# Why do so many people hate cyclists?



## Dmcd33 (2 Jan 2014)

I seem to be having conversations with so many people recently that start off something like "Oh, you cycle. You must be really fit. Your not one of those lycra louts are you?" or "my wife hates cyclists" or "they go to fast/slow etc....". You know the the rest....

The conversation tends to start well, but then decends into lots of annecdotes about red light jumpers and "them" taking up all the road etc... 

I have found it emmotionally draining trying to have a rational discussion about it at times and was wondering if it was just me? It is nearly always a non-cylist though on further thought.


----------



## Saluki (2 Jan 2014)

A chap at our church is an 'anti' and seems to always want to come and find us for a rant. I have pointed out that road tax does not exist and that the car is not the be all and end all of life. He calls cyclists 'cockroaches' and says that its his mission to do close passes and scare cyclists off the road. I suggested that was not a terribly Christian attitude and had he not got to the bits in the bible that talk about tolerance.

He has nearly had us off a couple of times when leaving church. His rants though can be heard clear across the coffee room.


----------



## snorri (2 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> I suggested that was not a terribly Christian attitude and had he not got to the bits in the bible that talk about tolerance.
> He has nearly had us off a couple of times when leaving church.


 
Tolerance is a virtue, but you can be too tolerant for your own good. This guy needs to be reported to the police before he kills someone, it could be you.


----------



## Saluki (2 Jan 2014)

snorri said:


> Tolerance is a virtue, but you can be too tolerant for your own good. This guy needs to be reported to the police before he kills someone, it could be you.


Good point. I might well get his reg number and make a little phone call. We have taken to leaving after him now. 
His wife just rolls her eyes and makes 'here we go again' faces behind his back, when he starts, so we have wondered if its mostly bluff and bluster and he's passed us close to make a point.


----------



## ScotiaLass (2 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> I seem to be having conversations with so many people recently that start off something like "Oh, you cycle. You must be really fit. Your not one of those lycra louts are you?" or "my wife hates cyclists" or "they go to fast/slow etc....". You know the the rest....
> 
> The conversation tends to start well, but then decends into lots of annecdotes about red light jumpers and "them" taking up all the road etc...
> 
> I have found it emmotionally draining trying to have a rational discussion about it at times and was wondering if it was just me? It is nearly always a non-cylist though on further thought.



I find most non cyclists are pretty intolerant. I point out that I'm not intolerant of a car driver, as I am also one too.
I then ask if they cycle....when they say no, I ask them to give it a go and get back to me


----------



## Bladeboy (2 Jan 2014)

I will be honest and used to hate cyclists riding side by side, that was before I started cycling few months ago, and can still see why that annoys non cyclists.
Have had a few close passes and always have to let them know what I think! As for the guy at church say a couple of Hail Marys then jaw him lol


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (2 Jan 2014)

If anyone starts a conversation with me re "how bad cyclists are" I either walk away before they have finished their sentence or tell them to shut the f*ck up. Sometimes both if I am feeling generous.


----------



## theclaud (2 Jan 2014)

Marmion said:


> If anyone starts a conversation with me re "how bad cyclists are" I either walk away before they have finished their sentence or tell them to shut the f*ck up. Sometimes both if I am feeling generous.



This. We need to stop indulging it. I plan to draw up some guidelines...


----------



## Doc333 (2 Jan 2014)

Ignorance is the word. People who didn't cycle when they were kids/teens and didn't go out onto the roads and mix with traffic, will never get it I'm afraid. I cycled as a kid and used MTB on the roads to get to the lumps around 17-years ago. Started riding a road bike recently and can tell the difference between the motorists who di and those that didn't.

I can see it from both sides of the fence as i've been a professional driver for more years than I care to remember. I've driven articulated trucks, coaches, buses and sports cars. I can anticipate what a motorist is going to do or should do, just like when driving I can anticipate what the cyclist is going to do or should do.

Ignorance is bliss as they say, but can also be painful and expensive.


----------



## Dmcd33 (2 Jan 2014)

It's the friendly start and then list of anecdotal events that at worst are; Slowing them down on country lanes or the guy they saw jump a red light and nearly knock them over 6 months ago (I have seen cars do this on my commute numerous times, one even ran over a childs foot a few weeks ago etc....)

I agree that the red light jumping and cycling two abrest are big issues, but why are "we" all guilty?

I drive as well and could come up with a 100 anecdotes of badly behaved drivers, but don't because the vast majority I pass are polite and considerate.

It's the hatred based on very little that I don't get. We don't put their lives in danger is what I mean.


----------



## Banjo (2 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> This. We need to stop indulging it. I plan to draw up some guidelines...


 Heres a couple of guidelines Keep your thumb closed on your index finger and curl your fingers in tightly to minimise damage to your hands when you chin the tw&t.

Re the prat at Saluki,s church maybe you could get the priest/ vicar to try and talk sense to him first but if he continues deliberate close passes I would at least inform the police so if he misjudges it and hits someone there is history about the tosser on record.


----------



## theclaud (2 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> I agree that the red light jumping and cycling two abrest are big issues



No they're not. The latter is not an issue at all, and the former is a minor issue blown out of all proportion for political reasons.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (2 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> It's the friendly start....



Walk away at this point.


----------



## jay clock (2 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> A chap at our church is an 'anti' and seems to always want to come and find us for a rant. I have pointed out that road tax does not exist and that the car is not the be all and end all of life. He calls cyclists 'cockroaches' and says that its his mission to do close passes and scare cyclists off the road. I suggested that was not a terribly Christian attitude and had he not got to the bits in the bible that talk about tolerance.
> 
> He has nearly had us off a couple of times when leaving church. His rants though can be heard clear across the coffee room.


tell him to f**k off?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (2 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> I agree that the red light jumping and cycling two abrest are big issues



Just take it that I have walked away from you - you have been told the next stage, so expect it if you continue...


----------



## Cycling Dan (2 Jan 2014)

"Haha you're a self-gratification artist" tends to be my typical response


----------



## Dmcd33 (2 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> No they're not. The latter is not an issue at all, and the former is a minor issue blown out of all proportion for political reasons.


 The two abrest thins I agree is minor and we have every right to be there. The red light jumping is a predominantly central London issue i think?


----------



## Peter Armstrong (2 Jan 2014)

I just hate all road users


----------



## theclaud (2 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> The two abrest thins I agree is minor and we have every right to be there. The red light jumping is a predominantly central London issue i think?



Companionable cycling is not an issue, minor or otherwise. It is to be positively encouraged. Red-light jumping by cyclists is a minor issue in terms of road safety - it is only a regarded as major issue because of the way cyclists are viewed and resented.


----------



## steve52 (2 Jan 2014)

wow!!!!! some people hate cyclists? well i never,hope i dont meet one.


----------



## vickster (2 Jan 2014)

Peter Armstrong said:


> I just hate all road users


 Including cyclists?


----------



## Peter Armstrong (2 Jan 2014)

vickster said:


> Including cyclists?


 
Yeah!


----------



## Spinney (2 Jan 2014)

Almost fell out with my sister once, even though she cycles herself. We were driving along an A-road, with a cycle path to one side beyond a wide grassy verge. A-road only one lane each way. Cycle path about a foot wide, with grass encroaching. I said I'd be cycling on the road, as I couldn't go fast enough on the cycle path and there was no room to overtake peds or other cyclists (or to pass anyone coming the other way). She seemed to think that drivers' ability/need to travel at the speed they wanted to outweighed the right of a cyclist to use the road (how inconsiderate it was of me to make all those car drivers have to overtake me....)

And like I said, she's a cyclist herself...


----------



## Melonfish (2 Jan 2014)

i think we should just hate all road users equally, its the only way to be fair.

i always thought a fair world would be really, really horrid tho.
people keep complaining about things not being fair, i guess we'll just have to give it a go.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (2 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> A chap at our church is an 'anti' and seems to always want to come and find us for a rant. I have pointed out that road tax does not exist and that the car is not the be all and end all of life. He calls cyclists 'cockroaches' and says that its his mission to do close passes and scare cyclists off the road. I suggested that was not a terribly Christian attitude and had he not got to the bits in the bible that talk about tolerance.
> 
> He has nearly had us off a couple of times when leaving church. His rants though can be heard clear across the coffee room.


 

tape a glass scribe to the end of your bars, give the dangerous imbecile a copy of the highway code with safe passing highlighted and if he gets close enough after that its his lookout.

or more sensibly  work on his wife, explain how bad he is and how frightened his driving has made you feel, show her media pics of crushed bikes as to what he could be responsible for and lay it on with a trowel what a boorish unchristian embarrassment he is making of both of them. He sounds like a total a'hole.

people have stopped having this sort of conversation with me at work for some reason.


----------



## Profpointy (2 Jan 2014)

shouldbeinbed said:


> tape a glass scribe to the end of your bars, give the dangerous imbecile a copy of the highway code with safe passing highlighted and if he gets close enough after that its his lookout.
> 
> or more sensibly  work on his wife, explain how bad he is and how frightened his driving has made you feel, show her media pics of crushed bikes as to what he could be responsible for and lay it on with a trowel what a boorish unchristian embarrassment he is making of both of them. He sounds like a total a'hole.
> 
> people have stopped having this sort of conversation with me at work for some reason.



You could patiently explain to him that he should not generalise cyclists' behaviour, after all, you don't generalise that all Christians are spitefull murderous hypocrites like him.


----------



## Glow worm (2 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> A chap at our church is an 'anti' and seems to always want to come and find us for a rant. I have pointed out that road tax does not exist and that the car is not the be all and end all of life. He calls cyclists 'cockroaches' and says that its his mission to do close passes and scare cyclists off the road.



Blimey - good to see Church goers practising such tolerance and understanding !

I reckon he, and other 'cyclist haters' are simply jealous. This was touched on in another thread the other day - I reckon it's a freedom thing. They see us buzzing about the place, smiles on our faces, unregulated and free, lither, fitter, and always better looking of course - while they waddle back to their precious w*nkpanzers that they can barely afford, (but had to buy because next door just got one) and spend half an hour seething in traffic jams for the half mile drive home.


----------



## snorri (2 Jan 2014)

Glow worm said:


> They see us buzzing about the place, smiles on our faces, .


Hey! Easy boy, there are some serious cyclists on CC you know.


----------



## Scoosh (2 Jan 2014)

Some useful responses here - from someone who really has 'been there, done that' !


----------



## pauldavid (2 Jan 2014)

snorri said:


> Tolerance is a virtue, but you can be too tolerant for your own good. This guy needs to be reported to the police before he kills someone, it could be you.


Alternatively, kick his mirror off as he performs his close pass. I would imagine he'll feel more inclined to give you room when close passing costs him significant money.


----------



## annedonnelly (2 Jan 2014)

I think a lot of it is that people like to whinge. As we're cyclists they whinge to us about cyclists. If we were taxi drivers it would be taxi drivers they hate. You can find people - even some on here! - who hate dog walkers, cat owners, Manchester United, Simon Cowell, radio 1, etc. If it's just idle conversation around the coffee machine at work, just walk away. Surely they're not worth the hassle.

Obviously if it's someone threatening to run you off the road and then actually trying it, it's a different story.


----------



## gbb (2 Jan 2014)

Just to play devils advocate...ive never really had the anti cycling sentiment thrown at me. 
You get the very occasional 'yeah but you dont obey the rules ' kinda sentiment...but I simply reply...'most of us do, people only remember the bad stuff..anyway, no-one get killed by the odd annoying cyclist'
To which they usually shrug their shoulders and say 'true'


----------



## discominer (2 Jan 2014)

Irrational ain't it? Someone once told me she hated cyclists. She then told me why ( I was about to walk away)...a friend of hers was in hospital after a collision. Guess what? Her friend was the cyclist- so she hated cyclists- they get hit by cars.


----------



## 400bhp (2 Jan 2014)

gbb said:


> Just to play devils advocate...ive never really had the anti cycling sentiment thrown at me.
> You get the very occasional 'yeah but you dont obey the rules ' kinda sentiment...but I simply reply...'most of us do, people only remember the bad stuff..anyway, no-one get killed by the odd annoying cyclist'
> To which they usually shrug their shoulders and say 'true'



+1


----------



## ianrauk (2 Jan 2014)

I just give them my hard as fark stare of death, that seems to shut them up.


----------



## ShipHill (2 Jan 2014)

Joe Schlub hates everything about me and everything I've ever done in my life, always has and always will. I don't care and they're all turds.

I've driven a taxi, ride a motorbike, bicycle, listen to evvy metal, got tattoos... blah blah blah. These people sound right clowns though. I hope nothing horrible happens to them. Like bumping into me or anyone else who'd wag our fingers at them very sternly.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Jan 2014)

ianrauk said:


> I just give them my hard as f*** stare of death, that seems to shut them up.


----------



## ianrauk (2 Jan 2014)

zimzum42 said:


>




Cheeky toss...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Jan 2014)

ianrauk said:


> I just give them my hard as f*** stare of death, that seems to shut them up.


It's hooligans like you that give us a bad name!


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Jan 2014)

ianrauk said:


> Cheeky toss...


Sorry I couldn't find one of Phil or Grant and had to use the one I took of you that Sunday you turned up for the CC ride in a Bimmer...


----------



## ianrauk (2 Jan 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> Sorry I couldn't find one of Phil or Grant and had to use the one I took of you that Sunday you turned up for the CC ride in a Bimmer...




Now if you had showed a pic of Phil and Grant and I showed that pic to my lazy arsed welsh cousin bumpkin he would say that it's me and my brother....................so you're not alone.

I'll get you back....


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Jan 2014)

ianrauk said:


> Now if you had showed a pic of Phil and Grant and I showed that pic to my lazy arsed welsh cousin bumpkin he would say that it's me and my brother....................so you're not alone.
> 
> I'll get you back....


With what cuz? u gonna criticize my dirty cassette? Or u gonna tell me u got tix for Slayer then take me to a Hanson gig like u tried to last time?


----------



## ianrauk (2 Jan 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> With what cuz? u gonna criticize my dirty cassette? Or u gonna tell me u got tix for Slayer then take me to a Hanson gig like u tried to last time?




You can push me so far mate..
_Searches on phone for NY girls number she gave me_...


----------



## jdtate101 (2 Jan 2014)

I like the sound of just turning your back and walking away, that would really wind them up, or just ignore them completely not even make eye contact. If people can't be civilised I don't have the time or patience to interact with them.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Jan 2014)

ianrauk said:


> You can push me so far mate..
> _Searches on phone for NY girls number she gave me_...


True, after a few weeks with me she probably wants a bit of rough!

Anyway, we should get back to the OP.
One of my favourite ways of getting back at a driver is raising their rear wiper or opening the boot or a rear passenger side door. They have to stop to sort it out...


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Jan 2014)

If it's a bus you can press the engine cut out button...


----------



## Dave 123 (2 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> A chap at our church is an 'anti' and seems to always want to come and find us for a rant. I have pointed out that road tax does not exist and that the car is not the be all and end all of life. He calls cyclists 'cockroaches' and says that its his mission to do close passes and scare cyclists off the road. I suggested that was not a terribly Christian attitude and had he not got to the bits in the bible that talk about tolerance.
> 
> He has nearly had us off a couple of times when leaving church. His rants though can be heard clear across the coffee room.




I reckon you should get jiggy with his missus.
Sounds like she wants you.....


----------



## ColinJ (2 Jan 2014)

pauldavid said:


> Alternatively, kick his mirror off as he performs his close pass. I would imagine he'll feel more inclined to give you room when close passing costs him significant money.


Alternatively, he might murder you ...


----------



## slowmotion (2 Jan 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> If it's a bus you can press the engine cut out button...


 I have thought about that a couple of times after horrendous close passes but it usually seems to be hiding under the engine cover. Is there a guide to such retaliation?


----------



## Scoosh (2 Jan 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> Sorry I ..... had to use the one I took of you that Sunday you turned up for the CC ride in a Bimmer...


That's @ianrauk !!!!!!!   


Proper 'ard, he is.   




  

Anyway, back to OP:
"Send for Ian !"


----------



## Leaway2 (3 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> Christian attitude and had he not got to the bits in the bible that talk about tolerance.


Perhaps you could ask the priest/vicar to work it into his sermon. Sit behind him and watch him squirm.


----------



## uclown2002 (3 Jan 2014)

I've never encountered any negative cycle BS either at work or socially; makes me wonder what sort of nobbers you folk associate with!


----------



## Rob3rt (3 Jan 2014)

Couldn't be anything to do with the amount of me me me attitudes and the incredible amount of moaning and self victimising could it?


----------



## 400bhp (3 Jan 2014)

Leaway2 said:


> Perhaps you could ask the priest/vicar to work it into his sermon. Sit behind him and watch him squirm.



this.

And it can be tenuous, but enough to get the point understood.


----------



## Dmcd33 (3 Jan 2014)

The negative attitude appears to have come about over the past year or two. My theory as to why?
1. More people cycling on the road (particularly London) means that drivers have to pay more attention to what they are doing.
2. Jelousy - we pass traffic, keep fit, spend less money on commuting etc..
3. Some see it as their road because they pay an imaginary tax (don't go there)
4. We are the easiest target for people to take out their frustrations (smallest fish in the pond)

Overall, it still baffles me as to why the hatred. I don't mean "dislike" or "they irritate me". As above; BMW and Audi drivers tailgating irritate me, but I don't Hate them. People walking out into the road on their phones irritate me, but I don't hate them. People not indicating in their cars irritate me, but ........

If anyone has read a newspaper comment thread or listened the LBC or BBC London over the period where there were the cyclsits deaths. Nearly all drivers were using it to blame cylists! Now that irritated me.


----------



## Saluki (3 Jan 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> I reckon you should get jiggy with his missus.
> Sounds like she wants you.....


I'm straight and my husband might not be too pleased


----------



## Saluki (3 Jan 2014)

Leaway2 said:


> Perhaps you could ask the priest/vicar to work it into his sermon. Sit behind him and watch him squirm.


Oooh, that's an idea. Pastor is a keen cyclist and our church used to have a Sunday afternoon cycling club for families.


----------



## Arjimlad (3 Jan 2014)

Even whilst changing my inner tube beside the traffic lights this morning I had a happy grin & cheery demeanour, or so said my mate who passed by in his car.

Cycle haters seem to have entitlement issues and tribal issues, wanting to tar all cyclists with one brush.

It's not as if I hold all drivers responsible for killing Princess Diana, after all ?


----------



## John Shingler (3 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> A chap at our church is an 'anti' .......



who's he? ..the caretaker then?


----------



## ColinJ (3 Jan 2014)

Well, I definitely _have_ experienced the hatred! I had a WVM slow to my speed so his mate could smile at me then do a thick, green gob straight in my face. I have had eggs thrown at me, buckets of water emptied over me, and abuse screamed at me. I had another WVM drive at me down a road in Penzance (narrowed to singletrack by roadworks) against a red light. He gave me the finger and made it pretty clear that if I didn't dismount and get the f*ck out of his way then he and his burly mate would get out and move me!

The truth is that we get haters even on the forum. Somebody reading this will either now suggest that I had it coming to me, or at least be thinking it!


----------



## vickster (3 Jan 2014)

Gawd, frankly I expect those apes just hate any one not just cyclists, even their own mothers (the unfortunate women)


----------



## tyred (3 Jan 2014)

I just hate everyone. It's easiest that way and nobody can accuse of discrimination.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> T*he negative attitude appears to have come about over the past year or two*. My theory as to why?
> 1. More people cycling on the road (particularly London) means that drivers have to pay more attention to what they are doing.
> 2. Jelousy - we pass traffic, keep fit, spend less money on commuting etc..
> 3. Some see it as their road because they pay an imaginary tax (don't go there)
> ...



Utter garbage


----------



## Dmcd33 (3 Jan 2014)

400bhp said:


> Utter garbage


 Why garbage?


----------



## 400bhp (3 Jan 2014)

The negative attitude (if there is one) hasn't suddenly come from nowhere, it's always been there.

Same old peeps venting frustration on someone or other.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Jan 2014)

ColinJ said:


> Well, I definitely _have_ experienced the hatred! I had a WVM slow to my speed so his mate could smile at me then do a thick, green gob straight in my face. I have had eggs thrown at me, buckets of water emptied over me, and abuse screamed at me. I had another WVM drive at me down a road in Penzance (narrowed to singletrack by roadworks) against a red light. He gave me the finger and made it pretty clear that if I didn't dismount and get the f*ck out of his way then he and his burly mate would get out and move me!
> 
> The truth is that we get haters even on the forum. Somebody reading this will either now suggest that I had it coming to me, or at least be thinking it!



Yes, but were any of these from peeps that had a general dislike to cyclists? We will never know.

I got close passed a week back on a road with plenty of room for a safe overtake-I shouted something and as soon as I did the bloke slowed right down and started weaving around on the road. He said it was my problem if the edge of the road is full of potholes and some such other bollox. Point being this tool has probably got an axe to grind with anyone he believes he can bully around.


----------



## Thomk (3 Jan 2014)

vickster said:


> Gawd, frankly I expect those apes just hate any one not just cyclists, even their own mothers (the unfortunate women)


They don't have mothers. Saruman grew them in a puddle of mud.


----------



## Phill Woods (3 Jan 2014)

I've given up caring about it. Some people won't change and as long i use the road appropriately it won't be my fault. I can't tell you how many times i have ranted about drivers that completely disregard us as road users. Just because i ride a bike doesn't mean i don't drive a car too!!

Anyway...i will always stick up for cyclists but there are a few that give us all a bad name!


----------



## Dmcd33 (3 Jan 2014)

It does tend to be angry men that try to do the same to me in my big old Volvo (tailgate, undertake, flash lights, speed) When i'm on my bike it's a whole different game.

The vicar is the main point I am making in the thread. He calls us/them "cocroaches" and has a mission to drive us/them of the road? This is irrational and out of context. I bet if he were asked why, he couldn't put any facts together apart from some daily mail tirade about not wearing helmets, road tax...blah.. blah... 
People aren't even able to tell me why they have such a hatred. It is usually "they take up all the road" and "they jump red lights" ?

I still can't fathom why such out of context anger?


----------



## Rob3rt (3 Jan 2014)

400bhp said:


> Utter garbage



Got to love a theory about why something that isn't, is!


----------



## Arjimlad (3 Jan 2014)

We're generally happy smug blighters compared to lard-arses sat in their cars. Look at this chap, biffed off and trapped under a pensionermobile and still grinning !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...nutes-escapes-with-just-cuts-and-bruises.html


----------



## Peter Armstrong (3 Jan 2014)

Some people are just angry walkers, I mean I had this Car App on my phone for Aviva car insurance, it recorded my driving for 200 miles, I was always bang on the speed limit had to take ages to get up to speed and brake down, brake before corners and then take them slowly at a constant speed. Like an over exaggerated couscous drive. You would not believe the amount of abuse I got on the road, tailgating, flash lights, getting called a walker everyday. All because I drove super careful and slow, words messed up I tell you.


----------



## Dmcd33 (3 Jan 2014)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Some people are just angry walkers, I mean I had this Car App on my phone for Aviva car insurance, it recorded my driving for 200 miles, I was always bang on the speed limit had to take ages to get up to speed and brake down, brake before corners and then take them slowly at a constant speed. Like an over exaggerated couscous drive. You would not believe the amount of abuse I got on the road, tailgating, flash lights, getting called a walker everyday. All because I drove super careful and slow, words messed up I tell you.


 I'm guessing your spell check has been kind the the word Walker


----------



## Peter Armstrong (3 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> I'm guessing your spell check has been kind the the word Walker


 
Ha Ha no, thought Id go for walker because I keep getting farking fark shoot fiddle toss all the time


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (3 Jan 2014)

I think they're just scared of cyclists. They may have to slow down, wait and show some responsibility, and possibly put the mobile phone down.
But then I've got a small car and laugh myself silly at the morons trying to intimidate me because of that too. Life's too short to give a toss about them.


----------



## Dave 123 (3 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> I'm straight and my husband might not be too pleased




It's the height of fashion these days. I know plenty of them, they all seem happy.....!


----------



## nappadang (3 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> A chap at our church is an 'anti' and seems to always want to come and find us for a rant. I have pointed out that road tax does not exist and that the car is not the be all and end all of life. He calls cyclists 'cockroaches' and says that its his mission to do close passes and scare cyclists off the road. I suggested that was not a terribly Christian attitude and had he not got to the bits in the bible that talk about tolerance.
> 
> He has nearly had us off a couple of times when leaving church. His rants though can be heard clear across the coffee room.


You should record these rants, this idiot will kill someone.


----------



## Linford (3 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> No they're not. The latter is not an issue at all, and the former is a minor issue blown out of all proportion for political reasons.



The former is an issue because it colours the rest of societies perception of cyclists as a group of people who feel that the laws of the land were written for others to obey....I'm not the greatest fan of ignorant people tarring with a broad brush. I've see you do that often enough over the years with other groups. Why give non cyclists the excuse to do so with us ?


----------



## Markymark (3 Jan 2014)

ColinJ said:


> . I have had eggs thrown at me, buckets of water emptied over me, and abuse screamed at me.


I have had eggs thrown at me, a full bottle of drink poured at me from a bridge, stone thrown at my head...

All of these whilst in my *convertible car* whilst the roof was down in London and not on my bike. No life threatening but the stone was thrown at force at me and could have hurt.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Jan 2014)

Phill Woods said:


> I've given up caring about it. Some people won't change and as long i use the road appropriately it won't be my fault. I can't tell you how many times i have ranted about drivers that completely disregard us as road users. Just because i ride a bike doesn't mean i don't drive a car too!!
> 
> Anyway...i will always stick up for cyclists but there are a few that give us all a bad name!



Pretty much this. Fuggedahbahdid. Don't let them live in your head rent-free.


----------



## theclaud (3 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> The former is an issue because it colours the rest of societies perception of cyclists as a group of people who feel that the laws of the land were written for others to obey....*I'm not the greatest fan of ignorant people tarring with a broad brush*. I've see you do that often enough over the years with other groups. Why give non cyclists the excuse to do so with us ?



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Sorry - just had to get that out of my system.

It's a minor issue by any standards except those already confounded with prejudice and obsession. What you need to grasp is that the so-called debate about red-light jumping is not actually about red-light jumping at all, just as the helmet debate is not about helmets. Incidentally, traffic-light controls, and the laws pertaining to them, _were _written for others - they exist and are necessary because of _motorized _traffic. Which is not a reason to disobey a given signal, but it is yet another reason to engage your brain before your fingers.

Why do people hate cyclists? Because the cyclist's freedom and convenience is an ever-present reminder of the hollow promises of the ideology of the motor car; and a living, breathing, rolling refutation of the sense of superiority of the private motorist and everything he represents. Because cycling is the ultimate form of individual urban transport, and makes their addiction to their cars look stupid (the bus is the ultimate collective form, and most people are pretty unpleasant about buses and their passengers as well). Because cycling is transgressive, joyous, liberating, sociable, useful, cheap. Because we are happier, healthier and more attractive than they are, and better lovers. Because we don't need them or their approval. Because they are bitter and unhappy and are prisoners of their own stunted imaginations. Because they _want to _break the same laws that some of us do, but _can't_...


----------



## Linford (3 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
> 
> Sorry - just had to get that out of my system.
> 
> ...



You might consider it minor to break the laws of the roads, but then bitch and moan about others doing it....If you want to live outside the law, then don't be surprised if the rest of society holds what you consider dear in contempt !


----------



## Lanzecki (3 Jan 2014)

Arjimlad said:


> We're generally happy smug blighters compared to lard-arses sat in their cars. Look at this chap, biffed off and trapped under a pensionermobile and still grinning !
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...nutes-escapes-with-just-cuts-and-bruises.html



the driver, a 76- year-old local man, was checked over at the scene but did not require hospital treatment.


----------



## theclaud (3 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> You might consider it minor to break the laws of the roads, but then bitch and moan about others doing it....If you want to live outside the law, then don't be surprised if the rest of society holds what you consider dear in contempt !



Oh do get a grip and respond to what I actually write. I haven't said anything at all about my relationship (as an individual) to the law. But it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that motorists are not more law abiding than cyclists as a group - they break the law in huge numbers wherever they can get away with it. Speed limits, anyone? They like to go on about cyclist RLJers when they're stuck two cars back in the queue, but it's a different story when they find themselves at the front just after the lights change.


----------



## vickster (3 Jan 2014)

I'm guessing theclaud isn't a car owning cyclist


----------



## Arjimlad (3 Jan 2014)

Lanzecki said:


> the driver, a 76- year-old local man, was checked over at the scene but did not require hospital treatment.


 
Quel surprise, he was in a steel cage with airbags and it looked like a low-speed collision. Thankfully..


----------



## BigonaBianchi (3 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> I seem to be having conversations with so many people recently that start off something like "Oh, you cycle. You must be really fit. Your not one of those lycra louts are you?" or "my wife hates cyclists" or "they go to fast/slow etc....". You know the the rest....
> 
> The conversation tends to start well, but then decends into lots of annecdotes about red light jumpers and "them" taking up all the road etc...
> 
> I have found it emmotionally draining trying to have a rational discussion about it at times and was wondering if it was just me? It is nearly always a non-cylist though on further thought.




DITTO BIG TIME

To a man/woman they all try to be polite then dig the knife in. Instantly I am faced with telling them the holy truth or being polite to maintain relations. Frankly I'd rather just cease negotiations and let them go through life in blissfull ignorance of their peasantry.


----------



## theclaud (3 Jan 2014)

vickster said:


> I'm guessing theclaud isn't a car owning cyclist



If I'm going to be pedantic, theclaud is a pig-shaped fiction on a cycling forum and you only have her word for it that she rides a bike. But should you choose to believe what she says, her author has owned only one car in her life and doesn't intend to own another. She drives a van occasionally for work.


----------



## Brains (3 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> A chap at our church is an 'anti' and seems to always want to come and find us for a rant. I have pointed out that road tax does not exist and that the car is not the be all and end all of life. He calls cyclists 'cockroaches' and says that its his mission to do close passes and scare cyclists off the road. I suggested that was not a terribly Christian attitude and had he not got to the bits in the bible that talk about tolerance.
> 
> He has nearly had us off a couple of times when leaving church. His rants though can be heard clear across the coffee room.


Sounds like a normal churchgoer to me. The least Christian person I unfortunately have to deal with from time to time is a pillar of the local church, goes off to Africa and helps orphans and yet goes out of her way to disrupt the local Scout group and it's 200 kids. I firmly belive she is actually a worshiper of Satan and is bent on corrupting all the poor orphans in Africa. As for cyclists, given her attitude to all other things, we should all be hung after being drawn and quartered.


----------



## Lanzecki (3 Jan 2014)

Brains said:


> we should all be hung after being drawn and quartered.



*Clears throat*

I'm hung. 

I can draw as well.


----------



## ColinJ (3 Jan 2014)

Lanzecki said:


> *Clears throat*
> 
> I'm hung.
> 
> I can draw as well.


And ... though it looks like it has been quartered, that is actually its full-size!


----------



## Lanzecki (3 Jan 2014)

I was hoping the quartered bit would be ignored. It's amazing what you can do with a fresnel lens.


----------



## Arrowfoot (3 Jan 2014)

Observations when cycling topics are raised for discussion;

Being a cyclist - lots of positive comments, questions about becoming one, even adulation
Cycling on a public - mixed reactions with people sharing their experience views - good, bad or ugly, usually bad
Cycling abreast - hot and heavy topic, can be fairly emotive 
Road tax for cyclist - 50/50, not emotive but discussions can be academic i.e. social costs, sharing the burden etc
Cyclists jumping the lights - cycling community cast as condoning this particular behaviour????
Cycling facility such as racks and showers in the workplace - can divide work colleagues who do not cycle
Cycling without helmets - women can become emotive but men can't be bothered (the guy deserve it attitude)
Theft of bike - highly emotive amongst cyclists but considered a non-issue for discussion by noon-cyclists
Fixed gear with no brakes - the occasional freedom of expression argument will surface
Lance Armstrong before being busted - fairly divided
Lance Armstrong after being busted - scathing to everyone dopes argument
Men wearing lycra - small but clear dissent group 
Women wearing lycra - only option (unanimous)


----------



## glenn forger (3 Jan 2014)

> *...fit a bell to your bicycle because this makes you look even more ridiculous. There's fewer funnier things in life than the sight of a peeved cyclists ineffectually ringing their teensy weeny bell at a speeding 4 ton juggernaut.
> 
> He won't mess with you again my trouser-clipped friend. mainly because he has made a mess of the Tarmac with the remains of your head.*



They know their audience.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jan 2014)

I was unfortunate enough have an incident with an anti cyclist neanderthal yesterday. We both approached a mini roundabout at the same time,he indicated right so i set off turning left judging that i had about 5 seconds before he was behind me. I was wrong,he went and drove over the mini roundabout instead of going round it then he blasted me and gave me some threatening shaking fist gesture. I shouted at him that it was a roundabout and not a go over-about meaning that i was allowed time to pull out safely while he drove around it instead of over it! He knew he was in the wrong but i guess he did it on purpose as he was that kind of a sad git!


----------



## slowmotion (4 Jan 2014)

Someone squirted me with some urine from his water pistol from the back seat of a car, Cromwell Road, west London. I didn't like it. I got over it.

Most motorists are very considerate. If you want to get on your bike with a victim mentality, go ahead. Happy New Year.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jan 2014)

slowmotion said:


> Someone squirted me with some urine from his water pistol from the back seat of a car, Cromwell Road, west London. I didn't like it. I got over it.
> 
> Most motorists are very considerate. If you want to get on your bike with a victim mentality, go ahead. Happy New Year.



How do you know it was urine slowmo,it might've been cider?!


----------



## slowmotion (4 Jan 2014)

Accy cyclist said:


> How do you know it was urine slowmo,it might've been cider?!


I tasted it. It stayed on my face. It wasn't Strongbow. I am just old enough to know the difference.


----------



## Aperitif (4 Jan 2014)

slowmotion said:


> I tasted it. It stayed on my face. It wasn't Strongbow. I am just old enough to know the difference.


You're forever taking the p1ss, you!


----------



## midliferider (4 Jan 2014)

I have a simple response to all those who complain or moan about cyclists. I tell them
"You won't look that fat if you start cycling"
They either do not talk to me again or if they do, won't moan about cyclists.


----------



## robjh (4 Jan 2014)

"All the cyclists I see jump red lights"

Response - no they don't. That statement is quite impossible. I ride the same streets as you drive, I _do_ notice other cyclists, and do not see that.

The question is how such false perceptions get so firmly embedded. The colleague who told me this appeared to sincerely believe it.

( I didn't reply "All drivers I see are drunk/on drugs/on phones/texting/speeding/banned from driving/uninsured" although by using the same logic I could have done)


----------



## steveindenmark (4 Jan 2014)

Why are we so so surprised that so many people hate cyclists. Reading some of the posts on here, even cyclists hate cyclists 

Steve


----------



## midliferider (4 Jan 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> Why are we so so surprised that so many people hate cyclists. Reading some of the posts on here, even cyclists hate cyclists
> 
> Steve



But not for cycling


----------



## cd365 (4 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> A chap at our church is an 'anti' and seems to always want to come and find us for a rant. I have pointed out that road tax does not exist and that the car is not the be all and end all of life. He calls cyclists 'cockroaches' and says that its his mission to do close passes and scare cyclists off the road. I suggested that was not a terribly Christian attitude and had he not got to the bits in the bible that talk about tolerance.
> 
> He has nearly had us off a couple of times when leaving church. His rants though can be heard clear across the coffee room.


If had ranted to me and then nearly took me off I would have warned him the next time I saw him that if he did that again I would rip his head off and if he did it again then I would.


----------



## Cyclopathic (4 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> A chap at our church is an 'anti' and seems to always want to come and find us for a rant. I have pointed out that road tax does not exist and that the car is not the be all and end all of life. He calls cyclists 'cockroaches' and says that its his mission to do close passes and scare cyclists off the road. I suggested that was not a terribly Christian attitude and had he not got to the bits in the bible that talk about tolerance.
> 
> He has nearly had us off a couple of times when leaving church. His rants though can be heard clear across the coffee room.


Kick him in the balls. It's the Christian thing to do if reasoned thus. God loves those who suffer so increase his suffering and therefore god's love for him.


----------



## Cyclopathic (4 Jan 2014)

Personally I hate cyclists because they are all faster than me.


----------



## ColinJ (4 Jan 2014)

midliferider said:


> I have a simple response to all those who complain or moan about cyclists. I tell them
> "You won't look that fat if you start cycling"


I, er ...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> This. We need to stop indulging it. I plan to draw up some guidelines...


This is an issue....

The only serious falling out I've ever had with someone where I currently work was due to the lack of guidelines. 

He went off on one about cyclists at some length on all the usual topics and, having decided that slapping him, as one might a hysteric, would be counter-productive, I told him, to his face, that he could go feck himself. He promptly went whining to HR about my unprofessional behaviour/language. So I told them the same. Nobber.


----------



## theclaud (4 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> This is an issue....
> 
> The only serious falling out I've ever had with someone where I currently work was due to the lack of guidelines.
> 
> He went off on one about cyclists at some length on all the usual topics and, having decided that slapping him, as one might a hysteric, would be counter-productive, I told him, to his face, that he could go feck himself. He promptly went whining to HR about my unprofessional behaviour/language. So I told them the same. Nobber.



I don't think my guidelines would change the outcome of this one.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> I don't think my guidelines would change the outcome of this one.


The final outcome was delicious...

...he now reports to me!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> The negative attitude appears to have come about over the past year or two.



I thought about this. The first time I was on the receiving end of the rant was when I was seventeen, an indecently long time ago, when "you and your mates" had held someone up for maybe thirty seconds when taking part in a TT.


----------



## ComedyPilot (4 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I thought about this. The first time I was on the receiving end of the rant was when I was seventeen, an indecently long time ago, when "you and your mates" had *held someone up* for maybe thirty seconds when taking part in a TT.


Ah the mystical 'Holding people up' accusation.

Right, I'll play.

Just *WHAT THE fark* are we (as cyclists) holding car drivers up from? At what point is their journey more important than a cyclist's life/safety?

.......

I ought to start a 'why do so many cyclists hate drivers' thread........


----------



## HLaB (4 Jan 2014)

In answer to the original question its because we are seen as an outside group and idiots hate anything thats different. Its like racism/sectarianism but for the moment society accepts it when its directed to cyclists 

On a more cheerful note, I was going fast behind a big box van yesterday and I was caught out by lights changing to amber  A transit van was sitting on my wheel and the surface was greasy, so I didn't fancy an emergency stop. So I turned left to see an idiot (a typical cyclist hater I suspect) six cars back in a queue pointing out to me he had a green light. It must have been easier to blame the left turning cyclist rather than the transit that went straight through behind me  It was probably unfathomable to him too that by the time I had passed him six car back probably meant I hadn't went left on Red but as everybody knows all cyclist jump red lights


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> Just *WHAT THE f**** are we (as cyclists) holding car drivers up from? At what point is their journey more important than a cyclist's life/safety?


From beginning to its end?

CP you are forgetting that for many, even most, the driver imperative is _I must get in front of you at all costs, I must stay at the front of you at all times. I am not the traffic. You are the traffic. I must travel at high speed. You must not delay me. I am very important. You are not important to me. I drive a very prestigious machine. YOU merely ride a 'pushbike' (or drive a much less prestigious machine)_.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Jan 2014)

Accy cyclist said:


> I was unfortunate enough have an incident with an anti cyclist neanderthal yesterday.



No, he was simply a neanderthal. You don't know if he was anti cyclist.

I wish peeps would get over the persecution complex.


----------



## Pico Triano (5 Jan 2014)

If he wasn't anti cycling he'd be anti something else. It doesn't bother me as long as they don't start doing things on the road to make my life dangerous. Usually the anti's I talk to think I'm engaging in an extreme sport like bull fighting.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (5 Jan 2014)

It's just jealousy. Non-cyclists hate cyclists because we're

fitter;
healthier;
prettier;
never get held up by traffic;
not short of money because of our mode of transport;
supporting the environment;
don't have to waste time going to gyms or going out for a run, because our commute is our exercise session.
The fact is, we just make them look bad .

Sometimes, I'm tempted to get angry at people like that making silly, uninformed comments about cyclists, but then I think of everything in the above list, and I feel pity instead. If that makes me smug and superior, well so be it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Jan 2014)

victor said:


> It's just jealousy. Non-cyclists hate cyclists because we're
> 
> fitter;
> healthier;
> ...



you forgot

smug
more conceited
far too pleased with ourselves
amongst other things.


----------



## Ganymede (7 Jan 2014)

ColinJ said:


> I, er ...
> 
> View attachment 35582



But how fat was he before he started cycling?!


----------



## Ganymede (7 Jan 2014)

Saluki said:


> Oooh, that's an idea. Pastor is a keen cyclist and our church used to have a Sunday afternoon cycling club for families.



I think the best way would be to discuss your concerns with the pastor, then get him to stand near the AntiCyclist and provoke one of the rants (which needn't be a particularly manipulative procedure as he's obviously on a hair-trigger). Then get the pastor to tap him on the shoulder... 

Oh, and please film it for us!


----------



## ColinJ (7 Jan 2014)

Ganymede said:


> But how fat was he before he started cycling?!


'He' was _me _about 3 years ago, so I feel well qualified to answer! 

I started cycling again as an adult in 1989. My weight has gone up and down between a minimum of 11 st 10 lbs and a maximum 16 st 9 lbs several times in the past 25 years. Cycling more does help me keep my weight under control, but controlling the calorie intake is the real answer. (I have lost 50 pounds in weight since that photo was taken and I am within a stone of my target weight now. That has been achieved by calorie reduction rather than cycling - I have been very ill and only cycled a few hundred miles in 2 years.)


----------



## Ganymede (7 Jan 2014)

ColinJ said:


> 'He' was _me _about 3 years ago, so I feel well qualified to answer!
> 
> I started cycling again as an adult in 1989. My weight has gone up and down between a minimum of 11 st 10 lbs and a maximum 16 st 9 lbs several times in the past 25 years. Cycling more does help me keep my weight under control, but controlling the calorie intake is the real answer. (I have lost 50 pounds in weight since that photo was taken and I am within a stone of my target weight now. That has been achieved by calorie reduction rather than cycling - I have been very ill and only cycled a few hundred miles in 2 years.)





I've read in your posts about your struggle with your health. Totally


----------



## mickle (7 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> It's the friendly start and then list of anecdotal events that at worst are; Slowing them down on country lanes or the guy they saw jump a red light and nearly knock them over 6 months ago (I have seen cars do this on my commute numerous times, one even ran over a childs foot a few weeks ago etc....)
> 
> I agree that ... cycling two abrest ...



When did cycling two 'abrest' become illegal?? Or two abreast even. When I last read the highway code I'm sure it said 'no more than two abreast'.


----------



## ColinJ (7 Jan 2014)

Ganymede said:


> I've read in your posts about your struggle with your health. Totally


Ha ha - I made potsy swear not to make that photo public until I lost weight and was able to laugh about it ... It made me look like an obese Max Wall!


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Jan 2014)

its a "us" and "them" situation.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Jan 2014)

It's explicitly encouraged by all kinds of media.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Jan 2014)

Even now my work mate opposite me hates cyclists, his brain just cannot get past they should be on the road. I think it’s a disability.


----------



## Brandane (7 Jan 2014)

victor said:


> It's just jealousy. Non-cyclists hate cyclists because we're
> 
> fitter;
> healthier;
> ...



That rules me out of the "cyclist" classification then, despite my hard earned 3500+ miles in each of the last 3 years; because I don't commute by bike . I own other modes of transport, but they don't leave me short of money; if they did, they would soon get sold! (As would my bikes if I couldn't afford them).


----------



## Saluki (7 Jan 2014)

Ganymede said:


> I think the best way would be to discuss your concerns with the pastor, then get him to stand near the AntiCyclist and provoke one of the rants (which needn't be a particularly manipulative procedure as he's obviously on a hair-trigger). Then get the pastor to tap him on the shoulder...
> 
> Oh, and please film it for us!


Interestingly enough, our Pastor was chatting about cycling and cars giving close passes and that we all share a planet, a country, a common faith etc He touched on Exodus 20:13 and said that he felt that getting in a car and deliberately trying to knock a cyclist off was covered quite nicely there.
I looked about and the anti-cyclist was looking abashed and his wife was poking him in the ribs with a definite look of 'see Pastor has noticed.


----------



## Dmcd33 (8 Jan 2014)

mickle said:


> When did cycling two 'abrest' become illegal?? Or two abreast even. When I last read the highway code I'm sure it said 'no more than two abreast'.


 It's not illegal, but neither is driving in a cycle lane (superhighway in London anyway). I'm all for two abreast cycling, but have come accross people doing it as if to make a point and holding up large tailbacks. It only takes a bit of give and take.


----------



## theclaud (8 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> It's not illegal, but neither is driving in a cycle lane (superhighway in London anyway). I'm all for two abreast cycling, but have come accross people doing it as if to make a point and holding up large tailbacks. It only takes a bit of give and take.



And how do you conclude that they were doing it "to make a point"? How does it hold people up, given that the safe procedure for passing two people cycling abreast is exactly the same as the procedure for passing a single cyclist?


----------



## mickle (8 Jan 2014)

What she said.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Jan 2014)

Ha Ha just found this guy on Google Street View, It maybe one of the reasons..........


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Jan 2014)

2871455 said:


> I see multiple instances of drivers holding and reading stuff on phones every journey to and from work. Not isolated instances, not on occasion, more than one every time.


 
Sorry, I just thought it was funny


----------



## Linford (14 Jan 2014)

mickle said:


> When did cycling two 'abrest' become illegal?? Or two abreast even. When I last read the highway code I'm sure it said 'no more than two abreast'.




People like to hate and marginalise other groups of people Mickle..I've seen this before on Horse riding forums. The people moaning have no idea why it is done.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Jan 2014)

2871524 said:


> No need to apologise, it is funny. I do, as you noticed, get a bit fed up with the mote beam pointing at cyclist law braking.


 
Just came across it on google while looking for somthing else....


----------



## Dan B (14 Jan 2014)

Dmcd33 said:


> It's not illegal, but neither is driving in a cycle lane (superhighway in London anyway). I'm all for two abreast cycling, but have come accross people doing it as if to make a point and holding up large tailbacks. It only takes a bit of give and take.


From memory, I believe the rule is that you may not drive or park in a mandatory cycle lane (unbroken white line) and should not drive in an advisory lane (broken line) unless you have to[*]

The problem (at least, one of the problems) with the superhighways is that large stretches of many of them really are just blue paint or pictures of bicycles which have no legal significance at all.



[*] in practice, "unless you want to"


----------



## Garethgas (1 Feb 2014)

I'm a new member and this is my first post.
I have to say I'm astounded at some of the replies to this thread. 
Typically, the majority put forward perfectly valid opinions and views but there are some (one picked at random below) who have a shocking attitude.



pauldavid said:


> Alternatively, kick his mirror off as he performs his close pass. I would imagine he'll feel more inclined to give you room when close passing costs him significant money.



The reason I believe that so many cyclist are despised is due to their (perceived) arrogance, self righteous and aggressive behaviour and total disregard for others.
Whilst these types are a minority, the effect is that motorists then tar everyone with the same brush.
Like most of you here, I've had a few close shaves...I've also been in the wrong too but I never, ever get angry, vengeful or even swear at others as it achieves absolutely nothing.
A cheery smile, a wave or any polite acknowledgement not only diffuses a situation but puts the cyclist in a better frame of mind to continue his journey.
I also think that many cyclists simply ride too fast for a given situation ie through heavy traffic weaving in and out and then wonder why a motorist didn't spot them.
The roads in the UK are also riddled with street furniture, bizzare road markings, pedestrians etc. which add to the observational workload of any driver.
In the interest of self preservation, I cycle considerably slower in traffic, I don't weave in and out and have never had an incident that required more than an emergency stop.
Is that a coincidence, luck or a wise strategy?


----------



## glenn forger (1 Feb 2014)

calm down. cyclists don't want to get hurt. your post seems angry.


----------



## Kookas (1 Feb 2014)

Garethgas said:


> I'm a new member and this is my first post.
> I have to say I'm astounded at some of the replies to this thread.
> Typically, the majority put forward perfectly valid opinions and views but there are some (one picked at random below) who have a shocking attitude.
> 
> ...



Maybe we don't want to do 10mph everywhere just because drivers won't get used to it. I'm all for slowing down when the situation calls for it, but when cars are doing 30 in a 30 on a dry, straight road where it's perfectly safe, there's nothing wrong with me following suit.


----------



## 400bhp (1 Feb 2014)

Garethgas said:


> The reason I believe that so many cyclist are despised



They are not. It's in your head.


----------



## Garethgas (2 Feb 2014)

Kookas said:


> Maybe we don't want to do 10mph everywhere just because drivers won't get used to it. I'm all for slowing down when the situation calls for it, but when cars are doing 30 in a 30 on a dry, straight road where it's perfectly safe, there's nothing wrong with me following suit.



Of course not, and I didn't suggest you do that. 
Why change the example I use to mean the opposite ie 30mph on a clear dry road and then claim there's nothing wrong with it?



I also think that many cyclists simply ride too fast for a given situation ie through heavy traffic weaving in and out and then wonder why a motorist didn't spot them[quote said:


> I deliberately used my example to illustrate a point, nothing more.
> You've just demonstrated that your speed should be appropriate for the conditions...which is exactly what I said.
> Oh, and I'm not angry guys...honest


----------



## Garethgas (2 Feb 2014)

400bhp said:


> They are not. It's in your head.


Not according to the OP


----------



## Big Nick (2 Feb 2014)

Some drivers pass you with inches to spare when there's the whole road to use and you're already well in to the left, for some its ignorance for others it's clearly deliberate

Cyclists who ride 2 or 3 abreast taking up the whole lane don't exactly enamour us to drivers though!


----------



## 400bhp (2 Feb 2014)

Garethgas said:


> Not according to the OP



In his mind too.


----------



## theclaud (2 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> Some drivers pass you with inches to spare when there's the whole road to use and you're already well in to the left, for some its ignorance for others it's clearly deliberate
> 
> *Cyclists who ride 2 or 3 abreast taking up the whole lane don't exactly enamour us to drivers though!*



Drivers taking up vast amounts of space with imaginary companions don't much endear themselves to me, but I tend not to endanger their lives because of it. Convivial cycling should be positively encouraged, and drivers should get over themselves.


----------



## ComedyPilot (2 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> Some drivers pass you with inches to spare when there's the whole road to use and you're already well in to the left, for some its ignorance for others it's clearly deliberate
> 
> *Cyclists who ride 2 or 3 abreast taking up the whole lane don't exactly enamour us to drivers though!*



A solitary cyclist should be passed by _*EVERY*_ overtaking vehicle as if they're taking the whole lane. So 2 or 3 cyclists riding abreast in the lane should make ZERO difference to a safe*, considerate*, competent*, forward-thinking*, anticipating* motorist coming up behind and overtaking........


*see what I did there....?


----------



## Big Nick (2 Feb 2014)

theclaud said:


> Drivers taking up vast amounts of space with imaginary companions don't much endear themselves to me, but I tend not to endanger their lives because of it. Convivial cycling should be positively encouraged, and drivers should get over themselves.



I'm not against 'convivial' cycling just not when there's another road user quicker than you who wants to overtake and is being held up unnecessarily 

It's about basic road manners irrespective of what vehicle you're using


----------



## Big Nick (2 Feb 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> A solitary cyclist should be passed by _*EVERY*_ overtaking vehicle as if they're taking the whole lane. So 2 or 3 cyclists riding abreast in the lane should make ZERO difference to a safe*, considerate*, competent*, forward-thinking*, anticipating* motorist coming up behind and overtaking.......



'Should' being the operative word, back in reality there's very few car drivers who feel confident totally committing fully into the oncoming lane which therein lies the problem


----------



## ComedyPilot (2 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> 'Should' being the operative word, back in reality there's very few car drivers who feel confident totally committing fully into the oncoming lane which therein lies the problem


So continuing along in a lane already occupied by a (vulnerable) cyclist makes perfect sense.


----------



## 400bhp (2 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> I'm not against 'convivial' cycling just not when there's another road user quicker than you who wants to overtake and is being held up unnecessarily
> 
> It's about basic road manners irrespective of what vehicle you're using



I wish people used this mantra on my commute - pesky car drivers, getting in my way


----------



## sidevalve (2 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> Some drivers pass you with inches to spare when there's the whole road to use and you're already well in to the left, for some its ignorance for others it's clearly deliberate
> 
> Cyclists who ride 2 or 3 abreast taking up the whole lane don't exactly enamour us to drivers though!


 Sorry to the "cyclists are perfect" brigade but riding two or more abreast on usuitable roads [and yes you know what I mean] are no less ignorant than a motorist who clogs up a lane. The highway code [no it's not a legal requirement but that doesn't mean it should be ignored]. On many country lanes it's easy to pass a cyclist and give plenty of room but not two riders side by side. As for the speed thing well it's back to the old [and it gets quoted at motorists a lot on here but sorry it applies to bikes as well] "Stop in the distance you can SEE to be clear".
For anyone who thinks it doesn't matter to delay someone else just because "they're in a car and I'm on a bike" well be 100% honest and admit what would your reaction be if a car blocked your lane so you couldn't get past and decided to drive along at 5mph ? If you were going to work ?
I defend cycling whenever I can but TBH the are more and more riders out there who are just as pig headed as the motorists they pretend to despise.


----------



## theclaud (2 Feb 2014)

sidevalve said:


> Sorry to the "cyclists are perfect" brigade but riding two or more abreast on usuitable roads [and yes you know what I mean] are no less ignorant than a motorist who clogs up a lane. The highway code [no it's not a legal requirement but that doesn't mean it should be ignored]. On many country lanes it's easy to pass a cyclist and give plenty of room but not two riders side by side. As for the speed thing well it's back to the old [and it gets quoted at motorists a lot on here but sorry it applies to bikes as well] "Stop in the distance you can SEE to be clear".
> For anyone who thinks it doesn't matter to delay someone else just because "they're in a car and I'm on a bike" well be 100% honest and admit what would your reaction be if a car blocked your lane so you couldn't get past and decided to drive along at 5mph ? If you were going to work ?
> I defend cycling whenever I can but TBH the are more and more riders out there who are just as pig headed as the motorists they pretend to despise.


----------



## ComedyPilot (2 Feb 2014)

sidevalve said:


> Sorry to the "cyclists are perfect" brigade but riding two or more abreast on usuitable roads [and yes you know what I mean] are no less ignorant than a motorist who clogs up a lane. The highway code [no it's not a legal requirement but that doesn't mean it should be ignored]. On many country lanes it's easy to pass a cyclist and give plenty of room but not two riders side by side. As for the speed thing well it's back to the old [and it gets quoted at motorists a lot on here but sorry it applies to bikes as well] "Stop in the distance you can SEE to be clear".
> For anyone who thinks it doesn't matter to delay someone else just because "they're in a car and I'm on a bike" well be 100% honest and admit what would your reaction be if a car blocked your lane so you couldn't get past and decided to drive along at 5mph ? If you were going to work ?
> I defend cycling whenever I can but TBH the are more and more riders out there who are just as pig headed as the motorists they pretend to despise.


I have never yet been held up at 5mph on a lane by a car or a 'pig headed' cyclist. Most places I want to get to such as commuting or shopping are along single and dual carriageways. Both types of road offer perfectly adequate overtaking opportunities to safely pass cars going 50mph let alone a 'Hard to Pass' cyclist doing a tricky-to-judge** 15mph.....

On a single track lane I will dominate the lane till I see the car has slowed down to a speed I deem safe for them to pass me. Their journey importance means nothing to me. My safety is paramount. This includes riding two-abreast till the driver shows they have reduced speed and will pass safely.

I then move to the side and allow them to pass, I don't hold them up at all, and I do NOT allow them to pass me at speed. Why? I don't trust them. They could injure or kill me, so I use an assertive style of riding to manage their driving.

**See what I did there?

We are easier to pass than a car, so all this 'in the way' ballocks is just that....bollix


----------



## Garethgas (2 Feb 2014)

To me, it's a matter of survival.
I cycle 90% defensively. I assume primary position very rarely and always pull over when I can regardless of speed loss (bearing in mind I ride a hybrid).
Motorists can see when I'm struggling up a hill and give me a wide berth. 
Similarly, they can also see when I'm zooming down a hill and give me an equally wide berth or stay behind.
I suspect the reason they do that is because I don't have an 'attitude problem' and treat them with consideration. 
In my experience, that courtesy is usually reciprocated.
I think that the attitude of many cyclists is to race and treat the roads as their own race track which reduces their tolerance towards others.
Of course, I suspect that some of you will disagree but I hardly ever have any confrontations or close shaves.
The sad part for me is that so many are killed or injured.
I don't want an epitaph that says "Yeah but I was in the right"


----------



## Kookas (2 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> Some drivers pass you with inches to spare when there's the whole road to use and you're already well in to the left, for some its ignorance for others it's clearly deliberate
> 
> Cyclists who ride 2 or 3 abreast taking up the whole lane don't exactly enamour us to drivers though!



You put way too much trust in complete strangers.


----------



## uclown2002 (2 Feb 2014)

@Garethgas 
What a crock...


----------



## Kookas (2 Feb 2014)

Garethgas said:


> To me, it's a matter of survival.
> I cycle 90% defensively. I assume primary position very rarely and always pull over when I can regardless of speed loss (bearing in mind I ride a hybrid).
> Motorists can see when I'm struggling up a hill and give me a wide berth.
> Similarly, they can also see when I'm zooming down a hill and give me an equally wide berth or stay behind.
> ...



No, that's not cycling defensively.

For you to discredit the entire idea of defensive cycling - as it is properly defined, not as you seem to use it - is incredibly audacious.

When you're hugging the gutter, don't you find that a lot of drivers behind will take advantage of that and force their way through?

Fact is, most drivers ARE courteous, but it's because of the few who aren't that vehicular cyclists ride the way they do.

How often do you really think we have near-death experiences because we ride in primary?

Personally, most of the time that I have felt endangered by a driver's actions, it was when I was riding in secondary. As a result, the driver behind has come past without a care in the world, despite oncoming traffic. Something they could not have done if I did not give them the chance to in the first place.


----------



## Brandane (2 Feb 2014)

sidevalve said:


> Sorry to the "cyclists are perfect" brigade but riding two or more abreast on usuitable roads [and yes you know what I mean] are no less ignorant than a motorist who clogs up a lane. The highway code [no it's not a legal requirement but that doesn't mean it should be ignored]. On many country lanes it's easy to pass a cyclist and give plenty of room but not two riders side by side. As for the speed thing well it's back to the old [and it gets quoted at motorists a lot on here but sorry it applies to bikes as well] "Stop in the distance you can SEE to be clear".
> For anyone who thinks it doesn't matter to delay someone else just because "they're in a car and I'm on a bike" well be 100% honest and admit what would your reaction be if a car blocked your lane so you couldn't get past and decided to drive along at 5mph ? If you were going to work ?
> I defend cycling whenever I can but TBH the are more and more riders out there who are just as pig headed as the motorists they pretend to despise.


I applaud you for airing your views on here, in the face of adversity. You probably know that you are likely to be shot down, what with this being a cycling forum. I tend to agree with most of what you say, but gave up the fight a long time ago. 
I have always just settled for the fact that there are nobbers on bikes who think they are right, and there are nobbers in cars with the same attitude. Cars are big and sore when they hit you, so I keep out their way.
Human nature being as it is, there will always be us and them, whichever side you are on.


----------



## Kookas (2 Feb 2014)

Brandane said:


> Cars are big and sore when they hit you,



Perhaps, but they are controlled by human beings, like you and me. Their operators are taught how to stop them and control their speed & direction, and they regularly do so. What they aren't taught (or taught well enough) is how to deal with cyclists properly. We can't rely on them knowing when it's safe to overtake such a narrow vehicle in an urban space, but we can rely on them knowing to slow down for something that's blocking their path, because they do that all the time with other cars. If we can't rely on that, then we may as well stop riding on roads altogether.


----------



## morrisman (2 Feb 2014)

Garethgas said:


> To me, it's a matter of survival.
> <snip>
> I suspect the reason they do that is because I don't have an 'attitude problem' and treat them with consideration.
> In my experience, that courtesy is usually reciprocated
> <snip>



I reckon I meet most individual cars/drivers once or twice in my cycling life time so how they are to know that I am being courteous and they should treat me the same when I'm doing 15mph (on my hybrid) and they are doing twice as much.


----------



## Big Nick (2 Feb 2014)

There's good and bad on all sides, by this thread it's clear some cyclists are just as stubborn as some drivers. Personally when faced with an irate driver driving a one ton piece of metal at speed I tend to yield irrespective of whether I'm in the right or not!!


----------



## Kookas (2 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> There's good and bad on all sides, by this thread it's clear some cyclists are just as stubborn as some drivers. Personally when faced with an irate driver driving a one ton piece of metal at speed I tend to yield irrespective of whether I'm in the right or not!!



If someone looks like they won't slow down, by all means take evasive action - in fact, that's part of defensive cycling. The vast majority will slow, and really, no single road position will protect you from the Rambo drivers you seem to describe anyway.


----------



## Garethgas (2 Feb 2014)

morrisman said:


> I reckon I meet most individual cars/drivers once or twice in my cycling life time so how they are to know that I am being courteous and they should treat me the same when I'm doing 15mph (on my hybrid) and they are doing twice as much.



If a shouty, aggressive and stubborn cyclist frustrates a motorist then the next cyclist he sees may well be subject to his anger.
I can't believe that you thought I meant that I get to know the people that drive by!


----------



## Garethgas (2 Feb 2014)

Kookas said:


> No, that's not cycling defensively.
> 
> For you to discredit the entire idea of defensive cycling - as it is properly defined, not as you seem to use it - is incredibly audacious.
> _*You're attributing to me, views that I don't hold*_
> ...



I understand what you're saying, but I was trying to make the point that some will maintain primary (for the reasons you mention) when they could quite easily take secondary but choose not to.
There are dozens of different situations with hundreds of options so it's very much a judgement call really.
Perhaps I'm spoilt here with (relatively) quiet roads but in over 50 yrs I can count on one hand the close encounters I have.
I therefore maintain that my strategy is sound or I'm very, very lucky 

Edit: Sorry but I tried to address your points within your quote and messed it up


----------



## 400bhp (2 Feb 2014)

Been thinking about this a bit today.

why do some people believe that a negative action on a bike (be that a perceived negative reaction like 2 abreast-might come back to this later, or an actual negative) will then have connotations for all cyclists?

yet, we see a car doing something negative, very few of us (if any) would tar all drivers with the same brush.

I came to the conclusion that it must be because we are seen as doing something that isnt a societal norm, so it sticks in minds. Which then tells me that those that think this way are somewhat ignorant.

seriously, how many times would you be held up by, for example a 2 abreast cyclists, or inconvenienced by a slow cyclist in,say, 10,000 miles vs inconvenienced or harassed by someone driving irresponsibly or agressively over the same distance. No brainer. Hence my conclusion above.

nobbers in cars and nobbers on bikes. All nobbers but independent of the chosen mode of transport.


----------



## Garethgas (2 Feb 2014)

400bhp said:


> Been thinking about this a bit today.
> 
> why do some people believe that a negative action on a bike (be that a perceived negative reaction like 2 abreast-might come back to this later, or an actual negative) will then have connotations for all cyclists?
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, I think you're dead right there.


----------



## Garethgas (2 Feb 2014)

2907908 said:


> Yes, terrible the way it all becomes the cyclist's fault.



It's not a matter of apportioning blame, it's to do with a bit more tolerance and consideration for others on _both_ parties.


----------



## boydj (2 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> Some drivers ............
> Cyclists who ride 2 or 3 abreast taking up the whole lane don't exactly enamour us to drivers though!



I have *never* seen cyclists riding more than two abreast apart from during the early stages of mass participation events - when there are seldom many cars about anyway. All the cycling groups I see regularly - and there are lots of club groups on the road round here at the week-ends - are pretty disciplined in their riding.

Cyclists riding two abreast are barely any wider than a single cyclist riding in a safe position and are therefore no more difficult to overtake on most roads.


----------



## ComedyPilot (2 Feb 2014)

How many more dead cyclists and pedestrians do we have to 'tolerate or consider' in our thoughts towards motoring?

How much more can we as a community of cyclists give?

IMO - 1 dead cyclist is one TOO MANY, let alone a 100+ per annum?

I don't give a flying rat's arse if the 'statistics show deaths are at a 10 year low' - EVERY death is avoidable....just back off the gas and let someone get home in one piece.


----------



## boydj (2 Feb 2014)

sidevalve said:


> Sorry to the "cyclists are perfect" brigade but riding two or more abreast on usuitable roads [and yes you know what I mean] are no less ignorant than a motorist who clogs up a lane. The highway code [no it's not a legal requirement but that doesn't mean it should be ignored]. On many country lanes it's easy to pass a cyclist and give plenty of room but not two riders side by side. As for the speed thing well it's back to the old [and it gets quoted at motorists a lot on here but sorry it applies to bikes as well] "Stop in the distance you can SEE to be clear".
> For anyone who thinks it doesn't matter to delay someone else just because "they're in a car and I'm on a bike" well be 100% honest and admit what would your reaction be if a car blocked your lane so you couldn't get past and decided to drive along at 5mph ? If you were going to work ?
> I defend cycling whenever I can but TBH the are more and more riders out there who are just as pig headed as the motorists they pretend to despise.


Far too much is made of this issue. How often are motorists really held up by cyclists for any significant time to delay their journeys? I think the reality is that most of the time that cyclists are accused of holding up cars, it's actually the traffic going in the opposite direction that is preventing the drivers overtaking the cyclists.


----------



## Garethgas (2 Feb 2014)

boydj said:


> Far too much is made of this issue. How often are motorists really held up by cyclists for any significant time to delay their journeys? I think the reality is that most of the time that cyclists are accused of holding up cars, it's actually the traffic going in the opposite direction that is preventing the drivers overtaking the cyclists.



I think that it's nothing more than a perceived hold up. At worst it's no more than a few seconds.


----------



## Garethgas (2 Feb 2014)

2907992 said:


> Yes but you appear to be coming at this one from a "get the #+&% out of Mr. Toad's way" viewpoint.



I have no idea where you got that from!
Are you sure that was aimed at me? If so, I'd be interested if you could elaborate


----------



## benb (2 Feb 2014)

I've overtaken dozens, if not hundreds of cyclists when I've been driving, and I can't recall a single ocaission when it has made the slightest difference to my total journey.

The most I've been delayed for is a couple of minutes, and as I then had a clear road once I had overtaken, that time was almost immediately made back up.

However, I have been stuck in traffic jams for a total of several days probably.

Bicycles simply impose no significant delay to other road users journey times, and anyone who claims bicycles slow traffic down is an idiot.


----------



## Garethgas (2 Feb 2014)

2908067 said:


> Your post #162



What a bizzare deduction to make. Ah well.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> I'm not against 'convivial' cycling just not when there's another road user quicker than you who wants to overtake and is being held up unnecessarily
> 
> It's about basic road manners irrespective of what vehicle you're using


Tosh. 

It isn't up to other road users to get out of the way of the people who want to overtake them in order to avoid being held up unnecessarily. Only possible exceptions for me are buses on my rural commute, I let 'em pass, they are a public service after all, and people running twos and blues.

And if it is about basic road manners isn't the polite thing for the driver to wait any way?


----------



## Garethgas (2 Feb 2014)

2908121 said:


> Are you not saying "I ride in the gutter out of their way"? If not, apologies I have managed to misinterpret you.



Nope, I didn't say that.
Don't worry, lots of things get misinterpreted on forums


----------



## Big Nick (3 Feb 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Tosh.
> 
> It isn't up to other road users to get out of the way of the people who want to overtake them in order to avoid being held up unnecessarily. Only possible exceptions for me are buses on my rural commute, I let 'em pass, they are a public service after all, and people running twos and blues.
> 
> And if it is about basic road manners isn't the polite thing for the driver to wait any way?



You've missed the point by a country mile, what you say about overtaking is correct but in the real world some impatient git in a car/van etc doesn't follow the same rules. The bottom line is if you don't respect the person driving it you need to respect the potential damage their vehicle can do to you if it hits you

You've also contradicted your initial point by giving way to buses because you feel like it but no one else as they don't fit you code.....tends to prove the 'stubborn' point I made earlier.....


----------



## Garethgas (3 Feb 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Tosh.
> 
> It isn't up to other road users to get out of the way of the people who want to overtake them in order to avoid being held up unnecessarily. Only possible exceptions for me are buses on my rural commute, I let 'em pass, they are a public service after all, and people running twos and blues.
> 
> And if it is about basic road manners isn't the polite thing for the driver to wait any way?



Regarding your first point, I disagree:
1. Highway code 168 and 169 
*168*
*Being overtaken.*_ If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you._
*169*
_Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass._
The above refer to cars but I think they serve the cyclist equally well particularly as many motorists don't cycle and are often unaware of the problems cyclist face. 

2. Your second paragraph is, however quite right. 
I too, find that most riding (and driving) is less stressful if you're polite and considerate to others. 
A belligerent cyclist will have a more unpleasant experience and expose him/herself to a higher risk of an accident (my opinion).


----------



## ComedyPilot (3 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> You've missed the point by a country mile, what you say about overtaking is correct but in the real world s*ome impatient git in a car/van etc doesn't follow the same rules.* The bottom line is i*f you don't respect the person driving* it you need to respect the potential damage their vehicle can do to you if it hits you
> 
> You've also contradicted your initial point by giving way to buses because you feel like it but no one else as they don't fit you code.....tends to prove the 'stubborn' point I made earlier.....



?

So this 'respect' carp is actually all about bowing down to a bully because they could hurt you?

The ONLY drivers I respect are the safe, considerate, competent, forward-thinking drivers.

Any other driver doesn't deserve respect. They deserve to have their license taken away for good.

I think you are mistaking self-preservation with showing respect.


----------



## Garethgas (3 Feb 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> ?
> 
> So this 'respect' carp is actually all about bowing down to a bully because they could hurt you?
> 
> ...



Sorry but you're selectively quoting part of a sentence to misconstrue it's meaning.
Big Nick hasn't mistaken anything. He's simply pointing out that sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.
He was also pointing out that the respect was for the damage that could ensue not respect for an individual driver.
I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.
I find it difficult to believe that some don't understand this basic and simple concept, preferring instead to bleat about their rights.
I have the right to walk down a dark alley in the Bronx at 2am but I wouldn't.


----------



## Cletus Van Damme (3 Feb 2014)

A small minority of cyclists are peanuts, just like a small minority of drivers are. I was coming to work the other day driving along a busy short section of dual carriageway where people speed often in excess of 85mph. It was pitch black and all the cars were moving into the second lane to overtake something moving very slowly. When I got close it was a cyclist obviously touring with panniers and a crap back light where the battery was obviously just about flat. He was about 2 feet out to the right of the verge white line, as though to say I'm a cyclist fark you. If he or she was from around here they would not ride that way on such a dodgy road where everybody speeds. The other left side of the verge white line has a good 2.5 feet or so of excellent road surface not full of crap either. I always try to avoid that section of road, but if I am on it I will always go to the left of the verge line as it is not a cycle lane but it is perfectly smooth and very little debris on it, plus I value my life. Every other cyclist that I see on this busy road does exactly the same, but there is always 1 tool I guess. Still it is legal I guess the way the cyclist was riding, doesn't make it right.


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2014)

Cletus Van Damme said:


> A small minority of cyclists are peanuts, just like a small minority of drivers are. I was coming to work the other day driving along a busy short section of dual carriageway where people speed often in excess of 85mph. It was pitch black and all the cars were moving into the second lane to overtake something moving very slowly. When I got close it was a cyclist obviously touring with panniers and a crap back light where the battery was obviously just about flat. He was about 2 feet out to the right of the verge white line, as though to say I'm a cyclist f*** you. If he or she was from around here they would not ride that way on such a dodgy road where everybody speeds. The other left side of the verge white line has a good 2.5 feet or so of excellent road surface not full of crap either. I always try to avoid that section of road, but if I am on it I will always go to the left of the verge line as it is not a cycle lane but it is perfectly smooth and very little debris on it, plus I value my life. Every other cyclist that I see on this busy road does exactly the same, but there is always 1 tool I guess. Still it is legal I guess the way the cyclist was riding, doesn't make it right.


But you think that driving in excess of 85 mph is perfectly acceptable? 

"there is always 1 tool I guess." or alternative there is one normal person, and what sounds like an entire road full of tools, if by 'tool' you mean criminal eejit.


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2014)

Garethgas said:


> Sorry but you're selectively quoting part of a sentence to misconstrue it's meaning.
> Big Nick hasn't mistaken anything. He's simply pointing out that sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.
> He was also pointing out that the respect was for the damage that could ensue not respect for an individual driver.
> I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.
> ...


That's not respect. that's fear. Probably a healthy response to maniacal myopic clowns who seriously believe that a 10 second delay will wreck their lives, and who are in not-quite control of a few tonnes of rapid metal. But not the same as respect, not by a long way.


----------



## Garethgas (3 Feb 2014)

oldstrath said:


> But you think that driving in excess of 85 mph is perfectly acceptable?
> 
> "there is always 1 tool I guess." or alternative there is one normal person, and what sounds like an entire road full of tools, if by 'tool' you mean criminal eejit.



Again, that's not what he said.
Given that the conditions were as described, (rightly or wrongly) surely the prudent thing to do would be to move over?
He was describing what the cyclist could have done to mitigate the risk not condoning driving at 85


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2014)

Garethgas said:


> Again, that's not what he said.
> Given that the conditions were as described, (rightly or wrongly) surely the prudent thing to do would be to move over?
> He was describing what the cyclist could have done to mitigate the risk not condoning driving at 85



So we're back to fear again. Shame our police force can't be bothered to enforce the law, and a bigger shame that almost everyone who gets into a car feels it is acceptable to break the law.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> You've missed the point by a country mile, what you say about overtaking is correct but in the real world some impatient git in a car/van etc doesn't follow the same rules. The bottom line is if you don't respect the person driving it you need to respect the potential damage their vehicle can do to you if it hits you
> 
> You've also contradicted your initial point by giving way to buses because you feel like it but no one else as they don't fit you code.....tends to prove the 'stubborn' point I made earlier.....


More tosh. You are afraid of the bullies. As to buses; look up the power-to-weight ratio of, say an Insignia or A4, vs a single decker bus and do the maths.



Garethgas said:


> Sorry but you're selectively quoting part of a sentence to misconstrue it's meaning.
> Big Nick hasn't mistaken anything. He's simply pointing out that sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.
> He was also pointing out that the respect was for the damage that could ensue not respect for an individual driver.
> I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.
> ...


You prefer to be ruled by fear.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2014)

Cletus Van Damme said:


> A small minority of cyclists are peanuts, just like a small minority of drivers are. I was coming to work the other day driving along a busy short section of dual carriageway where people speed often in excess of 85mph. It was pitch black and all the cars were moving into the second lane to overtake something moving very slowly. When I got close it was a cyclist obviously touring with panniers and a crap back light where the battery was obviously just about flat. He was about 2 feet out to the right of the verge white line, as though to say I'm a cyclist f*** you. If he or she was from around here they would not ride that way on such a dodgy road where everybody speeds. The other left side of the verge white line has a good 2.5 feet or so of excellent road surface not full of crap either. I always try to avoid that section of road, but if I am on it I will always go to the left of the verge line as it is not a cycle lane but it is perfectly smooth and very little debris on it, plus I value my life. Every other cyclist that I see on this busy road does exactly the same, but there is always 1 tool I guess. Still it is legal I guess the way the cyclist was riding, doesn't make it right.


I recently had to ride a few miles on an NSL DC on which "everybody" speeds. I held the centre of the left hand lane. I didn't get one squeeze pass. Not one horn. I was probably safer than when being passed on an NSL SC.

If you want to gutter hug carry on but stop trying to make out that those of us who refuse to do so have got some sort of problem.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (3 Feb 2014)

Garethgas said:


> Regarding your first point, I disagree:
> 1. Highway code 168 and 169
> *168*
> *Being overtaken.*_ If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you._
> ...


Sorry, mate, but even though I'm not that familiar with the UK highway code, being an Australian, even I know that safety trumps rules 168 and 169 every time. Given what I've read on these fora about the attitude of some UK motorists, they seem pretty similar to Australian ones. If you hug the gutter whilst cycling, a lot of motorists will simply take advantage of that, and squeeze past you while trying to stay in the left lane. The end result: being overtaken with stuff-all clearance and unsafely. So I repeat: safety comes first, so claim the lane, i.e. ride in primary position, when necessary.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2014)

2908390 said:


> We do have a problem though. Every cyclist who does the getting out of the way thing. They make our roads more dangerous by conditioning the expectation


Are they themselves not actually just an unenlightened outcome of the society wide conditioning that Mr Toad is king of the road? 

The bunnies may not drive cars but they cycle absolutely with a car drivers mindset. 

I blame the lead they used to put in petrol myself.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2014)

2908407 said:


> Fraid so


The conditioning appears so deep that no amount of reasoned argument will change their behaviour.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2014)

2908477 said:


> We have pretty much enslaved ourselves to the car, although some add cats to that mix.


It woz the cats wot dun it guv. My approach to car ownership changed radically once I stopped being a cat owner. I think we know the answer.


----------



## Brandane (3 Feb 2014)

My approach to cycling on main roads changed a long time ago when I was the first Police Officer at the scene of an RTA involving a cyclist on a dual carriageway with 70mph limit.
Low summer sun, car and cyclist both heading west into sun. Driver doesn't see cyclist and hits bike from behind. Cyclist's head hits car windscreen and helmet disintegrates. Cyclist died at the scene. It was not a pretty sight.
So it was 100% the car driver at fault, but that is of no consolation to his wife and family.
From a personal preservation point of view, I will always plan my routes to avoid any kind of busy trunk routes. If that means diverting up big hills, then so be it. Where I live, that is not difficult. If it wasn't possible, then I wouldn't cycle. The simple fact is, in this area at least, that cyclists are few and far between, so drivers don't expect them. Therefore I am not going to entrust my life on their ability to deal with the unexpected.


----------



## screenman (3 Feb 2014)

Seems some cyclist hate cyclist, wear Rapha and according to some you are all the gear no idea, ride a shopper, hybrid, chopper, road, mtb, bmx or a fat wheel and you need your brains inspecting according to others. Use a HRM, Strava, Ritmo or a jet wash and god forbid you should breath the same oxygen as a cyclist who does not. 

It seems a fact that the Brits just cannot all get on together all of the time.


----------



## Brandane (3 Feb 2014)

screenman said:


> Seems some cyclist hate cyclist, wear Rapha and according to some you are all the gear no idea, ride a shopper, hybrid, chopper, road, mtb, bmx or a fat wheel and you need your brains inspecting according to others. Use a HRM, Strava, Ritmo or a jet wash and god forbid you should breath the same oxygen as a cyclist who does not.
> 
> It seems a fact that the Brits just cannot all get on together all of the time.


I don't think it's limited to Brits. It's called human nature!


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> It woz the cats wot dun it guv. My approach to car ownership changed radically once I stopped being a cat owner. I think we know the answer.


Unfair! I have cats, dogs, but no car.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2014)

screenman said:


> Seems some cyclist hate cyclist, wear Rapha and according to some you are all the gear no idea, ride a shopper, hybrid, chopper, road, mtb, bmx or a fat wheel and you need your brains inspecting according to others. Use a HRM, Strava, Ritmo or a jet wash and god forbid you should breath the same oxygen as a cyclist who does not.
> 
> It seems a fact that the Brits just cannot all get on together all of the time.


The fecktard that tried to undertake me on a tarmac downhill in the Surrey Hills in September and who then swerved into me trying to avoid the very pothole field that had me riding in an extreme primary in the first place, and who had us both off as a result, and him only narrowly missed by the oncoming Evoque was wearing Rapha and riding a carbon framed top o'the range trek, badly.

All the gear and very little idea perhaps then.....?


----------



## Freds Dad (3 Feb 2014)

oldstrath said:


> So we're back to fear again. Shame our police force can't be bothered to enforce the law, and a bigger shame that almost everyone who gets into a car feels it is acceptable to break the law.



I'm new to the cycling game but have always given cyclists plenty of room when passing. However when I see what happened yesterday makes me think that not all cyclists are angels.

I was stopped at a red light at a large crossroads when someone on a road bike, no helmet but that's his choice decided to come up the inside of the line of traffic and carry on through the red without slowing.
It was on the quick reaction of the driver coming through the green light that prevented an accident.
Things like this unfortunately means that some drivers will treat cyclists badly.


----------



## Big Nick (3 Feb 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> More tosh. You are afraid of the bullies. As to buses; look up the power-to-weight ratio of, say an Insignia or A4, vs a single decker bus and do the maths.
> 
> 
> You prefer to be ruled by fear.



I can't work out whether you're trolling or are actually serious??

You're amazing being able to work out power to weight ratios of everything behind you, what about a vintage car or a tractor?? I thought it was the classification of it being a public service but apparently now its the power to weight ratio that constitutes 'your' road manners formula?

How is being cautious about being hurt being ruled by fear? Anyway when you're in the hospital you'll be able to feel warm all over knowing how brave you've been and the fact you were in the right (in your world anyway)

In my line of work if you're not cautious and assess threat and risk you're reckless and a liability to yourself and those around you relying on you for backup, very different from being 'afraid'.

I apply the same logic to my cycling


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2014)

Freds Dad said:


> I'm new to the cycling game but have always given cyclists plenty of room when passing. However when I see what happened yesterday makes me think that not all cyclists are angels.
> 
> I was stopped at a red light at a large crossroads when someone on a road bike, no helmet but that's his choice decided to come up the inside of the line of traffic and carry on through the red without slowing.
> It was on the quick reaction of the driver coming through the green light that prevented an accident.
> Things like this unfortunately means that some drivers will treat cyclists badly.


This morning a woman in a Fiesta passed close enough for me to have reached out and touched her car, at about 60 mph. Clear road, nothing coming the other way, so no obvious reason except stupidity. Do you think this might justify my going around punching all the drivers I can find?


----------



## Dave Davenport (3 Feb 2014)

Let's face it, there are nobbers on bikes as well as in cars. The difference being that the nobber in the car has far greater potential for harm than the one on the bike.


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2014)

Dave Davenport said:


> Let's face it, there are nobbers on bikes as well as in cars. The difference being that the nobber in the car has far greater potential for harm than the one on the bike.


Of course there are. The other difference though is that generally people don't go around saying 'I saw a car speeding this morning, so all drivers are anti-social hooligans in weird getups and deserve nothing from anyone except a good kicking'


----------



## Big Nick (3 Feb 2014)

oldstrath said:


> This morning a woman in a Fiesta passed close enough for me to have reached out and touched her car, at about 60 mph. Clear road, nothing coming the other way, so no obvious reason except stupidity. Do you think this might justify my going around punching all the drivers I can find?


Most definately!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> I can't work out whether you're trolling or are actually serious??
> 
> You're amazing being able to work out power to weight ratios of everything behind you, what about a vintage car or a tractor?? I thought it was the classification of it being a public service but apparently now its the power to weight ratio that constitutes 'your' road manners formula?
> 
> ...


Ah. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll now is it?

But I'm glad you think I'm amazing.


----------



## Big Nick (3 Feb 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Ah. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll now is it?
> 
> But I'm glad you think I'm amazing.


I don't 

It's not that you don't agree with me it's the fact you're having a pop at my character saying I'm afraid when you don't know the first thing about me?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2014)

Big Nick said:


> It's not that you don't agree with me it's the fact you're having a pop at my character saying I'm afraid when you don't know the first thing about me?


I know you call yourself Nick. Big Nick at that.
I know you are a relative newcomer to this forum and almost 25% of your posts to date are in this thread. 
I know you consider yourself to be good at assessing threats and risks.
I know you view fear as a weakness and hugely overreact to the implication that you might possibly be afraid and prefer more, shall we say, 'euphemistic' language.
I know you are happy to have a pop at the character of others via casual accusations of trolling.
I know you advocate deferring to the "needs" of motorists who are quicker than you and whom you might otherwise hold up needlessly.

I'm guessing armed forces, perhaps an NCO, security work of some kind, or a police officer. I'm guessing you drive a fair bit and cycling is a hobby. But that's just all just guesswork.

One more thing I know though.... I know you think "the bottom line is if you don't respect the person driving it you need to *respect* the potential damage their vehicle can do to you if it hits you." And _you_ know that word *respect*, as you've used it in that context? Well it doesn't mean what you think it means.

"Respecting" the pain and damage a vehicle can inflict? We call it the "might is right" mindset. Beloved of nobber-drivers, and bullies, everywhere.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2014)

oldstrath said:


> Of course there are. The other difference though is that generally people don't go around saying 'I saw a car speeding this morning, so all drivers are anti-social hooligans in weird getups and deserve nothing from anyone except a good kicking'


some would argue that due to pollution, noise, and other negative impacts on others the very use of a private car is inherently anti-social.


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> some would argue that due to pollution, noise, and other negative impacts on others the very use of a private car is inherently anti-social.


I would, of ciurse, agree completely. (Two cats, one dog, three bikes, no car)


----------



## Big Nick (3 Feb 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I know you call yourself Nick. Big Nick at that.
> I know you are a relative newcomer to this forum and almost 25% of your posts to date are in this thread.
> I know you consider yourself to be good at assessing threats and risks.
> I know you view fear as a weakness and hugely overreact to the implication that you might possibly be afraid and prefer more, shall we say, 'euphemistic' language.
> ...


As I said you know nothing about me and your above post says a lot more about you than me......


----------



## boydj (3 Feb 2014)

Cletus Van Damme said:


> A small minority of cyclists are peanuts, just like a small minority of drivers are. I was coming to work the other day driving along a busy short section of dual carriageway where people speed often in excess of 85mph. It was pitch black and all the cars were moving into the second lane to overtake something moving very slowly. When I got close it was a cyclist obviously touring with panniers and a crap back light where the battery was obviously just about flat. He was about 2 feet out to the right of the verge white line, as though to say I'm a cyclist f*** you. If he or she was from around here they would not ride that way on such a dodgy road where everybody speeds. The other left side of the verge white line has a good 2.5 feet or so of excellent road surface not full of crap either. I always try to avoid that section of road, but if I am on it I will always go to the left of the verge line as it is not a cycle lane but it is perfectly smooth and very little debris on it, plus I value my life. Every other cyclist that I see on this busy road does exactly the same, but there is always 1 tool I guess. Still it is legal I guess the way the cyclist was riding, doesn't make it right.


But the drivers did see this cyclist, did move out to pass and there is no report of blaring horns or close passes, so sounds like the driving was mostly pretty good.

Left of the white line is off the carriageway and simply asking for close passes. If you don't know the road, then you don't know that the verge is going to be cycleable, even if you wanted to use it. Much safer on the road where you belong. Calling the cyclist a 'tool' says more about your lack of judgement than anything.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Feb 2014)

boydj said:


> But the drivers did see this cyclist, did move out to pass and there is no report of blaring horns or close passes, so sounds like the driving was mostly pretty good.
> 
> Left of the white line is off the carriageway and simply asking for close passes. If you don't know the road, then you don't know that the verge is going to be cycleable, even if you wanted to use it. Much safer on the road where you belong. Calling the cyclist a 'tool' says more about your lack of judgement than anything.



Completely agree.

Left of the white line (if it was solid) isn't actually cycling on the carriageway. It's so that cars don't cut up the side of the road.

For all we know the cyclist could have been lost, could have been on a charity LEJOG or whatever. 

I wouldn't choose to cycle on such roads, but it sounds like he was in the right place - got cars to avoid him.


----------



## Kookas (3 Feb 2014)

Cletus Van Damme said:


> A small minority of cyclists are peanuts, just like a small minority of drivers are. I was coming to work the other day driving along a busy short section of dual carriageway where people speed often in excess of 85mph. It was pitch black and all the cars were moving into the second lane to overtake something moving very slowly. When I got close it was a cyclist obviously touring with panniers and a crap back light where the battery was obviously just about flat. He was about 2 feet out to the right of the verge white line, as though to say I'm a cyclist f*** you. If he or she was from around here they would not ride that way on such a dodgy road where everybody speeds. The other left side of the verge white line has a good 2.5 feet or so of excellent road surface not full of crap either. I always try to avoid that section of road, but if I am on it I will always go to the left of the verge line as it is not a cycle lane but it is perfectly smooth and very little debris on it, plus I value my life. Every other cyclist that I see on this busy road does exactly the same, but there is always 1 tool I guess. Still it is legal I guess the way the cyclist was riding, doesn't make it right.



I think you must've followed the wrong link on Google. Don't worry, here you go:
http://www.audiforums.com/


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2014)

Kookas said:


> I think you must've followed the wrong link on Google. Don't worry, here you go:
> http://www.audiforums.com/


My boss like cycling. He cycle commutes in the summer months. I've been on touring holidays with him. He often gives me a lift to work by car in the winter as he drives right past my front door and is keen on me saving £15 a day rail fare and not getting run over again in the dark. 

He drives an Audi A4. And he drives it just like any Audi driver, except when near fellow-cyclists.


----------



## Kookas (3 Feb 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> My boss like cycling. He cycle commutes in the summer months. I've been on touring holidays with him. He often gives me a lift to work by car in the winter as he drives right past my front door and is keen on me saving £15 a day rail fare and not getting run over again in the dark.
> 
> He drives an Audi A4. And he drives it just like any Audi driver, except when near fellow-cyclists.


It was tongue in cheek.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2014)

Kookas said:


> It was tongue in cheek.


ditto. Worst part of it is he cycles like an Audi driver too.


----------



## Dmcd33 (4 Feb 2014)

Kookas said:


> If someone looks like they won't slow down, by all means take evasive action - in fact, that's part of defensive cycling. The vast majority will slow, and really, no single road position will protect you from the Rambo drivers you seem to describe anyway.


 I like the 'Rambo' Term. I'm gonna use it now. Briliant description!


----------



## Dmcd33 (4 Feb 2014)

Freds Dad said:


> I'm new to the cycling game but have always given cyclists plenty of room when passing. However when I see what happened yesterday makes me think that not all cyclists are angels.
> 
> I was stopped at a red light at a large crossroads when someone on a road bike, no helmet but that's his choice decided to come up the inside of the line of traffic and carry on through the red without slowing.
> It was on the quick reaction of the driver coming through the green light that prevented an accident.
> Things like this unfortunately means that some drivers will treat cyclists badly.


We can all roll off lots of anecdotes, which to me shows that there is more of an emphasis on cyclists behaviour (yes he sounds like a nobber) than drivers. I regularly see people driving through reds in London, because they are too busy on their phones. One guy last week drove through (jumping out of the way) pedestrians because his phone call/facebook was more important. Other common occurances include; No indicators, using indicators one millisecond before turning, tailgating, undertaking at 40mph in 30 zone, speeding generally, using mobile phones etc..... (I could come up with about 100 I recon)

I also drive and would say I have more problems in my car than on my bike with other drivers. But i'm safer and can't be bullied in my Volvo estate. My Giant defy is not so robust.

On a positive note. I have had about 2-3 scary incidents in about 2-3yrs of commuting 16 miles a day in my current job. Two of which were bulling motrists who tried to drive me out of the way. They both ended up at a red light 5 seconds later and I made a point of saying that to them (no shouting involved) They could have seriously hurt me for very little reason.


----------



## Mike! (5 Feb 2014)

I for one don't like the "Cyclist", "Car Driver", "Bus Driver" "Lorry Driver", "Pedestrian" tags (I can be any one of those 4 at anytime)

If we all recognized that we are "People" that just happen to be using different modes of transport for leisure / work or whatever then things would be so much better, however that's never gonna happen - There are idiots in all modes of transport (such as the story below), I suspect there maybe more to it that has been reported but......

http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/c...d_him_unconscious_over_road_dispute_1_3284207


----------



## theclaud (5 Feb 2014)

Mike! said:


> I for one don't like the "Cyclist", "Car Driver", "Bus Driver" "Lorry Driver", "Pedestrian" tags (I can be any one of those 4 at anytime)
> 
> If we all recognized that we are "People"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2912263, member: 1314"]In London the motorised vehicles (with exception of motorbikes) slow down the cyclists. I do 15 miles in 1 hour 20 mins in rush hour. Outside rush hour I do the same route in 1 hour 5 mins. I mean, Tooting Broadway at 6pm! Most of these vehicles are single occupancy. Drivers of motorised vehicles need to pull over and let the cyclists through where the CS is not adequate. innit.

In London (I do very little cycling outside the Smoke) I'm in charge of the road space around me, from Zones 1-6. Drivers can wait a few nanos or even 30 secs, before they hit the next set of reds.[/quote]
Punitive road charging needs to be introduced for single-occupancy private car use. But it ain't gonna happen....

At the end of 2012 there were 34.5 million vehicles licensed for use on the roads in Great Britain, of which 28.7 million (83 per cent) were cars. And 46,107,152 entries on the Parliamentary electoral register.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

User13710 said:


> The driver in a single-occupancy car is in the same road position as a cyclist in primary, and causing the same level of congestion, it's just that the space on the left is full of car.



That is all well and done, but for all you know, this person may have travelled from Oxford, or Cambridge...you live your life in the bubble, and clearly don't consider that people may actually have a different commuting distance to you...which is beyond the practicality of cycling.


----------



## snorri (5 Feb 2014)

User13710 said:


> The driver in a single-occupancy car is in the same road position as a cyclist in primary, and causing the same level of congestion, it's just that the space on the left is full of car.


 At least the single occupancy car is carrying someone somewhere, unlike the unoccupied car parked on road or pavement, or both, causing an obstruction to travellers for as long as the owner has no wish to travel anyhwere.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

snorri said:


> At least the single occupancy car is carrying someone somewhere, unlike the unoccupied car parked on road or pavement, or both, causing an obstruction to travellers for as long as the owner has no wish to travel anyhwere.



You are having a laugh..tell me you are not actually being serious when you posted this..please ?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> You are having a laugh..tell me you are not actually being serious when you posted this..please ?


I gather you haven't seen the kind of parking we get over here. Streets double-lined with parked cars leaving space for only one vehicle to travel in one direction at a time. They pose a significant hazard to cyclists, reduced visibility for everyone (the UK is particularly good at KSI-ing children) and, to top it all, bollards, parking meters and most road signage all litter the pavements.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> You are having a laugh..tell me you are not actually being serious when you posted this..please ?



Why not? It's a valid point.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I gather you haven't seen the kind of parking we get over here. Streets *double-lined with parked cars leaving space for only one vehicle to travel in one direction at a time*. They pose a significant hazard to cyclists, reduced visibility for everyone (the UK is particularly good at KSI-ing children) and, to top it all, bollards, parking meters and most road signage all litter the pavements.



Err, I live in a road like that. It actually helps to slow the average speed of the vehicles when one or the other have to wait to get along them. I would suggest that anyone moving at cycling speeds who would collide with a stationary object should seriously question whether they are fit to be mixing it up in this environment.


----------



## benb (5 Feb 2014)

And I would question why it's acceptable to leave one's private property in such a position that it obstructs public spaces and poses a hazard to other people.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Why not? It's a valid point.



Parking a vehicle at the end of a journey is as important as actually makingthat journey...or else it is a bit pointless making it...cos you effectively have no real destination.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> And I would question why it's acceptable to leave one's private property in such a position that it obstructs public spaces and poses a hazard to other people.



If they were completely blocking the carriageway, then I'd agree 100%


----------



## Glow worm (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> If they were completely blocking the carriageway, then I'd agree 100%


 
Linf, I'm not being funny, but do you ever feel you might just be on the wrong forum?


----------



## Brandane (5 Feb 2014)

Glow worm said:


> Linf, I'm not being funny, but do you ever feel you might just be on the wrong forum?


He's making a perfectly valid point. Some people on here are complaining about cars being left parked on public roads. So where do cyclists leave their bikes when visiting pubs, cafes etc.? 
You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> Err, I live in a road like that. It actually helps to slow the average speed of the vehicles when one or the other have to wait to get along them. I would suggest that anyone moving at cycling speeds who would collide with a stationary object should seriously question whether they are fit to be mixing it up in this environment.



I cycle home down a road that, on both sides, has parked cars and leaves slightly more than one cars width of room on the road. So, I have the choice of sitting in the door zone and letting cars whizz by me, or sitting in the middle of the lane, risking a stupid overtake when there's one car gap on one side.

Who gets the horns and abuse for "holding up" the car drivers? Not the people who have parked their cars on the highway, but me, trying to get home. I'm sure they mean it in jest, just like Clarkson on Top Gear.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Feb 2014)

Brandane said:


> He's making a perfectly valid point. Some people on here are complaining about cars being left parked on public roads. So where do cyclists leave their bikes when visiting pubs, cafes etc.?
> You can't have your cake and eat it too.


Is bike parking a significant safety hazard? Meanwhile, I wonder just how far I'd have to travel to find a tricycle blocking the footway.


----------



## Glow worm (5 Feb 2014)

Brandane said:


> He's making a perfectly valid point. Some people on here are complaining about cars being left parked on public roads. So where do cyclists leave their bikes when visiting pubs, cafes etc.?
> You can't have your cake and eat it too.


 
Yes you are quite correct. All that pesky cycle parking blocking streets. We should all drive to pubs and cafes instead to alleviate the problem.


----------



## Brandane (5 Feb 2014)

2912677 said:


> Really? How much public space does one car occupy? Ditto a bicycle?


That's not the point. So is it ok to park a Smart car, but not a Range Rover?
As demonstrated by Linford's photo, a bike or trike in that case, can fill a public footpath.


----------



## Brandane (5 Feb 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Is bike parking a significant safety hazard? Meanwhile, I wonder just how far I'd have to travel to find a tricycle blocking the footway.


Is car parking a significant safety hazard? You can see them can't you? So move out and go round them, just in the same way that the vast majority of car drivers manage to do for cyclists.

Back on topic..... Why do so many people hate cyclists? Read through this thread, and some of the attitudes on display give the answer.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Is bike parking a significant safety hazard? Meanwhile, I wonder just how far I'd have to travel to find a tricycle blocking the footway.



Cheltenham town centre, I took that picture outside Charles Chippy in the Royal well the day before yesterday.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

Glow worm said:


> Linf, I'm not being funny, but do you ever feel you might just be on the wrong forum?



Imagine the response if I posted that pic on a Disability access forum. The point I'm attempting to make is there are good and bad in all modes....all I see is car hating vitriol posted on a forum which has the tag line a fun and friendly cycling community. People bang on about how much hatred JC has for anything other than car users...but I see just as much prejudice from a few in this thread....this will of course fall on deaf ears...Pot and Kettle spring to mind !


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> Parking a vehicle at the end of a journey is as important as actually makingthat journey...or else it is a bit pointless making it...cos you effectively have no real destination.



And it would be better if it weren't dumped in everybody's way, where you have to negotiate narrow roads with abandoned vehicles on both sides and wankpanzers playing 'might is right'.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> And it would be better if it weren't dumped in everybody's way, where you have to negotiate narrow roads with abandoned vehicles on both sides and wankpanzers playing 'might is right'.




Jeez man, you are having a laugh. When you say 'in everybody's way...you mean so 'nobody' can get past ? I've yet to see any obstacle in the road which a cyclist can't get around...The worst culprit for creating obstructions for vehicles and diverting them a mile out of their way on every journey are the councils in their pursuit in making towns and cities much less car friendly to negotiate....as well as removing most of the on street parking.
I can and do get across town much more quicker by cycle for precisely this reason...stop sounding so hard done by. Cyclists lot in infrastucture is much better now than it was 10 years ago.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

2912775 said:


> You are missing the underlying, and unthinking, assumption that the car has to be left somewhere.



You are forgetting that motor vehciles are required to pay VED to use that space..
As a cyclist, I (and you) pay nothing specifically towards the road network in terms of requiring or being a licensed vehicle user, and get free places to park it in the centre of towns..what is not to like...Doth think one protests too much....


----------



## Glow worm (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> Imagine the response if I posted that pic on a Disability access forum. The point I'm attempting to make is there are good and bad in all modes....all I see is car hating vitriol posted on a forum which has the tag line a fun and friendly cycling community. People bang on about how much hatred JC has for anything other than car users...but I see just as much prejudice from a few in this thread....this will of course fall on deaf ears...Pot and Kettle spring to mind !



Cyclists generally not overly keen on cars on cycle forum shock!


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> You are forgetting that motor vehciles are required to pay VED to use that space..
> As a cyclist, I (and you) pay nothing specifically towards the road network in terms of requiring or being a licensed vehicle user, and get free places to park it in the centre of towns..what is not to like...Doth think one protests too much....



That will be why the lazy feckers that live near me park in the road rather than in their garages and parking spaces, I guess they're getting their money's worth... As for paying towards the road network, I already pay enough, but I'll happily pay more when I damage the roads and pollute the air as much as a car.


----------



## benb (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> You are forgetting that motor vehciles are required to pay VED to use that space..
> As a cyclist, I (and you) pay nothing specifically towards the road network in terms of requiring or being a licensed vehicle user, and get free places to park it in the centre of towns..what is not to like...Doth think one protests too much....



Looks like you need to do some homework, as you have misunderstood VED and road funding.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

ABikeCam said:


> That will be why the lazy feckers that live near me park in the road rather than in their garages and parking spaces, I guess they're getting their money's worth... As for paying towards the road network, I already pay enough, but I'll happily pay more when I damage the roads and pollute the air as much as a car.



The roads do not repair themselves when the frost gets into them and destroys the surface , or they start to subside.
VED is a license to use the amenity...not for the damage which a specific vehicle does...or else lorries would be paying nearly £1,000,000k PA to use the roads (if the report that a single pass by a l44 tonne lorry or bus causes as much damage as 40,000 cars is correct).
Why should car users have to pay for the pollution caused in city centres by buses and delivery vehicles pumping out fine particulates of soot ?


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> Looks like you need to do some homework, as you have misunderstood VED and road funding.




I've heard it all before...read my last post ^


----------



## benb (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> I've heard it all before...read my last post ^



You may have heard it all before, but you clearly haven't understood it.


----------



## snorri (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> You are forgetting that motor vehciles are required to pay VED to use that space..
> As a cyclist, I (and you) pay nothing specifically towards the road network in terms of requiring or being a licensed vehicle user, and get free places to park it in the centre of towns..what is not to like...Doth think one protests too much....



Oh! You are a jester Linf


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

Glow worm said:


> Cyclists generally not overly keen on cars on cycle forum shock!



I'll wager that the very vast majority of members here have a car in their household...and have regular access to the benefits it brings.
I see people posting on biker forums calling cars 'cages'....well most of them also have a car in the household also.

Do you go and have a rant at your parents or siblings every time you see them for owning a car ?


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Feb 2014)

It's patently obvious why cyclists irritate drivers.


Peter Armstrong said:


> Yeah!



If there is a cyclist on the road, there is only one person on that road who isn't irritated by their presence.


----------



## Glow worm (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> I'll wager that the very vast majority of members here have a car in their household...and have regular access to the benefits it brings.



I suspect lot of folk on here simply don't see cars as essential statements of social status, unlike an awful lot of drivers. On the thankfully very rare occasions when I drive for example, the car is purely a means to an end to get from a to b, albeit in a rather unpleasant and anti-social way. I couldn't give a toss what make it is.

The sooner we get over this reverential fixation with bloody cars as extensions of our personality and personal space, as well as our dependancy on them with the faux sense of entitlement to public space that comes with it, then that's got to be better for everyone. That's something even the most bone- headed of petrol heads ought to be able to recognise though I'm not holding my breath!


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

Glow worm said:


> I suspect lot of folk on here simply don't see cars as essential statements of social status, unlike an awful lot of drivers. On the thankfully very rare occasions when I drive for example, the car is purely a means to an end to get from a to b, albeit in a rather unpleasant and anti-social way. I couldn't give a toss what make it is.
> 
> The sooner we get over this reverential fixation with bloody cars as extensions of our personality and personal space, as well as our dependancy on them with the faux sense of entitlement to public space that comes with it, then that's got to be better for everyone. That's something even the most bone- headed of petrol heads ought to be able to recognise though I'm not holding my breath!



If I felt the need to throw money at a rapidly depreciating asset, it would be a brand new motorbike every couple of years, and not a car which are all without exception money pits when in the first 10 years of their lives.

So do you pay for the upkeep of the vehicle,and if you despise it so, why go to the expense and mental anguish,
You could get your groceries delivered by the supermarkets and cycle everywhere instead ?


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Feb 2014)

Glow worm said:


> I suspect lot of folk on here simply don't see cars as essential statements of social status, unlike an awful lot of drivers. On the thankfully very rare occasions when I drive for example, the car is purely a means to an end to get from a to b, albeit in a rather unpleasant and anti-social way. I couldn't give a toss what make it is.
> 
> The sooner we get over this reverential fixation with bloody cars as extensions of our personality and personal space, as well as our dependancy on them with the faux sense of entitlement to public space that comes with it, then that's got to be better for everyone. That's something even the most bone- headed of petrol heads ought to be able to recognise though I'm not holding my breath!


How the fark is any of that relevant to Linfords post?


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> How the f*** is any of that relevant to Linfords post?



It isn't but don't let that get in the way of a good rant


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Feb 2014)

2913301 said:


> You are not familiar with George Bernard Shaw then?


I'm always careful when using a ladder, if that's what you mean.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Feb 2014)

Brandane said:


> Is car parking a significant safety hazard? You can see them can't you? So move out and go round them, just in the same way that the vast majority of car drivers manage to do for cyclists.


Yes, it is. Each parked car is effectively a pinch point in the carriageway, except that more often than not it's the cyclists who have to divert themselves into the middle of the remaining space to prevent being squeezed. And when residential streets are parked on both sides, leaving little more than a car's width and you meet an oncoming car, it isn't the car that will give way or risk their wing mirrors against a stationary car's, it's the bike. They take the left, they take the right and, hey, there's not enough room to share the rest of the road. And there would be no problem with getting hit in door zones if there weren't any cars with doors there.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Yes, it is. Each parked car is effectively a pinch point in the carriageway, except that more often than not it's the cyclists who have to divert themselves into the middle of the remaining space to prevent being squeezed. And when residential streets are parked on both sides, leaving little more than a car's width and you meet an oncoming car, it isn't the car that will give way or risk their wing mirrors against a stationary car's, it's the bike. They take the left, they take the right and, hey, there's not enough room to share the rest of the road. And there would be no problem with getting hit in door zones if there weren't any cars with doors there.




So what you are saying is that it is the car owning residents fault (or in other words virtually everyone living in that road) that you feel bullied by cars being driven the other way ?

You might look at it the other way that they as residents don't want strangers using their roads with various types of vehicle (cycles/cars etc) as a rat run/cut through there....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Feb 2014)

2912823 said:


> It is hard to credit.


Almost inexplicable.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Feb 2014)

snorri said:


> At least the single occupancy car is carrying someone somewhere, unlike the unoccupied car parked on road or pavement, or both, causing an obstruction to travellers for as long as the owner has no wish to travel anyhwere.


Imagine if, on getting up in the morning, I moved my bed to the roadside and left it there "parked" until I came home at night. Or my TV, or sofa, or washing machine. What is it about a car, just another chattel, that is so special that we make provision for them to be left littering the place?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> So what you are saying is that it is the car owning residents fault (or in other words virtually everyone living in that road) that you feel bullied by cars being driven the other way ?
> 
> You might look at it the other way that they as residents don't want strangers using their roads with various types of vehicle (cycles/cars etc) as a rat run/cut through there....


Not ''feel'' bullied - there's no reason to insult me by treating me like a inexperienced over-sensitive cyclist. And the car behind is more dangerous anyway. 

If they don't want through traffic they should get on to the council not create a sclerosed environment of vision-blocking street litter that they wouldn't dare let their children play on.


----------



## Glow worm (5 Feb 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> How the f*** is any of that relevant to Linfords post?



If you can't be arsed to read the thread I really cant help you.


----------



## Glow worm (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> If I felt the need to throw money at a rapidly depreciating asset, it would be a brand new motorbike every couple of years, and not a car which are all without exception money pits when in the first 10 years of their lives.
> 
> So do you pay for the upkeep of the vehicle,and if you despise it so, why go to the expense and mental anguish,
> You could get your groceries delivered by the supermarkets and cycle everywhere instead ?



Try re- reading what I wrote then have another go. it really can't be that hard,


----------



## 400bhp (5 Feb 2014)

Here's a typical example of pavement parking round here. I could have picked almost any street.

It isn't safe and it is antisocial. Stuff like this makes people think twice about walking.

I don't blame any of the owners, but we have got to think harder about this.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Feb 2014)

Yes!! my point. You literally cannot walk aloong one side of that road with a pram. I've tried.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Feb 2014)

400bhp said:


> Here's a typical example of pavement parking round here. I could have picked almost any street.
> 
> It isn't safe and it is antisocial. Stuff like this makes people think twice about walking.
> 
> I don't blame any of the owners, but we have got to think harder about this.


and that's from someone who loves cars no?


----------



## 400bhp (5 Feb 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> and that's from someone who loves cars no?



Hmm, love is a stong word.

I like my cars, but I don't like driving anywhere these days but on a track (and I don't drive on the track any more).


----------



## theclaud (5 Feb 2014)

2913666 said:


> If you are ready with them, that would be handy.



They're in development. But one available strategy that I've recently found gratifying is to start saying the sort of things to drivers that drivers typically say to us, only well before they get into their stride. As soon as you see the first sign of it coming on, go on the offensive. Get to the bar, order your drink while they're warming up with a few snide comments about your lycra, and then launch into a rant about how many cars with entirely grey bodywork you saw on the way home, driven by people who weren't even wearing helmets. Do these f**king idiots have a death wish, or what? Seriously - I don't hate drivers or anything but these muppets give you guys a bad name. Driving is all well and good, and everything, but you really shouldn't be allowed on the roads at rush hour when people are trying to get to work. Obviously it's not necessary to wait for a reply - just take your pint and sit down somewhere else.


----------



## theclaud (5 Feb 2014)

2913724 said:


> I like Kim's one to drivers stuck in traffic jams "gosh are you all doing this for charity?"



 I'm going to use that, with or without permission.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2913558, member: 45"]How many times have you seen a tricycle blocking a pavement?[/quote]

Perhaps you might ask the question...how often when it is ridden out is it left like that when they decide to nip into a shop....i'd wager fairly often.

How often do I see people dumping their bikes on the pavements blocking shop doorways...far too often Paul 

Don't worry, I'd have a proper moan if I saw cars parked inconsiderately and obstructing shop doorways as well...I'll be sure to let you know if I ever see that.
You seem to see it as some sort of a God given right to do this with a cycle...because it is a cycle (correct me if I'm wrong)....unfortunately, pedestrians see it as another example of people on bikes sticking two fingers up to others around them.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> Perhaps you might ask the question...how often when it is ridden out is it left like that when they decide to nip into a shop....i'd wager fairly often.
> 
> *How often do I see people dumping their bikes on the pavements blocking shop doorways...far too often Paul*
> 
> ...



Really? What an odd place you live in.

Do bicycles weigh so much or are in such a way that prevent you from moving them?

Are you using cycles left in door fronts as a counter argument for cars parking on pavements? Seriously.


----------



## theclaud (5 Feb 2014)

400bhp said:


> *Really? What an odd place you live in.*
> 
> Do bicycles weigh so much or are in such a way that prevent you from moving them?
> 
> Are you using cycles left in door fronts as a counter argument for cars parking on pavements? Seriously.



We did establish that some years back...


----------



## 400bhp (5 Feb 2014)

Anecdotal bollox but hey why not, use it to counteract other anecdotal bollox. I have never had an entrance to a shop blocked by a bicycle. If I did it must have been inconsequential (which of course it is) as it hasn't been imprinted on memory.


----------



## Linford (5 Feb 2014)

400bhp said:


> Anecdotal bollox but hey why not, use it to counteract other anecdotal bollox. I have never had an entrance to a shop blocked by a bicycle. If I did it must have been inconsequential (which of course it is) as it hasn't been imprinted on memory.


In the name of balance, Have you ever had issue with a shop being doorway blocked by a car ?


----------



## 400bhp (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> In the name of balance, Have you ever had issue with a shop being doorway blocked by a car ?



Actually, yes Quite a few times actually. Happens quite a bit in towns where there is little to no pavement outside shops. often at delivery times.

It's a bit like saying have I ever been in a traffic jam on a motorway caused by a cyclist.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> Perhaps you might ask the question...how often when it is ridden out is it left like that when they decide to nip into a shop....i'd wager fairly often.
> 
> How often do I see people dumping their bikes on the pavements blocking shop doorways...far too often Paul
> 
> ...


So the answer to how many times have you seen a tricycle blocking the pavement is once. And you took a photo of it!


----------



## snorri (5 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> You are forgetting that motor vehciles are required to pay VED to use that space....


VED, don't you mean Road Tax? That was the tax that was paid by motor vehicle owners in order to pay for road construction and maintenance, but that tax was replace........oh why do I bother to tell you? you must know about this?


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

snorri said:


> VED, don't you mean Road Tax? That was the tax that was paid by motor vehicle owners in order to pay for road construction and maintenance, but that tax was replace........oh why do I bother to tell you? you must know about this?




It is a license fee....I'll tell you what....ban all cars and charge all cyclists £230 per year to use the roads to make up the shortfall....oh hang on...that won't cover it because the road repair budget is actually more than they get from VED on its own...they also raise funds from fuel duty.....so instead of charging £230, that can be tripled to £690 per year

What...you don't like that idea ???? .... how about ban all cars, and charge the HGV's and delivery vehicles the cost so cycling can remain a free to use vehicle on the road transport network ?? ....no that won't work because it would be a tax on thepoor ..who would want to pay £20 for a can of baked beans ?

The bottom line is that cars need to be on the roads for cycling to remain a 'free at point of access' amenity.

Yes, we can all do without the ones who do stupid stuff when we share these spaces with them, but as long as there is a system in place which demonstrates that the road transport network is an amenity with has to be funded in the form of a license by some of its users, you will have to put up with the sense of entitlement that bring to those paying it...and the accusation that those who also use the amenity without a directly linked charge should also contribute for the upkeep of it !


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2914184, member: 45"]You're wrong, so I'll take up your offer and correct you. 

I'll ask you another - how many tricycles have you ever seen?

And to answer yours, I can't remember the last time I came across a bike lying on a pavement. And if I had I'd have moved it.[/quote]


There was also a cycle on the pavement parked next to it from the person who had accompanied the trike user Paul...The point being made is that you cannot demand the removal of vehicular obstructions of something you don't favour for vehicular obstructions for something you do...in the case of the trike, it had completely blocked a space where it had no legal right to be...heaven forbid you might come across as being reasonable in this debate.....


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

2914188 said:


> Took photo a couple of days ago and then steered this thread in order to use it.



This thread is about people demanding that parked vehicles be removed from the carriageways...of course the billions of pounds made by LA's in parking fee's over and above whate the drivers are charged in VED and fuel duty means they are not just paying once,not twice, but three times in charges directly associated to running road vehicles in the UK...how many taxes do you or I pay to use a cycle in the same space whether cycling it or leaving it somewhere at the end of our journey ?


----------



## Dan B (6 Feb 2014)

The topic "Why do so many people hate cyclists?" seems to have morphed into "Why do so many people continue to engage with Linf": even after adding him to my ignore list, it remains straightforward to infer not only when he's posted but _what_ he's most probably posted as well.


----------



## sazzaa (6 Feb 2014)

ScotiaLass said:


> I find most non cyclists are pretty intolerant. I point out that I'm not intolerant of a car driver, as I am also one too.
> I then ask if they cycle....when they say no, I ask them to give it a go and get back to me


 
I also take this approach, but usually get the response of "oh no it's way too dangerous!" Ehhh why's that then.....? Most people are morons, when you accept that fact, life becomes easier.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Feb 2014)

2914321 said:


> It is mystifying, the degree to which we, myself included, fall for what has to be the most blatant tolling.




And you do seem to take that little fishy bite every time


----------



## sazzaa (6 Feb 2014)

2914348 said:


> Yeah I know, I am even more disappointed in me than you are.


 
Sometimes (often) not responding at all has a much more satisfying effect.


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2914347, member: 1314"]Disclaimer:
I accept no liability for the content of this photo, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided. If you intend to take the action illustrated in the photo it cannot be said that I am responsible. Such light-hearted damage to tin boxes on wheels is an invasion of a person’s most innermost soul. innit

View attachment 37631
[/quote]

Whilst despising car users, you then come up with this rubbish....what is so wrong with a bit of live and let live ?

If I saw the amount of hostility on biker and car forums against cyclists which I see being vented frmo cyclists, I'd give them the same response as I'm giving to the unbalanced ones here....


----------



## sazzaa (6 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2914347, member: 1314"]Disclaimer:
I accept no liability for the content of this photo, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided. If you intend to take the action illustrated in the photo it cannot be said that I am responsible. Such light-hearted damage to tin boxes on wheels is an invasion of a person’s most innermost soul. innit

View attachment 37631
[/quote]

How pathetic.


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

ianrauk said:


> And you do seem to take that little fishy bite every time



Do you buy into all this UK highways = war zone thing ?

Is it OK to condemn the actions of irresponsible and ignorant car users, but not when I see cyclist behaving badly ?

This isn't trolling...it is about responsbile cyclists treating others as equals on the roads, and not taking a childish POV that cars have no rightful place on the roads...for the reasons stated up thread...like 'they get in my way when parked'


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2914184, member: 45"]You're wrong, so I'll take up your offer and correct you.

I'll ask you another - how many tricycles have you ever seen?

And to answer yours, I can't remember the last time I came across a bike lying on a pavement. And if I had I'd have moved it.[/quote]
Next door to our new offices there is a tricycle parked in a car parking space every working day. I intend to shake the rider by the hand.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2914347, member: 1314"]Disclaimer:
I accept no liability for the content of this photo, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided. If you intend to take the action illustrated in the photo it cannot be said that I am responsible. Such light-hearted damage to tin boxes on wheels is an invasion of a person’s most innermost soul. innit

View attachment 37631
[/quote]
As a tactic it has its merits but the execution illustrated on the card is a tough one. Much easier to rip-off a door mirror when passing from behind ime. As shown on the card the darned things just fold up and are almost impossible to grab. Best method is downward sharp punch making contact with the outside edge of the fist.


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

Who was it here who said how nice it is to cycle in London traffic recently ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2914461, member: 1314"]Dania Ramirez  shows how it should be done. About time cyclists stopped being passive victims of bullies. We’re in charge innit

View attachment 37635
[/quote]
She was in Premium Rush. I LOVE that filum. Especially the outtakes at the end.


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Feb 2014)

17 pages in and I think I am now one of those many people that hate cyclists...


----------



## glenn forger (6 Feb 2014)

sazzaa said:


> How pathetic.



But you admitted you have no problem with threats against cyclists. Isn't that hypocritical?


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Feb 2014)

2914707 said:


> @User1314, @GrumpyGregry, and @User30090, stop it. People are starting to take you seriously.



They weren't who I was talking about. Nor was anyone else, individually speaking.

Although, is Linford a cyclist? He might contribute individually


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> They weren't who I was talking about. Nor was anyone else, individually speaking.
> 
> Although, *is Linford a cyclist?* He might contribute individually



Yes I am..


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2914715, member: 1314"]I'm still buying that chain and padlock.[/quote]

I rode my motorbike 30 years ago with a chain and padlock around my waist...it chipped a load of paint off the back of the petrol tank.

Considera Hiplock...it will do less damage to the bike.


----------



## oldstrath (6 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> Do you buy into all this UK highways = war zone thing ?
> 
> Is it OK to condemn the actions of irresponsible and ignorant car users, but not when I see cyclist behaving badly ?
> 
> This isn't trolling...it is about responsbile cyclists treating others as equals on the roads, and not taking a childish POV that cars have no rightful place on the roads...for the reasons stated up thread...like 'they get in my way when parked'


How about they have no place on the road because:
They contribute substantially to air pollution and climate change
They impose significant costs in road building and maintenance
The accidents they cause impose significant health service costs
The casual aggression shown by many drivers dissuades people from cycling and walking, contributing to ill health and further health service costs


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

oldstrath said:


> How about they have no place on the road because:
> They contribute substantially to air pollution and climate change
> They impose significant costs in road building and maintenance
> The accidents they cause impose significant health service costs
> The casual aggression shown by many drivers dissuades people from cycling and walking, contributing to ill health and further health service costs



Pollution and climate change are a red herring....lets just leave it at that

The treasury gets roughly £30 billion in fuel duty and VED off motorists..the budget spent on the roads is roughly 1/3rd of that

You are blaming ALL accidents in the roads to 'car' drivers...what was the percentage of cyclists killed by HGV's in London in the last few years ? - CLUE

If you are referring to London....take a look up thread at the proposal to remove car wing mirrors...and then come back and state it is all one sided.also.the white Audi vid last week is case in point..the car was impatient at the lights and shouldn't have crept forward, but the cyclists chased it down to vent his spleen. Don't confuse impatience with aggression....

Sure there are plenty of people in cars I''d happily give a shoeing too for being idiots on the roads...but there are equally many people cycling who do daft stuff..


----------



## oldstrath (6 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> Pollution and climate change are a red herring....lets just leave it at that
> 
> The treasury gets roughly £30 billion in fuel duty and VED off motorists..the budget spent on the roads is roughly 1/3rd of that
> 
> ...


You think air pollution doesn't exist. Oh gods, I give up.

And all the other costs? Don't tell me, more red herrings.

Not all accidents, but plenty.

No, I don't mean London. I last cycled in London 30 years ago. I mean everywhere, even in Highland Scotland. I had two examples on Monday, one a woman in a fiesta, overtaking at 60, close enough to touch. No clue why - she had a clear road and lots of room. Second bullied his way past, then travelled all of 50 yards. Pure bullying because he could. When challenged he told me to feck off out of his way in future. Impatience or aggression? Same thing, especially when yiu arm yourself with a deadly weapon.

As for greeting about wing mirror removal. It's a wing mirror. It can be fixed. Some twunt bullies past and I make a mistake I die. Not even close to the same.


----------



## sazzaa (6 Feb 2014)

User13710 said:


> Please don't feed the troll @oldstrath, you won't get anywhere. In fact we should all tiptoe out of this thread now, and leave Linf and sazzaa to chat to each other, as they obviously have an awful lot in common .


 
Couldn't resist it eh! It's ok, I find it quite funny, in a nice way x


----------



## glenn forger (6 Feb 2014)

The car wasn't impatient. Cars are inanimate objects. 

The driver committed a TS10 offence and put cyclists in danger, your attempted defence of the kind of behaviour that killed Deep Lee confirms you don't care if cyclists get killed, the same as the person who agrees with you who thinks jokes about running cyclists over are funny but whines and snivels if she sees a wing mirror get damaged. Wing mirrors are more important than cyclists to that creature.

Private motoring receives enormous subsidies:



> The perennial complaint from drivers that they are excessively taxed has been challenged by a study which concludes that road accidents, pollution and noise connected to cars costs every EU citizen more than £600 a year.
> 
> The report by transport academics at the Dresden Technical University in Germany calculated that even with drivers' insurance contributions discounted these factors amounted to an annual total of €373bn (£303bn) across the 27 EU member states, or around 3% of the bloc's entire yearly GDP. This breaks down as €750 per man, woman and child.
> 
> ...



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu?INTCMP=SRCH

Motorists are freeloaders. 

VED revenue in 2004/2005, for example, was £4.7bn (Table 7.15 in DfT 2006, 129) whilst total expenditure on road building and maintenance in England alone in the same period was £6bn (Table 7.13 in DfT 2006, 128). Clearly road maintenance is therefore being subsidised by other forms of taxation in addition to VED, and any driver who argues for a direct link between road use and expenditure is in effect calling for a higher level of road tax.

And that's before you even start counting the cost of accidents on the roads (£18bn per year (DfT 2004, 5)

Congestion: £30bn by 2010 (Goodwin 2004, 2)

n 1998 it was calculated that between 12,000 and 24,000 deaths may be may "brought forward" each year in the UK as a result of air pollution, and that between 14,000 and 24,000 hospital admissions annually result from poor air quality (COMEAP 1998), to which road transport is by far the largest single contributor (FoE 1999, 1),


In this light, and without even factoring in the less easily established costs of damage to wildlife, noise pollution, contribution to climate change, and end-of-life disposal of motor vehicles, it is already clear that motorists do not currently pay anything like the full cost of motoring.

Everytime you see a motor vehicle you are seeing a parasite.

http://www.jake-v.co.uk/content/54.php


----------



## glenn forger (6 Feb 2014)

sazzaa said:


> Couldn't resist it eh! It's ok, I find it quite funny, in a nice way x




Like you find jokes about killing cyclists funny?

Why are you here Do you not get enough attention in real life?


----------



## sazzaa (6 Feb 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Like you find jokes about killing cyclists funny?
> 
> Why are you here Do you not get enough attention in real life?


 
Settle down luv, I'm not sure why my posts have hit a nerve with you so much (or why you've completely twisted them beyond recognition), but it's just a forum and I'm just a random on the interweb. Go make yourself a cup of tea or something, and breathe.


----------



## glenn forger (6 Feb 2014)

What are you claiming I've twisted? You defended jokes about killing cyclists then whined like a child because you saw a picture of a wing mirror getting damaged. Your priorities are deranged.


----------



## sazzaa (6 Feb 2014)

glenn forger said:


> What are you claiming I've twisted? You defended jokes about killing cyclists then whined like a child because you saw a picture of a wing mirror getting damaged. Your priorities are deranged.


 
Whined like a child by simply saying "How pathetic."? Have you met any kids, ever?


----------



## Lanzecki (6 Feb 2014)




----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2914591, member: 30090"]With the forearm ime.[/quote]
Nah, not enough flesh there. An old Merc will have your arm off. 

(do not ask me how I know this)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

2914707 said:


> @User1314, @GrumpyGregry, and @User30090, stop it. People are starting to take you seriously.


I take myself (too) seriously. About time everyone else caught up.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

Must say. The ignore function* does make for some strange reading.

As you were.

*my new year's resolution was to use it


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2914617, member: 1314"]The film made @martint235 buy a ss. Which he still hasn't fixed. I'm going to buy a chain like Dania's and wear it round my hips with a massive padlock because I think it's cool!

View attachment 37639
[/quote]
Did she do her own stunts. JGL did appaz!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

For the record, and avoidance of doubt...

I only forcibly remove the door mirrors of vehicles that

a) are driven by twunts stupid enough to let me catch them
and only after
b) said twunt was previously stupid enough to have brought any part of their vehicle into contact with me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

2915102 said:


> No different from being in a room where several people are in a conference call with other people where you can't hear their contributions.


I'm a lucky, lucky man. 

I no longer have to participate in conference calls with people whose opinions, or even the manner in which they are expressed, I find repugnant. 

I think it costs me at least £50k pa in salary. Worth every penny. TLH agrees so it must be worth it.


----------



## glenn forger (6 Feb 2014)

2915114 said:


> The problem with this is that said drivers probably never used the door mirrors much anyway.
> What about rolling the car over with them inside?




How many times, sheesh.

Prawns, milk, blender, stored somewhere warm then poured in the air vent, the smell makes you gag and blows in the car every time they drive. Never goes away.


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Feb 2014)

glenn forger said:


> You've posted seven times defending jokes about killing cyclists, don't you remember what you wrote?



I am more concerned that you do remember!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

2915114 said:


> The problem with this is that said drivers probably never used the door mirrors much anyway.
> What about rolling the car over with them inside?


They aren't worth the sweat and, besides, it would involve getting off my bike and they sure ain't worth me doing that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

Look at things from my perspective folks...



glenn forger said:


> How many times, sheesh.
> Prawns, milk, blender, stored somewhere warm then poured in the air vent, the smell makes you gag and blows in the car every time they drive. Never goes away.





glenn forger said:


> So, following your logic, you were a selfish mother and should not have had children.



it is positively surreal.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

2915131 said:


> Ah yes but, if GG goes with my plan on his commute anyone who sees it will know not to mess with him, it at least make sure they *take him out properly*.


Twunt tried that in August.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2014)

2915144 said:


> I told you not to wear that Mod jersey with the roundel on the back.


The tragedy is I was wearing my Fridays top on a Thursday. I knew no good would come of it.


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Feb 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The tragedy is I was wearing my Fridays top on a Thursday. I knew no good would come of it.



If you sleep in it you will get maximum Friday-ness out of it though. Preparation!


----------



## Dave Davenport (6 Feb 2014)

2915114 said:


> What about rolling the car over with them inside?


I tried that with a Smart car once, didn't manage to roll it but it was rocking well and the driver looked decidedly worried.


----------



## benb (6 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> It is a license fee....I'll tell you what....ban all cars and charge all cyclists £230 per year to use the roads to make up the shortfall....oh hang on...that won't cover it because the road repair budget is actually more than they get from VED on its own...they also raise funds from fuel duty.....so instead of charging £230, that can be tripled to £690 per year
> 
> What...you don't like that idea ???? .... how about ban all cars, and charge the HGV's and delivery vehicles the cost so cycling can remain a free to use vehicle on the road transport network ?? ....no that won't work because it would be a tax on thepoor ..who would want to pay £20 for a can of baked beans ?
> 
> ...



Why do you keep pretending that VED has anything to do with road building or maintenance? You know it doesn't, so why the dishonesty?

Anyway no one is suggesting banning cars, so this "argument" is the very definition of a strawman.


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> Why do you keep pretending that VED has anything to do with road building or maintenance? You know it doesn't, so why the dishonesty?
> 
> Anyway no one is suggesting banning cars, so this "argument" is the very definition of a strawman.



So what do you suggest people do with their vehicles when they have travelled somewhere in or on them ?

This is what you said a few pages back



benb said:


> And I would question why it's acceptable to leave one's private property in such a position that it obstructs public spaces and poses a hazard to other people.



This is exactly what people do when they chain their cycles to railings....or cycles lock up points..these are on the pavements and become tripping hazards to the partially sighted....I don't every carry a lock because I never leave my bike and walk away from it in public spaces because there are far too many light fingered people who specialise in stealing cycles from these spaces....so do you lock your bike up in this manner or not when out and about ?


----------



## Brandane (6 Feb 2014)

glenn forger said:


> They're your words old darling, not mine, see your name below the quotes?
> 
> You've contradicted yourself, you're tying yourself in knots because you can't defend your racism or support of jokes about dead cyclists.


You don't seem to understand the meaning of "quotes". You have previous form for this all over this forum. Now stop posting so much pish and get to your bed; you must have school in the morning.
Back on topic, Top Gear rules. I hope their cycling sketch shows a cyclist breaking the £300 (it's only a mirror, @oldstrath) wing mirror off a car, then promptly losing control as a result and going face first into the nearest lamp post. 
This thread is rapidly turning me (even more) against a certain type of cyclist. Mainly found in London, apparently.


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

glenn forger said:


> I'm challenging racist behaviour, you picked a side and came down on the side of the racist. How come? Do you use that word?



What words are these ?


----------



## Scoosh (6 Feb 2014)

That is quite enough - Thread Closed


----------

