Road I was there WAY before they were, I had not affected their journey time in any way. But I hadn't been on the shared use path, and thats _wrong_ you know.




I used to be all for the shared use, but I think they are doing cycling as a whole a great disservice 

They just reinforce the misguided notion that cycles don't belong on the road


----------



## jonesy (15 Apr 2008)

I had a new varient of the 'get on the cycle path' abuse today: this time it was 'why don't you ride on the pavement?! 

I wasn't sure whether the beetroot-faced company car driver thought the pavement was a cycle path (other drivers make that mistake as there is a shared use cycle path further up the road, though the different signposting ought to provide a clue...), or whether he now assumes that all pavements are for cyclists. From his physical appearance he doesn't walk much either, so probably isn't bothered by the distinction.


----------



## HLaB (15 Apr 2008)

mjones said:


> I had a new varient of the 'get on the cycle path' abuse today: this time it was 'why don't you ride on the pavement?!
> 
> I wasn't sure whether the beetroot-faced company car driver thought the pavement was a cycle path (other drivers make that mistake as there is a shared use cycle path further up the road, though the different signposting ought to provide a clue...), or whether he now assumes that all pavements are for cyclists. From his physical appearance he doesn't walk much either, so probably isn't bothered by the distinction.


I've not had it verbally but I've had somebody ponting angrily geusturing me to get on the pavement. The footway in question has quite uneven slabs, passes by the front of shops, by bus stops and behind parked cars. Not to mention the fact its illegal, they wonder why I don't use it


----------



## Over The Hill (15 Apr 2008)

In the letters section of my local paper (Basingstoke Gazette) a cyclist wrote in complaining about cars parking in a cycle path (about the only decent bit of cycle path in Basigstoke). 

This prompted a car drive to respond with a rant which basically was that he pays road tax and we do not so we should be on the pavement and as he paid for the road it was his by right. 

Is this behind the mentality of car drivers? In paying car tax where we do not they think we are somehow freeloading on their provision of a road and see us as a parasite. They then get tipped over the edge when we are able to filter through a queue or are given a bit or road space to ourselves.


----------



## Tynan (15 Apr 2008)

tell him/them that trucks pay well over a £1,000/year and likewise think they own the road and cars should piss off, I used to hitch a lot and thats what they all said every time a car got in their way

that and most cyclist will be drivers too and will pay road tax too, and then go on to cycle and do far less damage to the road surface

in short, an imbecilic argument


----------



## magnatom (15 Apr 2008)

Tynan said:


> tell him/them that trucks pay well over a £1,000/year and likewise think they own the road and cars should piss off, I used to hitch a lot and thats what they all said every time a car got in their way
> 
> that and most cyclist will be drivers too and will pay road tax too, and then go on to cycle and do far less damage to the road surface
> 
> in short, an imbecilic argument



You've fallen into the trap Tynan, you don't and they don't pay road tax....


----------



## jely (15 Apr 2008)

Tynan said:


> that and most cyclist will be drivers too and will pay road tax too, and then go on to cycle and do far less damage to the road surface



oh oh - i don't even own a car to pay road tax (or whatever) ... i'm going to be in so much trouble! 



beanzontoast said:


> And thighs like tree trunks.



and being a female with my new bike, this is a somewhat worrying statement for the future!


----------



## Renard (15 Apr 2008)

The sad thing is car drivers' arguments are regurgitated claptrap. Not an original thought between them and I blame motoring journalists for putting half these ideas in their heads. I drive quite a lot during the course of a day's work and I have only seen two rlj cyclists in the past couple of years, for example. I think a lot of the common perceptions about cyclists are unfounded.


----------



## Twenty Inch (15 Apr 2008)

We're their shadow selves. We're fitter, faster, leaner, younger, more likely to be in higher income brackets and to have higher education.

Every time a cyclist whips past a motorist, the motorist is potentially reminded of their failed resolutions to get fit, drive less, save the world, their annoyance at life and the "unfairness" of someone on a £250 machine going faster and having more fun than someone in a £20,000 machine.

Add the crappy cycle lanes that we sensibly don't use, the UK's deteriorating standards of public life and mutual respect, and the poisonous bile spread by Clarkson, Parris, Havers et al., and it's surprising we don't face more abuse.

Still, we will inherit the future, and I am looking forward to lines of cars rusting in peace as fuel becomes too rare to allow private motoring.


----------



## beanzontoast (15 Apr 2008)

Twenty Inch said:


> We're their shadow selves. We're fitter, faster, leaner, younger, more likely to be in higher income brackets and to have higher education.
> 
> Every time a cyclist whips past a motorist, the motorist is potentially reminded of their failed resolutions to get fit, drive less, save the world, their annoyance at life and the "unfairness" of someone on a £250 machine going faster and having more fun than someone in a £20,000 machine.
> 
> ...



Not sure that's going to happen. There's going to be a huge demand for alternative fuels - an incredibly lucrative market - and this kind of opportunity will have huge technical resources thrown at it. I think solutions will be found that, though they may have other drawbacks, will enable car drivers to keep on driving.

Now, congestion - that's a problem that they will still have to face....


----------



## User482 (15 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> You've fallen into the trap Tynan, you don't and they don't pay road tax....



Unfortunately, arguments about VED and how roads are really paid for go over the heads of these morons. I just tell them that I do pay road tax, and that I'd like a refund seeing as my car is sitting on the drive at home.


----------



## nethalus (15 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> You've fallen into the trap Tynan, you don't and they don't pay road tax....



I think what they mean is that they have to pay tax on there car, without which you are not allowed to drive it on a public road regardless of where that tax ends up. Where as a bike maybe ridden without the need for tax to be paid, other than say VAT when you purchased it like. Yes we all pay council tax, income tax etc but if you don't have a car you don't pay a vehicle tax like. 
Saying that, it does not give motorists the right to threaten or bully other people simply because they are on a bicycle.


----------



## bonj2 (15 Apr 2008)

Twenty Inch said:


> We're their shadow selves. We're fitter, faster, leaner, younger, *more likely to be in higher income brackets *and to have higher education.



source, please?
I think it's probably true, but this claim keeps cropping up in cars vs cyclists threads and I think people just trot it off when the only place they've heard it is on here, in a previous similar thread. I asked magnatom this a while back and he basically confirmed my observation.


----------



## fossyant (15 Apr 2008)

I love it, when some fella or lady is sat in their big fast car and I scream past them on my MTB (not even the road bike)..... you can see their faces when they realise the speed you are doing.... and they are going no-where fast.....

I also love sitting at the traffic lights and having a sip of water when it's hissing it down, hailing and stuff - they must think we are mad....

I hate sitting in traffic these days (after a number of lengthy years commuting 25-30 miles each way by car) so at weekends, my local large supermarket (read lots of traffic) hasn't been visited by me in ages - I'll pop off the other way to the small local Somerfield !


----------



## nethalus (15 Apr 2008)

Twenty Inch said:


> We're their shadow selves. We're fitter, faster, leaner, younger, more likely to be in higher income brackets and to have higher education.
> .



When I used to cycle to work it was because I couldn't afford a car and sometimes didn't have sufficient money for bus fare.


----------



## HLaB (15 Apr 2008)

I found out that a cyclist overtaking a bus at a bus stop annoys car drivers. I did so but as I was turning right instead of swerving back in front of the bus to commit suicide, I stayed in the right turn lane indicating all the time. From the sound of their horn they didn't like that.


----------



## 02GF74 (16 Apr 2008)

02GF74 said:


> Originally Posted by 02GF74
> this is done at the cyclists risk
> 
> 
> ...


Like who? A car driver in a stationary steel box?

Tell me which do you consider is the safer situation.
1. Traffic behind and in front is not moving. There is nothing coming from the left.
There is nothing coming from the right.
2. Traffic is passing by on your right from behind, which may decide to push you into the kerb or to cut across you in order to turn left, sometimes without indicating. Traffic froming from the opposite direction that again may want to turn to the left (from your point of view) again crossing your path. Traffic on the left and right stationary or as above not there.
The first would be the RLJ scenario.


Posted by 02GF74 said:


> only do it when there is no other traffic about
> 
> 
> Carwash said:
> ...


By using those three items that through evolution have helped humans to survive - eyes, ears and brain.



02GF74 said:


> A lot of the time the lights are on red anyway even when there is no traffic coming across, so what difference does it make?
> 
> 
> Carwash said:
> ...


Agreed it is against the law but it is hardly the most serious and heinous cirme ever commited?
What about the drivers jabbering on mobiles, speeding, not indicating or going through red light at 3 or 4 times the speed of a pedal cyclist??

NOT THAT THAT IS AN EXCUSE but if a cyclist can gain some advantage in making their cycling environment safer,which may inlude RLJ, then why is that so wrong?

In USA they have system where you can turn right on a red light - over here that would be termed as RLJ - yet that system is working very successfully. Obviously in all situations you used eyes/ears/brain to determine when you should be driving and when you should be waiting.


----------



## HLaB (16 Apr 2008)

I saw quite a funny RLJ last night, comming from the pleasance towards the junction with the Royal Mile (Edinburgh) I'm stopped at the red which just changed as I approach, to tell the truth I was glad of the break. About 20secs later the lights still at red a mini ran the red quite fast, a few seconds later slammed on the brakes and gingerally reversed 15 or 20m. It was a good job there was no traffic on the royal mile as visibility to or from it are limited; it was funny at the time


----------



## Tynan (16 Apr 2008)

'There is nothing coming from the left.
There is nothing coming from the right.'

isn't that exactly what car drivers say to themselves before they pull out in front of cyclists?

I've yet to see a junction that needed to be jumped 'for safety', genuinely saying so sounds like an indictment of someone's road skills to me


----------



## Cab (16 Apr 2008)

Saw a funny thing yesterday.

Stopped at the lights, behind a car and a lorry; the car wasn't indicating, the lorry indicating right. Lights change, lorry took time to get going, by the time the car went the lights were amber and they were red by the time he was through. I cursed under my breath (naturally), and stopped. Four seconds later or thereabouts a recumbent came from behind me at a reasonable speed, straight through the red light.

Never seen a recumbent blatantly RLJ before. 

Left me pondering whether bad recumbent riders get us all a bad name or not...


----------



## magnatom (16 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> Saw a funny thing yesterday.
> 
> 
> Never seen a recumbent blatantly RLJ before.



Mike were you in Cambridge?....


----------



## nethalus (16 Apr 2008)

I only really get annoyed with cyclists when they do stupid or dangerous things, but then I get annoyed with car drivers for the same reason. Like one guy waiting to come out of a side turning, my bus is the only vehicle on the road, nothing behind me for miles. I'm thundering along between 35 and 40 (on a 40mph road). Mr Cyclist decides he can't wait 10 seconds until I've passed the junction he's pulling out of, no he decides it's better to pull out infront of the bus, forcing me to have to brake hard to avoid flattening him!
I don't really have a problem with cyclists they are on the road and if needs be I pass them wide and carry on without further ado. But my other half gets really wound up about them for some unknown reason. Just the sight of a cyclist, particularily ones wearing lycra gear, really winds him up. He starts swearing and grinding his teeth. I really don't understand it, especially in most cases the cyclist hasn't done anything wrong, and has even stopped at a red light. Mind you I've found since he's become a coach driver his driving has become agressive all round.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (16 Apr 2008)

nethalus said:


> Mind you I've found since he's become a coach driver his driving has become agressive all round.



Maybe you should tell him to find a new job. The last thing we need is another person on the road who has the potential of doing something lethal while in a rage.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Apr 2008)

Tynan said:


> I've yet to see a junction that needed to be jumped 'for safety', genuinely saying so sounds like an indictment of someone's road skills to me



Absolutely right.

Magnatom, and why would you think I run red lights?


----------



## magnatom (16 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Magnatom, and why would you think I run red lights?



Only a joke Mike!! Your the only bent rider I know (of)! 

Although I heard a rumour that there were other cyclechat members who were of the bent persuasion!


----------



## PBancroft (16 Apr 2008)

Eat MY Dust said:


> Maybe you should tell him to find a new job. The last thing we need is another person on the road who has the potential of doing something lethal while in a rage.



Indeed. Would probably be good for his health too.


----------



## nethalus (16 Apr 2008)

Eat MY Dust said:


> Maybe you should tell him to find a new job. The last thing we need is another person on the road who has the potential of doing something lethal while in a rage.




Mind you it might be because we've both been suffering a lot of stress lately. The pay he brings home at the moment is a lot better than some jobs offer at the moment.


----------



## Cab (16 Apr 2008)

nethalus said:


> But my other half gets really wound up about them for some unknown reason. Just the sight of a cyclist, particularily ones wearing lycra gear, really winds him up. He starts swearing and grinding his teeth.



If he's getting that wound up then he really, _really_ shouldn't be out on the road.


----------



## nethalus (16 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> If he's getting that wound up then he really, _really_ shouldn't be out on the road.



He don't do anything to said cyclists. Just rants about them like.


----------



## PBancroft (16 Apr 2008)

nethalus said:


> He don't do anything to said cyclists. Just rants about them like.



Does he rant at them too? 'Cos that's kinda intimidating when you're a cyclist and the ranter is driving something significantly larger than a bungalow.

Seriously, if he's that wound up about *anything* it might be worth taking five.


----------



## jonesy (16 Apr 2008)

nethalus said:


> He don't do anything to said cyclists. Just rants about them like.



Attitude affects how you drive... what's at the forefront of his mind as he overtakes a cyclist: how to pass them safely or how much he hates them?


----------



## nethalus (16 Apr 2008)

Kaipaith said:


> Does he rant at them too? 'Cos that's kinda intimidating when you're a cyclist and the ranter is driving something significantly larger than a bungalow.
> 
> Seriously, if he's that wound up about *anything* it might be worth taking five.




No he doesn't rant at them.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (16 Apr 2008)

Come on guys, no need to get nasty.

Nethalus's other half qualifies as a cager - just like soooooo many other drivers out there, of vehicles of all sizes. Lets leave it at that.


----------



## HJ (16 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> Only a joke Mike!! Your the only bent rider I know (of)!
> 
> Although I heard a rumour that there were other cyclechat members who were of the bent persuasion!



And you wonder why you get death threats, Mag


----------



## PBancroft (16 Apr 2008)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> Come on guys, no need to get nasty.
> 
> Nethalus's other half qualifies as a cager - just like soooooo many other drivers out there, of vehicles of all sizes. Lets leave it at that.



My apologies to Nethalus if I came across as being nasty.

My only thought was I've been there. I've been stressed enough to not be able to think straight (I remember once driving home a twenty mile trip and just screaming the entire way).

It isn't pretty, and it isn't somewhere I would wish anyone else to be. My point is genuine - if something, *anything,* is winding him up enough to make him rant about it, it might be worth taking five.


----------



## Cab (16 Apr 2008)

Kaipaith said:


> It isn't pretty, and it isn't somewhere I would wish anyone else to be. My point is genuine - if something, *anything,* is winding him up enough to make him rant about it, it might be worth taking five.



No 'might be' about it; someone in that mood has no place in control of a vehicle. Someone who always responds that way to a cyclist has no place on our roads, period.


----------

