# Do we not deserve our bad rep?



## adunn01 (29 Nov 2008)

From reading a few posts recently, and witnessing some poor cycling on my commutes through Glasgow over the last 6 months I've come to the conclusion that drivers general opinion of cyclists as a nuisance is pretty understandable.

We expect to be treated with respect as fellow road users and for drivers to follow every rule with regard to cyclist to the letter, but the vast majority of cyclists have no issues RLJing, cycling without lights in the dark, etc etc.

I had a conversation with a motorcyclist the other week while stopped at a red light which started with him saying "I thought you lot didn't need to stop at red lights" - people don't come to these conclusions based on a handful of cyclists not following the rules. 

It's easy for us to complain about being picked on in the media, the police having no time for us, drivers thinking we don't deserve our space in the but until we get our own house in order it's never going to change.


----------



## hackbike 6 (29 Nov 2008)

*I had a conversation with a motorcyclist the other week while stopped at a red light which started with him saying "I thought you lot didn't need to stop at red lights" - people don't come to these conclusions based on a handful of cyclists not following the rules.*

Although he was taking the pee why is it necessary for him to make a comment like this?

I notice motorcyclists aren't whiter than white either.


----------



## dondare (29 Nov 2008)

_*I *_do not deserve a bad reputation because people see other cyclists behaving badly.

Ask Mr. Motorcyclist (should you see him again) whether speed limits apply to motorbikes. Feign astonishment if he admits that they do.


----------



## jezhiggins (29 Nov 2008)

adunn01 said:


> We expect to be treated with respect as fellow road users and for drivers to follow every rule with regard to cyclist to the letter, but the vast majority of cyclists have no issues RLJing, cycling without lights in the dark, etc etc.



It's a minority. I'm not even sure it's a significant minority.



adunn01 said:


> I had a conversation with a motorcyclist the other week while stopped at a red light which started with him saying "I thought you lot didn't need to stop at red lights" - people don't come to these conclusions based on a handful of cyclists not following the rules.



But not everybody has to come to those conclusion - probably only a minority have. It's very easy to remember to the bad, the stupid, or the dangerous. People don't remember all the non-incidents. It might only takes a couple of encounters with a cyclist/house/BMW driver/white van driver/policeman/old person/foreigner/etc to sour somebody. Unfortunately, once somebody has taken a position like that, it's very difficult to reason with them and change their mind.



adunn01 said:


> It's easy for us to complain about being picked on in the media, the police having no time for us, drivers thinking we don't deserve our space in the but until we get our own house in order it's never going to change.



Cyclists are not a universal church, any more than drivers are.


----------



## ComedyPilot (29 Nov 2008)

I wonder how many RLJ'ers are newly converted cyclists, and have brought with them their must-get-ahead attitude from driving a car?


----------



## dondare (29 Nov 2008)

In London and Scotland there do seem to be a lot of poor cyclists who commit the henious crimes mentioned. From what I've seen on my commute and the evidence submitted by the Northwallians here and on Youtube I'd say a significant majority are guilty of something illegal, dangerous or antisocial. 
I'm interested to hear that they're better behaved in Brummagen.


----------



## dondare (29 Nov 2008)

ComedyPilot said:


> I wonder how many RLJ'ers are newly converted cyclists, and have brought with them their must-get-ahead attitude from driving a car?




When the C-charge was introduced in London a lot of motorists switched to bike, and the standard of cycling fell like a paralyzed falcon.


----------



## dondare (29 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> So next time you are out on your bike and a motorist cuts you up, drives badly etc. You really think this is because the day before they saw a cyclist RLJing?



I really believe that sometimes it's part of the reason. Now try and convince me that it ain't.


----------



## classic33 (29 Nov 2008)

Teres as many car drivers doing the same thing being discussed here.The problem being that they seem unwilling to condem their own. Plenty on here condone RLJ, pavement cycling. Often in the press, but I have yet to see a letter from a motorist doing the same. Wonder why.

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=17622&highlight=letter+local


----------



## dondare (29 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> How many angry drivers are there out in the world?



All of them.


----------



## domd1979 (29 Nov 2008)

I think it varies, but sadly I think there's a significant proportion of cyclists who are law breaking in one way or another. Last week I spent a couple of hours driving around town (journey time surveying) in the evening rush hour. Saw quite a lot of cyclists in that time. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number I saw that had lights and were cycling on the road. Most of them had no lights or were cycling on the pavement, or both. A couple of those that I did see on the road, and actually with lights, then spoilt it by RLJing and cycling down the gutter up the inside of vehicles with hardly any room to spare (despite there being an outside lane in one place that was empty and much safer to use to overtake on the outside). There also seem to be an element of people with lights on, but at about half a candle power because they haven't replaced the batteries since 1994.

On the other hand the proportion of knobs on bikes probably isn't any less than those in cars. The amount of blatant RLJing by cars at every set of traffic signals was very high, to the point that when I was right turning, the oncoming traffic hadn't cleared until the signals for the other way had gone green thanks to the amount of RLJing. Equally, unless congestion dictates otherwise, 30mph limits are largely ignored.

There's a lot of pot, kettle, and black....!!




jezhiggins said:


> It's a minority. I'm not even sure it's a significant minority.


----------



## PBancroft (29 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> How many angry drivers are there out in the world?



More than you'd think. At my old job there was a sweet old lady who, shortly after congratulating me on cycling to Swanage and back (about 140 miles) started complaining loudly about how cyclists shouldn't be on the road, because they hold everyone up, run red lights, don't pay tax. 

You know, the normal stuff. What was particularly annoying about it was that she just didn't seem to click that I cycle. When I pointed this out to her, she simply said that she didn't mean _me_.

I've been in a car with people who simply drive through cyclists space, no attempt to indicate or pass safely. And of course then they'll say 'Look at that idiot! All over the road!'

It's not just cyclists that cause this anger. People get angry when folk don't let them out at a junction, when they don't wave thank you, when they forget to indicate, or when traffic lights turn red. People get angry when they get caught in traffic, or when the shortcut they try doesn't work as well as it should. 

Driving a car can be a pretty stressful business for some people, and yet they carry on doing it.


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Nov 2008)

adunn01 said:


> From reading a few posts recently, and witnessing some poor cycling on my commutes through Glasgow over the last 6 months I've come to the conclusion that drivers general opinion of cyclists as a nuisance is pretty understandable.
> 
> We expect to be treated with respect as fellow road users and for drivers to follow every rule with regard to cyclist to the letter, but the vast majority of cyclists have no issues RLJing, cycling without lights in the dark, etc etc.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## BentMikey (29 Nov 2008)

There's another part of this too, that motorists treat cyclists as another tribe. They're much quicker to ignore or forgive and forget transgressions of other motorists, and quick to point out the most minor failure of a cyclist.

They forget we're all humans, and that most of us drive cars too. It's the new tribalism/racism.


----------



## ComedyPilot (29 Nov 2008)

A well-publicised one day 'zero-tolerance' initiative by the Met on RLJing cyclists will go a long way to showing motorists that cyclists who do this are NOT above the law. Besides, I wonder how many other crimes would come to light whilst stopping these 'cyclists'? Drug runners, fine dodgers, illegal immigrants, thieves, burglars, rapists/murderers? Stranger things have been found on stop-checks.


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> Come on are you serious?


Yes, and why not?


----------



## mickle (29 Nov 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> Yes, and why not?


+ I


----------



## snorri (29 Nov 2008)

dondare said:


> In London and Scotland



I cycle for months without seeing an rlj, and I cycle for weeks without seeing traffic lights.


----------



## hackbike 6 (29 Nov 2008)

dondare said:


> I really believe that sometimes it's part of the reason. Now try and convince me that it ain't.



I know a moton at work who has a poor attitude towards cyclists:

*Because we don't pay road tax*

He's a diamond bloke really though.I don't actually believe he would drive poorly towards cyclists though.


----------



## jezhiggins (29 Nov 2008)

> I've noticed RLJing increase significantly in Brum over the last 18 months. To the point that I'm surprised if I see one stop.



We've discussed this before, I think. On the routes I take, I rarely see another cyclist, let alone anyone jumping the lights (although you wouldn't across the middleway would you?). The number of people I see riding on the pavement are vastly outnumbered by the lights-using types on the roads. I'm not condoning RLJing or pavement cycling, quite the opposite in fact, but to suggest it's the majority of cyclists is pretty fanciful.



> I'm fed up of getting the brunt of their behaviour.



Going back to the OP and "getting our house in order", if every cyclist magically transformed in to a model of Cyclecraft perfection overnight, would every driver also magically transform into a model highway citizen? Every cyclist would be safer, but would the ridiculous things drivers sometimes do become just a bad memory?

Cyclists shouldn't be RLJing, or on the pavement, or running the wrong way up one way streets or any of the other stupid stuff. It probably does endanger me slightly through "general bad feeling", but the reason they should be more sensible to make themselves safer.

There is, I think, a minority of drivers who drive dangerously - too quick, dodgy overtakes, and so on - in the full knowledge that what they're doing is unsafe or illegal. They continue to do so because a) they're hardly ever nicked and  everyone else on the road accomodates them by slowing down, moving out of the way, and so on. Those prats are going to drive like dickheads no matter what. 

There's a much larger group who simply aren't as good as they think they are, who get things wrong occasionally. If a "discussion" ensues they're probably quite likely to bring out the RLJ, wobbling around, etc stuff because they can't see or won't admit their own mistake. (After all, if someone really was wobbling around you'd give them more room, not less surely  ). Those are excuses, not reasons, and crap excuses at that. 

Unfortunately the same applies to cyclists. I'm aware this might sound like a council of despair, but I don't mean it to be (and that I've wandered off my own point a bit). I'm just laying out an alternative position.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yes, granted I do accept that I am part of a ''group'' when I am out on a bike. But car drivers being rascist towards me if I am on a pushbike rather then a motor vehicle. I think this is taking it a bit extreme.
> 
> If someone drives/rides like an idiot, then I'll say that irrespective of what car/bike they are driving/riding.
> 
> Maybe motorists are like that because coming across other motorists who drive like idiots they have come to accept rather then the odd cyclist who RLJ.



That's probably because you don't follow the herd and are being sensible about the whole issue. TRL549 - "Drivers' perceptions of cyclists" makes for interesting reading, and IMO it does seem to match what I experience, and what I read others on here experiencing.

http://www.trl.co.uk/store/report_detail.asp?srid=2700

Click buy now, then select the free .pdf download. You won't have to pay anything.


----------



## ComedyPilot (29 Nov 2008)

snorri said:


> I cycle for months without seeing an rlj, and I cycle for weeks without seeing traffic lights.



That's because you live in civilisation.....


----------



## Twiggy (29 Nov 2008)

I dunno about if cyclists as a whole deserve the bad rep we get, (I doubt it though)

But it's no excuse to hurling abuse at us.


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Nov 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> I know a moton at work who has a poor attitude towards cyclists:
> 
> *Because we don't pay road tax*
> 
> He's a diamond bloke really though.I don't actually believe he would drive poorly towards cyclists though.



Yet another fantastic post,well done.


----------



## jezhiggins (29 Nov 2008)

> I probably see 5-6 bikes on hte road each way, each day on my commute (Bristol Road or Hagley Rd/Broad Street). The majority of them _do _jump the lights. And that's normally 5 days a week.
> 
> I do see far more riding on the pavements. Sometimes where they're allowed to, sometimes where they're not. Bournbrook in particular abounds with pavement-riding cyclists.



Bloody students 



> No, but 'getting our house in order' is what we should be responsible for.



Given that we (for some value of we) do ride in a sensible way, what should we do to change the behaviour of others, because leading by example doesn't seem to be working? Is this something we should do before, or at the same time as working to change motorist behaviour?


----------



## Tynan (29 Nov 2008)

I see literally hundreds of commuter cyclist every day, I reckon half at best stop for reds, on a good day, one in four on a bad day

reckong maybe one in five have no lights after dark and another two in five have poor lights, single low power light, often clipped to their clothes

in my experience rlj is the first issue drivers have and I make them right on that, they'll always grumble but rlj gives them genuine ammunition


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Nov 2008)

Do you cycle the Mile End Road Tynan?


----------



## mickle (29 Nov 2008)

We have better national cycle training now than at any time in history and this will feed through eventually, raising the general standard of cycling. I long ago came to the conclusion that the majority of drivers have a piss poor attitude to cyclists. 

My commute route a few years ago very clearly indicated that drivers treat cyclists differently to other drivers. One particular road is lined with parked cars. When I drove down it in my scabby old Cortina other cars would give way. When I cycled down it they would play chicken whether I had right of way or not. It happened every single day, expecting me to jump out of their way with that po faced look on their faces. Some would actually accelerate towards me. Bullying aggressive intimidating behaviour and not isolated incidents, every single day.

Cycle lanes and other facilities are not the answer to the danger posed by cars to cyclists and peds, it's driver education. To many drivers treat cyclists with utter contempt. If we have any hope of getting more people on bikes we need to remove the danger from the roads not remove ourselves. 

RLJers may be annoying but the danger they pose to anyone but themselves is miniscule.


----------



## mickle (29 Nov 2008)

Not one of my most cohesive posts. But hey.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (29 Nov 2008)

Tynan said:


> I see literally hundreds of commuter cyclist every day, I reckon half at best stop for reds, on a good day, one in four on a bad day
> 
> reckong maybe one in five have no lights after dark and another two in five have poor lights, single low power light, often clipped to their clothes
> 
> in my experience rlj is the first issue drivers have and I make them right on that, they'll always grumble but rlj gives them genuine ammunition



Yeah, I see hundreds too - and I reckon you're about right in your observations.

You're also spot-on with the ammunition comment - this is what makes RLJ'ing all the worse, and what bothers those of us that don't do it.


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Nov 2008)

mickle said:


> Not one of my most cohesive posts. But hey.



Seemed ok to me.


----------



## Tynan (29 Nov 2008)

hackbike 666 said:


> Do you cycle the Mile End Road Tynan?



not sure, I ride to the Whipps Cross/Green Man roundabouts, down though Leytonstone to the Stratford one way and then A11 all the way into the city


----------



## boydj (29 Nov 2008)

adunn01 said:


> I had a conversation with a motorcyclist the other week while stopped at a red light which started with him saying "I thought you lot didn't need to stop at red lights" - people don't come to these conclusions based on a handful of cyclists not following the rules.



I recently had a very similar conversation with an angry lorry driver in the centre of Glasgow after I filtered and sat just in front of his right wing at the front of the lights. I simply pointed out that I would not be holding him up. He was 5 seconds slower getting to the next set of lights where the conversation continued. By this time he had chilled a bit and expressed surprise that I had actually stopped at the lights. Hopefully the exchange helped him to see cyclists in a slightly better light.

Other than filtering, I cycle as I would drive my car, so I have no time for RLJ apologists. However, I believe most of the danger on the road comes from the minority of aggressive, pushy motorists who have no respect for* any* other road user.


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Nov 2008)

Tynan said:


> not sure, I ride to the Whipps Cross/Green Man roundabouts, down though Leytonstone to the Stratford one way and then A11 all the way into the city



That's the Mile End Road.


----------



## sheddy (29 Nov 2008)

I feel that one of the issues, is that many car drivers don't actually have the skills to interact safely with cyclists


----------



## domd1979 (29 Nov 2008)

or any other road user come to that...



sheddy said:


> I feel that one of the issues, is that many car drivers don't actually have the skills to interact safely with cyclists


----------



## adunn01 (29 Nov 2008)

hm, on the back of my thoughts today, I've just had reason to send the complaint below to Glasgow City Council.

Unfortunately, I allowed the red mist to descend at the end of the incident and after a colourful exchange with the taxi driver took my right turn not noticing that the filter light wasn't on yet and oncoming traffic would not be stopping to let me past. had a slightly close call which shook me up a bit, but writing my mail to the council has been therapeutic!

i blame RLJ'ers for the whole incident 




-----

I am writing to complain about the aggressive, abusive behaviour of the driver of a private hire cab against me as a cyclist on Maryhill Road tonight. I was travelling in the Bus Lane and stopped at a red light outside the fire station on Maryhill Road when a motorist shouted at me to get off the road. When I looked round it wasn't clear who it was so moved off as the lights changed only to be passed iwth about a foot of space by the driver of a light (possibly silver) estate car - a private hire taxi. On approaching the lights where Quuen Margaret Drive meets Maryhill Road they were red again so I use the access lane to approach the green ASL only to find this taxi had filled the box, leaving just enough room for me to enter in front of him, which I did. Again as the lights changed I moved off and he started immediately blasting his horn behind me before passing with even less space this time. Next set of lights, a hundred yards or so down the road and he's again stopped at the front of the queue. I pull alongside to be met with a torrent of abuse and told to get "off the f*cking road on that thing" (that thing being my well lit bicycle). I appreciate that the licence plate details I've given are incomplete but I hope that with the car details, time, location and partial plate you have enough details to find the driver and investigate.


----------



## dondare (29 Nov 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> I know a moton at work who has a poor attitude towards cyclists:
> 
> *Because we don't pay road tax*
> 
> He's a diamond bloke really though.I don't actually believe he would drive poorly towards cyclists though.



Tell him what road tax is, why it was ever introduced, why it applies only to some vehicles, how the money is used, how the roads are really paid for, and who has a legal right to use the public roads.


----------



## marinyork (29 Nov 2008)

I saw a cyclist RLJ the other week. I see car drivers RLJ many times each day (I saw an accident caused by it some months ago), I was shunted by a taxi driver RLJing ages ago. I see car drivers with broken lights many times per day. I see car drivers handling mobile phones several times per day. I see drivers go up one way streets the wrong way several times a week. I see pavement driving a few times a month. I see all other manner of infractions by drivers. Nearly all of this is ignored by drivers and to an extent some cyclists. We're an outgroup. I'd really rather nobody RLJed but if it stopped tomorrow motons would still say we do it or move onto some other phantom bogeyman infraction or excuse.


----------



## dondare (29 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> *So you are saying that* every driver out there at the moment is angry?? Ready to unleash a torrent of abuse on the first bike rider they come across because the other day day they saw me RLJ?




No. But people drive as if they are angry all the time. (Have you noticed John the Monkey's sig? It's bang on.) And some do get angry, and stay angry, because they see cyclists "cheat"; by using the pavement to avoid jams and cut corners and by disregarding traffic lights. Talk to someone who drives but doesn't cycle and this is what they'll tell you.


----------



## dondare (29 Nov 2008)

marinyork said:


> I saw a cyclist RLJ the other week. I see car drivers RLJ many times each day (I saw an accident caused by it some months ago), I was shunted by a taxi driver RLJing ages ago. I see car drivers with broken lights many times per day. I see car drivers handling mobile phones several times per day. I see drivers go up one way streets the wrong way several times a week. I see pavement driving a few times a month. I see all other manner of infractions by drivers. Nearly all of this is ignored by drivers and to an extent some cyclists. We're an outgroup. I'd really rather nobody RLJed but if it stopped tomorrow motons would still say we do it or move onto some other phantom bogeyman infraction or excuse.



Drivers do not blame themselves for their own bad behaviour or that of other motorists. But they do blame all cyclists for red light jumping and pavement cycling. Sheffield must be like Birmingham and not at all like London if you don't see dozens of errant cyclists every time you travel anywhere.


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Nov 2008)

dondare said:


> Tell him what road tax is, why it was ever introduced, why it applies only to some vehicles, how the money is used, how the roads are really paid for, and who has a legal right to use the public roads.



Errr I don't even know myself.


----------



## dondare (29 Nov 2008)

hackbike 666 said:


> Errr I don't even know myself.



Research, the tools are at you fingertips.


----------



## marinyork (29 Nov 2008)

dondare said:


> Drivers do not blame themselves for their own bad behaviour or that of other motorists. But they do blame all cyclists for red light jumping and pavement cycling. Sheffield must be like Birmingham and not at all like London if you don't see dozens of errant cyclists every time you travel anywhere.



Yes. It's like whatever was quoted in the transport research laboratory about bad behaviour by different groups, unfortunately I've never been able to find the quote since. It went something along the lines of motorists and cyclists both justified their bad behaviour in terms of safety or other factors. This was strange because motorists did not recognise the same traits in cyclists and it thus was evidence of regarding them as an out group.

I do not see RLJing by cyclists, pretty much ever. I didn't when I was in York either, that must be one of the least tolerant places towards cycling in the world. Even if I did see plenty it does not alter the fact that motorists do it even more than this and it is not a like for like comparison. When a motorist RLJed next to the junction I used to live at they badly injured a cyclist. When a lorry driver RLJed into my dad's car many years ago he escaped injury (somewhat luckily) as he was protected by the car shell, a seat belt and other things.

As for pavement cycling, I do see that but it is normally at junctions or gaps in the cycling path network (there are many) for short distances. I see cyclists ride over the tram bridge all the time (it used to be a set of cycle bridges long before the tram got it and kicked all the cyclists off), again incredibly I see motor vehicles not doing maintenance driving across this and nearly mowing down peds as a nifty short cut. You can guess the group that people complain about and see as a danger, yep those pesky cyclists. I take a similar view on this as when I lived in York people whinged endlessly about cyclists using the so called pedestrianised zone out of hours. A similar level of blindness was apparent in motorist's eyes. When motorists drove down there without a disabled badge people didn't bat an eyelid even though there were cases of people having their legs broken by accidents. There were several non-pedestrianised roads where cars weren't allowed in the daytime and they were clogged up with traffic everyday of the year except the twice annual police crackdown for 1hr.


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Nov 2008)

dondare said:


> No. But people drive as if they are angry all the time. (Have you noticed John the Monkey's sig? It's bang on.) And some do get angry, and stay angry, because they see cyclists "cheat"; by using the pavement to avoid jams and cut corners and by disregarding traffic lights. Talk to someone who drives but doesn't cycle and this is what they'll tell you.



Something really does infuriate them out them in their little cages and makes them drive badly/dangerously/aggressively.


----------



## snorri (29 Nov 2008)

hackbike 666 said:


> Errr I don't even know myself.



Then you must arm yourself with some facts, here is a starter for you.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/907/907.pdf 
I would refer you to Page 7 para 4 where you see the tax was introduced in 1909 in order to fund maintenance and construction of roads. This hypothecation ceased in 1936 following passing of a Finance Act. The term Road Fund Licence or Road Tax is still used incorrectly to describe Vehicle Excise Duty, a duty which bears no relation to the costs to the nation of provision of our transport network.

Also
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtran/218/21805.htm

See para 7, where you will note only some of the costs are borne by the road user, others are borne by society at large.

Trouble is, it's rather difficult to quote these websites and paragraphs to car drivers whilst negotiating city traffic.


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Nov 2008)

Thank you.


----------



## dondare (30 Nov 2008)

snorri said:


> Then you must arm yourself with some facts, here is a starter for you.
> 
> http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/907/907.pdf
> I would refer you to Page 7 para 4 where you see the tax was introduced in 1909 in order to fund maintenance and construction of roads. This hypothecation ceased in 1936 following passing of a Finance Act. The term Road Fund Licence or Road Tax is still used incorrectly to describe Vehicle Excise Duty, a duty which bears no relation to the costs to the nation of provision of our transport network.
> ...



Not really true, though, since neither VED or duty on petrol are spent directly on roads. All taxes and duties get mixed together and spent on whatever the Govt. wants to spend it on. Those who pay the most taxes overall pay the most for roads, and also most for the NHS, public sector pensions, the emergency services, schools, prisons, wars, legal aid, welfare, Britains contribution to the EU and so on. As a general rule that means that the highest earners pay the most and the low and unwaged pay the least. 
Now, cycling is far more popular with the relatively well-paid middle-classes than it is with those earning below-average wages, or living on benefits. Even though cycling is cheap, poor people tend not to do it, though they might find the money to run a car. The average cyclist earns more than the average wage, and therefore contributes more to the economy, including the roads, than the average non-cyclist. 
This does not give them more right to use the public roads, which are free at the point of use to everyone irrespective of how much tax they pay, just like all other public services. But anyone, whether or not they own a bike, has to pay duty on any motor-vehicle that they use on the public roads.


----------



## swee'pea99 (30 Nov 2008)

Surely one of the main points is that the vast majority of (adult) cyclists _do_ pay road tax. They just happen to be on their bike not in their car today (thus relieving congestion).


----------



## jonesy (30 Nov 2008)

dondare said:


> ...
> This does not give them more right to use the public roads,* which are free at the point of use to everyone irrespective of how much tax they pay*, just like all other public services. But anyone, whether or not they own a bike, has to pay duty on any motor-vehicle that they use on the public roads.



Indeed. I suspect few motorists would consider lorries to have a greater right to use the road than they do, even though the VED on lorries, O licence etc is far more expensive than the taxes paid by car drivers.


----------



## bryce (30 Nov 2008)

I agree with the original poster. Law breaking cyclists are most certainly the majority in London. I've used the expression 'real cyclists' before and was jeered but I'd use it again to differentiate between the idiot RLJing law-breaking numpty day-glo pseudo-underground-elite-wannabe commuters and the 'real cyclists' who cycle as a hobby. There are more and more of the former on the road - and other cyclists who are new to the lark see them and copy them.

I feel for taxi drivers who have to put up with us cyclists day-in day-out.

On the issue of road-tax, we all pay all sorts of taxes daily. I expect I pay more overall tax as a cycle-commuter than many drivers pay (and I own a car) - the argument is poor and doesn't wash.


----------



## jonesy (30 Nov 2008)

bryce said:


> I agree with the original poster. Law breaking cyclists are most certainly the majority in London....



Sorry, but a statement like that does require some supporting evidence...?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Nov 2008)

The one I use about "Road Tax" is the fact that Winston Churchill spoke against the original Bill in Parliament on the grounds that sooner or later drivers would unfoundedly claim "moral ownership" of the roads they were "paying for" to the detriment of other road users........Shrewd man!

Or as I did in a similar situation ask why they think we don't?

Then pointed out that all vehicles are assessed according to CO2 emissions, and as a Class A vehicle (less than 100g CO2 per km) you are in class A and pay the full tariff for all vehicles in that tariff (Nil!). 

Then ask if you can assume that any rise in Class A will include ALL vehicles in this class and be reflected by rises across the board?

Becomes a less popular rant, and not one easily argued against!





This  November 2008 briefing document gives all you need!


----------



## freewheelwilly (30 Nov 2008)

Reading this thread has really depressed me. Do any of you lot drive cars at all? when i'm in my car i get just as frustrated with poor driving as i do with poor riding. Doesnt matter what the mode of transport is - its the fact that these idiots are allowed on the road in the first place be it 2 wheels or 4.


----------



## jonesy (30 Nov 2008)

freewheelwilly said:


> Reading this thread has really depressed me. *Do any of you lot drive cars at all? *when i'm in my car i get just as frustrated with poor driving as i do with poor riding. Doesnt matter what the mode of transport is - its the fact that these idiots are allowed on the road in the first place be it 2 wheels or 4.



Almost certainly the vast majority does drive. What makes you think otherwise?

However, the mode of transport does matter very much in terms of the risk imposed on others.


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Nov 2008)

*numpty day-glo pseudo-underground-elite-wannabe commuters

*Is this me?


----------



## wafflycat (30 Nov 2008)

dondare said:


> All of them.



Is the wrong answer.


----------



## wafflycat (30 Nov 2008)

dondare said:


> Tell him what *road tax is*, why it was ever introduced, why it applies only to some vehicles, how the money is used, how the roads are really paid for, and who has a legal right to use the public roads.




A good start would be to inform that there's no such bloody tax in any event.


----------



## bryce (30 Nov 2008)

jonesy said:


> Sorry, but a statement like that does require some supporting evidence...?



I would post a video of my commute for you but I don't have a camera. The vast majority on my commute break the law - most of the time it's totally harmless but equally stupid. Why would you want to RLJ and cause danger to yourself and others to save yourself 30 seconds on your way into work?


----------



## jonesy (30 Nov 2008)

bryce said:


> I would post a video of my commute for you but I don't have a camera. The vast majority on my commute break the law - *most of the time it's totally harmless *but equally stupid. *Why would you want to RLJ and cause danger to yourself *and others to save yourself 30 seconds on your way into work?



I'm always suspicious of subjective individual observations like that. Inevitably the law breakers are going to attract more attention to themselves than the others, so you are more likely to notice them as you ride along, with your own attention focused on your own safety. That's why I'd prefer evidence from independent observers, e,g, using roadside video analysis. And if we are making comparisons between levels of law-breaking, let's also not forget that in many places a majority of drivers break the 30 mph speed limit.

NB- there is a bit of a contradiction in what you have posted....


----------



## bryce (30 Nov 2008)

What's the contradiction? The idea of RLJing being harmless most of the time and it also causing danger? That's logical to me.

Maybe Battersea > Mayfair is particularly anarchic and non-representative but I am sure the majority of cyclists I see break the law and the proportion is much higher compared to drivers and even motorbikers. Again - they usually cause no direct harm from their actions but it's still dangerous and IMHO daft given how fragile and exposed cyclists are on urban roads.


----------



## dondare (30 Nov 2008)

wafflycat said:


> A good start would be to inform that there's no such bloody tax in any event.



It's the term that most people use when they are referring to VED and understood by all as such.


----------



## dondare (30 Nov 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Surely one of the main points is that the vast majority of (adult) cyclists _do_ pay road tax. They just happen to be on their bike not in their car today (thus relieving congestion).[/QUOTE]

Whether or not they own a motor vehicle as well as a bike and therefore pay VED/Road Tax is a matter of total irrelevance. Whether they pay for roads &c. through Income Tax and Community Charge or exist entirely on benefits and make no net contribution to the State at all is also irrelevant. The public Roads are for the use of all and sundry irrespective of their contribution to the Exchequor.


----------



## dondare (30 Nov 2008)

jonesy said:


> Sorry, but a statement like that does require some supporting evidence...?



I don't use a camera but if my observations can be trusted I'll corroborate this: the majority of cyclists in London ignore the law; they'll ride on and off the pavement and through red lights. The closer to the centre you get, the more prevalent this is.


----------



## pinkkaz (1 Dec 2008)

dondare said:


> I don't use a camera but if my observations can be trusted I'll corroborate this: the majority of cyclists in London ignore the law; they'll ride on and off the pavement and through red lights. The closer to the centre you get, the more prevalent this is.



+1 
I commute in London and can confirm this. To the point that when I stop at red lights I feel stupid because no-one else does (apart from the really busy crossings where it really would be suicide!)


----------



## wafflycat (1 Dec 2008)

Whenever I'm cycling or driving in my local city (Norwich), whilst it has it's share of pavement cyclists, I see far more motorists jumping red lights than cyclists. Indeed I can guarantee I will see motorists jumping red lights every time I'm in the city. I can almost guarantee I'll see motorists driving on pavements at some points. The bottom line is you get twits in charge of all forms of transport.


----------



## col (1 Dec 2008)

adunn01 said:


> From reading a few posts recently, and witnessing some poor cycling on my commutes through Glasgow over the last 6 months I've come to the conclusion that drivers general opinion of cyclists as a nuisance is pretty understandable.
> 
> We expect to be treated with respect as fellow road users and for drivers to follow every rule with regard to cyclist to the letter, but the vast majority of cyclists have no issues RLJing, cycling without lights in the dark, etc etc.
> 
> ...



Well it isnt surprising to most people with good sense to see the reasons why this is the case.Just my opinion of course
We have the youngsters that dont give a toss how and where they cycle,we have the primary brigade who stay in that position even if a safer and more amicable position is available bacause its their right to do it,we have the riteous brigade who think every other vehicle is wrong even when mistakes are made,we have the goaders who try to get a reaction from other vehicles because they think its funny,we have the secretive cycling internal affairs brigade who try to catch people out so they can can write a letter to employers,we have the i have the right to be here so every other vehicle has to make allowances for me because i am more important brigade,we have the i dont have to stop or slow down brigade because my journey is more important,We have the even though im a slow vehicle everyone else has to wait for me and give way to me and not pass too close,even though i can do it when it suits brigade,blimey i could think of more but you get the picture.Oh and dont forget the assumption brigade,who assume every mistake is done on purpose so have a go at a shocked female or lone driver,but funnily enough not large or more than one.Basically we dont half have some real plonkers out there on bikes making things worse for everyone else So yes i think in the general eye of motorists we do deserve this rep.

Now if everyone cycling did so with good manners,and no attitude problems, it might not be as bad a rep,but thats unlikely to happen,there are too many with these sorts of attitudes ,so its going to get worse,it will never get better.All we can do is cycle to how we think is the right way,and treat faster vehicles with respect and act accordingly.


----------



## swee'pea99 (1 Dec 2008)

dondare said:


> Whether or not they own a motor vehicle as well as a bike and therefore pay VED/Road Tax is a matter of total irrelevance.


Well, arguably. Unarguably, tho', 'I do!' is a pretty unanswerable rejoinder to someone yelling 'Why don't you pay road tax?'


----------



## hackbike 666 (1 Dec 2008)

pinkkaz said:


> +1
> I commute in London and can confirm this. To the point that when I stop at red lights I feel stupid because no-one else does (apart from the really busy crossings where it really would be suicide!)



+1

Same here.


----------



## freewheelwilly (1 Dec 2008)

hackbike 666 said:
 

> +1
> 
> Same here.




I agree. Ive even been asked to budge out of the way so the riders behind me can jump the lights. It beggars belief.
Coupled with the increase in cars RLJing it really isnt worth it and if you saw what i saw a few years back you would never do it again...


----------



## skwerl (1 Dec 2008)

jonesy said:


> I'm always suspicious of subjective individual observations like that. Inevitably the law breakers are going to attract more attention to themselves than the others, so you are more likely to notice them as you ride along, with your own attention focused on your own safety. That's why I'd prefer evidence from independent observers, e,g, using roadside video analysis. And if we are making comparisons between levels of law-breaking, let's also not forget that in many places a majority of drivers break the 30 mph speed limit.
> 
> NB- there is a bit of a contradiction in what you have posted....



Every time I stop at reds in the centre of town I run a mental straw poll on who stops and who keeps going. I'd say the rolling average is probably 70% run reds. Difficult to give an exact number but it's def. a significant majority.


----------



## hackbike 666 (1 Dec 2008)

Motorists mentality,they must get past you at all costs and rush up to the next set of lights to save a few seconds.


----------



## rog (1 Dec 2008)

bryce said:


> I would post a video of my commute for you but I don't have a camera. The vast majority on my commute break the law - most of the time it's totally harmless but equally stupid. Why would you want to RLJ and cause danger to yourself and others to save yourself 30 seconds on your way into work?



Here’s some footage from this morning’s journey into London. Pretty much mirrors this comment…


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=icM-s3RbTTs


I know this doesn’t prove that all cyclists act in this way at all junctions but is a good indicator of what typically occurs…


----------



## col (1 Dec 2008)

hackbike 666 said:


> Motorists mentality,they must get past you at all costs and rush up to the next set of lights to save a few seconds.



Ah but isnt it cyclists mentality too


----------



## mickle (1 Dec 2008)

Rog, is that pink Colnago as pink as it looks in your avatar?


----------



## pinkkaz (1 Dec 2008)

rog said:


> Here’s some footage from this morning’s journey into London. Pretty much mirrors this comment…
> 
> 
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=icM-s3RbTTs
> ...




Oooo you're fast!


----------



## rog (1 Dec 2008)

mickle said:


> Rog, is that pink Colnago as pink as it looks in your avatar?



not sure...thankfully its not my Colnago! 

however after my recent post, http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=23205 i thought the pink theme was somewhat app!


----------



## rog (1 Dec 2008)

pinkkaz said:


> Oooo you're fast!



Bit sluggish this morning. Head wind + head cold + heavy weekend = tired legs...


----------



## Bollo (1 Dec 2008)

col said:


> Well it isnt surprising to most people with good sense to see the reasons why this is the case.Just my opinion of course
> We have the youngsters that dont give a toss how and where they cycle,we have the primary brigade who stay in that position even if a safer and more amicable position is available bacause its their right to do it,we have the riteous brigade who think every other vehicle is wrong even when mistakes are made,we have the goaders who try to get a reaction from other vehicles because they think its funny,we have the secretive cycling internal affairs brigade who try to catch people out so they can can write a letter to employers,we have the i have the right to be here so every other vehicle has to make allowances for me because i am more important brigade,we have the i dont have to stop or slow down brigade because my journey is more important,We have the even though im a slow vehicle everyone else has to wait for me and give way to me and not pass too close,even though i can do it when it suits brigade,blimey i could think of more but you get the picture.Oh and dont forget the assumption brigade,who assume every mistake is done on purpose so have a go at a shocked female or lone driver,but funnily enough not large or more than one.Basically we dont half have some real plonkers out there on bikes making things worse for everyone else So yes i think in the general eye of motorists we do deserve this rep.
> 
> Now if everyone cycling did so with good manners,and no attitude problems, it might not be as bad a rep,but thats unlikely to happen,there are too many with these sorts of attitudes ,so its going to get worse,it will never get better.All we can do is cycle to how we think is the right way,and treat faster vehicles with respect and act accordingly.





Your language gives you away here col. Apart from one mention of 'the motorist' and the rest is about the vehicle being wrong and the vehicle making allowances? Unless its a top end Merc, Bimmer or somesuch, the vehicle does nothing by itself. Its an object. You've dehumanised the human being responsible for the tonne and a half of metal. Instead, you've made the vehicle some sort of irresistable force of nature, a mechanised beast outside of human intervention.

As a nation, we've got used to the idea that the car is the default mode of transport. I could get political, but I'm not going there. Its largely our own fault. This is a convention, not a law of nature or even the law of the land. The cyclist, whether a model road-user or a pavement-hopping RLJer presents a challenge to that convention, and we're increasingly used as the lightening rod for motorists' frustrations in the media and, more importantly, on the roads. In the same way you've dehumanised the driver, we're dehumanised as cyclists. And, as anyone who's read anything about prison camps, the first step in normal people behaving attrociously to their fellow human beings is to learn to view them as non-human. A large minority of our fellow humans who drive a car regard cyclists as another species, which makes it easier to place our lives at risk by their behaviour. 

And that's the point - many cyclist behave badly, placing their lives at risk. Many motorists behave badly, placing cyclists' lives at risk. Its a rigged game, and its not rigged in our favour.

(FFS Bollo finish it up!) I consider myself a courteous, careful, law-abiding cyclist who respects other road users and who tries, and sometimes fails, to integrate with the traffic. Where we really fall out Col is that I expect the same back from other road users, irrespective of the means of transport that I've chosen.


----------



## Bollo (1 Dec 2008)

rog said:


> Bit sluggish this morning. Head wind + head cold + heavy weekend = tired legs...



Nope, you've signed up for cyclechat. You'll be lucky if you can ride a bike in a month or so's time.


----------



## col (1 Dec 2008)

Bollo said:


> Your language gives you away here col. Apart from one mention of 'the motorist' and the rest is about the vehicle being wrong and the vehicle making allowances? Unless its a top end Merc, Bimmer or somesuch, the vehicle does nothing by itself. Its an object. You've dehumanised the human being responsible for the tonne and a half of metal. Instead, you've made the vehicle some sort of irresistable force of nature, a mechanised beast outside of human intervention.
> 
> As a nation, we've got used to the idea that the car is the default mode of transport. I could get political, but I'm not going there. Its largely our own fault. This is a convention, not a law of nature or even the law of the land. The cyclist, whether a model road-user or a pavement-hopping RLJer presents a challenge to that convention, and we're increasingly used as the lightening rod for motorists' frustrations in the media and, more importantly, on the roads. In the same way you've dehumanised the driver, we're dehumanised as cyclists. And, as anyone who's read anything about prison camps, the first step in normal people behaving attrociously to their fellow human beings is to learn to view them as non-human. A large minority of our fellow humans who drive a car regard cyclists as another species, which makes it easier to place our lives at risk by their behaviour.
> 
> ...




Same here,its a pity we all cant be like this.


----------



## Zorg (2 Dec 2008)

It would help if our cycling provision in the UK even approached that in other European cities. We are expected to get out of the way of hugh vehicles whose drivers consider us a nuisance, dodge cars parked on cycle lanes and generally dice with death to get where we're going. We just don't have a cycling mentality in this country, unlike in others where cycling is considered a perfectly acceptable method of transport and lanes are provided fenced off from the road.


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 Dec 2008)

col said:


> Ah but isnt it cyclists mentality too



Aye got to agree.


----------



## Zorg (2 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> Are we really bothered about having a bad rep?? Why is it so bad to have a bad rep among ''cyclists'' and do we really care?
> 
> I saw someone riding on the pavement the other day and thought of all the motorists that he would annoy and hold against other cyclists.
> 
> I did not sleep well that night.





You know when you stop at a red light, get off your bike, walk round and cross the other road, before getting back on and continuing your journey? The reason motorists hate that is: pure jealousy


----------



## bryce (2 Dec 2008)

Zorg said:


> It would help if our cycling provision in the UK even approached that in other European cities. We are expected to get out of the way of hugh vehicles whose drivers consider us a nuisance, dodge cars parked on cycle lanes and generally dice with death to get where we're going. We just don't have a cycling mentality in this country, unlike in others where cycling is considered a perfectly acceptable method of transport and lanes are provided fenced off from the road.



Agreed - although it is changing slowly as the amount of cyclists on the road increases, and thus awareness of cyclists increases.

I thought of this thread this morning, as at least 75% of cyclists on my commute went through red lights. And I absolutely 100% get more room and respect from drivers if I obey the law. Safer and well worth the critical-30-seconds-later-into-work compromise and also doing my bit to support the perception of cyclist commuters in general.


----------



## Zorg (2 Dec 2008)

bryce said:


> Agreed - although it is changing slowly as the amount of cyclists on the road increases, and thus awareness of cyclists increases.
> 
> I thought of this thread this morning, as at least 75% of cyclists on my commute went through red lights. And I absolutely 100% get more room and respect from drivers if I obey the law. Safer and well worth the critical-30-seconds-later-into-work compromise and also doing my bit to support the perception of cyclist commuters in general.



Absolutely agree.

I may be alone in this, but I stop at red lights to have a rest if nothing else!


----------



## col (2 Dec 2008)

> Because it comes out in aggression. Not increasing aggression in people, but allowing an excuse for those who are prone to outbursts and dangerous behaviour to justify it to themselves.




Mmm i find myself in unfamiliar territory here


----------



## malkie (2 Dec 2008)

Zorg said:


> I may be alone in this, but I stop at red lights to have a rest if nothing else!



+1


----------



## HLaB (2 Dec 2008)

Zorg said:


> I may be alone in this, but I stop at red lights to have a rest if nothing else!





malkie said:


> +1


+ another 1, you're not alone


----------



## BentMikey (2 Dec 2008)

Zorg said:


> It would help if our cycling provision in the UK even approached that in other European cities. We are expected to get out of the way of hugh vehicles whose drivers consider us a nuisance, dodge cars parked on cycle lanes and generally dice with death to get where we're going. We just don't have a cycling mentality in this country, unlike in others where cycling is considered a perfectly acceptable method of transport and lanes are provided fenced off from the road.



Not to pick on you specifically, but why do you think cycle lanes would make life any better here in the UK? Cycling in the Netherlands is really good and safe in spite of the cycle lanes, not because of them.


----------



## dondare (2 Dec 2008)

It's the attitude to cycling, not the presence of green paint and raised kerbs, that determines how safe it is.


----------



## dondare (2 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> *Are we really bothered about having a bad rep?? Why is it so bad to have a bad rep among ''cyclists'' and do we really care?*



Do you accept that blatant illegal behaviour by cyclists infuriates non-cyclists? If you don't then it's in defiance of a lot of evidence that it does.


----------



## Zorg (2 Dec 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Not to pick on you specifically, but why do you think cycle lanes would make life any better here in the UK? Cycling in the Netherlands is really good and safe in spite of the cycle lanes, not because of them.



Good point. As dondare says below, it's the attitude that's most important.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Dec 2008)

They're not that good if you want to go somewhere fast, and they still have priority confusion problems at junctions.


----------



## dondare (2 Dec 2008)

A Dutch friend of mine told me that these lanes are only good for pottering and cyclists who want to get somewhere in real time use the real roads.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Dec 2008)

p.s. I am Dutch, btw.


----------



## dondare (2 Dec 2008)

Do you use the cycle lanes or the roads?


----------



## HF2300 (2 Dec 2008)

dondare said:


> ...the presence of green pain...



Sounds really bad


----------



## ferret fur (2 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> Show me



What you mean like every cycling related story in the newspapers, every phone-in about cycling, every time there is a non-cycling message board which mentions cycling, every time you have an incident with a non cycling road user & they use it as a defence to excuse their poor driving, the issue being mentioned in most casual conversations about cycling with non-cyclists? The DfT report into drivers attitudes to cyclists quoted elsewhere in this forum? Otherwise what sort of evidence would you like?


----------



## mickle (2 Dec 2008)

What ferret fur said.


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Dec 2008)

IMO, in London, the majority of motorists who have no respect for cyclists in general have come to this decision thru the actions of RLJ-ing, non light carrying pavement cyclists.

I don't do any of these things and never have yet I get abuse based on the assumption that I do. This is my general experience after 20 years cycling in London.


----------



## summerdays (2 Dec 2008)

Well I was walking this morning and in about less than half a mile I saw at least 16 cyclists, of which 2 were on the pavement (one of which was a kid), and none went through a red light, though that could just be down to the fact they weren't at the lights when they were red. 

Having said that ... I'm working on the other side of town this week and there it is definately a different attitude where almost half were cycling on the pavements even though it wasn't even a busy road.


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Dec 2008)

Being shouted at for taking my place on the road, being overtaken deliberately close and then pulled in on, nothing I can't handle but unecessary and potentially dangerous none the less.

I also end up having to defend myself at parties etc. when people find out that I am a cycling instructor and then choose to berate me on the very subject of all cyclists being RLJ-ing, non light carrying pavement riders.

This is my personal experience Lee and not really open to your interpretations.


----------



## mickle (2 Dec 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Being shouted at for taking my place on the road, being overtaken deliberately close and then pulled in on, nothing I can't handle but unecessary and potentially dangerous none the less.
> 
> I also end up having to defend myself at parties etc. when people find out that I am a cycling instructor and then choose to berate me on the very subject of all cyclists being RLJ-ing, non light carrying pavement riders.
> 
> This is my personal experience Lee and not really open to your interpretations.



I had the very same conversation with the Mayor and Mrs Mayor of Southampton during an event to promote cycling.


'Ooooh they are a danger etc'.

I put them right.


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> I am sorry for expressing my opinion. Has a bit of irony that does it not...cycle*chat*



One opinion that holds very little sway over years of actual experience I might add.

Don't be sorry for expressing your opinion, I personally don't mind if you happen to be a tad misguided over certain issues.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Dec 2008)

Perhaps Lee's point is that drivers hate us anyway, and that the whole RLJing thing is just the easiest stick with which to beat us? tdr1nka's point is that drivers hate us because of RLJing, and treat us badly as a result.

Personally, I think it's somewhere between these two extremes, and that most of the problem is that we're seen as an alien tribe, not part of humanity.


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Dec 2008)

But a lot of us are intelligent not to think 'all' drivers hate us and know this not to be the case, just that a lot of motorists who like to make a point about why they hate cyclists in general, experience of RLJ-ing, non light carrying pavement riding cyclists is where we lose a lot of respect. IMO.


----------



## Zorg (2 Dec 2008)

mickle said:


> I had the very same conversation with the Mayor and Mrs Mayor of Southampton *during an event to promote cycling*.
> 
> 
> 'Ooooh they are a danger etc'.
> ...



That made me laugh.


----------



## dondare (2 Dec 2008)

HF2300 said:


> dondare said:
> 
> 
> > ...the presence of green paint....
> ...



Fixed.


----------



## dondare (2 Dec 2008)

If, when cycling, you decide that you're much to wise and important to worry about trifles such as obeying the law; then you are going to appear to everyone as an antisocial, ignorant, arrogant cyclist. Your attitude affects the way you behave and that affects the way people perceive you and that affects their attitude towards you and that affects their behaviour towards you. Unfortunately if enough cyclists behave in the same antisocial, ignorant, arrogant way then the rest of us get treated the same way too. 
I do not expect habitual offenders to admit that this is true, any more than I'd expect a mobile 'phoning motorist to admit that he's a bigger danger than someone who concentrates on their driving, or a habitual speeder to accept that they should slow down.


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> Thank you for patronising me.



It is entirely your choice to perceive my comments thus, these are only my opinions after all.


----------



## rog (2 Dec 2008)

i think as cyclists, we have always been treated as 'second class' when it comes to sharing the road with motorists. this results in dangerous or intimidating behaviour which was largely due to a lack of respect or consideration i.e. they dont appreciate what it is like to ride or commute by bike. if they did, maybe they would (hopefully) have a different opinion. 

what's changed is that this 'behaviour' has now become somehow 'justifiable' in the mind's of other road users because cyclists dont obey the rules or are anti-social. we have become an easy target, which can be seen in the media attention which cycling stories now generate.

this perception (or bad rep) has arisen due to the increase in the number of cyclists who are now on the road, and as such, an increase in the number of people who ignore the rules, laws or common courtesy.

i dont remember there being endless articles or debates about red light jumping or pavement cycling 2 years ago - probably because it was a relatively infrequent occurance...or simply less visible.

however, we cant just ignore it. it wont go away all by itself...


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> Thank you for patronising me. You remind of me of cab, another mod who's a complete and utter twat.
> 
> I could go on about my experience if you want to go down that road.



I had to wait until you finished editing your previous post again in order to reply to the extra bits.

Just so you don't get too low an opinion of me, when I mentioned 'years of actual experience' I should have said 'years of accumulated experience' meaning the experiences cited, not just by myself, but of other forummers on this thread who's comments I was simply echoing.


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 Dec 2008)

rog said:


> i think as cyclists, we have always been treated as 'second class' when it comes to sharing the road with motorists. this results in dangerous or intimidating behaviour which was largely due to a lack of respect or consideration i.e. they dont appreciate what it is like to ride or commute by bike. if they did, maybe they would (hopefully) have a different opinion.
> 
> what's changed is that this 'behaviour' has now become somehow 'justifiable' in the mind's of other road users


Well you did at least put the 'justifiable' in quote marks. 

It's all crap anyway. Two basics: one, 'they' don't all hate us. Most of 'them' don't give a crap one way or another. I for one have _never_ been buttonholed by bores at parties challenging me about RLJ-ing. And two, those that do don't hate us 'cos we RLJ; they hate us because we overtake them/don't pay taxes/get in their way/appear to be actually enjoying ourselves. 

If you want to placate these twats/scumbags by commiserating over the behaviour of 'law-breaking cyclists' (thereby, in my view, helping 'justify' their baseless - and dangerous/lethal - brand of self-righteousness), go for it. For myself, should I ever encounter any, I'll ask them if they always stay below 70 on the motorway. 

Then we can have a discussion about the relative consequences of 'their type' of breaking the law and mine.


----------



## tdr1nka (3 Dec 2008)

For the record I have not commiserated over the behaviour of 'Law Breaking Cyclists' with anyone besides other cyclists.

In fact I'm more likely to joke sadly that it has taken cyclists taking the law into their own hands in order to be acknowledged at all by the average idiot motorist.


----------



## HF2300 (3 Dec 2008)

swee said:


> I'm not even convinced about this. I think there are a lot of good guys out on the roads in / on any type of vehicle, and a lot of bad guys. I think the bad guys have an attitude towards any vehicle; I suspect that those that are shouting F-ing RLJers, F-ing non-taxpayers etc. are also shouting F-ing buses, F-ing woman drivers etc.
> 
> It's just that cyclists notice it because we're vulnerable, out in the open and we can hear what's being shouted. I also think that many discussions on cycling forums re-inforce the siege mentality. That's not to say the discussions shouldn't be had.


----------



## summerdays (3 Dec 2008)

I think if the motorist is sitting in a huge gridlock, getting frustrated anyway, then when they see a cyclist go past then it adds to that frustration for some. Then they think of all the reasons that cyclists are "bad" and forget that if that cyclist wasn't there but got in a car instead then they would add another car to that gridlock.

That is not to say that all motorists think that way - I've had really nice motorists who get pull over to give me more space to get by as they are sitting in the gridlock. 

So there are bad apples in all the groups on the road though it may be that in London the RLJ's are becoming more the norm.


----------



## dondare (3 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> My point is that driver attitude and the way that people actually drive are two seperate issues. While people may berate tdr1nka at the parties that he goes to. I'm sure that they are not like this when they actually come to dealing with a cyclist when they are out driving.




You don't think attitudes determine behaviour? My observation, and that of other posters here (and on other forums, message boards and so on) is that they way people regard cyclists is entirely consistant with the way people behave towards cyclists when they're driving. And the way people regard cyclists is as a bunch of ill-mannered oafs who are careless of their own safety and ignorant of the law.


----------



## bryce (3 Dec 2008)

dondare said:


> If, when cycling, you decide that you're much to wise and important to worry about trifles such as obeying the law; then you are going to appear to everyone as an antisocial, ignorant, arrogant cyclist. Your attitude affects the way you behave and that affects the way people perceive you and that affects their attitude towards you and that affects their behaviour towards you. Unfortunately if enough cyclists behave in the same antisocial, ignorant, arrogant way then the rest of us get treated the same way too.
> I do not expect habitual offenders to admit that this is true, any more than I'd expect a mobile 'phoning motorist to admit that he's a bigger danger than someone who concentrates on their driving, or a habitual speeder to accept that they should slow down.



Spot on.

I've said it in other posts. The types of cyclists that RLJ will never admit that it's dangerous or stupid. They will try to justify it by arguing that 'they've never had had an accident RLJing'. A bit like driving at 100mph outside a school. Irresponsible idiocy.

I would counter and ask them whether they would still RLJ if their son/ mother (as appropriate) was cycling with them. Of course they wouldn't. It's a selfish act and one that impressionable others behind follow mindlessly. Guilty on two fronts.

And if you do cause an accident, everyone will pick on you, justifiably. I would wholeheartedly.

+ can we all ignore/ blacklist the troll please.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Dec 2008)

The problem is that Lee can't admit that RLJing and other bad cyclist behaviour has any effect on drivers, because that would be admitting he has some part to play in the anger some drivers feel towards cyclists.


----------



## ferret fur (3 Dec 2008)

& constantly asks people to 'prove' what they saying: When they do he replies with totally subjective, self-serving & unsubstantiated assertions of his own. Or just hurls abuse.


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 Dec 2008)

bryce said:


> A bit like driving at 100mph outside a school. Irresponsible idiocy.


Absolutely. Just the same really.


----------



## tdr1nka (3 Dec 2008)

Lee, re: post 139.

Anyone can see you added more verbiage to your post and a direct insult after my initial reply.
Why so cagey? If you have something constructive to add then at least be up front rather than sneaking around in previous posts adding things you wished you had said.

Also for the record, I always state that my experiences are London based and I cannot speak for other parts of the country.


----------



## dondare (3 Dec 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Absolutely. Just the same really.[/QUOTE]

In so far as both are perfectly safe to do so long as you don't have an accident.


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 Dec 2008)

And how much further does equivalency require after all?


----------



## dondare (3 Dec 2008)

He did say "a bit like" and not "equivalent to".


----------



## dondare (3 Dec 2008)

Anyway, my argument and indeed the whole point of this thread is not that illegal behaviour by cyclists is especially dangerous but that it's antisocial.


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 Dec 2008)

I suppose doing the ton past a school could be called antisocial...


----------



## bryce (3 Dec 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Absolutely. Just the same really.[/quote]

I wouldn't go that far. The two are certainly analogous and underline the point I was making in the post.

As is stepping out into a busy street without looking. Not likely to cause injury most of the time.

Or leaving pr0n unencrypted and in the download folder on the family pc.

etc. etc.


----------



## dondare (3 Dec 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']I suppose doing the ton past a school could be called antisocial...[/QUOTE]


Are you familiar with the arguments of speedophiles? They are certainly analagous to the arguments of RLJers.


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 Dec 2008)

Never met a speedophile, to the best of my knowledge. How do their arguments go?


----------



## mickle (3 Dec 2008)

Lee, there is a connection between the irresponsible behaviour of some cyclists and the contempt in which many drivers hold us. I know this to be true because some them have told me. Your assersion that this contempt is in no way connected to them driving in an intimidating and aggressive manner around us just doesn't hold water. 

You can't see it because to do so would be to admit that your illegal behaviour endangers other cyclists. 

The fact that you don't get pissed off at RLJing cyclists is irrelevant.


----------



## dondare (3 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> This is because I am speaking from experience. When I am out driving and I see a cyclist RLJ, does it bother me? No it really does not, even if I didn't RLJ it still would not bother me as I have have more important things to worry about.



You don't regard it as wrong when you do it so it doesn't bother you when other cyclists do it. But motorists who don't cycle have a different view, and they're probably the majority. Also pedestrians feel threatened by cyclists who ignore the lights at pedestrian crossings; you say that you never read the papers (and obviously editors are very selective) but even so you can't be totally unaware of just how worked up the general public gets because they see cyclists as a law-breaking, risk-taking menace to society. 

Or can you?


----------



## summerdays (3 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> When I am out driving and I see a cyclist RLJ, does it bother me? No it really does not, even if I didn't RLJ it still would not bother me





mickle said:


> The fact that you don't get pissed off at RLJing cyclists is irrelevant.



Not quite - it proves that as he does RLJ he therefore doesn't see it a problem when others do it. Whereas someone who is used to stopping at traffic lights does get annoyed when they see someone breaking the law. He is unable to see the other point of view because he RLJ's.


----------



## summerdays (3 Dec 2008)

dondare said:


> but even so you can't be totally unaware of just how worked up the general public gets because they see cyclists as a law-breaking, risk-taking menace to society.



Try reading the Bristol Evening Post online.... any report relating to the road turns into an slinging match between the cyclists and motorists in the comments section. A pedestrian was knocked over and killed this week by a car, and they still managed to get a dig about getting rid of cycle lanes/cycle paths.


----------



## dondare (3 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> That's not my point at all, my point is that there are far bigger worries out on the British roads today then cyclists RLJing. The amount of bad driving I see every day from other motorists far far outweighs a cyclist RLJing




There are a lot of more important things that they should worry about. But it would seem that RLJing cyclists really are at the top of people's hate list. Check out this site: 
http://www.togetherforlondon.org/campaignLanding.php
yes I know it's laughable but that doesn't stop it being an indicator of how people feel.
See what their no. one concern really is. Perhaps you'll be surprised.


----------



## dondare (3 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> Again this is a persons opinion on what they would like to see.



Currently it's 191 people's opnion. Not a huge number, but more than any other issue on the site.



User3143 said:


> I would like to see another poll on how many people feel annoyed and want to get their own back when they are driving on all the cyclists out there who RLJ, cycle without lights, etc.



You could start one. But if you did look at other messageboards that are associated with newspapers you would see that passions do run high and both columnists and letter-writers have indicated that they would be prepared to use violence against cyclists or even have done so in the past.


----------



## dondare (3 Dec 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Never met a speedophile, to the best of my knowledge. How do their arguments go?[/QUOTE]


I take it then that you were never part of the infamous debates that occurred on various forum sites when Paul Smith was arguing that speeding motorists were safer than law-abiding ones and that cyclists who thought otherwise were self-deluding propaganga-swallowing trouble-makers. 

(Don't get me started....)


----------



## dondare (3 Dec 2008)

> Start one then. I dare you.
> 
> But you'll have to go to the most appropriate place. Somewhere inhabited by the angry drivers that would use bikes RLJing as an excuse for their behaviour. Try *safespeed*.



Pah! Beat me to it.


----------



## tdr1nka (3 Dec 2008)

Did someone call me a Cab?


----------



## HF2300 (3 Dec 2008)

OK, you're a cab!


----------



## BentMikey (3 Dec 2008)

Here's your coat, Lee, tdr1nka's got your cab...


----------



## ferret fur (3 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> Again you are talking about an opinion, saying and doing. Two completley seperate things.



Ok then. Where is your evidence for this? ie You need to show that when people say that they are pissed off with cyclists and then act like they are pissed of with cyclists, these two things are just coincidental & wholly unrelated.


----------



## tdr1nka (3 Dec 2008)

I've had driver shout at me while we waited at a red light, asking in a provocative manner, what I thought of some cyclist that had RLJ-ed in front of us to which I said, 'I'm waiting at the light, what do you think?'.

The driver replied, 'Well you're all a bunch of cn*ts.' and wheel spun away.


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 Dec 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> I've had driver shout at me while we waited at a red light, asking in a provocative manner, what I thought of some cyclist that had RLJ-ed in front of us to which I said, 'I'm waiting at the light, what do you think?'.
> 
> The driver replied, 'Well you're all a bunch of cn*ts.' and wheel spun away.


I can't think of a better illustration of the points I made earlier, which I can't help noticing everyone has ignored. To whit:

_Two basics: one, 'they' don't all hate us. Most of 'them' don't give a crap one way or another. I for one have never been buttonholed by bores at parties challenging me about RLJ-ing. And two, those that do don't hate us 'cos we RLJ; they hate us because we overtake them/don't pay taxes/get in their way/appear to be actually enjoying ourselves. 

If you want to placate these twats/scumbags by commiserating over the behaviour of 'law-breaking cyclists' (thereby, in my view, helping 'justify' their baseless - and dangerous/lethal - brand of self-righteousness), go for it. For myself, should I ever encounter any, I'll ask them if they always stay below 70 on the motorway. 

Then we can have a discussion about the relative consequences of 'their type' of breaking the law and mine. 
_ 
I don't give a crap about drivers like the one you describe, or what they think about anything. I don't think their loathing has anything to do with RLJ-ing, nor do I think we do ourselves any favours by waiting at the lights or otherwise trying to ingratiate ourselves with them. There aren't that many of them; they are peanuts; nothing we do will change that. 

Do you really think that if we were all good little cyclists and obeyed the law to the letter, people like that would stop think we were all 'a bunch of cn*ts'? You're kidding yourselves.

Simpering 'yes, isn't it terrible' merely encourages them in their malice and their spite. If you want to do that, that's your choice. Me, I'll pass.


----------



## ferret fur (3 Dec 2008)

Yes I *do *think if we all obeyed the law more obviously then a significant section of the public would change their attitudes. Clearly there are a minority who are anti-cyclist or who are just a*seholes. However the majority have their perception of what we are like coloured by the way some cyclists behave... and that is detrimental to all of us as cyclists and detrimental to the development of cycling.


----------



## mickle (3 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> eh? I'm saying that driver attitude and the way that drivers actually drive towards cyclists are two seperate things.



They are one and the same lee. You can't have one without the other.


----------



## rog (3 Dec 2008)

swee said:


> no, not at all. but I think a lot of other people would stop agreeing with them...


----------



## mickle (3 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> But when it comes down to it I find it highly unlikely that they would in anyway endanger the life of a cyclist just for the sheer hell of it.



Never ridden a bike in South London then? 

You must be blessed. I once had an ambulance driver of all people deliberately cut me up. When I caught up with him and asked what the **** he thought he was doing he said that I hadn't indicated. Now I'd seen him coming up behind, pulled over onto a slip road to let him through and as I pulled back into the lane he quite deliberately ran me into the kerb. He apparently considered it perfectly acceptable to punish me for a perceived infraction of the law by risking my health and safety. 

Now. Tell me that it wasn't dangerous driving and tell me that he didn't have a bad attitude towards cyclists.


----------



## tdr1nka (3 Dec 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> I've had driver shout at me while we waited at a red light, asking in a provocative manner, what I thought of some cyclist that had RLJ-ed in front of us to which I said, 'I'm waiting at the light, what do you think?'.
> 
> The driver replied, 'Well you're all a bunch of cn*ts.' and wheel spun away.





swee said:


> Ok, hows about you stop putting words in peoples mouths right now.
> 
> I don't for one minute believe that if every cyclist rode to the letter of the law all motorists would suddenly love cyclists, that's an impossiblity, obviously.
> But the attitude of London motorists to RLJ-ing cyclists in London is becoming a major symptom of the problem in the attitudes both of motorists and cyclists which further degrades any possible understandings.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Dec 2008)

mickle said:


> Never ridden a bike in South London then?



Apparently he tried being a courier for 5 weeks.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Dec 2008)

You're all fart and no poo sunbeam.


----------



## col (3 Dec 2008)

Every time those cyclists that put themselves in an awkward position or dont move just to prove a point and get some sort of reaction from motorists,and wont admit it,but come out with the bull of it would have been too dangerous to just get out of the way,add another motorist against cyclists i think.these people are not doing any good for us ,they are making it worse,especially when dubious techniques are used to set up an incident to prove a point,they wont admit this of course.


----------



## tdr1nka (3 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> RLJing has in some respects become part of cycling culture now.




Funnily enough so has driving while using your mobile phone in motoring culture, no great comparison I know, but just as lazily self absorbed and ignorant.


----------



## mickle (4 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> .


I looked over my shoulder and pulled over (to the left hand side of a white line which marked a slip road) to let him through. There was no requirement to indicate because I was turning neither right nor left. The response to my considerate manouver was to be side-swiped with the side of an ambulance.


----------



## mickle (4 Dec 2008)

col said:


> Every time those cyclists that put themselves in an awkward position or dont move just to prove a point and get some sort of reaction from motorists,and wont admit it,but come out with the bull of it would have been too dangerous to just get out of the way,add another motorist against cyclists i think.these people are not doing any good for us ,they are making it worse,especially when dubious techniques are used to set up an incident to prove a point,they wont admit this of course.




Dubious techniques? Example? Else we haven't a clue what you're on about.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Dec 2008)

Harold Shipman wore black brogues..... he also had a beard and glasses!

Does that mean that anyone working with the NHS and wears glasses, has a beard or wears black shoes murders their patients?

(I actually fit this profile perfectly!) 

I take absolute and total esponsibility fr the way* I*ride, but I will not accept responsibility for anyone else - it is a factthatthere are bad drivers and bad cyslists.

Interestingly there is a n apparent observation that as the number of people converting to bikes for financial or otherreasons the standards droip. Probably because many are simply riding bikes in the same way that they used to drive their cars!


----------



## dondare (4 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> There not, motorists can say that they hate cyclists blah, blah, blah. But when it comes down to it I find it highly unlikely that they would in anyway endanger the life of a cyclist just for the sheer hell of it.


"The sheer hell of it" isn't the usual reason. The usual reason is that the cyclist is "in the way." This comes from the driver's attitude that cyclists are not part of the real traffic; a view reinforced by every cyclist who conspicuously breaks the law. 


User3143 said:


> I really must be missing something because I never have no real trouble with motorists at all, don't feel we have a bad rep, and don't feel that the misgivings of every other cyclists is taken out of me when I am out on my bike.


How can you be so totally unaware of public opinion? Do you talk to people and listen to what they say? Do you ever go on forum sites where the majority of members are not cyclists?


----------



## dondare (4 Dec 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Harold Shipman wore black brogues..... he also had a beard and glasses!


In my opinion brogues should be brown. Black oxfords have more class than black brogues. 



Cunobelin said:


> Does that mean that anyone working with the NHS and wears glasses, has a beard or wears black shoes murders their patients?


I can think of nothing more probable.



Cunobelin said:


> (I actually fit this profile perfectly!)
> 
> I take absolute and total responsibility for the way* I* ride, but I will not accept responsibility for anyone else - it is a fact that there are bad drivers and bad cyslists.
> 
> Interestingly there is an apparent observation that as the number of people converting to bikes for financial or other reasons the standards drop. Probably because many are simply riding bikes in the same way that they used to drive their cars!


I've made this point a couple of times. I also believe that cyclists are safer drivers.


----------



## BentMikey (4 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yeah there is, if you have pulled over to the left hand side of the road and started to slow down (if you did) then you do have give a signal.
> 
> Think of a car puling over the left? Do they give a signal of course they do.



That's certainly true, but don't you think it's a bit scabby to suggest that Mickle is to blame for the punishment dealt him by the driver?


----------



## Bollo (4 Dec 2008)

(Sighs and gets ready to get embroiled in an argument that he promised he wouldn't)

There is a difference between riding inconsiderately and controlling your environment. On occasion, neither will be popular with drivers.

The tools to manage your environment while riding are very limited compared to your average driver, but developing the skills (reading ahead, road position, eye contact and, on occasion, the ability to ride assertively) will make you a safer cyclist.

Lee, about drivers not deliberately intimidating cyclists - read my earlier post, its a psychology masterwork . There are is a minority of the driving public that cease to view us as human beings once we're saddled up. And that's the first step to doing things to us that they would not dream of doing in any other situation.

Also, your arguments about "nothing never happens to me". Anyone with kids will recognise this argument.

Dad - "Child, stop playing with that chainsaw, you might hurt yourself"
Child - "But I haven't hurt myself"
Dad - "But you might"
Child - "But I haven't"

In these situations, when the child eventually does auger-in, your feelings of concern are mixed with a sense of schadenfreude that you'd warned the little b%^stard.

In summary Lee, your argument is that of a 5 year old.


----------



## dondare (4 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yeah there is, if you have pulled over to the left hand side of the road and started to slow down (if you did) then you do have give a signal.
> 
> Think of a car puling over the left? Do they give a signal of course they do.



Isn't this a good example of a motorist getting annoyed with a cyclist for (what the motorist regarded as) a traffic violation and then endangering the cyclist because of it?
The cyclist's behaviour influences the driver's attitude which influences his behaviour towards the cyclist. 
The same driver, or a driver with the same attitude, might well decide to punish a cyclist for not stopping at a red, or indeed treat all cyclists with a lack of consideration because they think that running reds is something that all cyclists do.


----------



## swee'pea99 (4 Dec 2008)

Seems to me the only thing of value to have emerged from this entire 'discussion' is that we would all do well to be wary of people working with the NHS who wear glasses, have a beard and wear black shoes.


----------



## magnatom (4 Dec 2008)

Guys, what are you doing!?

Lee is a troll. Pure and simple. He has even admited as much (i.e. that he is on the wind up) in other threads. Ignore him. His position in untenable, but that's the challenge for him. To defend the undefendable. He's a debater for the sake of debate. Nothing else.

At university one of the debates teams jokingly referred to themselves as the massed-debaters. I wonder if this applies here...


----------



## dondare (4 Dec 2008)

magnatom said:


> Guys, what are you doing!?
> 
> Lee is a troll. Pure and simple. He has even admited as much (i.e. that he is on the wind up) in other threads. Ignore him. His position in untenable, but that's the challenge for him. To defend the undefendable. He's a debater for the sake of debate. Nothing else.
> 
> At university one of the debates teams jokingly referred to themselves as the massed-debaters. I wonder if this applies here...



There are always a few people who justify RLJing (for example) and I always argue with them, troll or not.


----------



## Bollo (4 Dec 2008)

magnatom said:


> Guys, what are you doing!?
> 
> Lee is a troll. Pure and simple. He has even admited as much (i.e. that he is on the wind up) in other threads. Ignore him. His position in untenable, but that's the challenge for him. To defend the undefendable. He's a debater for the sake of debate. Nothing else.
> 
> At university one of the debates teams jokingly referred to themselves as the massed-debaters. I wonder if this applies here...



There are some threads where its just not been worth feeding him, but this thread has enough interest to try and burn through his static.


----------



## Bollo (4 Dec 2008)

Lee, I saw this cartoon and thought of you. I really did. Wishing you the best of luck with stage 2!


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

mickle said:


> Dubious techniques? Example? Else we haven't a clue what you're on about.



Ah of course notIf i placed myself in a position on the road so it causes a motorist to adjust theirs just so i can prove a point,or instead of pulling over when i could and blocking in some way,then this is dubious,this is just a small example,but im sure you know what i mean.


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

Bollo said:


> Lee, I saw this cartoon and thought of you. I really did. Wishing you the best of luck with stage 2!




This is trolling isnt it?Being argumentative even if i am wrong isnt,unless you use that term when you dont like some dissagreeing?


----------



## hackbike 666 (4 Dec 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Funnily enough so has driving while using your mobile phone in motoring culture, no great comparison I know, but just as lazily self absorbed and ignorant.



There are a lot of comparisons between the two.Both are dangerous and irresponsible to other road users and peds.(also illegal)


----------



## magnatom (4 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> Only in that thread mag, not in this one.




That might be true, but do you see why, if you troll once, it can be very difficult to take you seriously again?


----------



## hackbike 666 (4 Dec 2008)

This is the way Lee sees it.


----------



## bryce (4 Dec 2008)

magnatom said:


> Guys, what are you doing!?
> 
> Lee is a troll. Pure and simple. He has even admited as much (i.e. that he is on the wind up) in other threads. Ignore him.



+1. I thought everyone knew this. Why hasn't everyone just put him on their blacklists? Why haven't the mods removed him? This whole thread has been hijacked by him. 1,500 posts in a month says it all.


----------



## dondare (4 Dec 2008)

Forum sites which discourage controversy and lively debates are as boring as hell. I never ignore anyone and I think that banning should only be used on spammers.


----------



## Bollo (4 Dec 2008)

col said:


> This is trolling isnt it?Being argumentative even if i am wrong isnt,unless you use that term when you dont like some dissagreeing?


Lee is a troll. Its open season.


----------



## magnatom (4 Dec 2008)

I certainly wouldn't want him banned!

However, personally I think this argument is going around in circles. It is obvious that Lee will never change his mind, so it is probably best to leave him to it.


----------



## swee'pea99 (4 Dec 2008)

I don't think Lee _is_ a troll. A troll, as I understand it, posts _purely to provoke_. I don't think Lee does. I think he enjoys stirring it up a bit, but I don't, for example, think he posted all that insane gibberish about riding without lights purely to wind people up. I think he genuinely believed what he was posting. Which means, as far as I can see, that although he's a bit of a WUM - 'he loves to tease' - he's not a troll (who, by definition, does it _only_ to tease).


----------



## BentMikey (4 Dec 2008)

I do love how he changes his tune after getting loads of abuse, albeit only very slightly.


----------



## Tynan (4 Dec 2008)

it's a fine difference between provoking and stirring it up a bit

seems to me there's no genuine posting, only ritual argument, not always of a sensible kind, that's well on the way to troll or at least trolling for me


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (4 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> I honestly don't think it will make a blind bit of difference. To many cyclists to influence and *RLJing has in some respects become part of cycling culture now*.


True. If you're a complete muppet with no respect for others on the road.


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

> And what if this was done for safety reasons?




If its genuine all well and good.


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

> And if it's done for safety reasons and winds the driver up?




And you call other people trollsRead the post properly.


----------



## bryce (4 Dec 2008)

I think he's quite a good troll as trolls go.


----------



## Tynan (4 Dec 2008)

I've never yet heard a genuine safety reason

If there is one it must result from bad position and anticipation I'd have thought

'as trolls go'

sounds a bit like 'not bad for a serial rapist'


----------



## Cab (4 Dec 2008)

[moderator mode]

Troll or not, this is getting a bit nasty now. Deep breaths guys, if you've got specific complaints to make then you know how to make them.

[/moderator mode]


----------



## Cab (4 Dec 2008)

> Where's that bloke from C+? You know, the one who kept getting knocked off his bike when crossing junctions, and argued to the death that it was more dangerous to wait at lights, basing his argument on the misinterpretation of research?
> 
> What was his name?



Oh, _him_! What was he called again... Great sport for a while but it became monstrously tedious very fast.


----------



## dondare (4 Dec 2008)

> Where's that bloke from C+? You know, the one who kept getting knocked off his bike when crossing junctions, and argued to the death that it was more dangerous to wait at lights, basing his argument on the misinterpretation of research?
> 
> What was his name?



t 
h
e
o
s
t
e
g
e
r
s


----------



## BentMikey (4 Dec 2008)

LOL! He was another one who was too chicken to be filmed whilst riding.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (4 Dec 2008)

Don't think he'll be able to see you, Lee... what with you having no lights and all...


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

> Whichever of the 237 posts you are referring to, it's irrelevant. I'm asking you a question.



Your trolling paul,its very relevant, if i had not have posted,would you still ask me that question?read post 221 again


----------



## LOGAN 5 (4 Dec 2008)

dondare said:


> When the C-charge was introduced in London a lot of motorists switched to bike, and the standard of cycling fell like a paralyzed falcon.



Would tend to agree with this together with the further influx of cyclists following the 7.7.05 bombings in London. 

Many cyclists are also motorists so they know exactly what the rules are and choose to disobey them. Some of course are just rubbish at controlling their bikes and have no idea about reading the road or hazard perception and don't want to spend any money on lights. These "ninja" and reckless cyclists are a real menace at this time of year and very unpredictable.

Two wrongs don't make a right of course but how many motorists go past the red light once they change. I see it at most lights most days on my commute but it would be these drivers too who complain about cyclists RLJing. They just don't see themselves committing the same offence.


----------



## Tynan (4 Dec 2008)

not the same, they run through late in the knowledge that there's a time lapse for the other lights

not the same as going straight through a solid red after everyone else has stopped, potentially with peds crossing


----------



## dondare (4 Dec 2008)

> He's the boy!!
> 
> Those were the days. A good few hours with him on one thread and GT2 on another.




I put "theostegers" into the search engine and found - guess what - a thread on bikeradar exactly like this one with all the usual suspects and all the same old arguments. However, the lively and irreverent nature of many of the posts made for an unexpectedly entertaining read.


----------



## dondare (4 Dec 2008)

Tynan said:


> not the same, they run through late in the knowledge that there's a time lapse for the other lights
> 
> not the same as going straight through a solid red after everyone else has stopped, potentially with peds crossing



A motorist zooming through a red before the traffic starts moving the other way is just as illegal as a cyclist dodging pedestrians. The car will always be a bigger danger than the bike, whether the light's been red for 5 seconds or 30.


----------



## BentMikey (4 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> You want to film me BM? Well I am free tomorrow afternoon from about 1530hrs. If you want to meet near Watford or in London (near Euston) and be prepared to ride north out of London towards Watford then you let me know.
> 
> edit: read sweetpeas post that is me.




Unfortunately I'm in Winchester tomorrow, looking at a VK2 tailbox for the fujin. Next week sometime? Route sounds OK, I'm not very familiar with it but I expect that'll be fine.


----------



## Bollo (4 Dec 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Unfortunately I'm in Winchester tomorrow, looking at a VK2 tailbox for the fujin. Next week sometime? Route sounds OK, I'm not very familiar with it but I expect that'll be fine.



Yeah! My gaff. You can film me if you want. And I can film you. It'll be fun.

Whereabouts are you going for the tailbox BTW?


----------



## BentMikey (4 Dec 2008)

Somewhere to the east of Winchester, a kindly BHPC chap is letting me take a look and measure my skates in his one. I really *really* hope it all fits, because the tailbox would be ideal, light, small, and fits the Fujin carbon seat well. The bummer is the 1.5 hours each way in the car, grrrr.


----------



## BentMikey (4 Dec 2008)

p.s. when we eventually do meet, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Lee rides very well, LOL. I'll be eating my hat.


----------



## Bollo (4 Dec 2008)

col said:


> This is trolling isnt it?Being argumentative even if i am wrong isnt,unless you use that term when you dont like some dissagreeing?



Taking serious note of Cab's moderator hat, I'll explain the use of the chicken cartoon. First, the title - "The Three Stages of Self Awareness". Now, as I approach my fortieth birthday, as the body withers, certain thoughts come in to sharp focus. Like the growing realisation that I'll never avenge Manchester City's 1981 FA Cup defeat, that it's unlikely that I will take a stage in the TdF (or even the ToB for that matter) or that I will bed Christina Ricci. I'm also beginning to suspect that I'm not immortal.

Balanced against that, I have learned to understand what it is to be a parent and be loved unconditionally by a child, to listen occasionally to other's advice, and that I am an idiot. I am the chicken in the third frame.

An example - I had a financial advisor round this week to sort out various money matters. At one point in the discussion, after picking over some very ordinary interest rates I was getting on some savings, I could see a look in his eyes, a look that said, "You're an idiot'. My eyes met his and they said - "Yes, I am".

As well as being a direct and crude insult, I thought the cartoon reflected the utter nonsense that most of us come out with a good deal of the time. The difference is that some of us are willing to admit it.


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

Bollo said:


> Taking serious note of Cab's moderator hat, I'll explain the use of the chicken cartoon. First, the title - "The Three Stages of Self Awareness". Now, as I approach my fortieth birthday, as the body withers, certain thoughts come in to sharp focus. Like the growing realisation that I'll never avenge Manchester City's 1981 FA Cup defeat, that it's unlikely that I will take a stage in the TdF (or even the ToB for that matter) or that I will bed Christina Ricci. I'm also beginning to suspect that I'm not immortal.
> 
> Balanced against that, I have learned to understand what it is to be a parent and be loved unconditionally by a child, to listen occasionally to other's advice, and that I am an idiot. I am the chicken in the third frame.
> 
> ...




Oh seeing as you have taken great lengths to explain your crude and direct insult as just a bit of nonsense,thats ok then.If your last line is a hint at something else would you like to go to the same lengths to explain it?


----------



## Bollo (4 Dec 2008)

col said:


> Oh seeing as you have taken great lengths to explain your crude and direct insult as just a bit of nonsense,thats ok then.If your last line is a hint at something else would you like to go to the same lengths to explain it?


No


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

Bollo said:


> No




Didnt think so


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

> I asked you a relevant question col.
> 
> If you're just going to be silly about it then let's just leave it.



Good answer paul,why did you bother trying to bait in the first place,oh wait dont answer that,you wont anyway,but no need.


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

> You've left it then.
> 
> Feel free to join in if you've got something of value to add. You could start with answering my question.




Ok paul i will,feel free that is,
i wonder why your question which had obvious answers to,and in no real way related to an opinion i expressed,why your so keen for me to state the obvious?mmmmm have you got something you wont admit to then?


----------



## tdr1nka (4 Dec 2008)

If motorists could hear cyclists bickering like this they'd have a field day!


----------



## magnatom (4 Dec 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> If motorists could hear cyclists bickering like this they'd have a field day!




To be quite honest I am starting to get a bit pi$$ed off with some of the threads on here. We seem to have a few members on here who are hell bent on arguing for the sake of arguing.

If things don't improve soon I'll be heading elsewhere, and I really don't want to do that. Apart from a few trolls I really like this place.


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> If motorists could hear cyclists bickering like this they'd have a field day!



They wont at the moment,windows are up,its too cold for them


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

magnatom said:


> To be quite honest I am starting to get a bit pi$$ed off with some of the threads on here. We seem to have a few members on here who are hell bent on arguing for the sake of arguing.
> 
> If things don't improve soon I'll be heading elsewhere, and I really don't want to do that. Apart from a few trolls I really like this place.




Here here,i agree,check some past pages and you will see who they really are,and im not talking of the argumentative people who refuse to be brow beaten and then called trolls by some of these trolls.


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

> It's quite simple. I don't understand where you're coming from, and would like to be clear. Some of your posts are ambiguous, and occasionally would suggest contradiction. So I asked you a simple question to clarify. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be misunderstood would you?
> 
> That's all.




Of course thats all paul
But why ask a question that has an obvious answer?


----------



## Bollo (4 Dec 2008)

You can watch the next episode of this thread using Cyclechat's online 'iBicker' facility.

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=23571


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

Bollo said:


> You can watch the next episode of this thread using Cyclechat's online 'iBicker' facility.
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=23571




You didnt dissapoint


----------



## hackbike 666 (4 Dec 2008)

BentMikey said:


> LOL! He was another one who was too chicken to be filmed whilst riding.



Very nice....I must admit all I got was criticism when I put my rides up and it put me right off.


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> What's your problem mag? Just because I don't go with the flow in the way I post stuff I am a troll?
> 
> I really do think you need to get real, if you want to raise anything with me and what I have posted then please do and I will respond to the best of my ability.
> 
> ...



Think yourself lucky he didnt lose his temper with you,


----------



## hackbike 666 (4 Dec 2008)

magnatom said:


> I certainly wouldn't want him banned!
> 
> However, personally I think this argument is going around in circles. It is obvious that Lee will never change his mind, so it is probably best to leave him to it.



Nope I can't see any point in arguing with lee.


----------



## col (4 Dec 2008)

User3143 said:


> Threw his toys out of his cot more like


----------



## Bollo (5 Dec 2008)

Hi Lee!

You seem to be getting a little het up. Let me try and explain a few things so we can all be best friends again.

First the easy bit. My little 'No' to col's question was meant for comic effect. You see, my previous post was long and rambling and col had asked me if I was going to give another long answer. By answering 'No', I was turning down his request in a way that turned down his request. Its really quite clever if you think about it. But, if it didn't make you laugh, I guess I've got to work on the routine (memo to self - rent Chubby Brown DVD).

Now to the meat. I too had my doubts about the cartoon. Originally, I was going to make the same point about self-awareness by telling you about one of my favourite books, "The Fall", by Albert Camus. Camus was an existentialist writer, but he wasn't up himself in the same way that that windbag Sartre was. Camus was also a pretty decent goalkeeper. He died in a car crash while being given a lift by his publisher. That just proves your point Lee, that crashes happen to other people.

Anyway, 'The Fall' is about this hotshot Parisian lawyer who's rich, handsome, has a string of pretty mistresses and is an all round alpha male. A few things happen that begin to puncture his self-satisfied world, culminating in an evening when he fails to stop a young girl committing suicide by jumping off a bridge. After this, it all goes wrong. He starts to get pi$$ed up, sleep with wh0res, upset his friends and generally go off the rails. After a lot of pfaffing, he ends up in a Dutch bar providing legal advice for theives, gangsters and murderers.

The book is written in the first-person, as the lawyer describes all this to a visitor. The point is that, as the lawyer describes his own hypocrisy, foolishness and idiocy, he gradually turns the argument around and accuses all humanity of the same vices.

Pfew! You can see why chose the cartoon instead, can't you! And the moral of the tale - in the same way that you've decided to wind people up in the past, I thought I'd have a go at winding you up. But hey, its only fishing, which isn't trolling, and I've only done it the once. Isn't that right Lee?

Now, because I'm self-aware, I know that I'm being an idiot and I also know I'm pushing my luck with the mods. So I'm going to do the sensible thing, something I've never done before (because I'm an idiot) and add you and col to my ignore list.

Bye.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (5 Dec 2008)

Nice one, Bollo. Made me fair giggle it did.


----------



## BentMikey (5 Dec 2008)

Wow Bollo, quite impressive!!! You owe me a new keyboard.


----------

