# Being yelled at and perceptions of cyclists....



## SavageHoutkop (18 Jan 2010)

Well, I was pedalling off to collect something at lunchtime; and when almost there I think someone leaned out of a panel van and yelled something at me (or, at least, I think at me).

Now, I'm a fairly small woman, but in cycling gear I am in high-viz top, with helmet on; and I have short hair so you can't see any (especially in winter with the cold, usually wearing a skullcap or beanie and - although not today - a buff). 

I'm wondering if I'd get the same level of general 'yelling' directed at me (there have been several incidents lately; and I don't ride through the dodgiest parts of town either) if I was either clearly a woman (even in high-viz) - think long hair from behind helmet; or alternately if I was riding a proper 'ladies' bike (Dutch style, pref with the basket on the front?). I ride a Brompton; is the fact that it looks odd perhaps contributing? (comments yelled at me in passing are hard to distinguish but are generally not 'nice bike' - although I have had that at least once in the distant past....).

Of course, once it's noted that you're a woman, you might _still_ get yelled at but in a different context?

Anyone else got some experiences to share?


----------



## SavageHoutkop (18 Jan 2010)

Well, I was pedalling off to collect something at lunchtime; and when almost there I think someone leaned out of a panel van and yelled something at me (or, at least, I think at me).

Now, I'm a fairly small woman, but in cycling gear I am in high-viz top, with helmet on; and I have short hair so you can't see any (especially in winter with the cold, usually wearing a skullcap or beanie and - although not today - a buff). 

I'm wondering if I'd get the same level of general 'yelling' directed at me (there have been several incidents lately; and I don't ride through the dodgiest parts of town either) if I was either clearly a woman (even in high-viz) - think long hair from behind helmet; or alternately if I was riding a proper 'ladies' bike (Dutch style, pref with the basket on the front?). I ride a Brompton; is the fact that it looks odd perhaps contributing? (comments yelled at me in passing are hard to distinguish but are generally not 'nice bike' - although I have had that at least once in the distant past....).

Of course, once it's noted that you're a woman, you might _still_ get yelled at but in a different context?

Anyone else got some experiences to share?


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (18 Jan 2010)

long blonde hair, tight lycra leggings, fake tan, pretty white ankle socks, pink bike and you may get shouted at in a totally different way. me, as a fat bold old bloke on a tiny wheeled bike with a silly big bag on the front...i get taunts all the time. part of cycling i think.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (18 Jan 2010)

long blonde hair, tight lycra leggings, fake tan, pretty white ankle socks, pink bike and you may get shouted at in a totally different way. me, as a fat bold old bloke on a tiny wheeled bike with a silly big bag on the front...i get taunts all the time. part of cycling i think.


----------



## fossyant (18 Jan 2010)

Cyclist = target..... even had it yesterday on a Sunday on quiet lanes....


----------



## fossyant (18 Jan 2010)

Cyclist = target..... even had it yesterday on a Sunday on quiet lanes....


----------



## on the road (18 Jan 2010)

It wouldn't make any difference, some people just see someone on a bike and shout to try to make them fall off. It happens to me.


----------



## on the road (18 Jan 2010)

It wouldn't make any difference, some people just see someone on a bike and shout to try to make them fall off. It happens to me.


----------



## marinyork (18 Jan 2010)

I've seen stuff yelled at women. I think what you get yelled at depends on location/who shouts and so on. Quite a bit of what gets shouted at me I don't even hear what exactly it was as although we have better hearing than motorists it still gets drowned out and muffled by other cars or turning a corner or whatever.


----------



## marinyork (18 Jan 2010)

I've seen stuff yelled at women. I think what you get yelled at depends on location/who shouts and so on. Quite a bit of what gets shouted at me I don't even hear what exactly it was as although we have better hearing than motorists it still gets drowned out and muffled by other cars or turning a corner or whatever.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (18 Jan 2010)

being shouted at does not bother me at all. but horn honking from behind makes me jump and swerve every time. that really is unnerving.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (18 Jan 2010)

being shouted at does not bother me at all. but horn honking from behind makes me jump and swerve every time. that really is unnerving.


----------



## addictfreak (18 Jan 2010)

Hi Savage

Well its nothing new, I've certainly had it happen to me several times. Sometimes its the chav idiot leaning out of a car window yelling at you as they come from behind you, even on the odd occasion firing a water pistol or throwing eggs.
Other times its seemingly normal looking people who pass you while travelling the opposite direction, who for some reason scream an obscenity and make the w**ker sign.
God knows what is going through there tiny little minds!


----------



## addictfreak (18 Jan 2010)

Hi Savage

Well its nothing new, I've certainly had it happen to me several times. Sometimes its the chav idiot leaning out of a car window yelling at you as they come from behind you, even on the odd occasion firing a water pistol or throwing eggs.
Other times its seemingly normal looking people who pass you while travelling the opposite direction, who for some reason scream an obscenity and make the w**ker sign.
God knows what is going through there tiny little minds!


----------



## skudupnorth (18 Jan 2010)

They are just upset that they cannot get of their fat arses and do what we do !!!! It upsets them more when a traffic jam is also thrown in for good measure !


----------



## skudupnorth (18 Jan 2010)

They are just upset that they cannot get of their fat arses and do what we do !!!! It upsets them more when a traffic jam is also thrown in for good measure !


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Jan 2010)

Take down the reg and complain to the police.

S59 Police Reform ACT IIRC


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Jan 2010)

Take down the reg and complain to the police.

S59 Police Reform ACT IIRC


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (18 Jan 2010)

I gave up trying to work out why,
last couple of weeks its been twat and self-gratification artist for no reason I can fathom

what is wrong with this country?


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (18 Jan 2010)

I gave up trying to work out why,
last couple of weeks its been twat and self-gratification artist for no reason I can fathom

what is wrong with this country?


----------



## Origamist (18 Jan 2010)

Register on the TRL site to read the full doc:

*Driver's perceptions of cyclists*

This report describes research that examined the attitude and behaviour of drivers towards cycle users. A range of qualitative and quantitative research techniques was used, including the use of virtual reality equipment to simulate encounters between drivers and cyclists. Variations in driver attitude and behaviour based on a number of factors, including physical infrastructure and cyclists behaviour were examined. The research also examined the effectiveness of two different approaches to improving drivers' consideration of the needs of cyclists. The report makes recommendations to improve driver training, for the layout of roads and for future campaigns to raise awareness of cyclists among drivers

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r...ty/report_drivers_perceptions_of_cyclists.htm


----------



## Origamist (18 Jan 2010)

Register on the TRL site to read the full doc:

*Driver's perceptions of cyclists*

This report describes research that examined the attitude and behaviour of drivers towards cycle users. A range of qualitative and quantitative research techniques was used, including the use of virtual reality equipment to simulate encounters between drivers and cyclists. Variations in driver attitude and behaviour based on a number of factors, including physical infrastructure and cyclists behaviour were examined. The research also examined the effectiveness of two different approaches to improving drivers' consideration of the needs of cyclists. The report makes recommendations to improve driver training, for the layout of roads and for future campaigns to raise awareness of cyclists among drivers

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r...ty/report_drivers_perceptions_of_cyclists.htm


----------



## Arch (18 Jan 2010)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> I gave up trying to work out why,
> last couple of weeks its been twat and self-gratification artist for no reason I can fathom
> 
> _what is wrong with this country?_



There are too many twats and self-gratification artists? Alas, none of them have the self awareness to recognise themselves...


----------



## Arch (18 Jan 2010)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> I gave up trying to work out why,
> last couple of weeks its been twat and self-gratification artist for no reason I can fathom
> 
> _what is wrong with this country?_



There are too many twats and self-gratification artists? Alas, none of them have the self awareness to recognise themselves...


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Jan 2010)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> what is wrong with this country?



We are an island nation floating in the north Atlantic. A proportion of the people on the island are styrofoam and will float easily, the rest are ball bearings and will sink immediately. Trouble is, more people are adopting the ball bearing mentality and therfore the bouyancy of the country is being undermined by twottishness. But the twots can't see it.

Life's too short to be a ball bearing, go styrofoam.


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Jan 2010)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> what is wrong with this country?



We are an island nation floating in the north Atlantic. A proportion of the people on the island are styrofoam and will float easily, the rest are ball bearings and will sink immediately. Trouble is, more people are adopting the ball bearing mentality and therfore the bouyancy of the country is being undermined by twottishness. But the twots can't see it.

Life's too short to be a ball bearing, go styrofoam.


----------



## trsleigh (18 Jan 2010)

bromptonfb said:


> Fat bold old bloke on a tiny wheeled bike with a silly big bag on the front...i get taunts all the time. part of cycling i think.



Reading these posts I do sometimes wonder if London in general is less deranged than most of the rest of the country. As a fat, not bald, oldish bloke on a tiny wheeled bike with a silly big bag on the front, I cannot recall any stupid comments in four years of Bromptoneering around West London / West End. 

I suppose it just could be that the sheer numbers of Bromptons have overwhelmed the local morons.


----------



## trsleigh (18 Jan 2010)

bromptonfb said:


> Fat bold old bloke on a tiny wheeled bike with a silly big bag on the front...i get taunts all the time. part of cycling i think.



Reading these posts I do sometimes wonder if London in general is less deranged than most of the rest of the country. As a fat, not bald, oldish bloke on a tiny wheeled bike with a silly big bag on the front, I cannot recall any stupid comments in four years of Bromptoneering around West London / West End. 

I suppose it just could be that the sheer numbers of Bromptons have overwhelmed the local morons.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Jan 2010)

If you think you get shouted at a lot riding an upright, try riding a recumbent. So many toots and shouts that I'm getting really good at blanking the lot.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Jan 2010)

If you think you get shouted at a lot riding an upright, try riding a recumbent. So many toots and shouts that I'm getting really good at blanking the lot.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

If you don't want to get shouted at BY me don't shout AT me, as I was once told by an hofficer of the law. A

Has anyone ever achieved anything positive and worthwhile by bellowing at a car driver? I haven't, maybe I didn't ever shout loud enough. All a bit too escalatory for my taste.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

If you don't want to get shouted at BY me don't shout AT me, as I was once told by an hofficer of the law. A

Has anyone ever achieved anything positive and worthwhile by bellowing at a car driver? I haven't, maybe I didn't ever shout loud enough. All a bit too escalatory for my taste.


----------



## brokenbetty (18 Jan 2010)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Anyone else got some experiences to share?



Since I started wearing girly clothes on my bike I have noticed a lot less aggression from other drivers. It's not a babe thing - my babe days are long past. It seems to be a courtesy-to-ladies thing.

A flowery pannier, a firm hand signal and a cheery thank-you wave seem to go a very long way even in London


----------



## brokenbetty (18 Jan 2010)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Anyone else got some experiences to share?



Since I started wearing girly clothes on my bike I have noticed a lot less aggression from other drivers. It's not a babe thing - my babe days are long past. It seems to be a courtesy-to-ladies thing.

A flowery pannier, a firm hand signal and a cheery thank-you wave seem to go a very long way even in London


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (18 Jan 2010)

trsleigh said:


> Reading these posts I do sometimes wonder if London in general is less deranged than most of the rest of the country. As a fat, not bald, oldish bloke on a tiny wheeled bike with a silly big bag on the front, I cannot recall any stupid comments in four years of Bromptoneering around West London / West End.
> 
> _*I suppose it just could be that the sheer numbers of Bromptons have overwhelmed the local morons*_.




i agree. even in manchester there aren't many. to be honest it is mostly my own fault for being foolish enough to take such an unfashionable bso into the hills and roads of rossendale without attending a meeting of the lto (local twat organisation) and throwing myself at their mercy and asking for permission to ride upon thier local turf.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (18 Jan 2010)

trsleigh said:


> Reading these posts I do sometimes wonder if London in general is less deranged than most of the rest of the country. As a fat, not bald, oldish bloke on a tiny wheeled bike with a silly big bag on the front, I cannot recall any stupid comments in four years of Bromptoneering around West London / West End.
> 
> _*I suppose it just could be that the sheer numbers of Bromptons have overwhelmed the local morons*_.




i agree. even in manchester there aren't many. to be honest it is mostly my own fault for being foolish enough to take such an unfashionable bso into the hills and roads of rossendale without attending a meeting of the lto (local twat organisation) and throwing myself at their mercy and asking for permission to ride upon thier local turf.


----------



## Bman (18 Jan 2010)

Arch said:


> There are too many twats and self-gratification artists? Alas, none of them have the self awareness to recognise themselves...




Brilliant! That quote is sig-worthy


----------



## Bman (18 Jan 2010)

Arch said:


> There are too many twats and self-gratification artists? Alas, none of them have the self awareness to recognise themselves...




Brilliant! That quote is sig-worthy


----------



## Plax (18 Jan 2010)

They generally don't differentiate. A cyclist isn't a person you know. 

I've had stuff shouted at me generally along the lines of "cycle path" but I can never hear what they say and just ignore them. I had a brief period of young lads in one particular van always slowing down alongside me and offering to pull me up the road etc which I suspect they wouldn't have done had I been male.

Touch wood I haven't had anything in a very long time.


----------



## Plax (18 Jan 2010)

They generally don't differentiate. A cyclist isn't a person you know. 

I've had stuff shouted at me generally along the lines of "cycle path" but I can never hear what they say and just ignore them. I had a brief period of young lads in one particular van always slowing down alongside me and offering to pull me up the road etc which I suspect they wouldn't have done had I been male.

Touch wood I haven't had anything in a very long time.


----------



## ACW (18 Jan 2010)

its the sort of behavior that used to be reserved for ethnic minority's, (still is by the most moronic) but as that is now an offence that is punished they have shifted to a minority that can be abused and no one will bother.


----------



## ACW (18 Jan 2010)

its the sort of behavior that used to be reserved for ethnic minority's, (still is by the most moronic) but as that is now an offence that is punished they have shifted to a minority that can be abused and no one will bother.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (18 Jan 2010)

i wonder if more of this behavior happens post the advert "fish slap the cyclist by moton" than pre advert?


----------



## marinyork (18 Jan 2010)

bromptonfb said:


> i wonder if more of this behavior happens post the advert "fish slap the cyclist by moton" than pre advert?



I would think it's probably more to do with how much time gets spent by cyclists naval gazing and the amount of press coverage that gets dedicated to ninjas, fairies, RLJers and whatever other silly business.


----------



## jimboalee (18 Jan 2010)

I only get shouted at when I'm riding in 'Primary'.

It's a 'You were in my way' thing.


----------



## thomas (18 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> Since I started wearing girly clothes on my bike I have noticed a lot less aggression from other drivers. It's not a babe thing - my babe days are long past. It seems to be a courtesy-to-ladies thing.
> 
> A flowery pannier, a firm hand signal and a cheery thank-you wave seem to go a very long way even in London




Should my next cycling jacket be in Pink then? Would that save me problems....or maybe I should wear that blonde wig I found.

I once commented to a driver who had tooted me for holding primary on a section of road with two lanes (he could pass without any hold up) how it was pretty impressive that my legs could do 25mph, just a fraction below the speed limit....he wasn't so impressed ...not really sure how that's relevant to anything but it seemed so in my mind.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2010)

Thinking about it my favourite shout out of all time was from a fat woman in a Vectra in Crawley, near Maidenbower, right arm out of window, gesticulating with tab in hand bellowing "Why weren't we told? Did you tell the council?" at me whilst I was waymarking a roundabout for the CTC Ride to Pride last year. Possibly we had delayed her by 30 seconds or so. I smiled and shrugged and waved in a friendly non-threatening way and she told me to "eff off, you anchor!" or some such, at which point I creased up laughing and she went purple and sped off whilst I explained myself to Dellzeqq.

Now I'm not a hardcore 365 cyclist by any means, in winter I drive, and trust me car drivers shout just as much as each other over perceived infringements of their rights as they do at cyclists. Try driving at 30 mph in a 30 zone and then have a ranting driver pull alongside you at the lights. 

Just after Christmas I was nearly taken out whilst in my tiny car by a, as it happens 4WD, which RLJ'd at a set of lights. He basically jumped his straight on' filter by mistake when the light for the lane next to him 'right turn only' changed. His horn blasting he followed me bumper to bumper flash headlight and leaning and fliiping the bird out of the window. He then roared past me, cut in front and slammed the anchors on. I stopped didn't have a lot of choice. Out he jumped slamming his door so hard his Mitsubishi rocked. I locked my door. He rocked my car pummelled the roof with his fists and kicked the wing and then gobbed on the windscreen. All from his mistake.

A small voice cried 'enough' I unlocked the door and unfolded my not inconsiderable bulk from my tiny Cinquecento. 6 2 & 15 stone squared up this numpty shaking with adrenaline and tbh fear and the little pissant legged it.


----------



## Aperitif (19 Jan 2010)

I remember that Greg - along with the gentleman who gave his kids a lesson in swear words...delayed by 2 seconds as we wended our rainbow way.

We're still rolling around here and there, he's probably still angry. It's sad.


----------



## HobbesChoice (19 Jan 2010)

My experiences are the same as Broken Betty. I ride in a nice pink hi viz (get yourself one Thomas - you'll never look back) and have long hair showing out the back of my crash hat. At lights I'll often get chavs making inappropriate comments, but in general I think I get treated a little better than the men on the bikes. Having said that though, I'm not in a race to get home so it gives me the luxury of being very courteous and I'm more than happy to wait behind a bus rather than play a constant game of leapfrog etc, so I think that does me well in how the buses treat me.


----------



## ttcycle (19 Jan 2010)

I would say that it doesn't really make much of a difference - you get some idiots and some making lewd comments but I don't think the abuse is different - you get some intimidating drivers but not noticed less of it due to being female.


----------



## semislickstick (19 Jan 2010)

I was just thinking this after my last corsa passenger 'shout out' when it was icy. They have been mostly when I've been in my winter gear, all covered up. It rarely happens in the summer in normal clothes. 
I think there is a definite advantage to wearing 'civilian clothes' and looking female!

My last one I got the reg plate but wondered about going to the police, is this section 59?, but the driver overtook me nice and wide, it seemed to just be the young male in the front passenger seat that was the knob. Unfair on the driver?


----------



## Bman (19 Jan 2010)

Not IMO. The driver is responsible for his/her passengers.


----------



## fossyant (19 Jan 2010)

Bongman said:


> Not IMO. The driver is responsible for his/her passengers.



+1.....I recently reported one, and the cops paid a visit.


----------



## Jezston (19 Jan 2010)

trsleigh said:


> Reading these posts I do sometimes wonder if London in general is less deranged than most of the rest of the country. As a fat, not bald, oldish bloke on a tiny wheeled bike with a silly big bag on the front, I cannot recall any stupid comments in four years of Bromptoneering around West London / West End.



I think it's more of the big city / small town mentality. Riding a bike around a smaller town, particularly where most people live in deep suburbs away from decent public transport and are straight into cars as soon as they hit 17 will see adult cyclists as non-confirmist outsider weirdos or something.

I recall visiting a friend in Canterbury once. Girl had died her hair bright pink - a bit odd you might say but hardly some kind of shocking statement against the core morals of decent society. The kind of thing that wouldn't get a second glance in a major city. Walking around with her she got SO much abuse from dicks driving past in their cars and chavs on the street. They couldn't handle anything out of the ordinary and had to attack it. Weird.


----------



## brokenbetty (19 Jan 2010)

Jezston said:


> I think it's more of the big city / small town mentality....They couldn't handle anything out of the ordinary and had to attack it. Weird.



+1. It's not a bike-specific thing, it's a small town thing.

One of the nicest things about moving from Newcastle to London was finding people didn't have the urge to comment loudly on anyone doing anything out of the ordinary.


----------



## jimboalee (19 Jan 2010)

?

The 'small town' people I know, or knew when I was younger, move around on horseback.
The strange thing however is they rode to the stables on pushbikes.

There's something about a young lady cyclist in Jodhpurs carrying a riding crop.


----------



## jimboalee (19 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> +1. It's not a bike-specific thing, it's a small town thing.
> 
> One of the nicest things about moving from Newcastle to London was finding people didn't have the urge to comment loudly on anyone doing anything out of the ordinary.



Only cyclists riding in the middle of the lane.


----------



## brokenbetty (19 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Only cyclists riding in the middle of the lane.



Actually in two years of London commuting I've only been shouted at once for riding in primary, by someone who had pulled right up to the ASL.

By comparison, I get positive interaction (nods, waves etc) every day.


----------



## jimboalee (19 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> Actually in two years of London commuting I've only been shouted at once for riding in primary, by someone who had pulled right up to the ASL.
> 
> By comparison, I get positive interaction (nods, waves etc) every day.



It was in the summer of 2006 when my last incident occurred. 

That's my 0.286 incidents per year versus your 0.500 incidents per year.

Now if I add in a frig factor for the minor incidents I've forgot in 45 years ( let's say 10 ), my incidents per year will be 0.266.

That's 1 incident every 3 years 9 months, or longer than you've been cycling in London.


----------



## brokenbetty (19 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> That's 1 incident every 3 years 9 months, or longer than you've been cycling in London.



So we have to wait 1 year and 10 months to draw any meaningful conclusion

How many happies do you get a day?


----------



## jimboalee (19 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> So we have to wait 1 year and 10 months to draw any meaningful conclusion
> 
> *How many happies do you get a day*?



Dunno. Don't count and don't care. 

I suppose they're too busy wondering why the cyclist on a brand new bike, wearing a brand new Flouro jacket, with brand new leggings, shoes and gloves; is riding in the middle of the carriageway; when the old codger on the heavy heap they've just passed seemed to know what he's doing.

Anyway, 'Happies' don't threaten to smack my teeth in.


----------



## summerdays (19 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Dunno. Don't count and don't care.
> 
> I suppose they're too busy wondering why the cyclist on a brand new bike, wearing a brand new Flouro jacket, with brand new leggings, shoes and gloves; is riding in the middle of the carriageway; when the old codger on the heavy heap they've just passed seemed to know what he's doing.
> 
> Anyway, 'Happies' don't threaten to smack my teeth in.



Good that means they spotted her.

I must admit it is nice to share smiles with cars - I like the Happies Brokenbetty


----------



## brokenbetty (19 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Dunno. Don't count and don't care.
> 
> I suppose they're too busy wondering why the cyclist on a brand new bike, wearing a brand new Flouro jacket, with brand new leggings, shoes and gloves; is riding in the middle of the carriageway; when the old codger on the heavy heap they've just passed seemed to know what he's doing.
> 
> Anyway, 'Happies' don't threaten to smack my teeth in.



Interesting. Who is this person in the fluoro jacket and the brand new bike? It certainly isn't me. 

The drivers I interact with can see I do know what I am doing and appreciate it. They don't wonder why I'm riding where I do because it's blindingly obvious to anyone with any road sense. However I do see drivers gesture at cyclists creeping up the gutter then suddenly wobbling in front of them at the lights...

But two Norf Lahdan rude boys in a 4x4 did indeed beep at me once because I pulled in front of them at the ASL. So clearly, despite your complete lack of any concrete knowledge of me, my style or my commute, this proves you are right.


----------



## jimboalee (19 Jan 2010)

"I suppose they're too busy wondering why the cyclist on a brand new bike, wearing a brand new Flouro jacket, with brand new leggings, shoes and gloves; is riding in the middle of the carriageway; when the old codger on the heavy heap they've just passed seemed to know what he's doing."

Shall I rephrase that?

I suppose they're too busy wondering why the cyclist on a brand new bike, wearing a brand new Flouro jacket, with brand new leggings, shoes and gloves; is riding in the middle of the carriageway.
They are also a bit bewildered why there was a constant LED rear bicycle lamp, a flashing LED rear bicycle lamp, a rear bicycle reflector and a 5W white front lamp floating down the road with absolutely nothing but a bright red cycling jacket floating along in formation.

They might be thinking... "Why is it I only needed to move across two feet to pass the invisible man on his bike, and I have to slow down to 13 frigging mph and wait for this one."


----------



## brokenbetty (19 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Shall I rephrase that?



Will it make more sense?



jimboalee said:


> I suppose they're too busy wondering why the cyclist on a brand new bike, wearing a brand new Flouro jacket, with brand new leggings, shoes and gloves; is riding in the middle of the carriageway.
> They are also a bit bewildered why there was a constant LED rear bicycle lamp, a flashing LED rear bicycle lamp, a rear bicycle reflector and a 5W white front lamp floating down the road with absolutely nothing but a bright red cycling jacket floating along in formation.



Ah - no. It makes even less sense. Seriously, who is this fantasy fluoro cyclist you are all het up about?



jimboalee said:


> They might be thinking... "Why is it I only needed to move across two feet to pass the invisible man on his bike, and I have to slow down to 13 frigging mph and wait for this one."



If there is room to overtake safely I won't be in primary. If there isn't, I will. It makes it easier for everyone. Simples.


----------



## ttcycle (19 Jan 2010)

Now Jim, despite the thread hijacking cause you're annoyed about forummers disagreeing with you on another thread I have to say that if you're cycling in the gutter, I've many a time experienced passes that were too close hence why I cycle more assertively now- motorists don't always give you two feet when passing. Some don't even see you and you acknowledge that by referring to the invisible cyclist. surely that's just not safe. Brokenbetty is not there to hog the road 24/7 just when the safety margins are narrower to prevent dangerous or close overtakes.

This is such a misplaced point you're trying to hammer in with no backing


----------



## Amanda P (19 Jan 2010)

Jimbo, we've done the debate about primary and all that. Many times, even before you arrived on this forum. You've stated your position clearly, loudly and often. We understand it.

Now can we let the various threads you've hijacked get back to their original topics?


----------



## thomas (19 Jan 2010)

HobbesChoice said:


> My experiences are the same as Broken Betty. I ride in a nice pink hi viz (*get yourself one Thomas *- you'll never look back) and have long hair showing out the back of my crash hat. At lights I'll often get chavs making inappropriate comments, but in general I think I get treated a little better than the men on the bikes. Having said that though, I'm not in a race to get home so it gives me the luxury of being very courteous and I'm more than happy to wait behind a bus rather than play a constant game of leapfrog etc, so I think that does me well in how the buses treat me.



haha, I'll pass on the long hair . Not sold on the pink ....I'm a big lad so would probably look a bit dykey


----------



## jimboalee (19 Jan 2010)

Who's 'Hijacking' threads?

This thread is 'perceptions of cyclists'.

All I've written is my idea of motorist's perception of cyclists.

If my idea of what annoys motorists most is cyclists taking 'primary' position, that's my opinion.

Yes there are some choice phrases on another thread.

The WM Traffic officer saying "Right in the middle of the f*cking lane" and "A bloody silly place to ride a pushbike" still ring in my ear.


Can anyone deny the pro motoring Petrolheads HATE cyclists because, in their opinion, cyclists 'Hog the road'?

It doesn't matter which cyclist is right or wrong about their style. They make their choice based on experience and knowledge of motorist's failings.


----------



## semislickstick (19 Jan 2010)

Do most people only get abuse when in the primary position?

The times I've got it have been when I've been in secondary, ordinary riding, no obstacles and once even on a shared footpath running next to a road. Always lads, always corsa/golf/fiesta type cars.


----------



## addictfreak (19 Jan 2010)

semislickstick said:


> Do most people only get abuse when in the primary position?
> 
> The times I've got it have been when I've been in secondary, ordinary riding, no obstacles and once even on a shared footpath running next to a road. Always lads, always corsa/golf/fiesta type cars.




To be honest its quite rare for me to ride in primary, and the abuse is still forth coming


----------



## SavageHoutkop (19 Jan 2010)

Hmmmm I'm wondering if at the moment it's 'gone back to work stress' - I've also noticed many, many more RLJing motorists than normal (whizzing through after it's gone red; in some cases three cars in a row). On my usual route I don't see this too often; but this week's been mad that way.

My abuse seems to be mostly from pedestrians (no, I'm _not_ on the pavement with them!); or vehicles going the _other_ way; so not sure it's about road positioning. I did get a stupidly close pass followed by yelling out the window before Christmas (my first like this); where I'd picked the middle of the lane as there was solid ice blocking the gutters. Bunch of teenagers in a 2 door corsa. Male. As to be expected, they then got stuck at the next set of traffic lights, and the next, and the next.....(with me whizzing up the inside of the queue of traffic...). There I first saw red, then decided to try explain that there was solid ice on the left; which is why I was further over than His Highness would have liked; but of course the occupants were too testosteroned out to have a discussion. Although, once they discovered I was female, they went for the 'can I have your number' bellow out the window rather than whatever junk came out the first time.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Jan 2010)

Motorist's perception of cyclists and cycling.

As an ex motorcar test driver and employee in the motor industry for 35 years.


"A f*cking nuisance when we're trying to get out of the gate". Land Rover employee, Solihull.

"A bicycle is a weekend toy. Not a way of getting to work". Engineer at Lucas Diesel Systems, Greenville, South Carolina.

"I would remove "Cycling" off your list of personal interests. You won't get a job in the motor industry if you say you're a cyclist". Recruitment agency representative, Central Birmingham.

"Don't come to head office in your cycling clothes. It gives a bad impression of our business". Managing Director SAGEM Automotive Electronics UK, Birmingham.

"I would advise you to stop cycling to work. If you are killed, we would be without an emissions engineer for several months". Human Resourses Manageress, SAGEM Automotive Electronics UK, Birmingham.

"Ever thought about going along the canal towpath? You wouldn't be on the road there". An unknown motorist waiting at traffic lights on Digbeth High St. Birmingham.

And finally,

"Do you always wear lycra shorts that tight?". Julie in finance, SAGEM Automotive Electronics UK, Birmingham


----------



## ttcycle (20 Jan 2010)

Those are just misguided Jim, I'm glad you didn't listen and stayed on the bike-it seems longer than the career in the motor industry. 

Those views are based on misperceptions and actually cycling is a good thing.


----------



## brokenbetty (20 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Motorist's perception of cyclists and cycling.
> 
> As an ex motorcar test driver and employee in the motor industry for 35 years.
> 
> ...



 I look forward to your surveys on bakers' views of dieting, coal-miners' thoughts on smoke-free zones and turkeys' proposals for improving Christmas.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Jan 2010)

I am not a baker or coalminer so don't have anything to say on their behalf.

I have worked with professional motorcar drivers for the number of years I have already stated, so feel qualified to give an opinion of how motorists within their own industry think.

I would be so bold as to say motorists who DO NOT work in the motor industry hold cyclists in a low regard.
I'd better interview some travelling salesmen and window fitters.


----------



## ttcycle (20 Jan 2010)

So what is the point to your post?


----------



## semislickstick (20 Jan 2010)

ttcycle said:


> So what is the point to your post?



He worked in the MOTOR INDUSTRY!!!! Silly.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> I look forward to your surveys on bakers' views of dieting, coal-miners' thoughts on smoke-free zones and turkeys' proposals for improving Christmas.



I've been chatting to the Pastry chef in the works canteen.

He said he got drunk and danced round naked when he heared Robert Atkins had tripped over and died.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Jan 2010)

ttcycle said:


> So what is the point to your post?



What is the point of all these posts?

To waste time.....


----------



## ttcycle (20 Jan 2010)

Well telling a bunch of cyclists that some motorists don't like cyclists---bleeding obvious isn't it? It doesn't add any credence to your must cycle in the gutter attitude though


----------



## J4CKO (20 Jan 2010)

I havent had much shouting at me, generally as I am on country roads in an area generally free of pond life, it does seem to be based on social class, go through a council estate and thats when you get it, its like they have to live up to being idiots, usually kids/young men. I just ignore it totally if possible.

I had one near home, bunch of Chavs, crossing from the (usually nice) pub and he made me stop, I just stopped and said "After you mate" but I did add as I pedalled off, "You do luck a **** with that chain round your neck"  I got told off on here for that but I felt better.


----------



## brokenbetty (20 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I would be so bold as to say motorists who DO NOT work in the motor industry hold cyclists in a low regard.



The classic mark of a bad driver is generally that they see nothing wrong with their driving, it's the rest of the world that is the problem. (This is because the ones that recognise they are bad drivers do something about it or stop driving.)

I agree most drivers would rather cyclists weren't slowing them down. However good drivers have enough road sense to distinguish between "I wish that cyclist wasn't there" and "That cyclist shouldn't be there". Bad drivers don't - they just think no cyclist should be there.

Your memories are most likely a mix of good and bad drivers. Let's see:

"A f*cking nuisance when we're trying to get out of the gate". Land Rover employee, Solihull.
_"I wish that cyclist wasn't there"._ Probably a good driver

"A bicycle is a weekend toy. Not a way of getting to work". Engineer at Lucas Diesel Systems, Greenville, South Carolina.
_"No cyclist should be there"._ Bad driver.

"I would remove "Cycling" off your list of personal interests. You won't get a job in the motor industry if you say you're a cyclist". Recruitment agency representative, Central Birmingham.
"Don't come to head office in your cycling clothes. It gives a bad impression of our business". Managing Director SAGEM Automotive Electronics UK, Birmingham.
NA - these are comments on others' prejudices, not on cyclists.

"I would advise you to stop cycling to work. If you are killed, we would be without an emissions engineer for several months". Human Resourses Manageress, SAGEM Automotive Electronics UK, Birmingham.
_"No cyclist should be there"._ Bad driver. (By the way, are you the engineer of emissions? That explains a lot )

"Ever thought about going along the canal towpath? You wouldn't be on the road there". An unknown motorist waiting at traffic lights on Digbeth High St. Birmingham.
In this case clearly the guy obviously noticed you cowering in the gutter and assumed you didn't know how to ride in traffic. So he doesn't think all cyclists should stay off the road, just you!


----------



## brokenbetty (20 Jan 2010)

And, of course, there are plenty of bad cyclists who fully deserve to be beeped and shouted at.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Who's 'Hijacking' threads?



You are. Pack it in.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2010)

semislickstick said:


> Do most people only get abuse when in the primary position?
> 
> The times I've got it have been when I've been in secondary, ordinary riding, no obstacles and once even on a shared footpath running next to a road. Always lads, always corsa/golf/fiesta type cars.



No. You get more abuse creeping around in the gutter as if you're ashamed of yourself.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2010)

ttcycle said:


> Well telling a bunch of cyclists that some motorists don't like cyclists---bleeding obvious isn't it? It doesn't add any credence to your must cycle in the gutter attitude though



As a professional driver myself - as opposed to someone who's merely worked with them - the thing that annoys me most about cyclists is when they fail to control the traffic behind them (ie, my lorry) by riding assertively.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> As a professional driver myself - as opposed to someone who's merely worked with them - the thing that annoys me most about cyclists is when they fail to control the traffic behind them (ie, my lorry) by riding assertively.



That actually made me LMAO for real!!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> That actually made me LMAO for real!!



 It's true, though. I always do it for them; in other words, I drive as if they're in a strong primary and overtake onl;y when there's plenty of room. The downside of this is that they seem to gat nervous (even though I wait a good way behind them) and start waving me past. Errr, no ... I'll decide when it's safe to overtake, thanks. I wish more people would ride assertively and confidently.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> As a professional driver myself - as opposed to someone who's merely worked with them - the thing that annoys me most about cyclists is when they fail to control the traffic behind them (ie, my lorry) by riding assertively.



You are a professional driver?

You are a driver who has bought or has been given command of a FULLY certificated FINISHED vehicle.
I would say you are a 'delivery boy' who uses a lorry to do the deliveries. Your job is simply moving something from one place to another. A postman does this. Your truck is your tool.

A professional driver, myself included, is a person who is employed to develop the fueling or handling systems on a Prototype 1, PP1 or PP2 ( pre-production ) vehicle and calibrate it to be certificated by government authorities.
His job is to assess the Emissions, Drivability and Performance of said vehicle before Delivery boys can drive them safely. The cars I drove were my workpieces. Digital fuelling microcomputers were my tools.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2010)

If you say so.


----------



## goo_mason (20 Jan 2010)

Ooooo... a semantic battle. Goody!

(_Gets popcorn. Settles back to enjoy the entertainment_)


----------



## semislickstick (20 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> No. You get more abuse creeping around in the gutter as if you're ashamed of yourself.



Secondary isn't gutter ridding is it? I always thought it was a strong position but not trying to control the lane....when there isn't a need for it.


----------



## ttcycle (20 Jan 2010)

jibmbo you're painting a really horrible and arrogant picture of yourself here. Not doing you any favours at all - if you want to convince people of gutter cycling at least use a decent arguement but hang on...there isn't one!!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2010)

semislickstick said:


> Secondary isn't gutter ridding is it? I always thought it was a strong position but not trying to control the lane....when there isn't a need for it.



No, secondary is fine. As is primary of course, when required. But Jimbo seems to be arguing that we should keep out of the way of the all important Car Drivers at all times, which is not a definition even of secondary that I've come across before.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2010)

ttcycle said:


> jibmbo you're painting a really horrible and arrogant picture of yourself here. Not doing you any favours at all - if you want to convince people of gutter cycling at least use a decent arguement but hang on...there isn't one!!



Of course there isn't. That's why he's resorting to childish insults and one - upmanship.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jan 2010)

Let's be fair though, you insulted him first I thought? And there's no coming back from that one, it was down for the count.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Let's be fair though, you insulted him first I thought? And there's no coming back from that one, it was down for the count.



Well, perhaps.


----------



## semislickstick (20 Jan 2010)

Let's all have a lovely cuppa tea and hobnobs all round then.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Jan 2010)

To put the record straight.

My usual riding position on the road is along the inside tyre tracks left by the four wheelers.

It is where there are less little pieces of glass, nails, swarf, drawing pins etc.

I think this is known as 'Secondary'.

'Primary' is in the centre of the lane BETWEEN THE TYRE TRACKS where sharp debris congregates after being flicked by the tyres of four wheelers.

Do you think I'm a complete idiot?


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> To put the record straight.
> 
> My usual riding position on the road is along the *inside tyre tracks left by the four wheelers.*



That last post seems a whole lot more sensible, but it does rather conflict with your previous posts where you wrote how you won't be run over because you ride out of the way of the Very Important and Blind Car Drivers.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Jan 2010)

There have been times however, where I have been seen riding left of secondary.
Left of the 'Lane edge marker' line along the A45 Birmingham Rd between Coventry and Birmingham Airport.


----------



## ttcycle (20 Jan 2010)

I haven't got a disagreement with secondary, it's your suggestion of getting out of the way of motorists to let them pass every time that seems pointless.


----------



## totallyfixed (20 Jan 2010)

To get back on subject, I think there are 2 clear subdivisions of abusive drivers:
1. Those who do it irrespective of who is on the bike, these are the total tossers / psychos / brain dead morons that our society seems to have more than it's fair share of. Absolutely nothing you can do about them except perhaps initiate a selective breeding program.
2. Those who are more selective as to who they pick on. Example, I or my better half rarely suffer from this type of abuser and I think it's because she is obviously a woman, petite and fit looking. I'm 6'4", fit looking and have a friendly terrorist look.

Interestingly when we are in my bigger car that we transport the bikes in I get cut up much less than when driving her small car. A Bully is a bully no matter where you are and cyclists are percieved to be an easy target. One of my real pleasures in life is to rectify this.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> That last post seems a whole lot more sensible, but it does rather conflict with your previous posts where you wrote how you won't be run over because you ride out of the way of the Very Important and Blind Car Drivers.



If there is a motorist behind me and I become conscious of his presence, I will pull left, slow down and let him pass. To my mind, I feel more comfortable doing this than trusting and hoping he is watching me if I have to brake suddenly.

All my ranting was to get you all thinking "What if" if the motorist is not paying attention.

Is this where you all got the impression I was a 'gutter crawler'?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> If there is a motorist behind me and I become conscious of his presence, I will pull left, slow down and let him pass. To my mind, I feel more comfortable doing this than trusting and hoping he is watching me if I have to brake suddenly.



See, that would irritate me, if I was the motorist behind you. It rather reinforces the mindset that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, for a start. You're a legitimate part of the traffic, aren't you? Then behave like it. And that doesn't mean holding primary unnecessarily.


----------



## Norm (20 Jan 2010)

I think that I've only been beeped when riding in primary. There's a fairly long pinch point in Bray village, with no room to overtake for quite a distance through the village, so I'll ride wide there and screw the idiots who get frustrated as the limit is only 20 there anyway. 

I seem to get motorists giving me more room when I'm in secondary, although the only times I've been abused by chavs where when I was in secondary. 

In the gutter, which is where I was riding exclusively until about 6 months ago, I don't recall ever having been beeped or anyone in a car shouting at me or abusing me, but you do get a lot of close passes.


----------



## ttcycle (20 Jan 2010)

Your strategy gives the wrong impression as RT said that cyclists aren't part of traffic flow and on busy roads with high number of cars, how is it practical to pull over every time a car is behind you? There's also the possiblity of letting other motorists know your intention- that is not exclusive to just holding primary but also the glancing back and indicating etc before carrying out any turns etc or just glancing to keep an eye on what's behind.


----------



## I am Spartacus (20 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> If there is a motorist behind me and I become conscious of his presence, I will pull left, slow down and let him pass. To my mind, I feel more comfortable doing this than trusting and hoping he is watching me if I have to brake suddenly.
> 
> All my ranting was to get you all thinking "What if" if the motorist is not paying attention.
> 
> Is this where you all got the impression I was a 'gutter crawler'?





Rhythm Thief said:


> See, that would irritate me, if I was the motorist behind you. It rather reinforces the mindset that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, for a start. You're a legitimate part of the traffic, aren't you? Then behave like it. And that doesn't mean holding primary unnecessarily.



I think you best stick to being a delivery boy... J rides with awareness and sense if he does what he says he does.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2010)

I am Spartacus said:


> I think you best stick to being a delivery boy... J rides with awareness and sense if he does what he says he does.




Oh, I don't have a problem with people pulling over to allow motorists to pass if the road is narrow - on country lanes for example. What I do have a problem with is cyclists pulling out of the way of cars automatically, even when there's room for them to pass, merely in order not to inconvenience them. That reinforces all sorts of negative stereotypes about cyclists and seems to me to be what Jimbo is advocating.


----------



## Norm (20 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> It rather reinforces the mindset that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, for a start. You're a legitimate part of the traffic, aren't you? Then behave like it.


I don't see it that way at all. If I am going slower than the traffic, whether on the bike, in a tractor or in the Land Rover, I'll move across / pull in to allow people past. If I come up behind someone moving slower, I appreciate it when they do the same.

It's not about saying we shouldn't be on the road, it's recognising that we can do something to minimise the inconvenience to others.

Ride a motorbike in France or Ireland and most vehicles you approach from behind will move as far as they can to the kerb to allow you to continue to make progress. I've had cars, lorries, coaches and even a couple of coppers do it for me. Each one of those vehicles is a legitimate part of the traffic, each one has every right to be on the road but their drivers are showing me consideration.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2010)

That was me, not ttcycle. See my post above for clarification of what I meant: I have no problem at all with getting out of the way if there's no other way for faster vehicles to pass.


----------



## ttcycle (20 Jan 2010)

How did you put RT's words quoted by me norm?!

If progress is slow sure and it's down to conditions of the road and how narrow it is but surely if people are making good progress and flowing with traffic this is not necessary.


----------



## I am Spartacus (20 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Oh, I don't have a problem with people pulling over to allow motorists to pass if the road is narrow - on country lanes for example. What I do have a problem with is cyclists pulling out of the way of cars automatically, even when there's room for them to pass, merely in order not to inconvenience them. That reinforces all sorts of negative stereotypes about cyclists and seems to me to be what Jimbo is advocating.



if there is room a plenty then little or no point to baulk and hesitate in the ride....maybe however with more thought on what is behind then that lessens the 'abuse' factor.. which J has submitted figures to prove.
Mind you.. if the pinch point isnt too long.. and I am on the right bike for it.. still fit enough to use acceleration to lessen the burden of those behind me.
I also understand the fluro jacketed ones who persist in stumblin along a busy B road with 20 cars behind them...yeah we all share but there are still enough berks on bikes to keep the negativity alive and well.


----------



## Norm (20 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> That was me, not ttcycle.


It was, sorry!



ttcycle said:


> How did you put RT's words quoted by me norm?!


Sorry to you too! Not sure how that happened. I wonder if I pushed the multiple quote thing then deleted the wrong bits. Apologies to you both.



ttcycle said:


> If progress is slow sure and it's down to conditions of the road and how narrow it is but surely if people are making good progress and flowing with traffic this is not necessary.


Under those circumstances, yes. But the first sentence of my point was "_If I am going slower than the traffic_".

My riding is mostly on country roads with higher limits and making good progress on a bike (or tractor or Land Rover) is not the same as making good progress in a car. Just as I'll hold open a door for someone who is behind me, without conceding that I have every right to use that door, just as I hope that walkers on the towpath will let me through on the bike, I will give space to faster vehicles when riding.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jan 2010)

It seems you might not be that different in your riding from most of us, Jimbo. For example, here's my own riding pulling to the left to let four lorries past me:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua4VKKHpYEA


You have nobody but yourself to blame if you give a misleading impression in your posts.


----------



## J4CKO (20 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> You are a professional driver?
> 
> You are a driver who has bought or has been given command of a FULLY certificated FINISHED vehicle.
> I would say you are a 'delivery boy' who uses a lorry to do the deliveries. Your job is simply moving something from one place to another. A postman does this. Your truck is your tool.
> ...




I would say someone who drives for a living, as his proffession is a Proffessional driver and someone who develops fueling systems for cars is a Proffessional Engineer first and foremost and drives as a by product of his proffession, if you hadn't done your job the vehicle wouldnt work so nobody could drive it.

Personally I would prefer truck drivers to think of themselves as proffessionals rather than someone who merely operates a vehicle to deliver goods, someone who feels he has a standard to live up to or improve on, plus some respect I expect would probably make a better stab of it than someone told that they are a "Delivery Boy" !


----------



## Goldfang (20 Jan 2010)

Along with most people posting on this thread, I get my fair share of abuse from motorists, particularly the local boy racers when I am riding home from work late at night. I think the comment on an earlier post about people not being able to cope with someone doing anything out of the ordinary sums it up. I have an allotment about 10 minutes walk from my house, and every time I come home with a wheelbarrow full of produce, pumpkins/onions etc, I get people screeching abuse at me from passing cars. I am at a loss to explain this behavior? If I walk or cycle to the allotment nobody (generally) says anything. Is it jealousy, beyond their understanding, that cuases this behaviour? As with verbal abuse of cyclists, it tends to be the chavvier/ boy racer type of motorist.
Regards, Goldfang.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Jan 2010)

Goldfang said:


> Along with most people posting on this thread, I get my fair share of abuse from motorists, particularly the local boy racers when I am riding home from work late at night. I think the comment on an earlier post about people not being able to cope with someone doing anything out of the ordinary sums it up. I have an allotment about 10 minutes walk from my house, and every time I come home with a wheelbarrow full of produce, pumpkins/onions etc, I get people screeching abuse at me from passing cars. I am at a loss to explain this behavior? If I walk or cycle to the allotment nobody (generally) says anything. Is it jealousy, beyond their understanding, that cuases this behaviour? As with verbal abuse of cyclists, it tends to be the chavvier/ boy racer type of motorist.
> Regards, Goldfang.



It's because you're wheelbarrowing in 'Primary'.


----------



## brokenbetty (20 Jan 2010)

Goldfang said:


> Is it jealousy, beyond their understanding, that cuases this behaviour? As with verbal abuse of cyclists, it tends to be the chavvier/ boy racer type of motorist.



It's not jealousy. It's asserting their claim to being in the normal pack by publicly rejecting someone who isn't. The subtext is "look, I'm normal! See how I identify and mock those who aren't! Don't turn on me, there's a bloke with a pumpkin over there!"

That's why one never gets mocked by people on their own (angry swearing at cyclists is different). It's not about the mockee at all, it's about reinforcing the bond between the mockers.


----------



## Bman (20 Jan 2010)

I think I may have said this before on this forum:

I hardly get any abuse, especially in contrast to my colleague. He is a jogger, and wears lycra. Where as I cycle in relatively normal clothes (jeans etc). 

The strangest story he told was when he was running along the pavement, gets passed by a small car full of young lads, who pull in ahead of him. As he passes, one of them leans out and takes a picture (with a proper camera, not just a phone).

I can also vouch for this as I sometimes join him on his runs, Although Im riding slower than I normally would, nothing else is different. We get all kinds of leers, cheers and abuse!


----------



## Bromptonaut (20 Jan 2010)

trsleigh said:


> Reading these posts I do sometimes wonder if London in general is less deranged than most of the rest of the country. As a fat, not bald, oldish bloke on a tiny wheeled bike with a silly big bag on the front, I cannot recall any stupid comments in four years of Bromptoneering around West London / West End.
> 
> I suppose it just could be that the sheer numbers of Bromptons have overwhelmed the local morons.



I think there's something in that. As a bloke who's neither fat nor bold (or bald - edit!) but over 50 I ride a B daily in London without comment.

Ride it round Northampton and it's a different story..........


----------



## slowmotion (20 Jan 2010)

I'm a 55 year old bloke who got back on two wheels about six months ago, and pootles around Central London. Yes, I am tempting Fate, but I have been really impressed by the courtesy shown to me as a cyclist by the vast majority of London motorists of all forms and descriptions. I do not think it is my age. I wear the usual stuff and ,from the back, I might be mistaken for a younger person on a hybrid. On my first commute to work, just after getting the bike, a WVM stopped alongside, as I wheezed and gasped on a traffic island and said "Are you OK mate?", with genuine concern in his voice. The usual stereotypes do not apply round here.

I have been honked at on narrow streets a few times by motorists who seem to think I could let them overtake by moving over slightly. It happens when riding down lines of parked cars, and I just refuse to go into the car door zone. My guess is that some drivers have no idea of the risk of moving over under those circumstances, and I can appreciate their frustration. All in all, London drivers are OK, but perhaps I have been lucky, or am too inexperienced to form a valid opinion.

BTW, how close do you people ride to lines of parked cars?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (21 Jan 2010)

Bongman said:


> The strangest story he told was when he was running along the pavement, gets passed by a small car full of young lads, who pull in ahead of him. As he passes, one of them leans out and takes a picture (with a proper camera, not just a phone).



Speaking as quite an enthusiastic amateur photographer, I can understand this. I probably wouldn't have the nerve to lean out of a car and photograph someone in this way, but I can see that there's the potential for a good action shot of someone running.


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

I rode the 'new' strategy last night.

I usually ride up Castle Hill through Warwick at about 8mph on the yellow lines keeping out of the way. The motorists overtake at not more than 5 mph faster because the lane is 10ft wide.

The 'new' strategy was to "take the road", so I rode up the inside lane of the two in Primary, still at 8 mph cus that's how fast I climb that hill.

At the top of the hill, the lane splits into two ( making a three lane width ) for a left filter. Over the brow, I head straight on so I move to primary anyway.

As the lanes split and I take the middle lane, a GIRL in a VW Polo overtakes me on the INSIDE and shouts "C*NT!" as she passes.

So much for taking 'Primary' on a 10ft lane up a hill. Back to the tried and trusted strategy this afternoon.

PS. What she shouted must be the quickest way of getting her thoughts known. She must have practiced it a lot.


----------



## PBancroft (21 Jan 2010)

I think the short answer is driving is stressful. Even when people don't realise it, I really think it is.

If they perceive you to be in their way, slowing them down, or find you at fault for something that someone else once did at some distant point in the past, they will vent their anger at you.


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Hmmmm I'm wondering if at the moment it's 'gone back to work stress' - I've also noticed many, many more RLJing motorists than normal (whizzing through after it's gone red; in some cases three cars in a row). On my usual route I don't see this too often; but this week's been mad that way.
> 
> My abuse seems to be mostly from pedestrians (no, I'm _not_ on the pavement with them!); or vehicles going the _other_ way; so not sure it's about road positioning. I did get a stupidly close pass followed by yelling out the window before Christmas (my first like this); *where I'd picked the middle of the lane as there was solid ice blocking the gutters. Bunch of teenagers in a 2 door corsa.* Male. As to be expected, they then got stuck at the next set of traffic lights, and the next, and the next.....(with me whizzing up the inside of the queue of traffic...). There I first saw red, then decided to try explain that there was solid ice on the left; which is why I was further over than His Highness would have liked; but of course the occupants were too testosteroned out to have a discussion. Although, once they discovered I was female, they went for the 'can I have your number' bellow out the window rather than whatever junk came out the first time.



On a club run when riding in a group, the lead rider will drop a hand and waggle it around to signal a pothole, drain cover, ICE etc.

There is no reason a cyclist cannot do this for a following car to signal a danger in the road they must manouver around.

You can do this OR signal that you are changing your position on the road.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (21 Jan 2010)

In this case, I'd have been waggling a hand the entire ride home as every bloomin' gutter was blocked; never seen ice that bad before or since.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (21 Jan 2010)

slowmotion said:


> BTW, how close do you people ride to lines of parked cars?



Far enough out that I think a door opening will just miss me without my swerving!

If cars want to come past and I'm fairly sure all cars are unoccupied (eg, I usually ride through a suburb where cars are parked in the cycle lane as the owners live in the houses alongside - you get to know which cars are normally parked there 'permanently') I keep the same distance but will pull slightly over to let the cars overtake before pulling back out. 

It's not worth the risk; there are cases of deaths due to dooring recorded in the latest report into cycling deaths in London....


----------



## sheddy (21 Jan 2010)

I think many drivers just don't have the car control to vary their speed and position, they can only drive in a straight line at the speed of the car in front


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

So what's the conclusion?

CycleCraft is the 'Correct' way to ride a bike.

Ride in 'Primary' but move to Secondary when the kerb is clear.
"Be assertive",
Ride in a position where you can be clearly seen,
Etc, etc.

What we are saying is our experiences suggest motorists consider this cycling style to be arrogant, selfish and obstructive.


Then cyclists wonder why motorists shout at, curse and generally dislike cyclists.

Maybe we CAN'T have it both ways. Maybe we should yield sometimes.

Maybe Primary should be in the nearside tyre tracks and Secondary should be in the centre when obstructions are present.


----------



## brokenbetty (21 Jan 2010)

This morning, as most mornings, I had no problems at all. When necessary I rode primary in front of cars (including a few BMWs), white vans, taxis and lorries. Going through Shoreditch I was in primary in the middle of 3 lanes through 4 sets of traffic lights. No one beeped, shouted, gestured, forced past or drove too close behind me.


----------



## brokenbetty (21 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> So what's the conclusion?
> CycleCraft is the 'Correct' way to ride a bike.
> 
> Ride in 'Primary' but move to Secondary when the kerb is clear.
> ...



No, my experiences don't suggest this at all.



jimboalee said:



> Maybe Primary should be in the nearside tyre tracks and Secondary should be in the centre when obstructions are present.



OMG, have you spent all this time assuming because it's called "Primary" it's where people spend the most time? No wonder this thread has gone on for so long!

I doubt anyone spends the majority of their time in primary - it's a safety position taken when the road conditions dictate it. Most people move back to secondary as soon as the pinch point has passed precisely so they don't obstruct drivers from safely overtaking. Most drivers recognise this. This may not be overjoyed to be stuck behind the cyclist but they do understand why.

Of course some drivers still object, but a driver who objects to being prevented from an unsafe manouevuer is nothing more than a bad driver. Accepting roadcraft lessons from bad drivers doesn't seem like a smart approach to me.


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> No, my experiences don't suggest this at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So really, they have been named 'arse about face'!

Primary - prevalent,
Secondary - safety.

That's easy to remember.


I still stand by my conclusions.

Cyclists get shouted at, cursed and 'buzzed' because the motorist thinks the cyclist is taking too much of the carriageway, ie 'getting in the way'.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jan 2010)

Jimbo, you are on a hiding to nothing. Cyclecraft is widely acknowledged as best practice, it's published by the government stationary office, it's recommended by ROSPA, and it's in large part the basis for National Standards/Bikeability cycling. These methods lead to less conflict, fewer incidents and much lower overall risk.

You are simply this: WRONG.


----------



## Origamist (21 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> So what's the conclusion?
> 
> CycleCraft is the 'Correct' way to ride a bike.



Cyclecraft is a distillation of the current received wisdom on how best to ride a bike on the road. However, what is considered best practice has changed over the years and will continue to evolve. 



jimboalee said:


> Ride in 'Primary' but move to Secondary when the kerb is clear.
> "Be assertive",
> Ride in a position where you can be clearly seen,
> Etc, etc.



I'll extend my offer again - if you want me to send you the latest edition of Cyclecraft I'll pop it in the post. It will save you the effort of trying to clumsily condense other peoples' interpretations of the text.



jimboalee said:


> What we are saying is our experiences suggest motorists consider this cycling style to be arrogant, selfish and obstructive.



Some do, most don't. I don't get anywhere near the amount of grief that you seem to imagine and I ride most of my commute in primary.



jimboalee said:


> Then cyclists wonder why motorists shout at, curse and generally dislike cyclists.



Some people have disliked cyclists since the invention of the motor car (and before that), Jim . 



jimboalee said:


> Maybe we CAN'T have it both ways. Maybe we should yield sometimes.



Of course, no one is suggesting otherwise. However, when we want to ride in a more prominent position, we do so for perceived safety reasons.



jimboalee said:


> Maybe Primary should be in the nearside tyre tracks and Secondary should be in the centre when obstructions are present.



I actually have a bit of sympathy with that view - I've never been a fan of the nomenclature used by Franklin.


----------



## brokenbetty (21 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> So really, they have been named 'arse about face'!
> 
> Primary - prevalent,
> Secondary - safety.
> ...


 They haven't been named arse about face, you misunderstood the naming!

Primary - main position in a lane. Usual position for a car
Secondary - sub position in a lane. Usual position for a bike

Sometimes a lane doesn't have room for both primary and secondary positions to be adopted safely, ie for a cyclist riding in secondary to have enough space to avoid car doors, potholes or other obstructions without crossing into a motorist's path. When this happens,a responsible cyclist should move to primary to prevent poor judgement by a motorist creating an unsafe situation.



jimboalee said:
 

> Cyclists get shouted at, cursed and 'buzzed' because the motorist thinks the cyclist is taking too much of the carriageway, ie 'getting in the way'.



No one could disagree with that. The point you are missing is that sometimes the motorist is right but sometimes their assessment of "too much" is just plain wrong. Some people are just bad drivers. If the aim is to never annoy a motorist we might as well all get off the bike as it will never happen. My aim is to never annoy a motorist for longer than is both justifiable and reasonable.


----------



## Dan B (21 Jan 2010)

sheddy said:


> I think many drivers just don't have the car control to vary their speed and position, they can only drive in a straight line at the speed of the car in front


Funny, I got beeped at once for riding in a straight line at the speed of the car in front. By a professional driver, too


----------



## Lurker (21 Jan 2010)

Origamist said:


> I'll extend my offer again - if you want me to send you the lastest edition of Cyclecraft I'll pop it in the post. It will save you the effort of trying to clumsily condense other peoples interpretations of the text.



Sounds like a very good offer - why not go for it?


----------



## psmiffy (21 Jan 2010)

Until I visited this forum I never ever thought about Primary and Secondary - My default position is in the left hand wheel track - I assume that is the secondary - and in the middle of the lane when I want to make myself big when manouvering or where there are "pinch points" - Primary? - If I find that cars are getting closer than I want then I move out a little bit

Following this principle has never caused me get involved in "Verbal Interactions" - Plenty of time when people have yelled at me (as someone else said "in Northampton") - but I suspect the people involved just do it for the hell of it - along with the water pistols and the occasional fruit


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

There is another cycling advice man, he is nuttycyclist.co.uk. 

He calls the positions 'Normal', 'Centre' and 'Right of centre' ( 'cus he's in the UK ). 

I consider this much more sensible.

He refers to CycleCraft often, as he doesn't want to reinvent the wheel. He must have found Franklin's naming logic as confusing as I did, so is kinder to the reader by giving them immediately comprehensible names.

You may argue "What's Normal"?

If you've been living on another planet, you wouldn't have seen a cyclist before in your life, so 'normal' is a position Left of centre or 'in the nearside tyre tracks'.


----------



## Origamist (21 Jan 2010)

He posts mainly on YACF, Jim - but sometimes here too...


----------



## ttcycle (21 Jan 2010)

I think one thing you also need to consider is the speed you are travelling at, I would probably not have taken primary up a hill where you're likely to be making much slower progress unless there was a need to for safety reasons etc. The whole point of primary and secondary is to be part of traffic flow.


----------



## Bollo (21 Jan 2010)

I thought the naming of primary and secondary was borrowed from motorcycle training? Only a vague memory, so I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong.


----------



## Origamist (21 Jan 2010)

Bollo said:


> I thought the naming of primary and secondary was borrowed from motorcycle training? Only a vague memory, so I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong.



I don't think the terms were/are used in motorcycle training - but if anyone knows different, I'd be interested to hear (that is not to say that cyclist best practice has not been informed by motorcycle training in other regards).


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

Origamist said:


> I don't think the terms were/are used in motorcycle training - but if anyone knows different, I'd be interested to hear (that is not to say that cyclist best practice has not been informed by motorcycle training in other regards).



When I took M/C training, the usual 'normal' position was in the outside tyre tracks because a M/C can travel at the speed of the traffic and it's away from being 'doored' at all times.


----------



## jimboalee (21 Jan 2010)

" If the rule is to drive on the left-hand side of the road, the best position to ride in is the clear patch to the left of the centre line (the right tyre track, in other words). This will give you a buffer zone from the edge of the road, and keep you off the oil slick in the middle of the lane. You will also have a good view of side streets. "

Quote BBC H2G2.


----------



## Matthames (21 Jan 2010)

On my ride today there is a good example of when you must ride in primary. There is a bridge that goes over a railway track. This bridge is fairly narrow with brick wall either side. To make matters worse the bridge is on a blind corner so you have no idea what traffic is going to come the other way. If I were to take secondary there is a good chance I would be squashed against the wall as some muppet tries overtake and suddenly comes across a car coming the other way. 

Having said that I had some impatient moton beep me on this section all because I was in primary. When he did eventually pass me, he did suggest that I masturbate a lot. You are always going to get drivers like this who really can't consider the hazards faced with other road users and don't like being held up for a couple of seconds.


----------



## Arch (21 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> He refers to CycleCraft often, as he doesn't want to reinvent the wheel. He must have found Franklin's naming logic as confusing as I did, so is kinder to the reader by giving them immediately comprehensible names.



Funny, when I read Cyclecraft, I understood fine. Of course I had the benefit of actually reading the book and seeing the diagrams, as opposed to not reading it and jumping to the wrong conclusion.

It's been explained, probably hundreds of times, to newbies, and yet you've managed to misunderstand all this time?

Still, your assertion that someone who drives for a living is not a professional driver is priceless, and it's been worth it for the laugh I got from that.


----------



## Glow worm (21 Jan 2010)

I think a pretty large minority of motons are utter f*ckwits. They behave like spoilt children. If you even momentarily stop the imbeciles doing as they please (by getting in their way as they percieve it) they throw their toys out of the pram with the usual moronic shouting or impotent beeping. Muppets. I sometimes wonder if I'm part of the same species - especially when I look at all the filthy shite they chuck out of their cages onto verges (why do they piss in bottles?). Can't wait for £20 per gallon petrol.

That said, so far so good on the new year resolution front. I said to myself I will no longer react to cager's idiocy and let it pass me serenly by. I've found I'm a lot calmer and enjoy the ride far more. Apart from a bang on a streak if piss's window when it's cage passed me within an inch- it's worked a treat. Ignore the f*ckers that's my advice.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (21 Jan 2010)

Arch said:


> Still, your assertion that someone who drives for a living is not a professional driver is priceless, and it's been worth it for the laugh I got from that.



That made me laugh as well. I presume also that because I only ride bikes - as opposed to designing them - I'm also not a "cyclist" (and neither is Lance Armstrong, come to that) and because I play a guitar but have never built my own, I'm also not yet a "guitarist".


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jan 2010)

FWIW, I think primary is the right name. According to John Franklin, it's the default position on the road, and rightly so. Secondary is what you use in concession to faster traffic to make it easier for them to pass you. On an empty road I'll be riding in the middle of the lane.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> FWIW, I think primary is the right name. According to John Franklin, it's the default position on the road, and rightly so. Secondary is what you use in concession to faster traffic to make it easier for them to pass you. On an empty road *I'll be riding in the middle of the lane*.



Where there's more likelyhood of there being oil drippings, diesel spillages and small sharp pieces of glass etc, just wanting to get stuck into a bike tyre.

I would ride in secondary, or the 'nearside tyre tracks', where there's less probability of me getting oil splashed up me, slipping on spilled diesel or picking up a near invisible bit of broken beer glass.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> FWIW, I think primary is the right name. According to John Franklin, it's the default position on the road, and rightly so. Secondary is what you use in concession to faster traffic to make it easier for them to pass you. On an empty road *I'll be riding in the middle of the lane*.



I would have thought a recumbent rider, who has a lower viewpoint of the surface ahead, would make a consious effort to stay out of the shoot down the middle.


----------



## tdr1nka (22 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> When I took M/C training, the usual 'normal' position was in the outside tyre tracks because a M/C can travel at the speed of the traffic and it's away from being 'doored' at all times.



And as an urban cyclist, I can and will do the same. No more in anyones way than a motorbike if I'm travelling at the same speed as the traffic.

The problem with this is drivers who believe they should be in my space and less than a cars length ahead.

As a recumbent rider you spend more time in the lane as drivers are generally more reticent about overtaking 'bents'.

And there is just as much road cr*p to the left of the lane as there is in the middle.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jan 2010)

> If it's an empty road then you'll be able to see all these things.



I take it you never get a puncture because you can see the tiniest of tiny shard of glass on the road at five meters distance.

And that's pretty good going for a guy who wears shades on a dull day.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jan 2010)

Jimbo, you keep making wrong assumptions. Who said I'm riding *exactly* in the middle of the diesel tracks? The middle of the lane might easily include a little to the left or right of the dirty track, enough to be out of the worst of it. Besides, in London the whole track effect is much less common than out in the sticks because of the weight of traffic.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jan 2010)

If you really want crap to ride in, use cycle lanes/paths.


----------



## ttcycle (22 Jan 2010)

jimbo are you still going with this one? Actually my experience of road conditions and crap left on the road has been to the left and in cycle lanes. 

Try it, you might be pleasantly surprised. What's your average speed on your commute? User commutes in your end of the country and seems to not have an issue with primary when needed


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jan 2010)

Is the average speed of traffic in London less than in the sticks?

Is this why when a stretch of clear road appears, Mr Motorist tries to make best advantage of it?

When traffic congregates and slows, the cyclist who rides in primary is making less nuisance due to his ability to ride with the traffic?

Out in the sticks, where traffic moves easier and is on average, faster than round London?? a cyclist in Primary poses more of an obstruction to traffic flow??

This afternoon, on a short section of Birmingham's Outer Circle ( in the pissing down rain ), I was not able to keep with the traffic at 30 mph, so only went into Primary when the lane narrowed or where there was central bollards. All other times I was in secondary or letting traffic pass on clear stretches.

As you can detect, I am home now and in one piece.


----------



## ttcycle (22 Jan 2010)

I know your roads well - I would say the average speed limits are much higher- with 30/40 being average speeds. In London - central bit the limits can vary but you do tend to move with the flow of the traffic if not faster and making better progress then cars due to the sheer amount of drivers. What you describe above ie going into primary when the lane narrows etc is simply what some of us have been doing. Primary can be kept to mostly as I guess (when I was fitter -ahah) that I could average 18mph-20mph if on a very good day on the quieter roads and would be making the same progress as cars- of course you always get the odd twat who speeds and thinks he's the only important thing on the road. I know that cycling in Brum and down here are different but what you desc above is what most of us do.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jan 2010)

Ah, you are slowly getting the idea. Primary when appropriate, and secondary when appropriate too.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Ah, you are slowly getting the idea. Primary when appropriate, and secondary when appropriate too.




I've been slowly getting the idea since 1971 when my parents let me out of my own neighbourhood to see the delights of Stratford upon Avon and taste the delights of the ice cream shop in Henley in Arden.

There wasn't any 'Primary' and 'Secondary' back then. The policeman who came to give us our National Cycling Proficiency lessons told us to 'keep to the left at all times'.

But on the town's roads and the road through Henley where the lanes narrowed, it was called "move across ( into the middle ) to stop the bastards pushing you into the curb"

A bunch of twelve year olds riding through a town main street like they 'owned the road'? That's not what the copper said, but it was safer.

Nowadays, I ride any one of several bikes. One is dead slow and I can't be dawdling around in the middle ( only when I NEED to stop the bastards pushing me into the curb ) for very long. So it's mainly on the left, and when conditions dictate, slow to let the motorists through.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jan 2010)

So if you do believe in cyclecraft after all, why this long topic arguing points with which you agree? Or are you just on a silly windup mission? Let's face it, you haven't done your CC reputation any good at all here.


----------



## ttcycle (22 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> So if you do believe in cyclecraft after all, why this long topic arguing points with which you agree? Or are you just on a silly windup mission? Let's face it, you haven't done your CC reputation any good at all here.



That's right...you're contradicting yourself/backtracking like there's not tommorow


----------



## Norm (22 Jan 2010)

I think that is a perception / misunderstanding thing as well.

Confusions have arisen from the meaning of "primary", the time to use / not use "primary" and the significance of allowing cars to pass when there is space available.

For me, those confusions have not been exclusively Jimbo's. (And I'm not just saying that because I'm heading up to meet him in the morning.  )


----------



## jimboalee (23 Jan 2010)

OK jimbo, why all the to-ing and fro-ing and all the contradictory prose all through this thread?

Well lads, I wanted to keep this thread near the top of the list waiting for someone to say what I am hearing off the vast majority of cyclists who are older than forty.

I gave two clues in my last post. The policeman told us to “keep to the left at all times”, and “A bunch of twelve year olds riding through a town main street like they 'owned the road'.

Back in the late sixties, early seventies, there were about a quarter of the number of cars as today, and popular cars were somewhat smaller than today’s models. There was lots of room for a cyclist on the left and a car. This is the reason for PC Plod’s advice.

Now you have to remember Mr Franklin first published in 1988, and had probably been researching and writing for a few years before that. Where did he get all these ideas about ‘riding in his Primary’ and ‘keeping out of the doorzone’?
By own experience and talking to experienced cyclists, the CTC and well respected club riders?

My schoolchums and I, and subsequent riding groups whom I rode with before Mr Franklin's book appeared, rode in a manner much like what Mr Franklin later advised.

Did no-one else on this chatboard ride ‘sensibly’ before CycleCraft became available?

As for the 21st century Newbie. Buy a copy of CycleCraft and learn the ‘code’ contained within. OR, find a cycle club and watch how they ride. The styles will not be dissimilar, but the older club riders will be Precyclecraftites.

As for being abusively shouted at by motorists. My first incident in 1995ish was when I rode in ’Primary’ or ‘took the road’. This was something I and many, many cyclists had been doing for years, and in those days, I didn’t even know CycleCraft existed!
Now there is this book which tells the newbie cyclist the safest place to ride is in ‘Primary’. In the same number of years, road traffic has trebled, so no wonder incidents of abuse from motorists are on the increase.


----------



## hackbike 666 (23 Jan 2010)

I will cycle the way I am happy with and if people on here don't like it tough.

Also I haven't read cyclecraft and the book mysteriously disappeared.
I have no plans to either.

Call it cocky but I see a lot of arrogance on here.


----------



## semislickstick (23 Jan 2010)

I think that cycle craft has a lot of the lessons I leant the hard way over many years.
You can take what you want from it.

But back to being yelled at.
Again, last night I had a chav wagon with 4 young males in, accelerate up behind me on a tight village bendy road as I had my arm out turning right, and tell me to get a car, (thanks rebuttal section for the 'if you get on a bus' reply ;-)
They followed me then u-turned.....then.....after shouting out the reg plate for the muvi camera I got.....


*.....an apology from the driver!!! First time ever!!*

Is it silly season for chav car comments? Even by my usual winter standards it seems a high ratio to me.


----------



## Bman (23 Jan 2010)

semislickstick said:


> They followed me then u-turned.....then.....after shouting out the reg plate for the muvi camera I got.....
> 
> 
> *.....an apology from the driver!!! First time ever!!*



 !

This has to be seen to be believed!


----------



## Arch (23 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Well lads, I wanted to keep this thread near the top of the list waiting for someone to say what I am hearing off the vast majority of cyclists who are older than forty.



Oh right. You weren't just misunderstanding and then trying to wriggle out...

Age doesn't matter a jot, so get off your age high horse. Experience does matter. Someone returning to cycling having never done it since they were a kid, and then possibly with no training or advice at all, needs to know how to make themselves as safe as possible. They can listen to you banging on about your childhood cycling, or they can buy and read a book, or they can do both. They are not mutually exclusive. You apparently got primary and secondary mixed up, and spent the first half of the thread apparently telling people not to do what you then told them to do once you twigged. So I'd suggest the book is a more reliable witness... What you call primary doesn't matter, as long as the newbie understands, which I think over the years most of those who've asked here have done because they listened and didn't jump to conclusions....


----------



## BentMikey (23 Jan 2010)

Ah, it's the old I'll pretend I wasn't such a twit saying all that nonsense line.


----------



## tdr1nka (23 Jan 2010)

S'funny, I'm over Forty and I still consider Cylecraft(which has been revised regularly and not stuck in 1988)as a valuable tool for cyclists.
Not everyone wants to join a club and not everyone feels the need to get training so to recommend Cyclecraft as important reading for cyclists wouldn't seem such a bad idea now would it?

Road safety has moved on a bit since the days of the Tufty Club, there are different names for things and where needed drills have been changed to suit the roads and the increase in traffic of the modern age.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jan 2010)

tdr1nka said:


> S'funny, I'm over Forty and I still consider Cylecraft(which has been revised regularly and not stuck in 1988)as a valuable tool for cyclists.
> Not everyone wants to join a club and not everyone feels the need to get training so to recommend Cyclecraft as important reading for cyclists wouldn't seem such a bad idea now would it?
> 
> Road safety has moved on a bit since the days of the Tufty Club, *there are different names for things* and where needed drills have been changed to suit the roads and the increase in traffic of the modern age.



This is another point worthy of discussion. After talking to lots of experienced cyclists who didn’t have any particular terminology for road positioning, Franklin made up some names.
He called the centre of the carriageway ‘Primary’ and the part of the road in the nearside tyre tracks ‘Secondary’.
“Arse about face” as soon as I first read the book.

Riding with groups of cyclist for many years, the ‘normal’ position ( re. nuttycyclist ) is the ‘First’ position to be, and ‘the middle’ is the second position to be when there are obstructions or you don’t want the vehicles following to come past you.

It took a few years for Franklin’s nomenclature to be accepted and now it’s carved in granite within the minds of his disciples, including the bureaucratic numbsculls in transport planning offices throughout the land.

The fact of the matter is, Franklin ‘cocked up’, but then realised it was too late to correct the blunder once the book had gone into print.

It is a dreadful error, giving new cyclists the confused idea they can ride down the middle of the carriageway, ‘bold as brass’ and motorists won’t mind a jot.

Franklin’s ‘Secondary’ should be primary, the position where the cyclist is seen and where the motorist needs to manouver round to pass when he can. Franklin’s ‘Primary’ should be called Secondary, the position taken by the cyclist when there is a hazard in the road ahead.


----------



## brokenbetty (24 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> This is another point worthy of discussion. After talking to lots of experienced cyclists who didn’t have any particular terminology for road positioning, Franklin made up some names.
> He called the centre of the carriageway ‘Primary’ and the part of the road in the nearside tyre tracks ‘Secondary’.
> “Arse about face” as soon as I first read the book.
> 
> Riding with groups of cyclist for many years, the ‘normal’ position ( re. nuttycyclist ) is the ‘First’ position to be, and ‘the middle’ is the second position to be when there are obstructions or you don’t want the vehicles following to come past you..



Is there a bangs-head-against-wall smiley anywhere?

They are Primary and Secondary in relation to the road itself, not from the point of view of a specific road user.


----------



## thomas (24 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> The fact of the matter is, Franklin ‘cocked up’, but then realised it was too late to correct the blunder once the book had gone into print.




If he cocked up he could change it. Rewrite sections and republish it as a newer edition.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> If he cocked up he could change it. Rewrite sections and republish it as a newer edition.



And confuse everyone even MORE...


Honestly, I've had worse 'bitter and twisted', 'acidic' response from Franklin's disciples on this chatboard than from my parish Vicar concerning my views of the Bible.

Am I going to be excommunicated?

RDRDR


----------



## thomas (24 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> And confuse everyone even MORE...



I'm sure my old school text books says that Pluto is a planet....but I doubt the new ones do. Not that confusing.

When I'm feeling better I might do a video on how I use primary (and secondary). There are some good roads around where I live to demonstrate how I use them.


----------



## Norm (24 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> I'm sure my old school text books says that Pluto is a planet....but I doubt the new ones do. Not that confusing.


But switching the names primary and secondary would be more akin to calling the star at the heart of our solar system "Pluto". You'd need to come up with completely different names.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> But switching the names primary and secondary would be more akin to calling the star at the heart of our solar system "Pluto". You'd need to come up with completely different names.



It would be more akin to calling the star at the heart of our solar system "an insignificant yellow sun in the western spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy", and

calling the Earth "a speck of dust in the enormity of the universe".


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2010)

There strikes me as no need for revision of a text - which I've never read either - when only one person is confused about what it says.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> There strikes me as no need for revision of a text - which I've never read either - when only one person is confused about what it says.



I am not confused. I understand what Franklin is saying. 

I am merely discussing the logic.

Does it really matter?

How many motorists have shouted "Get out of Primary into Secondary you f*cking tw*t!"

The two who shouted at me shouted "Get out the middle of the road you f*cking tw*t!"


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jan 2010)

OK, so it's a teaching technique.

I only wish he'd given it a bit more thought.


----------



## brokenbetty (24 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> And confuse everyone even MORE...



Everyone? It's only you who is confused. Despite your best efforts to spread that confusion, it remains pretty clear to everyone else. Even people who haven't even read the book but just this thread have been able to match Franklin's terms to their own experience easily.

I don't think Franklin is going to re-write his book to define everything in terms relative to Jimboalee. Any increase in clarity would, I suggest, be somewhat local.



jimboalee said:


> Honestly, I've had worse 'bitter and twisted', 'acidic' response from Franklin's disciples on this chatboard than from my parish Vicar concerning my views of the Bible.



You haven't had bitter and twisted responses. You've had very polite, reserved responses. You, however, have just compared everyone who didn't share what you yourself now acknowledge to be a misunderstanding to religious zealots. Classy.


----------



## thomas (24 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> But switching the names primary and secondary would be more akin to calling the star at the heart of our solar system "Pluto". You'd need to come up with completely different names.



I meant more that if Franklin was wrong he could rewrite it. Scientists changed their mind over pluto.



jimboalee said:


> How many motorists have shouted "Get out of Primary into Secondary you f*cking tw*t!"
> 
> The two who shouted at me shouted "Get out the middle of the road you f*cking tw*t!"



Therefore every motorist who hasn't yelled at you for using 'primary' has understood what it is and believes it to be safe.


----------



## Origamist (24 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> It took a few years for Franklin’s nomenclature to be accepted and now it’s carved in granite within the minds of his disciples, including the bureaucratic numbsculls in transport planning offices throughout the land.



Most people recommend the text simply because it helped them. To suggest that the ideas contained in Cyclecraft have infiltrated the offices of town planners and trafifc engineers in county and city councils is not true in my experience (they would not know what primary or secondary position meant, and neither do the majority of people who ride bikes in this country, for that matter).



jimboalee said:


> The fact of the matter is, Franklin ‘cocked up’, but then realised it was too late to correct the blunder once the book had gone into print.



I'd say confusion can arise as some people associate the "primary position" with where you would normally ride your bike (but even that fluctuates depending on the conditions). This misinterpreation is perhaps understandable, but Franklin uses the term to define primary as the default riding position in the centre of the lane, and not where most cyclists spend the majority of their time riding (which is secondary or even further to the left). Once this distinction has been made, it's not a difficult concept to grasp - the real issue is when to deploy primary or secondary.



jimboalee said:


> *It is a dreadful error,* giving new cyclists the confused idea they can ride down the middle of the carriageway, ‘bold as brass’ and motorists won’t mind a jot.



Not really - Franklin suggests where it is advisable to take the lane/use primary (including how best to do this - negotiation etc). However, the book does not really address the abuse/treatment that you can sometimes expect in these situations. Hurst looks at some of the myths and issues of taking lane in the "Art of Cycling".



jimboalee said:


> Franklin’s ‘Secondary’ should be primary, the position where the cyclist is seen and where the motorist needs to manouver round to pass when he can. Franklin’s ‘Primary’ should be called Secondary, the position taken by the cyclist when there is a hazard in the road ahead.



Whatever nomenclature (dominant or subordinate, central or marginal etc) is used to delineate sharing the lane from taking the lane - it's always going to be open to interpretation on the ground.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jan 2010)

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/technique-road-positioning-197

Here's BikeRadar's view on the subject.

Note the date of the article. Made me smile.



Here's a snippet for the lazy ones who don't follow the link.

[The primary position is generally the safest for the cyclist, the secondary being an option available to you that helps traffic behind see ahead and overtake you. *But you should only adopt the secondary position if you don't put your own safety at risk in the process*.
The primary position is especially useful to you at junctions, on narrow roads when there isn't enough room for those behind to overtake (even though they might feel tempted), and in busy, slow-moving traffic. It's precisely in these circumstances that you need the advantages that the primary position confers - space around you to react, high visibility to other road users and, usually, the smoothest road surface. This position is also known as 'taking the lane'.]

The part I have highlighted is telling the newbie/nervous cyclist they should ride in 'primary' unless they think it is safe to ride in 'secondary'. the newbie will take note of this and ride along as fast as they dare in 'primary', at the annoyance of the motoist who are waiting for them to move over to the left.

Please note as well, "the secondary being an option available". An OPTION... It's the place all sensible cyclists spend most of the riding miles.

The second paragraph of this extract is quite true and proper. 

Every Sunday morning, the Solihull CC go on their club runs. The route out of town follows a 'National speed limit' dual carriageway. Motorists are accelerating up to the 70 mph limit and watching over their right shoulder to merge onto the Solihull Bypass up to the M42 junction.

Do you think ANY of the Solihull CC riders ride in 'Primary' along that stretch of road? NO. They ride along the left watching over their shoulders for stray cars.
Likewise, when I'm on my way home from work travelling in the opposite direction each busy afternoon, I'm NOWHERE near the 'primary' position. I'm closer to the curb than secondary, keeping out of the way of the 65 -70 mph cars.
Further on, the speed limit reduces to 40 and the road reduces to single carriageway with 12' lanes. Primary? NO. Secondary? YES.
Then I go into urban 30. 10' lanes. Primary? NO. Secondary? YES.

When I'm out-and-about round Birmingham. How many cyclists do I see riding in 'primary' as the 'default' position? Bugger all. They use the 'Normal' road position, and only shift to 'Primary' to stop the motorist behind pushing through.

If I rode in 'Primary' on the roads I describe, I'm sure I would recieve a few shouts of dismay from motorists who have needed to brake to avoid me and then wait to pass me.


----------



## hackbike 666 (24 Jan 2010)

*

If I rode in 'Primary' on the roads I describe, I'm sure I would recieve a few shouts of dismay from motorists who have needed to brake to avoid me and then wait to pass me.*

It wouldn't be dismay it would be get out off the effing way,that is if they didn't try and take you out with dangerous driving of which happened to me with a black cab in Central London.

Yes I have tried it but I still prefer the way I have always cycled.


----------



## brokenbetty (24 Jan 2010)

No one is disputing your description of sensible cycling - it's what all of us do. If there are cars around ride primary if the conditions dictate it, otherwise secondary.

You misunderstood some commonly used terms then criticised what you assumed, based on this misunderstanding, was a common and recommended riding style.

Now you understand you were mistaken, but instead of gracefully acknowledging your error, you are trawling the internet for phrases that might hypothetically lead an inexperienced cyclist to ride in this style so you can continue to argue against it. 

Once again, no one rides as you are suggesting, and the only reason you thought they did was a misunderstanding. You are fighting a straw man.


----------



## thomas (24 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> If I rode in 'Primary' on the roads I describe, I'm sure I would recieve a few shouts of dismay from motorists who have needed to brake to avoid me and then wait to pass me.



I'm sure you'll agree it's better to be shouted at, than injured or dead. Sensible use of primary position can be a benefit.


----------



## tdr1nka (24 Jan 2010)

No-one here is advocating, as Jim seems so keen to believe, single mindedly grinding away at thirteen MPH with a tailback of furious traffic behind us.

Lets just try to be clear one more time, the terms 'Primary' and 'Secondary' refer to our position within the traffic.

There are times when being secondary to traffic is not safe, approaching a run of parked cars, for example.
It is here you would signal your intention to pull out, early and clearly, wait for a following gap in the traffic and pull out to avoid the parked cars, keeping away from the doors as well.
You then continue in this road position until there is enough space to, indicate clearly your intention to pull back into secondary, and let the traffic pass.
I always wave and give a thumbs up as I pull over.

The majority of drivers respect and can cope with this kind of cycling, only the occasional hot head driver takes exception and mostly because they are quite happily and unreservedly ignorant about sharing the road with anyone, let alone cyclists, and _everyone_ is in their way.

It is preferable to remain in primary as long as you are not being an unnecessary obstruction. 
The problem is that everyone has varying views as to what is considered an obstruction or what is an otherwise insignificant delay and simple respect for another road user.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jan 2010)

tdr1nka said:


> No-one here is advocating, as Jim seems so keen to believe, single mindedly grinding away at thirteen MPH with a tailback of furious traffic behind us.
> 
> Lets just try to be clear one more time, the terms 'Primary' and 'Secondary' refer to our position within the traffic.
> 
> ...



I have just ridden in such a situation riding back from my son's.

I put out of my head ( totally forgot any notion of 'primary' and 'secondary' ) all that Franklin's book suggests; and rode to a style I adopted years before Franklin thought of his wretched book.

What you have described could have been me this afternoon. Signalling, moving across to the centre out of the doorswing and riding along past the parked cars.
Does it really need a book to ride past a row of parked cars?

As a matter of fact, the roads around my home town were lined with parked cars when I was seven, and I twigged this method of riding past them without needing to study a book.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I have just ridden in such a situation riding back from my son's.
> 
> I put out of my head ( totally forgot any notion of 'primary' and 'secondary' ) all that Franklin's book suggests; and rode to a style I adopted years before Franklin thought of his wretched book.
> 
> ...



Well, maybe you don't. And on past form, you'd misunderstand it anyway. I've never read Cyclecraft myself. But there are plenty of people out there who have found Franklin's book useful and ride better because of it. Just because road sense comes to the likes of you and me naturally doesn't mean that's the case for everybody.


----------



## Origamist (24 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> What you have described could have been me this afternoon. Signalling, moving across to the centre out of the doorswing and riding along past the parked cars.
> Does it really need a book to ride past a row of parked cars?
> 
> As a matter of fact, the roads around my home town were lined with parked cars when I was seven, and I twigged this method of riding past them without needing to study a book.



I live on a road with on-street parking on both sides. If you want to avoid a possible dooring you have to ride just left of the centre line. I watch approx 4 out of every 5 cyclists ride in the door zone everyday. I guess this is because people don't recognise the inherent risk (underestimating the likelihood and consequences of hitting a car door or swerving to avoid one). 

Beginners should not have to learn the hard way or rely on so called "common sense" (when riding more centrally is actually counter-intuitive to many) that's why Cyclecraft and Bikeability training provides a useful short-cut to years of experience.


----------



## ttcycle (24 Jan 2010)

jimbo I rode primary/secondary just out of experience of what works on the road through commuting day in and day out- came across cyclecraft from being on here - interesting book, if it helps people cycle better and more safely there's no issue for me.

Just admit it - you were confused...no problem!


----------



## tdr1nka (24 Jan 2010)

Yes, of course there is a need for a book like Cyclecraft, as I have said, and others will testify, not everyone comes to cycling via a club or an internet forum and not all about cycling is common sense to every individual.

What is so diabolical about there simply being approved guidelines for those new to cycling on the roads or is it the fact you didn't think of jotting it all down a publishing 'The Book On Cycling' yourself?

The only wretched thing is the one thing you continually fail to admit, that most drivers are woefully and inadequately educated as to how to share the road with cyclists or even how we are encouraged to ride for our own safety.

All I hear in your posts is a brooding malcontent shaking his fist at modern and revised approaches to the way he has always cycled.

As you have proven in your posts, you use and approve of the 'Primary' & 'Secondary' positioning when it is used in an appropriate context by the individual concerned.

So I would say it is disingenuous, to say the least, to generalise that all those who ride, sometimes predominantly, in a Primary position are in some way deliberately holding up traffic and should accept any resulting grief from drivers.

You have only your experience which is valid but you are in no position(primary or secondary)to judge others who use these road positionings to good and regular effect and without annoying drivers when doing so.

I think we're on the same page only you feel the need to trash Cyclecraft simply because it just doesn't say things the way you want to hear them.
It's like you're still refusing to go decimal or something.

There is enough negativity out there toward cyclists without you encouraging cyclists away from some of the better sources of safety and HC information available to them.


----------



## boydj (24 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I have just ridden in such a situation riding back from my son's.
> 
> I put out of my head ( totally forgot any notion of 'primary' and 'secondary' ) all that Franklin's book suggests; and rode to a style I adopted years before Franklin thought of his wretched book.
> 
> ...



So why have we had umpteen pages of you whinging about 'primary' when it seems pretty clear that nobody spends any more time in the 'primary' position than they deem necessary to get past the more dangerous parts of their route? Have you ever seen anybody unnecessarily holding primary in heavy traffic? I certainly haven't!

While the terminology might not be the most intuitive, its use in teaching road positioning in traffic makes sense when properly explained and therefore makes for a useful shorthand for an instructor.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jan 2010)

tdr1nka said:


> Yes, of course there is a need for a book like Cyclecraft, as I have said, and others will testify, not everyone comes to cycling via a club or an internet forum and not all about cycling is common sense to every individual.
> 
> What is so diabolical about there simply being approved guidelines for those new to cycling on the roads or is it the fact you didn't think of jotting it all down a publishing 'The Book On Cycling' yourself?
> 
> ...



Very well put.

I'll ride to CycleCraft this coming week. I'm flicking through it now.

Bet you Half a Crown I get shouted at.


----------



## tdr1nka (24 Jan 2010)

You're not supposed to read it while you're actually riding btw.


----------



## ttcycle (24 Jan 2010)

Jimbo, the issue of being shouted out is not the fault of primary - it is bad attitude from drivers who do not think cyclists should be using the same roads as they are. That is a misguided opinion and is something separate to primary/secondary. 

The only way this will change is more cyclists on the road-ie the idea of critical mass (the only effect increasing safety is higher number of cyclists) and basically, if people cycle well and believe and know it to be safe then the rest falls into place. Challenge those numb skulls with the pathetic attitude and doing it while riding well and with politeness.

Enjoy the read jimbo


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2010)

ttcycle said:


> The only way this will change is more cyclists on the road-ie the idea of critical mass ...



Now that's another debate altogether ...


----------



## marinyork (24 Jan 2010)

Talking of this thread, I had my first aggressive experience in London yesterday and that was more or less being in primary ala Jimboalee . Wonderful stuff.


----------



## ttcycle (24 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Now that's another debate altogether ...



of course, I do mean it in the sense of the term critical mass rather than the group rides 'critical mass' just to be clear.

Sorry to hear that Marin - ah well- stupid motorist..what were you doing down here?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2010)

ttcycle said:


> of course, I do mean it in the sense of the term critical mass rather than the group rides 'critical mass' just to be clear.



Riiiiight, sorry. In that case I quite agree.


----------



## marinyork (24 Jan 2010)

I went to see a musical yesterday and being an insane sensible person used the best form of transport to get across london which was again pretty enjoyable. I was surprised by the level of traffic further out in west london though and I think that was where the frustration was at . Apart from a squareabout it was a pretty good experience.


----------



## ttcycle (24 Jan 2010)

Glad to hear it wasn't too bad. Though musicals? hmmm?!


----------



## BentMikey (24 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> and rode to a style I adopted years before Franklin thought of his wretched book.



Don't blame Franklin - it's not his book that's wretched in this topic.


----------



## thomas (24 Jan 2010)

ttcycle said:


> The only way this will change is more cyclists on the road-ie the idea of *critical mass* (the only effect increasing safety is higher number of cyclists) and basically, if people cycle well and believe and know it to be safe then the rest falls into place. Challenge those numb skulls with the pathetic attitude and doing it while riding well and with politeness.




I believe that critical mass as a term (rather than just the cycle event) is also to do with the idea that if there is enough that group can push through.

So at junctions, when there is a backlog the side with most traffic can force there way across in a 'critical mass'....so even that could have negative connotations.

Certainly, the more of us on the roads, the less problems we will have.

ps: Critical mass has been fun 50% of the times I've done it.....twice


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

marinyork said:


> I went to see a musical yesterday and being an insane sensible person used the best form of transport to get across london which was again pretty enjoyable. I was surprised by the level of traffic further out in west london though and I think that was where the frustration was at . Apart from a *squareabout *it was a pretty good experience.



That didn't happen to be Hanger Lane Gyratory?


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

Pointless.

One hour's ride to work and I counted four trucks and seventeen cars.

Most of the time I was riding along deserted country road.

I could have zig-zaged in and out of the centre Cat's Eyes and returned to 'secondary' when I detected a pair of headlamps aproaching from the rear.

Maybe there'll be more traffic this evening.

Jimbo 1 - 0 Motorists


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

I did notice yesterday while riding around Brum, it's not so much passing parked cars ( it seems to be understood by drivers that I am going to move across to the centre and not ride into the back of the first parked car ) but at 'constrictions' where there is a central small curbed island with a pair of bollards.

The lane reduces from 12' to 10' through these so Mr Motorist has to adjust his position on the carriageway. When Mr Motorist and I reach the bollards together ( or he is very close to me ), I can't 'take the road'.
That would be me asking to go to hospital.

The first incident ( 1995 ) I described was when I 'took the road' early to tell the Taxi driver there wasn't room for the two of us. He thought I was deliberately making it difficult for him.

I didn't do anything like this yesterday. Quite the opposite. I took a rearward glance and adjusted my position toward the yellow lines and allowed Mr Motorist through at a reduced speed.

Both Mr Motorist and I were happy.

You'll probably say "WRONG". I've been cycling round Brum for twenty five years and got the hang of riding in close proximity to motor traffic. A bicycle and a car across a 10' lane is no problem. What I'm not going to do is move to the middle and block him when there's enough lane for both of us. He will see my 'taking the road' as "a prat on a bike getting in the way" and have a shout.

There are also bollards which bring the lane down to 8'. That's a different matter. I stayed at 3' out which stopped Mr Motorist passing.

And do you think any of them thanked me?


----------



## brokenbetty (25 Jan 2010)

No one is disputing your description of sensible cycling - it's what all of us do. If there are cars around ride primary if the conditions dictate it, otherwise secondary.

You misunderstood some commonly used terms then criticised what you assumed, based on this misunderstanding, was a common and recommended riding style.

Now you understand you were mistaken, but instead of gracefully acknowledging your error, you are posting anecdotes in which you ride exactly as others have proposed yet posit them in opposition to some imagined recommended style. 

Once again, no one rides as you are suggesting, and the only reason you thought they did was a misunderstanding. You are fighting a straw man. 
__________________


----------



## summerdays (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Does it really need a book to ride past a row of parked cars?



When I returned to cycling after a 20 year break (apart from leisure cycling), I had loads of problems and yes I needed a book (and some helpful people on C+) to come out of the gutter. And I got myself in the situation once where I was positioned on the left trying to go straight ahead and would have been left hooked by the car behind if I hadn't stopped meekly next to the kerb - at that point I got help.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> The lane reduces from 12' to 10' through these so Mr Motorist has to adjust his position on the carriageway. When Mr Motorist and I reach the bollards together ( or he is very close to me ), I can't 'take the road'.
> That would be me asking to go to hospital.



This reads to me like a failure of planning ahead on your part. You can see that you're approaching bollards - then negotiate out into the lane before you get there, and before the driver is close enough to prevent it. Remaining passive is a poor riding strategy.

A better approach once you've made this mistake, would be to slow a little and let the driver go through the narrowing ahead of you. Sometimes this is necessary when negotiation doesn't work and the driver doesn't let you out.



jimboalee said:


> And do you think any of them thanked me?



Funnily enough doing it properly, the cyclecraft way, often gets double flash thank yous for me. I have a couple of sections of road where there are repeated constrictions, and have to take the lane through them. With good negotiation, a point at the pedestrian refuge to explain why I'm taking the lane, and an obvious return to secondary, most drivers seem grateful that I'm communicating with them, have made it obvious I've seen them, and also made it easy for them to past. I usually wave them past as well once in secondary.

I think this whole anti-cyclecraft thing is largely an ego issue with you. You don't like to admit that anyone else might know more about good riding strategies. No different to many drivers who are just as closed minded to learning new skills.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> This reads to me like a failure of planning ahead on your part. *You can see that you're approaching bollards - then negotiate out into the lane before you get there, and before the driver is close enough to prevent it.* Remaining passive is a poor riding strategy.
> 
> A better approach once you've made this mistake, would be to slow a little and let the driver go through the narrowing ahead of you. Sometimes this is necessary when negotiation doesn't work and the driver doesn't let you out.
> 
> ...



Haven't you been reading anything?
The two and ONLY times I have been verbally abused by motorists is when I did what you have just said I should do.


Are you sure a Double Flash means 'Thank you'?

Motorists don't usually spend time and effort pulling their lamps stalk twice for 'a prat on a bike'.


----------



## Cab (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Haven't you been reading anything?
> The two and ONLY times I have been verbally abused by motorists is when I did what you have just said I should do.



And you're claiming that as statistically relevant?


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Haven't you been reading anything?
> The two and ONLY times I have been verbally abused by motorists is when I did what you have just said I should do.



Except this isn't true - you've talked about taking the lane on a regular basis in exactly the cyclecraft manner.

Why would you a) rely on just two instances which are no indication whatsoever of what most drivers think, and  blame yourself for bad attitude from a minority of bad drivers?




jimboalee said:


> Are you sure a Double Flash means 'Thank you'?
> 
> Motorists don't usually spend time and effort pulling their lamps stalk twice for 'a prat on a bike'.



I meant a hazard flash, by the way, not a light flash. I've only ever seen that used as a thank you here in the UK. Anyone care to disagree that this is the usual meaning?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I meant a hazard flash, by the way, not a light flash. I've only ever seen that used as a thank you here in the UK. Anyone care to disagree that this is the usual meaning?



I think you're right. That's certainly what lorry drivers use their hazard lights for.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> *Except this isn't true - you've talked about taking the lane on a regular basis in exactly the cyclecraft manner.*
> 
> Why would you a) rely on just two instances which are no indication whatsoever of what most drivers think, and  blame yourself for bad attitude from a minority of bad drivers?
> 
> ...



Another case where you haven't been reading.

Yes, I do take primary when conditions dictate, but usually not.
What you are misunderstanding is THE ONLY TWO TIMES I HAVE BEEN ABUSED is when I did.

And as for being statistically significant, when the shape of my nose is threatened by some big bloke, it is.

If the two hundredth motorist gets out and thumps you hard on the snotbox, is it 'statistically INsignificant', or would you think again about getting in the way?


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jan 2010)

The misunderstandings, deliberate or otherwise, are not mine on this topic. Neither is the wretchedness.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Yes, I do take primary when conditions dictate, but usually not.
> What you are misunderstanding is THE ONLY TWO TIMES I HAVE BEEN ABUSED is when I did.



But this still doesn't mean that primary is wrong, or somehow responsible for some impatient twat in a car threatening to lamp you. I sometimes get abuse off car drivers for sticking to the HGV A road speed limit of 40mph, but I don't automatically think "ooh, it must be my driving that's at fault here".


----------



## thomas (25 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I meant a hazard flash, by the way, not a light flash. I've only ever seen that used as a thank you here in the UK. Anyone care to disagree that this is the usual meaning?



Yeah, I'd generally only use it at night if someone let me in their lane or something....but a couple headlight flashes can means thanks too.



jimboalee said:


> Yes, I do take primary when conditions dictate, but usually not.
> What you are misunderstanding is THE ONLY TWO TIMES I HAVE BEEN ABUSED is when I did.
> 
> And as for being statistically significant, when the shape of my nose is threatened by some big bloke, it is.
> ...




I think I'll risk one person potentially assaulting me, if it will definitely stop the majority of overtakes like this. The driver in that clip did acknowledge how they were completely in the wrong and apologised for it. However, had I been in primary position there would have been less chance for the driver to have misjudged the gap as he admitted to.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> The misunderstandings, deliberate or otherwise, are not mine on this topic. Neither is the wretchedness.



Here's post #15.

"If you think you get shouted at a lot riding an upright, try riding a recumbent. So many toots and shouts that I'm getting really good at blanking the lot."

Here's a transcript from that book.

"Riding around with a feeling of superiority to others is also foolish. A halo offers no protection against the bad driving of others; indeed, bad driving may even be encouraged by such a 'holier-than-thou' attitude on the part of the cyclist."


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Here's post #15.
> 
> "If you think you get shouted at a lot riding an upright, try riding a recumbent. So many toots and shouts that I'm getting really good at blanking the lot."
> 
> ...




How does that show anything other than lots of people toot or shout at recumbent riders?

There's no sense of superiority on my part. I'm always ready to learn more about good riding and I actively try to improve my skills. I'm also far more aware of my own mistakes than I have been in the past thanks to this.

How about you?


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> How does that show anything other than lots of people toot or shout at recumbent riders?
> 
> There's no sense of superiority on my part. I'm always ready to learn more about good riding and I actively try to improve my skills. I'm also far more aware of my own mistakes than I have been in the past thanks to this.
> 
> How about you?



I don't get tooted or shouted at.

I see this as the result of me NOT 'taking the road' unless it is absolutely necessary. I don't go across into the middle of the carriageway just because some book says I should.
I assess each situation as it aproaches. If I think there is enough room for a car and my bike, I won't go blocking the lane at 15 mph when the traffic flow is 20 or even 25 mph.

You would, 'cus you follow Cyclecraft, and you think it's the recumbent they toot at?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Jan 2010)

Stop it now, Jimbo. It's getting dull and you're straying into troll territory.


----------



## Cab (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> What you are misunderstanding is THE ONLY TWO TIMES I HAVE BEEN ABUSED is when I did.
> 
> And as for being statistically significant, when the shape of my nose is threatened by some big bloke, it is.



I suggest you go look at some stats, and consider why the standard advice for cycling is to be more assertive. That you've been given lip a couple of times doesn't mean that its a more dangerous way to ride, it means only that you have been given lip.


----------



## Origamist (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I assess each situation as it aproaches. If I think there is enough room for a car and my bike, I won't go blocking the lane at 15 mph when the traffic flow is 20 or even 25 mph.



Don't be daft - if the lane is wide enough to share Cyclecraft does not recommend taking primary! You're fighting imaginary battles here, Jim.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Stop it now, Jimbo. It's getting dull and you're straying into troll territory.



Right you are.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jan 2010)

Why would you leap to the conclusion that it's the way I ride that causes toots and shouts? Anyone riding with me would very quickly realise that it's totally obvious when it's the recumbent causing this behaviour. Unless they were rather thick!!


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> There's no sense of superiority on my part. I'm always ready to learn more about good riding and I actively try to improve my skills. I'm also far more aware of my own mistakes than I have been in the past thanks to this.
> 
> How about you?



Your non-answer will be a no then, but then I guess that was fairly obvious from your posts on this topic.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Why would you leap to the conclusion that it's the way I ride that causes toots and shouts? Anyone riding with me would very quickly realise that it's totally obvious when it's the recumbent causing this behaviour. Unless they were rather thick!!



May I suggest I come to Biggin Hill and commute with you?

You will need to slow down a lot and fit a telescopic rearview mirror because I will be riding a Sturmey 3 speed, 39lb gent's heavyweight and we will average 12 mph at best.
Due to this slow speed, I won't be taking 'primary' very often.

Then, you come to Brum and take up my offer of the 26 mile lap of the City.
I will again be on my commute heavyweight so you'll have to keep slow 100ft feet behind me. Motorists behave differently when two cyclists are together.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jan 2010)

You're welcome to come commute with me any time. I take it that's your capitulation on the issue of why people shout so much for recumbents.


----------



## brokenbetty (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Another case where you haven't been reading.
> 
> Yes, I do take primary when conditions dictate, but usually not.
> What you are misunderstanding is THE ONLY TWO TIMES I HAVE BEEN ABUSED is when I did.



Jim - can you clarify whether on these occasions when you were abused
1. would it have been safe to remain in secondary amd allow the car(s) past?
2. was there a steady stream of cars passing the obstruction?

You see, I suspect this is what happened:

*Jim's view*
Cyclecraft advises riding in primary when ever possible
I only ride in primary when it is necessary given the road conditions
I tried to ride as Cyclecraft advises and took Primary when it wasn't necessary.
This caused unwarranted obstruction to drivers who then abused me 
Conclusion: Riding as Cyclecraft advises leads to abuse from motorists

*Reality*
Cyclecraft advises riding in primary when it is necessary given the road conditions
Jim rides in this way anyway
Jim misunderstood Cyclecraft and decided to ride in Primary when it wasn't necessary
This caused unwarranted obstruction to drivers who then abused him
Conclusion: Riding in Primary when it isn't necessary leads to abuse from motorists


----------



## ttcycle (25 Jan 2010)

I am also stumped at what you are continuuing to argue with Jimbo? You'[re not doing yourself any favours here.

I suspect the two issues are:

You are taking primary when there is no need to which caused the upset- ie when there is room for car and bike to pass together - ie no safety issues. This also strikes me as a possibility as you mentioned taking primary up a hill- why did you do this apart from an experiment in causing a nuisance so that you could post evidence which fit your skewed view?

I also think that you average speed 12mph as you say combined with the faster speeds (30/40 if people are even keeping to the speed limits) of motorists may be an irksome factor as you may not be flowing with the traffic in primary and unfortunately some motorists are very impatient.

If you are able to head down this way I would offer to cycle with you too (if my health is up to it at the moment) and maybe return the favour back in the Midlands.

Jimbo I don't understand what you're still fighting against.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

What I really do detest are people who dive in with "I suspect that...." when they weren't at the scene and didn't see what happened.

You can look at as many polls and surveys of motorists as you like, and you will read >2/3 of motorists think cyclists should keep to the left AT ALL TIMES, as per 1960s and 70s National Cycling Profficiency training.

It only needs one of these motorists to be in a bad mood and meet a cyclist 'taking the road' that abuse gets thrown.

The cyclist could be there because the cyclist has assessed it is safest, but the motorist thinks otherwise.

Is this TOO obvious?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Jan 2010)

What is obvious is that you appear to be taking examples of poor driving and putting the blame for them squarely on the cyclist. I for one don't understand why you're doing so.


----------



## ttcycle (25 Jan 2010)

If that's not the case please tell me what happened to clarify the situation instead of going off on one. but what it the point in what you're saying? Have you read my earlier posts at all?
It is not always safest to be on the left - some motorists would also want cyclists to cycle in the gutter -it's about safety of vulnerable road users not what motorists think we should be doing- that won't change unless more people ride correctly rather than being too leftwards out of fear.

So what if the motorist thinks otherwise? I don't live every waking moment worrying about every little thing that 'someone else' thinks -especially if it is wrong and unsafe.

So your point is?


----------



## brokenbetty (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> The cyclist could be there because the cyclist has assessed it is safest, but the motorist thinks otherwise.
> 
> Is this TOO obvious?



It's so obvious that I said it several pages ago.

Here: http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1091815&postcount=114
and here: http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1091867&postcount=118
and here: http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1090347&postcount=62

*I suspect* you read what you think is there, not what is.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

ttcycle said:


> If that's not the case please tell me what happened to clarify the situation instead of going off on one. but what it the point in what you're saying? Have you read my earlier posts at all?
> It is not always safest to be on the left - some motorists would also want cyclists to cycle in the gutter -it's about safety of vulnerable road users not what motorists think we should be doing- that won't change unless more people ride correctly rather than being too leftwards out of fear.
> 
> So what if the motorist thinks otherwise? I don't live every waking moment worrying about every little thing that 'someone else' thinks -especially if it is wrong and unsafe.
> ...



The increasing number of cyclists shouted at by motorists, appears to me, to be in line with the popularity of a book called CycleCraft.


----------



## ttcycle (25 Jan 2010)

nothing to do with that Jimbo - come cycle down here with some of us (it would be a real pleasure to meet another CCer) and cyclists despite the large numbers get yelled at and abuse despite cyclecraft-can you not understand that some motorists are angsty and horrible and would rather people didn't cycle on the roads at all - people get yelled at despite their road positioning - sometimes cyclist is at fault, often not at all.

Can you just not understand that some of the time- bad driving and or bad attitudes/misunderstanding of cycling safety from a motorist are what make them hyell- your correlation between cycle craft and this is spurious.

Many have used it well with no problems as people have said and have been praised too-myself included -if you've had crap from motorists when in primary and correctly in priamry for the right reasons,then surely the motorist is at fault - not you -how can you not see this?

Plus increasing numbers of cyclists will statistically get more incidents of being shouted out by simply the fact that there are more cyclists


----------



## thomas (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> The increasing number of cyclists shouted at by motorists, appears to me, to be in line with the popularity of a book called CycleCraft.




I got shouted at before reading cyclecraft.

I will admit that taking primary has caused me to be honked....This was on a two lane section of road, so he overtook with plenty of room (and no time delay) in the outside lane. When I caught him up he said the highway code clearly stated that cyclists should be 2 feet from the kerb.

Now this is obviously incorrect as the highway code doesn't stipulate any distance. Why should I care for the opinion of a motorist who doesn't actually know what they're talking about?

I certainly wasn't too bothered when the guy yelled at me when I told him he was wrong. I was just glad that because of my sensible use of primary he was forced to overtake correctly, rather than potentially in the same lane.



ANYYYWAAAAYY, why is this still going on? We need some new threads in commuting


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

My second incident was a bad experience.

I rode 'to the book', 'took the road' and asserted my position as not to be cut up. Despite this, the car following nudged me into the curb after the site of the constriction. I hit the pavement and got a broken left arm.

"If this is what Franklin's words gets you, why bother?" Following this incident, I was of the mind to return to Jimbo's trusted style. I did, and haven't had a toot or shout or any aggressive behaviour from a motorist.

Scarred for life.


----------



## ttcycle (25 Jan 2010)

jimbo, it sounds like that was horrific,clearly the motorist was wrong there, very wrong. Your position wasn't at fault they were


----------



## brokenbetty (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> My second incident was a bad experience.
> 
> I rode 'to the book', 'took the road' and asserted my position as not to be cut up. Despite this, the car following nudged me into the curb after the site of the constriction. I hit the pavement and got a broken left arm.[/QUOTE]
> 
> What did the police say? Was the driver prosecuted?


----------



## ttcycle (25 Jan 2010)

I have no issue with Jimbo riding the way he feels is safe and it sounds like it's the same as the majority of what we all do from reading his descriptions- it's just the idea that motorist giving cyclists grief should dictate the way someone rides is what I have an issue with. I can understand given the circumstances but then even if we all did the best practice and were exemplary cyclists - things would still happen as we can't control every factor on the roads -These commuting pages are filled with accidents and bad incidents for that reason.


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Jan 2010)

User3143 said:


> Jimbo, if you are happy with your style of riding then stick with it.



Blimey...I like you lee.One of the most sensible people on here.

On the yelling part...It's extremely rare for me to get yelled at except if I have had a go at a moton myself.
Of course I only have a go sometimes if they endanger me for some way.
I try and change my riding because im told I am cycling wrong/cyclecraft blah blah blah,but it doesn't suit me and it only endangers me.

Im still having nightmares for when I took up primary last week at roadworks and that taxi driver near Bank took a dislike to me  blocking him out  riding primary.
I had to go straight through a red because I was aware he wasn't stopping behind me.

Im happy with my cycling.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty;1098368][QUOTE=jimboalee said:


> My second incident was a bad experience.
> 
> I rode 'to the book', 'took the road' and asserted my position as not to be cut up. Despite this, the car following nudged me into the curb after the site of the constriction. I hit the pavement and got a broken left arm.[/QUOTE]
> 
> What did the police say? Was the driver prosecuted?



Hit and run. Copper couldn't do anything.

I was falling sideways and looking for railings/lamp posts instead of clocking his Reg. Plate.


----------



## brokenbetty (25 Jan 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> Im still having nightmares for when I took up primary last week at roadworks and that taxi driver near Bank took a dislike to me  blocking him out  riding primary.



Yet I ride through Bank every day and I always take primary because I don't want to get squiched by a bus as the road narrows. No driver has EVER taken exception to this.

Whatever is triggering the aggression, it can't just be road positioning or I would get it too.

Unless it's the flowery panniers of course.


----------



## brokenbetty (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee;1098391][QUOTE=brokenbetty said:


> Hit and run. Copper couldn't do anything.



Did the copper tell you it was your fault?


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

I am detecting a little empathy.

Which is more than my ex Wife..
"Now will you give up that stupid cycling lark?"

Note, she is my EX wife 


The copper was surprised I was more concerned about my front changer than my limbs.

He said "I presume you weren't speeding ( 30 mph ) so you in no way to blame".


----------



## brokenbetty (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> He said "I presume you weren't speeding ( 30 mph ) so you in no way to blame".



So why do you think it was your road positioning that was the problem rather than the fact you encountered a nutter?

Your own descriptions show that you do ride in primary when necessary. Why was this time different, that you blame yourself not the driver?


----------



## tdr1nka (25 Jan 2010)

Yet you insist in suspecting that all 'primary' riding gets other cyclists into trouble with motorists?

London has a high concentration of motorists thus you get more impatient motorists for your mile, this doesn't mean I have to compromise my riding and safety to appease every frustrated driver, if I did slow or stop for every car wanting to get past me my journey would become pointless as it would be quicker to walk.

Jim you are appearing to be just trolling this tread to be contentious and smug.
Everyone has differing opinions and rides, my bike and I can do a steady 20mph on the flat and I use skills gleaned from Cyclecraft.

Most of what I teach year 6 school kids and adults alike is based on Cyclecraft, it is considered essential reading and part of the national standard.

Please drop your pretence as there is little more to be said on the matter, folk have agreed and disagreed with you and yet you keep revising your rather contentious point.
Otherwise, you just keep trolling away.


----------



## Bman (25 Jan 2010)

This thread is nothing without YouTube footage...

Jim, have you thought about getting a camera?


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> Yet I ride through Bank every day and I always take primary because I don't want to get squiched by a bus as the road narrows. No driver has EVER taken exception to this.
> 
> Whatever is triggering the aggression, it can't just be road positioning or I would get it too.
> 
> Unless it's the flowery panniers of course.



It happened and it was nasty.
I have rode through Bank for the last twenty years and never had a problem even with the bad way Im supposed to have been cycling..




> Yet you insist in suspecting that all 'primary' riding gets other cyclists into trouble with motorists?


It's rare I find cyclist riding much different to me.Generally Im thinking that some of these cyclists are badly positioned or are riding too defensively.

What do I know though?

If I criticise other cyclists for their road positioning it means im getting too cocky and above my station.


----------



## ttcycle (25 Jan 2010)

jimbo - there is empathy with the hit and run but as subsequent posters say- it wasn't the road positioning and it's a shame that it's knocked your confidence so much to affect your riding still.

As for people not appreciating cycling...that's another story!


----------



## brokenbetty (25 Jan 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> If I criticise other cyclists for their road positioning it means im getting too cocky and above my station.



Yet by saying you think riding in primary causes problems, that is exactly what you are doing.


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> Yet by saying you think riding in primary causes problems, that is exactly what you are doing.



So where did I say that?

Anyway that was a sarcastic comment as we seem to get enough of that on here.

If you want my honest opinion....both riding primary and secondary has their problems but I don't ever remember criticising someone on here for their road positioning even if I don't agree with it.As I said I have to do what I have got used too over the last 30+ years.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Jan 2010)

coruskate said:


> Funny, I got beeped at once for riding in a straight line at the speed of the car in front. By a professional driver, too


and the colour of the vehicle would have been.......

Going all the way back to page 2....I was struck by brokenbetty's point that she thought she received less abuse because she was wearing girly clothes. My distinct impression is that women cyclists receive a good deal more abuse than men - and that they're on the receiving end of a good deal more bullying.

Thoughts?


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Jan 2010)

What's a professional driver?

They seem to be the worst drivers at times.


----------



## ttcycle (25 Jan 2010)

I'd agree with you Dell- having had that nasty experience a few months back with that truck driver, I reckon there are some people out there that like to intimidate women cyclists- I don't make a habit of girly clothing on the bike as it's not my thing, I cycle confidently and with a good pace but on the odd day there will be rudeness - a lot of it of a suggestive/lewd nature.

I don't think road postion influences that tbh

Dell - does the babe find that she gets a lot of trouble on the roads or have you witnessed different treatment when you are out riding with her?


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jan 2010)

I seem to recall Jim saying how the highway code says it all about what's needed for a cyclist, and then when we pointed out the picture of an ASL with cyclists taking, there was much muttering and attempting to change what he'd said. Jim, I think many on here are feeling at least a little frustrated with your inconsistent debate. Sometimes you claim taking the lane is good riding, and other times it's poor practice that leads to motorists getting all shouty. Then you try to blame positioning and cyclecraft for your awful crash. I also wonder whether most of this whole topic is not more about your own prejudices and fears.


----------



## summerdays (25 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> and the colour of the vehicle would have been.......
> 
> Going all the way back to page 2....I was struck by brokenbetty's point that she thought she received less abuse because she was wearing girly clothes. My distinct impression is that women cyclists receive a good deal more abuse than men - and that they're on the receiving end of a good deal more bullying.
> 
> Thoughts?



I think girly clothing can work both ways... I'm generally assertive in my riding so I don't think I get more bullied as a result of wearing girly clothes. But I don't worry that they might use the philosophy of its a girl I'll give her more space in case she wobbles - in fact I may even play on that a bit. I certainly think in summer, girly clothing can have a positive effect on motorists.

I think if you aren't assertive in the first place it could lead to being bullied more.

I'm just in from my commute - no aggression, some daft driving - like the lorry who thought he would overtake and then turn left but he realised his mistake and just stopped and waited. And then other drivers who went out of their way to let me out of side roads when they didn't really need to. The worst thing I encountered were badly parked cars - either blocking a cycle contra-flow x2 or a police van parked close to a junction obscuring my view.


----------



## addictfreak (25 Jan 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> So where did I say that?
> 
> Anyway that was a sarcastic comment as we seem to get enough of that on here.
> 
> If you want my honest opinion....both riding primary and secondary has their problems but I don't ever remember criticising someone on here for their road positioning even if I don't agree with it.As I said I have to do what I have got used too over the last 30+ years.




I think you have fallen foul of the cycling stasi on here mate, it seems to be ride their way or not at all!


----------



## Wheeledweenie (25 Jan 2010)

I wear a lot of pink on my cycle gear, and I seem to get quite a lot of abuse if my fellow commuters are anything to go by as the boys at work say they don't get as much as I do. I also seem to be on the receiving end of far more aggressive behaviour by other cyclists unfortunately.

I too have had ttcycle's problem of lewd comments as well. I also get 'birted' with fairly regularly, ie men on bikes tend to strike up random conversations about how nice my bike is at traffic lights and things. I'm suspicious of their motives as Reg is a Specialized Sirrus who has many chips and is generally quite filthy. Hmmmmmmmm


----------



## addictfreak (25 Jan 2010)

Wheeledweenie said:


> I wear a lot of pink on my cycle gear, and I seem to get quite a lot of abuse if my fellow commuters are anything to go by as the boys at work say they don't get as much as I do. *I also seem to be on the receiving end of far more aggressive behaviour by other cyclists unfortunately.*
> 
> I too have had ttcycle's problem of lewd comments as well. I also get 'birted' with fairly regularly, ie men on bikes tend to strike up random conversations about how nice my bike is at traffic lights and things. I'm suspicious of their motives as Reg is a Specialized Sirrus who has many chips and is generally quite filthy. Hmmmmmmmm




That is sad to hear, i have to say that i have never experienced or heard of anything like that before. Some strange peps out there for sure


----------



## thomas (25 Jan 2010)

Wheeledweenie said:


> I too have had ttcycle's problem of lewd comments as well. I also get 'birted' with fairly regularly, ie men on bikes tend to strike up random conversations about how nice my bike is at traffic lights and things. I'm suspicious of their motives as Reg is a Specialized Sirrus who has many chips and is generally quite filthy. Hmmmmmmmm



If you do my commute I'd have a chat (no motives....probably). Typically, the few people on my commute would be more "serious" cyclists and manly blokes so a nod/wave or a quick chat in traffic doesn't really have any motives ....I did notice that out of the two women who I saw, one who seemed to be more serious seemed to ignore a friendly wave or nod, where as the other lady who I guess was more of a POB seemed more friendly and would wave back.

I'd of liked to have thought that women would get it easier on the road....


----------



## Wheeledweenie (25 Jan 2010)

Obviously it's never any of the enlightened chaps on here but I have, on more than one occasion, heard something along the lines of 'I'm not going to be beaten by a girl' before being overtaken at very close quarters or followed obscenely closely. 

But I'm on the 'Tour de Commute' of the Uxbridge Road and it's notoriously competitive.


----------



## Norm (25 Jan 2010)

Wheeledweenie said:


> ... Reg is a Specialized Sirrus ...


*pulls up next to WW*

Oh, nice bike. Fancy a coffee?


----------



## Wheeledweenie (25 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> *pulls up next to WW*
> 
> Oh, nice bike. Fancy a coffee?



*Blushes a dainty and rosy pink*

Not with someone on a BSO like that. Sniff.

*Pedals off into the distance haughtily*

In all seriousness though, most of the genuinely friendly conversations with other cyclists (and I have many) don't involve mentions of my figure, hence when it crosses the line to birting.


----------



## thomas (25 Jan 2010)

Wheeledweenie said:


> Obviously it's never any of the enlightened chaps on here but I have, on more than one occasion, heard something along the lines of *'I'm not going to be beaten by a girl*' before being overtaken at very close quarters or followed obscenely closely.
> 
> But I'm on the 'Tour de Commute' of the Uxbridge Road and it's notoriously competitive.




That was funny until you mentioned the overtake...in just how pathetic they were. Though if you overtook me, I'd probably put some more effort in


----------



## addictfreak (25 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> That was funny until you mentioned the overtake...in just how pathetic they were. Though if you overtook me, I'd probably put some more effort in




I dont like being overtaken by anyone!


----------



## Origamist (25 Jan 2010)

addictfreak said:


> I think you have fallen foul of the cycling stasi on here mate, it seems to be ride their way or not at all!



Ride how you want - just make sure you're making an informed decision.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jan 2010)

Blimey, it was 18 months ago I gave a young lady a bit of clothing advice.

I rode up beside and suggested "you're not supposed to wear a thong under cycle shorts".


----------



## Wheeledweenie (25 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> That was funny until you mentioned the overtake...in just how pathetic they were. Though if you overtook me, I'd probably put some more effort in



Oh I'm sure you wouldn't have to try very hard. After all, I'm just a girl 

What makes me giggle is that I'm by no means the fastest rider I know and am quite happy for people to overtake me. The only time I've consciously raced two blokes was when they (on posh road bikes) attempted to best me on a steep hill where I used to live (on Reg with heavy panniers) and mentioned my gender. I saw red and left them far behind. They admitted they were impressed when they finally caught up at a roundabout. 

I turned into my road and was well out of sight before I collapsed!


----------



## Debian (25 Jan 2010)

summerdays said:


> I think girly clothing can work both ways... I'm generally assertive in my riding so I don't think I get more bullied as a result of wearing girly clothes. But I don't worry that they might use the philosophy of its a girl I'll give her more space in case she wobbles - in fact I may even play on that a bit. *I certainly think in summer, girly clothing can have a positive effect on motorists*.



Sorry, lightening / lowering the tone here. I couldn't agree more! certainly makes me slow down


----------



## brokenbetty (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Blimey, it was 18 months ago I gave a young lady a bit of clothing advice.
> 
> I rode up beside and suggested "you're not supposed to wear a thong under cycle shorts".



As long as you didn't ask what position she prefers  (fnar fnar )


----------



## addictfreak (25 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> As long as you didn't ask what position she prefers  (fnar fnar )




Careful jokes are frowned upon these days


----------



## Wheeledweenie (25 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Blimey, it was 18 months ago I gave a young lady a bit of clothing advice.
> 
> I rode up beside and suggested "you're not supposed to wear a thong under cycle shorts".



The chafing doesn't bear thinking about! Eep!


----------



## thomas (25 Jan 2010)

Wheeledweenie said:


> Oh I'm sure you wouldn't have to try very hard. After all, I'm just a girl



I also have an allez which is a bit more racy than a sirrus....and no panniers, etc....though I do have a rucksack which knocks a mph or two of the average 

I generally found that the other people on my commute (there was very occasionally someone else) was of a similar fitness....and nearly always used to just sit behind me, not offering to help! Other than on two occasions when two people asked if we wanted to take turns up front....one when quite windy, another when hungover so was definitely up for it


----------



## Wheeledweenie (25 Jan 2010)

I hate drafting, it makes me nervous, whether I'm upfront or not. A couple of friends complained about being tailgated by other cyclists and when I suggested that they were, perhaps, drafting they were immensely flattered. I just find it irritating.


----------



## Norm (25 Jan 2010)

Wheeledweenie said:


> *Blushes a dainty and rosy pink*
> 
> Not with someone on a BSO like that. Sniff.
> 
> *Pedals off into the distance haughtily*


 Touché. 

I'm giggling at the "BSO" thing, though, as I have a Secteur which is pretty much a Sirrus with curly bars.


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> Yet by saying you think riding in primary causes problems, that is exactly what you are doing.



Asking you for the second time Brokenbetty...where have I criticised someone for riding primary?

You didn't answer but just conveniently ignored my question...as to my answer in post 243.

It's very rare that I criticise unless it's absolutely deserved....shame some people can't follow suit on here.

As I said in my post 243 riding in both primary and secondary causes problems IMHO but I don't criticise people for doing it.


----------



## tdr1nka (25 Jan 2010)

And then again cycling on the roads where ever you put yourself is an affront to some drivers who don't believe we should even be on the roads.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Jan 2010)

tdr1nka said:


> And then again cycling on the roads where ever you put yourself is an affront to some drivers who don't believe we should even be on the roads.
> Damned if we do, damned if we don't.



Agree but this doesn't apply in other countries I have cycled in.

I have found other road users very good in Thailand/Japan/Gran Canaria but then again I don't think the car is the king of the road out there.Or perhaps it's just peoples general attitude.


----------



## tdr1nka (25 Jan 2010)

I think it's a very Western view that the car is supreme, also other cultures tend to be more civil to each other, on the surface at least.


----------



## thomas (25 Jan 2010)

tdr1nka said:


> I think it's a very Western view that the car is supreme, also other cultures tend to be more civil to each other, on the surface at least.



nah, in the east bigger is better.


----------



## brokenbetty (25 Jan 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> Asking you for the second time Brokenbetty...where have I criticised someone for riding primary?
> 
> You didn't answer but just conveniently ignored my question...as to my answer in post 243.



Sorry, I wasn't ignoring you but since you went on to say _"Anyway, it was just a sarcastic response..."_ I didn't realise you wanted me to answer. Frankly I was very happy letting the thread amble back to the original topic.

I just read back and see you didn't criticise anyone for riding primary, you just said it wasn't right for you.

*I was wrong on that point and I apologise to Hackbike.*


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Jan 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> Sorry, I wasn't ignoring you but since you went on to say _"Anyway, it was just a sarcastic response..."_ I didn't realise you wanted me to answer. Frankly I was very happy letting the thread amble back to the original topic.
> 
> I just read back and see you didn't criticise anyone for riding primary,* you just said it wasn't right for you.*
> 
> *I was wrong on that point and I apologise to Hackbike.*



Thanks I appreciate that but I realised I misread your post making me look like a twat yet again.

In the bold bit I do it a bit at times but as may be obvious im probably not that easy with some nutter in a metal box behind me so I generally try to get them in front of me where I prefer as I can see what they are up to.I had a nasty incident with a cab recently but that was probably just because he was a nasty prat and not with me being in primary.

As I say I have been very careful with not criticising people on here and their videos but just try and give an honest opinion.



tdr1nka said:


> I think it's a very Western view that the car is supreme, also other cultures tend to be more civil to each other, on the surface at least.



Aye.


----------



## jimboalee (26 Jan 2010)

tdr1nka said:


> I think it's a very Western view that the car is supreme, also other cultures tend to be more civil to each other, on the surface at least.



It only seemed to be London where I saw ignorant tossers in cars.

New York was fine. Boston, Mass was fine. LA was fine. San Fran was fine. Paris ( France ) was fine. Dublin was fine. Palma Majorca was fine. Tenerife was fine. Cadiz was fine. Seville was fine. Naples was fine. Don't know about Venice. Athens was a bit dodgy.
Frankfurt was absolutely terrific.
Birmingham ( UK ) is fine, and so was Manchester.

Only London is a shoot heap of motorised twats.


----------



## jimboalee (26 Jan 2010)

> Nah, Birmingham has its fair share.



It depends on the individual's perception of what constitutes a 'motorist tosser'.

If you regard a driver who passes within two feet to be a tosser, you will see lots of them. If you don't mind this closeness and ride past moving cars as close, then you won't see many.
I don't see many.

The real mark of a motorist tosser is the one who drag races a bicycle off traffic lights.
Yes I do see them in Brum, but only when I'm wearing my NHRA Tee shirt.


----------



## Origamist (26 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> If you regard a driver who passes within two feet to be a tosser, you will see lots of them. If you don't mind this closeness and ride past moving cars as close, then you won't see many.
> I don't see many.



Unless the vehicle is travelling very slowly 2 foot is too close - it's poor driving. The vast majority of cyclists find this unnerving and what's more it allows only limited wobble room.


----------



## jimboalee (26 Jan 2010)

Origamist said:


> Unless the vehicle is travelling very slowly 2 foot is too close - it's poor driving. The vast majority of cyclists find this unnerving and what's more it allows only limited wobble room.



When I'm cruising along at 15mph and I hear and then see a bus beside me doing 20mph, I will touch the brakes and let it go ahead. A 12' lane is plenty wide enough but I'll settle for the warm air off it's engine.


----------



## Origamist (26 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> When I'm cruising along at 15mph and I hear and then see a bus beside me doing 20mph, I will touch the brakes and let it go ahead. A 12' lane is plenty wide enough but I'll settle for the warm air off it's engine.



Not for the first time, just because you're happy to be overtaken closely, it does not mean others are! 

TRL research has shown that, under test conditions, nearly half the cyclists studied felt unsafe when cars travelling at 20mph passed them with a clearance of 0.95m, 20% felt unsafe at 1.2m! Only one person in the test felt comfortable being passed at 0.73m (perhaps that was you Jim?). ​


----------



## jimboalee (26 Jan 2010)

Origamist said:


> Not for the first time, just because you're happy to be overtaken closely, it does not mean others are!
> 
> TRL research has shown that, under test conditions, nearly half the cyclists studied felt unsafe when cars travelling at 20mph passed them with a clearance of 0.95m, 20% felt unsafe at 1.2m! Only one person in the test felt comfortable being passed at 0.73m (perhaps that was you Jim?). ​



The site's Secret Police have collared me again.

Please read my post VERY carefully.

The post was my personal view on your previous post. 

NOWHERE do I say any other cyclist should regard a close bus as acceptable.

You're comment is quite true. Other's aren't comfortable with close passes, but did I say they should be?

Maybe the readership might be interested to hear the views of someone other than an indoctrinated CycleCraftite.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Jan 2010)

Why mention it on a forum if you don't want people to comment? I think it might be time to dump this in room 101.


----------



## Origamist (26 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> The site's Secret Police have collared me again.
> 
> Please read my post VERY carefully.
> 
> ...



I don't think you understand how the secret police work, Jim ("secret" is a bit of a clue) - I'm more of a dull forum prefect.


----------



## ttcycle (26 Jan 2010)

yawn...there is no point engaging with this ie jimbo anymore- i welcome this being put into room 101.

Firstly, you've turned a post not originally about primary/secondary into one - vacillated and wobbled with an inconsistent arguement, kept it going when there was no point to it anymore as you just kept contradicting yourself.

The point that remains unanswered is that your perception/fears do not excuse bad driver behaviour. That needs to be tackled not conceded to -ie letting motorists do what the hell they want even if it endangers others.

Jimbo you had a nasty crash but it does not warrant the defence of bad driving etc 

People are just disagreeing with you- there is no secret police for god sake get over it. If you don't like the comments or people disagreeing either argue your point more convincingly or learn that this is a cycling forum where people do differ in opinion but many people will just not accept that bad driving is ok.


----------



## joebingo (26 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> The real mark of a motorist tosser is the one who drag races a bicycle off traffic lights.
> Yes I do see them in Brum, but only when I'm wearing my NHRA Tee shirt.



I had a guy do that to me the other day, pulled up next to me at some lights and revved so I looked at him and nodded.

There were 2 lanes and it was 2 in the morning, so no other traffic whatsoever. Had a good laugh/chat with him at the next red


----------



## Wheeledweenie (26 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> Touché.
> 
> I'm giggling at the "BSO" thing, though, as I have a Secteur which is pretty much a Sirrus with curly bars.



Ah, I knew I'd be safe with sarcasm. Most people on here have 'posher' bikes than my Reg. I love him though.

What was this thread about originally by the way?


----------



## ttcycle (26 Jan 2010)

What you were writing about - do women get treated differently on a bike and do they get different treatment due to clothing that was before it was hijacked.

I agree with what you've written about the 'it's a woman,must overtake- can't be beaten by a woman on a bike' when I was well enough to be commuting - I used to take great delight in leaving those idiots for dead at the traffic lights - pathetic that most of them used to RLJ just to try and gain an advantage.

The lewd comments from other cyclist and motorists was just disgusting. Got tough not flipping them a finger or telling them to f off. Oh the joys of commuting!


----------



## jimboalee (26 Jan 2010)

ttcycle said:


> yawn...there is no point engaging with this ie jimbo anymore- i welcome this being put into room 101.
> 
> Firstly, you've turned a post not originally about primary/secondary into one - vacillated and wobbled with an inconsistent arguement, kept it going when there was no point to it anymore as you just kept contradicting yourself.
> 
> ...



Why, ttcycle, have you jumped back in to have another pop?

If you consider this thread now pointless, don't visit it again.

What's this Room 101. Is it a dumping ground for all the threads where the 'inner circle' can't get their own way?

What was wrong with my saying "Drivers shout at cyclists because they think the cyclist is in their way"? That's bloody obvious, but the 'inner circle' blame the motorist immediately with the automatic assumption the cyclist can do no wrong.
Trouble is, what you regard as "wrong" is getting out of the motorist's way; and what the motorist thinks is 'wrong' is the cyclist riding down the middle of the road through a xrds or TL.

Sa all in all, when a cyclist is "Wrong" in your view, everyone is happy, and when the cyclist is "Right", the motorist is annoyed and the inexperienced cyclist feels intimidated.

You can quote me many instances in your cycling past where you did the 'Right' thing and the motorist was pleased. 
All it needs is one motorist who loses his rag, and you're a grille ornament or pavement parachutist.


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Jan 2010)

ttcycle said:


> I'd agree with you Dell- having had that nasty experience a few months back with that truck driver, I reckon there are some people out there that like to intimidate women cyclists- I don't make a habit of girly clothing on the bike as it's not my thing, I cycle confidently and with a good pace but on the odd day there will be rudeness - a lot of it of a suggestive/lewd nature.
> 
> I don't think road postion influences that tbh
> 
> *Dell - does the babe find that she gets a lot of trouble on the roads or have you witnessed different treatment when you are out riding with her*?


Very much so. She'll gets bullied far more than I do - and I reckon that's because I look like I can catch them up and hand it out.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Jan 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Why, ttcycle, have you jumped back in to have another pop?
> 
> If you consider this thread now pointless, don't visit it again.
> 
> ...



You strike me as more interested in having a go at an imaginary "secret police" than you do in engaging in serious debate or convincing anyone of the merit of your views. It's certainly been a while since you actually made a coherent point and refrained from making a series of thinly disguised digs and attempts to wind people up.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Jan 2010)

User3143 said:


> No way should this go to room 101, WTF is it with some people?



It's not going to go anywhere though, is it? Jimbo is welcome to ride as he pleases - and I suspect he rides in much the same way as many of those he's arguing with - but it's increasingly clear he's more interested in talking a good fight than actually debating with folk. That's what room 101 is for - threads that are going round and round and round and not getting anywhere.


----------



## ttcycle (26 Jan 2010)

Jimbo if you take the time to read my previous post, I;m not saying cyclist blanket are always right. I think if you also re-read what you've written - you've kind of cpontradicted yourself.

Taking primary when appropriate to do so is fine.

What is this inner circle you mention? Is it the small tiny perspective you view the world from perchance?

In fact jimbo - doing the right thing and being in primary saved my life in a near hit. No one even out of the context of cycling can control the response of other people- we just need to actually do things that keep us safe.

Dell, that's sad that people do that but having experienced it myself, I'm not surprised. though they often find it bizarre that I can catch them up. Still sometimes not worth engaging with stupidity on the roads

Lee I don't mind jimbo riding differently, that's the issue- it's just the idea he accepts that's it ok to let people driving badly dictate how other cyclists ride on the road. Many people don't cycle cause of fear of safety- actually cycling is very safe but if the close passes and stupid behaviour continue and also people continue to cycle badly or break rules - things will not improve. He can cycle how he wants to if it keeps him safe and on the roads but the issue is why defend bad driving and say it is the fault of the cyclist's position when often it isn't

BTW jimbo I wasn't having a pop as you put it- just picking up the info from your posts which has gone round and round and back round again.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (26 Jan 2010)

Wheeledweenie said:


> What was this thread about originally by the way?



*ahem* I started it as I had been pondering whether the miscellaneous yells I seem to get would diminish if I were clearly female as opposed to 'a high viz well wrapped up thing'... then it got well sidetracked. 

The yells, BTW, are usually from pedestrians (bunches of kids mostly) or from motorists _going the other way_ (doubt I'd hear them if there was traffic on my side), or from misc unidentified pedestrians (i.e. the 'boo' trying to scare you off the bike after you've gone past...)


----------



## ttcycle (26 Jan 2010)

I agree with you RT - jimbo rides with road sense but his arguement is becoming incoherent as one minute it's this, then the next minute it's something else.


----------



## ttcycle (26 Jan 2010)

lee - what I've said before earlier is that sometimes it is down to the cyclist as well, cyclists aren't infallible saints - however in the vid you mention, Mr P didn't take a strong position when the road became two lanes but conversely, motorist should not have come through and overtaken to then stop at lights.

If this was about genuine discussion about positioning or god forbid the OP's discussion point but it's just getting circular


----------



## BentMikey (26 Jan 2010)

Lee, maybe you've missed Jim being inconsistent in his debating, changing his argument, and all sorts of shenanigans. He's behaved somewhat like a troll on this topic in some posts. Room 101 is the right place for pointless and stupid debates that are going nowhere.


----------



## Wheeledweenie (26 Jan 2010)

SavageHoutkop said:


> *ahem* I started it as I had been pondering whether the miscellaneous yells I seem to get would diminish if I were clearly female as opposed to 'a high viz well wrapped up thing'... then it got well sidetracked.
> 
> The yells, BTW, are usually from pedestrians (bunches of kids mostly) or from motorists _going the other way_ (doubt I'd hear them if there was traffic on my side), or from misc unidentified pedestrians (i.e. the 'boo' trying to scare you off the bike after you've gone past...)



I've had someone try to smack my helmet out of the passenger window of a van, had kids swerve at me in cars and had teenagers yell stuff while standing on the pavement and I'm discernibly female. 

I have also, however, been let in or been waited for by lorry drivers who have not done so for male cyclists and quite a few of the yells from bystanders have been along the lines of 'Feel the burn' and singing the Rocky theme as I struggle up hills rather than anything nasty. It's all swings and roundabouts I reckon.


----------



## thomas (26 Jan 2010)

Wheeledweenie said:


> I've had someone try to smack my helmet out of the passenger window of a van, had kids swerve at me in cars and had teenagers yell stuff while standing on the pavement and I'm discernibly female.
> 
> I have also, however, been let in or been waited for by lorry drivers who have not done so for male cyclists and *quite a few of the yells from bystanders have been along the lines of 'Feel the burn' and singing the Rocky theme as I struggle up hills rather than anything nasty. It's all swings and roundabouts I reckon.*




I think it's better to take most things well, rather than badly however they're intended. It'll keep you calm and make you seem good natured.

Last year sometime one night some chavs in a car yelled "come on my son!". I just gave them some friendly air zound toots and when we both arrived at the lights we sort of both gave each other a friendly nod. They obviously weren't quite expecting me to have a horn.

About 20 minutes later (I think) the same driver was coming the other way and gave some friendly toots when they saw me.


----------

