Spectator debate: Cyclists are a menace

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Bollo

Failed Tech Bro
Location
Winch
Will they have cycle parking?
 
As if the world is divided into only cyclists and non-cyclists. On any given day I am a cyclist, pedestrian, motorists and public transport user. How about a debate about making public space fit for everyone to use?

Frickin' idiots.
 

mr Mag00

rising member
Location
Deepest Dorset
As if the world is divided into only cyclists and non-cyclists. On any given day I am a cyclist, pedestrian, motorists and public transport user. How about a debate about making public space fit for everyone to use?

Frickin' idiots.


CORRECT !
 

Bollo

Failed Tech Bro
Location
Winch
I suspect the headline debate title is there to make an impact and provoke, although I would fancy the Spectator editorial line on cyclists isn't that far away.

Two things strike me about this. The first is that why does cycling provoke such an extreme response that it needs a debate? A section of the non-cyclisting public seem enraged at our existence. I confess to being baffled.

Also it reveals the totally London-centric view of the Spectator and most of the rest of the press, In most other parts of the country, cyclists aren't really regarded as a menace but as an irrelevance, although there are signs of change.
 

jonesy

Guru
Bollo said:
...

A section of the non-cyclisting public seem enraged at our existence. I confess to being baffled.
...

I agree. As has been discussed on P&L recently, I think some of the factors behind this rage include:

1. Some people consider cyclists to be a challenge to their values: they see owning a car as an important statement of their success, they may feel they have worked hard to own a (in their view) nice car, they perceive themselves to be skilled drivers and wish to demonstrate that with manly acceleration and speed, and there we are on our (in their view) cheap, slow bicycles, basically telling them we don't give a f about what they think is important.

2. For others, seeing a cyclist is a challenge to the travel choices they have made: they have rationalised their decision to drive on the grounds that cycling is impractical, dangerous, slow, etc etc etc, and there we are, by our very existence, telling them they are wrong. People don't like being proved wrong.

3. And for a different group again, probably mostly the more risk-averse drivers, we are irresponsible, not just because we are taking risks for ourselves, but we are also imposing an additional burden on them to avoid hitting us. These are the sort of drivers who post comments on 'have your say' sites along the lines of "drivers already have too many other things to look out for without cyclists etc etc etc". Lots of drivers are nervous around cyclists, and don't really know how to overtake, especially when under pressure from following drivers. They aren't anti-cyclist per se, but think we should only be on off-road paths.

4. And cutting across all of these is a perception that there is a territorial struggle for road space as roads become more congested. This pits different groups against each other: instead of recognising that different modes are appropriate at different times and for different journeys (as most of us do here), lots of people become entrenched in a kind of motorist as victim mentality (egged on by the media), in which congestion has nothing to do with their own choices and can be blamed on others- cyclists, buses, lorries, the school run, traffic light phasing, traffic calming etc etc.

In all these cases, many people's attitudes will change through exposure to higher levels of cycling, but sadly the process of getting higher levels of cycling seems to provoke an even greater level of hostility than when we are simply an easily ignored tiny minority. And there will always be a hard-core who don't think we should be on the road at all.
 

Lurker

Senior Member
Location
London
jonesy said:
I agree.... In all these cases, many people's attitudes will change through exposure to higher levels of cycling, but sadly the process of getting higher levels of cycling seems to provoke an even greater level of hostility than when we are simply an easily ignored tiny minority. And there will always be a hard-core who don't think we should be on the road at all.

How do we deal with this hard-core?
 

al78

Guru
Location
Horsham
jonesy said:
I agree. As has been discussed on P&L recently, I think some of the factors behind this rage include:

1. Some people consider cyclists to be a challenge to their values: they see owning a car as an important statement of their success, they may feel they have worked hard to own a (in their view) nice car, they perceive themselves to be skilled drivers and wish to demonstrate that with manly acceleration and speed, and there we are on our (in their view) cheap, slow bicycles, basically telling them we don't give a f about what they think is important.

2. For others, seeing a cyclist is a challenge to the travel choices they have made: they have rationalised their decision to drive on the grounds that cycling is impractical, dangerous, slow, etc etc etc, and there we are, by our very existence, telling them they are wrong. People don't like being proved wrong.

3. And for a different group again, probably mostly the more risk-averse drivers, we are irresponsible, not just because we are taking risks for ourselves, but we are also imposing an additional burden on them to avoid hitting us. These are the sort of drivers who post comments on 'have your say' sites along the lines of "drivers already have too many other things to look out for without cyclists etc etc etc". Lots of drivers are nervous around cyclists, and don't really know how to overtake, especially when under pressure from following drivers. They aren't anti-cyclist per se, but think we should only be on off-road paths.

4. And cutting across all of these is a perception that there is a territorial struggle for road space as roads become more congested. This pits different groups against each other: instead of recognising that different modes are appropriate at different times and for different journeys (as most of us do here), lots of people become entrenched in a kind of motorist as victim mentality (egged on by the media), in which congestion has nothing to do with their own choices and can be blamed on others- cyclists, buses, lorries, the school run, traffic light phasing, traffic calming etc etc.

In all these cases, many people's attitudes will change through exposure to higher levels of cycling, but sadly the process of getting higher levels of cycling seems to provoke an even greater level of hostility than when we are simply an easily ignored tiny minority. And there will always be a hard-core who don't think we should be on the road at all.

That is a good summary, but I would add that there is a significant minority of irresponsible cyclists who are damaging the reputation of cycling in general. That, combined with the tendency of people to adopt a tribal mentality (them and us) results in the negative stereotyping of all cyclists.
 

dellzeqq

pre-talced and mighty
Location
SW2
could be fun. If you haven't seen Ken speak, then now is your chance. Always good value.
 

slowmotion

Quite dreadful
Location
lost somewhere
jonesy said:
1. Some people consider cyclists to be a challenge to their values: they see owning a car as an important statement of their success, they may feel they have worked hard to own a (in their view) nice car, they perceive themselves to be skilled drivers and wish to demonstrate that with manly acceleration and speed, and there we are on our (in their view) cheap, slow bicycles, basically telling them we don't give a f about what they think is important.

2. For others, seeing a cyclist is a challenge to the travel choices they have made: they have rationalised their decision to drive on the grounds that cycling is impractical, dangerous, slow, etc etc etc, and there we are, by our very existence, telling them they are wrong. People don't like being proved wrong.

.

Very well put. Thank-you.
 
Top Bottom