A Vicious Cycle: The Dangerous Dehumanisation of Cyclists(lens.monash.edu)
lens.monash.edu
A Vicious Cycle: The Dangerous Dehumanisation of Cyclists
https://lens.monash.edu/@technology/2019/03/27/1374089/dangerous-dehumanisation-of-cyclists
274 comments
Daily Mail readers are addicted to rage. I've realised this with my parents recently. They don't read the Daily Mail but they watch a lot of conspiracy videos and it's got to the point that I can't speak to them without the conversation degenerating into whatever is currently making them angry.
Do we know why people get addicted to rage? I don't understand what the payoff is as it just seems to make them angry.
Do we know why people get addicted to rage? I don't understand what the payoff is as it just seems to make them angry.
Psychological stimulation is addictive?
DailyMail type press / alt-righty YouTube channels / etc etc are all very good at telling their audience that someone is out to get them - that their way of life is being judged by powers beyond their control & that they should be angry about it. Keeping their audience in a permanant state of fight or flight due to vaguely defined external threats has been very profitable for them.
DailyMail type press / alt-righty YouTube channels / etc etc are all very good at telling their audience that someone is out to get them - that their way of life is being judged by powers beyond their control & that they should be angry about it. Keeping their audience in a permanant state of fight or flight due to vaguely defined external threats has been very profitable for them.
To be honest, that's the UK media in a nutshell - Daily Mail hates the EU. Daily Mirror hates Johnson. Guardian hates the Tories, and the NHS has been at risk since, well, ever. There's a lot of hate and hysteria from all sides.
Many people are unhappy and they try to put the blame on external factors because that is easier than changing yourself.
> I don't understand what the payoff is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Something to do with transferring the blame for negative feelings about themselves onto others.
I understood the changes to the Highway Code differently (although could be wrong). My understanding was that previously there were various situations where pedestrians did not have right of way and so, if there were cars coming, should not step into the road. That's not to say that if they did, cars could just run them down. Now, the pedestrian has right if way, and so is right to step into the road. Have I misunderstood?
The rules for pedestrians haven't changed - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedes...
The "rules" for cars (and cycles) have been clarified, not that most car drivers even know the highway code. Turning into a side road where a pedestrian is stepping out into the road is where a car must now give way. But then they always had to - the paint on the ground is the same that delineates lanes on a dual carriageway or motorway (single-dashed), and you don't have the right to just move into another lane when there's traffic already there.
The "rules" for cars (and cycles) have been clarified, not that most car drivers even know the highway code. Turning into a side road where a pedestrian is stepping out into the road is where a car must now give way. But then they always had to - the paint on the ground is the same that delineates lanes on a dual carriageway or motorway (single-dashed), and you don't have the right to just move into another lane when there's traffic already there.
> The rules for pedestrians haven't changed
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/updates suggests they have - specifically...
> Updated rule 8 to clarify other traffic should give way when pedestrians are waiting to cross at a junction.
As I understand it, the change is that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a junction, the motor vehicle should give way, where previously the pedestrian should wait for a gap in the traffic?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/updates suggests they have - specifically...
> Updated rule 8 to clarify other traffic should give way when pedestrians are waiting to cross at a junction.
As I understand it, the change is that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a junction, the motor vehicle should give way, where previously the pedestrian should wait for a gap in the traffic?
Also, that single dashed line at a t-junction turning from a major into a minor road has the same meaning as on a dual carriage way or motorway where it delineates lanes - if there's something next to you, you have to give way/priority to whatever is the other side of that line, else you'll hit it, i.e. another vehicle. In this case, that's a pedestrian.
Yes, you're correct.
Priority, not right of way. There's a big difference.
Everyone has right of way to on the public highway at all times. In England and Wales the public has right of way on byways, bridleways and footpaths too (although there are restrictions on what type of vehicle is allowed, if any). In Scotland the public has right of way everywhere by non-motorised means.
Your right of way never trumps someone else's right of way, nor does it trump someone else's right to live.
Priority is a completely different concept. When you give way, you are not losing your right of way. You are simply waiting for your turn. Priority is a simple rule to make sure everyone can exercise their right of way fairly and safely.
I really wish people would think about what they are saying. As a walker in England/Wales, you don't take right of way for granted.
Everyone has right of way to on the public highway at all times. In England and Wales the public has right of way on byways, bridleways and footpaths too (although there are restrictions on what type of vehicle is allowed, if any). In Scotland the public has right of way everywhere by non-motorised means.
Your right of way never trumps someone else's right of way, nor does it trump someone else's right to live.
Priority is a completely different concept. When you give way, you are not losing your right of way. You are simply waiting for your turn. Priority is a simple rule to make sure everyone can exercise their right of way fairly and safely.
I really wish people would think about what they are saying. As a walker in England/Wales, you don't take right of way for granted.
"Right of way" is the term for priority in the US, which is slightly different than "right of way" in a land use/ permissive/ access meaning that's roughly equivalent to a public servitude.
Both of which are separate from the obligation to attempt to avoid collisions/ accidents regardless of who has the legal right to go first.
Giving pedestrians "priority" by default sounds good in theory, but is less safe due to how it changes pedestrian behavior and encourages people to cross in unsafe places vs walking to an intersection or location with sufficient visibility/ line of sight.
Which isn't to say that it should be illegal to cross at unsafe places, but that the pedestrian should assume drivers can't see them and cross as-if they don't have priority, whether they do or not.
Both of which are separate from the obligation to attempt to avoid collisions/ accidents regardless of who has the legal right to go first.
Giving pedestrians "priority" by default sounds good in theory, but is less safe due to how it changes pedestrian behavior and encourages people to cross in unsafe places vs walking to an intersection or location with sufficient visibility/ line of sight.
Which isn't to say that it should be illegal to cross at unsafe places, but that the pedestrian should assume drivers can't see them and cross as-if they don't have priority, whether they do or not.
We were talking about the UK. Lot's of people say right of way in the UK too, but it's wrong.
The key thing is priority is something to be given, not taken. Nobody should be taking priority in any situation even when they know it should be theirs. Rather, you give priority when necessary and proceed when it has been given to you. This simple shift in mindset would improve a lot of road behaviour.
The key thing is priority is something to be given, not taken. Nobody should be taking priority in any situation even when they know it should be theirs. Rather, you give priority when necessary and proceed when it has been given to you. This simple shift in mindset would improve a lot of road behaviour.
>priority is something to be given
No this is a bad way to think of it (regardless of its the legal reasoning in the UK), and is what leads to unpredictable driving behavior, which leads to accidents.
You want the rules to be a deterministic as possible, from all perspectives.
The idea that it's something to be given away is what causes drivers to "wave in" people out of turn, or have standoffs at stop signs because they won't go when it's their turn.
Having "priority" should not be conflated with having license to delegate that priority to others.
Which isn't to say you shouldn't do whatever is necessary to avoid accidents. But decisive and deterministic behaivior is what removes the ambiguity that often leads to those situations in the first place.
No this is a bad way to think of it (regardless of its the legal reasoning in the UK), and is what leads to unpredictable driving behavior, which leads to accidents.
You want the rules to be a deterministic as possible, from all perspectives.
The idea that it's something to be given away is what causes drivers to "wave in" people out of turn, or have standoffs at stop signs because they won't go when it's their turn.
Having "priority" should not be conflated with having license to delegate that priority to others.
Which isn't to say you shouldn't do whatever is necessary to avoid accidents. But decisive and deterministic behaivior is what removes the ambiguity that often leads to those situations in the first place.
Thanks for the correction! I think I meant priority then - previously when turning into a side street, motor vehicles had priority over pedestrians waiting to cross, but now pedestrians waiting to cross have priority over motor vehicles turning in - is that right?
Correct
Ashley Neal is a driving instructor who posts very useful videos.
He has a whole series on the Highway Code changes : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKmQyBNt99LSx7s2Q0p_J...
He has a whole series on the Highway Code changes : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKmQyBNt99LSx7s2Q0p_J...
I cycled to work in LA for a year and I'd be there getting ready for standup helmet-in-hand listening to coworkers joke about murdering me. Nevermind these same people bitched about traffic all the time and seemed angry that I got to work in about the same time cycling or driving (405 during rush hour. vs riding down the beach path, Santa Monica to El Segundo).
Imagine if I joked about shooting my coworkers - how would that go?
Imagine if I joked about shooting my coworkers - how would that go?
I have cameras built into the lights on my bike, front and rear plus a second light with radar on the back.
When I told my family this my, normally quite friendly, brother-in-law asked why.
I told him that it's not unusual to be threatened by drivers when cycling. Anything from close passes that make you jump to a passenger leaning out trying to put a plastic bag over my head.
He got quite angry and proceeded to tell me that cyclists "bring it on themselves and deserve what's coming to them" ...and we get on.
If I suggested waving a baseball bat at strangers on the street he'd rightly think I was mental but apparently if you're on a bike you're fair game.
It's not that unusual for randos I meet socially to say something like "lycra-clad MEN!, it's always men![1], need to get off the road and pay road tax![2], and stop riding through red lights[3] and wear NORMAL clothes![4]"
I could argue with all of that or call them an asshole but what's the point? It's best not to say anything.
It's not about truth or statistics it's about othering an out-group, cyclists and not feeling bad when you scare or hurt them.
1. I ride with lots of women in my bike club. They get just as much hassle but there's generally less kudos at parties in bragging that you tailgated the shit out of a lone woman because she was wearing tight clothes.
2. Road tax in the UK was abolished in 1937. No one here has to pay it and like most cyclists I also have a car.
3. As a point of pride I never ride through a red light but I do see drivers tailgate through red lights or on the wrong side of the road every single day.
4. If I'm going to get sweaty why wouldn't I wear comfortable kit? It's not like I wear a pair of jeans and a t-shirt to go swimming either.
When I told my family this my, normally quite friendly, brother-in-law asked why.
I told him that it's not unusual to be threatened by drivers when cycling. Anything from close passes that make you jump to a passenger leaning out trying to put a plastic bag over my head.
He got quite angry and proceeded to tell me that cyclists "bring it on themselves and deserve what's coming to them" ...and we get on.
If I suggested waving a baseball bat at strangers on the street he'd rightly think I was mental but apparently if you're on a bike you're fair game.
It's not that unusual for randos I meet socially to say something like "lycra-clad MEN!, it's always men![1], need to get off the road and pay road tax![2], and stop riding through red lights[3] and wear NORMAL clothes![4]"
I could argue with all of that or call them an asshole but what's the point? It's best not to say anything.
It's not about truth or statistics it's about othering an out-group, cyclists and not feeling bad when you scare or hurt them.
1. I ride with lots of women in my bike club. They get just as much hassle but there's generally less kudos at parties in bragging that you tailgated the shit out of a lone woman because she was wearing tight clothes.
2. Road tax in the UK was abolished in 1937. No one here has to pay it and like most cyclists I also have a car.
3. As a point of pride I never ride through a red light but I do see drivers tailgate through red lights or on the wrong side of the road every single day.
4. If I'm going to get sweaty why wouldn't I wear comfortable kit? It's not like I wear a pair of jeans and a t-shirt to go swimming either.
As a cyclist in Scotland who's never had any trouble on the road, I was going to sympathise with your having to put up with a toxic culture in your country. But then I saw your in the UK!
Also in the UK - I've noticed a gradient in "aggression around cyclists", i.e. it's most awful in the south and gets progressively better the further north you go.
(I've never had issues when cycle touring in Scotland)
(I've never had issues when cycle touring in Scotland)
That goes for any "unconventional" outdoor sports really (i.e. anything that's not footy or horses). North is always up for crazy random shit, but good luck explaining paddleboarding or mountainbiking to someone in Cambridgeshire.
I can’t speak to Cambridge specifically but there are 4 B1KE mountain bike parks alone in the south of England (Wind hill, Rogate, Tidworth and S4P) so I’m not convinced of this north/south divide. There are others than just B1KE mountain bike parks too.
I personally know from a charity Lands End to John O'Groats ride a few years ago that drivers in Scotland can be really lovely people.
I specifically remember truck drivers cheering us on in the highlands. Magic! :D
Sadly I've seen reports in the news of people in Scotland getting rough treatment there too.
Luckily, it's just a minority though. Most drivers, like everywhere, are just normal decent people.
I specifically remember truck drivers cheering us on in the highlands. Magic! :D
Sadly I've seen reports in the news of people in Scotland getting rough treatment there too.
Luckily, it's just a minority though. Most drivers, like everywhere, are just normal decent people.
It's a problem pretty much everywhere I guess. I've been almost killed 3 times in the last two years, and every time it was a car driver breaking a law.
From what I've gathered it seems car drivers are annoyed because overtaking cyclists requires more thinking than following the white line, and envious because cyclists don't have parking space problems and can just get off the bike and switch to the sidewalk.
Some people feel entitled to more rights on the road because they paid more for their vehicle.
From what I've gathered it seems car drivers are annoyed because overtaking cyclists requires more thinking than following the white line, and envious because cyclists don't have parking space problems and can just get off the bike and switch to the sidewalk.
Some people feel entitled to more rights on the road because they paid more for their vehicle.
Not really surprising when we have Clarkson leading the hate brigade.
No true scotsman would confuse “your” and “you’re”.
Uh, in fact, British and American natives are the worst, when it comes to homophonic errors. Your/you're, its/it's, their/there/they're - unless they're well educated (and often even if they are), chances are that the natives will get them wrong whereas foreigners won't. That's because they think of the language in terms of sounds first (as they learnt it before they could read), whereas foreigners are forced to think about it in logical terms first.
I know, it was a joke: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I'm not a grammarian but "your" sure seems less wrong than "you're" in that sentence.
"I was going to sympathise with you are having to put up with [stuff]" - doesn't work.
"I was going to sympathise with you are having to put up with [stuff]" - doesn't work.
[deleted]
In general I think it has got better. Thirty years ago it was really common to get deliberate abuse when out riding, now it's relatively rare.
I think this is mostly down to having more cyclists on the road.
There is still a long way to go though.
I think this is mostly down to having more cyclists on the road.
There is still a long way to go though.
>He got quite angry and proceeded to tell me that cyclists "bring it on themselves and deserve what's coming to them" ...and we get on.
I even get it from my own parents when they know I ride pretty much everywhere.
I even get it from my own parents when they know I ride pretty much everywhere.
What the fuck?
I often cycle near Paris and I never got this amount of crap, not from random people, and certainly not from my colleagues. This is surreal.
I often cycle near Paris and I never got this amount of crap, not from random people, and certainly not from my colleagues. This is surreal.
Where did you get your cameras? Would you recommend them to a fellow cyclist?
I use https://cycliq.com/
I think I would recommend them but they're definitely not perfect.
I have had some (rare) reliability issues and I really wish they had removable 18650 batteries for long night rides.
The radar is a https://www.garmin.com/en-GB/p/698001 which is useful to let you see and know the speed of cars approaching from behind.
These are great. Simple bit of kit that works well.
I think I would recommend them but they're definitely not perfect.
I have had some (rare) reliability issues and I really wish they had removable 18650 batteries for long night rides.
The radar is a https://www.garmin.com/en-GB/p/698001 which is useful to let you see and know the speed of cars approaching from behind.
These are great. Simple bit of kit that works well.
Cycliq looks amazing, but buying both a front and rear cam/light would cost more than my bike! Any clones or alternatives out there?
There's some cheaper ones around but with varying quality. I use Cycliq front and back and they're not perfect (the app is rubbish and it's surprisingly difficult to get both cams showing the same time), but they're currently the best for ease of use (e.g. overwriting old recordings automatically on the microSD card).
Yeah they're pretty good on balance. I've not seen anything else that gets the core features so right.
The only thing that really drives me nuts about them is that they have a tendency to come out of Airplane mode by themselves. Bluetooth gradually drains them flat if I don't keep them constantly plugged in.
Since I've never really got the Ant+ networking to work reliably either I could probably do without any wireless features.
Oh and I got mine on sale for about half what they normally go for
...and put the savings towards another bike obvs. (n+1) (s-1), etc :D
The only thing that really drives me nuts about them is that they have a tendency to come out of Airplane mode by themselves. Bluetooth gradually drains them flat if I don't keep them constantly plugged in.
Since I've never really got the Ant+ networking to work reliably either I could probably do without any wireless features.
Oh and I got mine on sale for about half what they normally go for
...and put the savings towards another bike obvs. (n+1) (s-1), etc :D
For a while a long time ago I used the monoprice action cam (discontinued). It looked like a bike light, didn’t have stabilization but had an easy to use big switch on the top. Worked well enough but along with my bike light it was another thing to charge and I didn’t have time to go through all my footage.
Recently I’ve attached my go pro and it being much newer is better and digital stabilization but the battery life isn’t great.
So I usually ride without. But I have a cell phone in my pocket..
Recently I’ve attached my go pro and it being much newer is better and digital stabilization but the battery life isn’t great.
So I usually ride without. But I have a cell phone in my pocket..
Upgrading your bike seems like the most obvious move ;)
Not really :-/. I suppose you could rig a cheap dash cam with a battery, but you lose out on the headlight, which I use all the time.
> Any clones or alternatives out there?
Cheap chinese action cams without integrated tail light.
Cheap chinese action cams without integrated tail light.
I have a unique perspective here, having lived in both Australia and a modern European country with AMAZING cycling infrastructure. Bikes should not share the same spaces as pedestrians OR cars. Period. If they must share, bikes are much closer to pedestrians than cars, yet we ask them to share the road with cars. These modes of transport are VASTLY different, and of course lead to all kinds of animosity between these groups. Australia is notorious for underfunding and ignoring anything resembling cycling infrastructure. Cyclists believe they're "motor vehicles," and indeed, under many statues, they are legally classed as such. The problem is, when there is a 20 car queue stuck behind two cyclists riding next to each other, cruising along at 30kph in a 100kph zone (yes, this actually happens, often), this just not efficient use of the road.
The answer is not "teach drivers to be okay with driving at 30kph everywhere." That's silly and I'm tired of this canard. The answer is of course better infrastructure. Hard barriers between cyclists and motorists, and preferably pedestrians too. The only reason this problem exists is apathy and greed. It's often the motorists most impacted by slow and dangerous cyclists who are least willing to increase their taxes to solve this problem.
The answer is not "teach drivers to be okay with driving at 30kph everywhere." That's silly and I'm tired of this canard. The answer is of course better infrastructure. Hard barriers between cyclists and motorists, and preferably pedestrians too. The only reason this problem exists is apathy and greed. It's often the motorists most impacted by slow and dangerous cyclists who are least willing to increase their taxes to solve this problem.
Because being 30 seconds slower to your destination requires a billion dollars of infrastructure to fix, rather than sharing a public road. Nice attitude.
I'm one of those annoying cyclists that head to the middle of the road when its narrow or has poor visibility. Its not to deliberately annoy anybody, it's to discourage impatient drivers from squeezing me into the barriers, the curbs or ditches.
I love it when somebody honks their horn and yells insults at the dire inconvenience of having to slow down for 100m, because it means I have been seen and said driver didn't kill me.
Its nothing to do with apathy and greed and everything to do with the insufferable entitlement of people who take knobs like Jeremy Clarkson seriously.
I'm one of those annoying cyclists that head to the middle of the road when its narrow or has poor visibility. Its not to deliberately annoy anybody, it's to discourage impatient drivers from squeezing me into the barriers, the curbs or ditches.
I love it when somebody honks their horn and yells insults at the dire inconvenience of having to slow down for 100m, because it means I have been seen and said driver didn't kill me.
Its nothing to do with apathy and greed and everything to do with the insufferable entitlement of people who take knobs like Jeremy Clarkson seriously.
The "Not Just Bikes" channel in YouTube makes the awesome observation that building infrastructure for cyclists actually improves driving times for a car drivers, and may be actually cheaper to implement, certainly much cheaper to maintain.
The calculation for car-saturated cities is that each drive takes as long as fastest alternative mode, and no faster. Which kinda makes sense to me - as you build more infra people chose to not drive, making driving a lot more fun for the die-hards and the ones where that's not an option.
The calculation for car-saturated cities is that each drive takes as long as fastest alternative mode, and no faster. Which kinda makes sense to me - as you build more infra people chose to not drive, making driving a lot more fun for the die-hards and the ones where that's not an option.
This "speed entitlement" is something that bothers me even when I am also a motorist. I get honked out of my boots if I do not accelerate towards a red light. Drivers feel entitled to move forward as fast as possible, regardless of others, physics or logic.
I also take the lane a lot to avoid dangerous passes and don't like the entitlement of needing to drive at least the speed limit. However I do think more infrastructure's required, but mainly for a reason not mentioned here: safer infrastructure for cyclists will encourage more people to cycle, reducing the car traffic and making things more pleasant for all travelers. I know a lot of people who'd cycle more if they could do it without feeling like they might be killed every time someone else was in a rush.
(I'm in the UK where cycling on the pavement's not allowed, unless it's a marked cycle or shared lane, not sure if that's different in other countries).
(I'm in the UK where cycling on the pavement's not allowed, unless it's a marked cycle or shared lane, not sure if that's different in other countries).
a billion dollars can get you a LOT of bike infra. Or comparatively little road infra.
And "infra" can be planter boxes and moving paint, for a start.
This thread was a reminder that even in the Netherlands, when you design roads for higher speeds and try to change that by plopping down a sign, it doesn't work.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Netherlands/comments/ss3t0u/whats_u...
And "infra" can be planter boxes and moving paint, for a start.
This thread was a reminder that even in the Netherlands, when you design roads for higher speeds and try to change that by plopping down a sign, it doesn't work.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Netherlands/comments/ss3t0u/whats_u...
From the perspective of the 20 drivers behind you, you are the inconsiderate person.
It's a safety thing as well. And those bike roads last a very long time compared to car roads. It would likely cause less polarization too!
At least in Spain there is a minimum speed at which you can legally drive (half the max)…
Your comment made me chuckle; and not because I mean to minimize what you said.
I drive a 7,500 lb diesel pickup truck as my weekend “I’m going to the boonies to play with my man toys” vehicle. It’s a big and imposing vehicle that I operate responsibly. On longer highway trips I tend to lay in the speed limit into my cruise control and simply cruise (fitting eh?) in the middle lane of a 3-lane road or the right lane of a 2-lane road.
Guess what? I get honked at for driving too slowly even when I’m traveling at 70 mph that also happens to be the speed limit.
Just yesterday an especially irate specimen became upset when I was using the left lane to pass at 70 mph (otherwise known as the speed limit) to go past a very large truck that was using the right lane at 60 mph. Someone honked at me, flashed their headlights, then eventually passed me, got in front of me, and performed a brake check on me.
Imagine how upset this wheeled menace gets when they see a cyclist taking the entirety of a narrow road! Sigh.
I drive a 7,500 lb diesel pickup truck as my weekend “I’m going to the boonies to play with my man toys” vehicle. It’s a big and imposing vehicle that I operate responsibly. On longer highway trips I tend to lay in the speed limit into my cruise control and simply cruise (fitting eh?) in the middle lane of a 3-lane road or the right lane of a 2-lane road.
Guess what? I get honked at for driving too slowly even when I’m traveling at 70 mph that also happens to be the speed limit.
Just yesterday an especially irate specimen became upset when I was using the left lane to pass at 70 mph (otherwise known as the speed limit) to go past a very large truck that was using the right lane at 60 mph. Someone honked at me, flashed their headlights, then eventually passed me, got in front of me, and performed a brake check on me.
Imagine how upset this wheeled menace gets when they see a cyclist taking the entirety of a narrow road! Sigh.
If you can't go the speed limit, you should get off the road and let cars pass.
Funnily enough I’ve had cars cut me off in an unsafe manner to turn right in front of me so fast I had to slam my bicycle breaks… while I was going the speed limit.
Cars feel impatient behind bikes even when travelling the speed limit.
Also, if cars that aren’t able or willing to travel the speed limit are not forced to pull over for faster traffic… you’ve never been stuck behind a truck, old person or tractor?
Cars feel impatient behind bikes even when travelling the speed limit.
Also, if cars that aren’t able or willing to travel the speed limit are not forced to pull over for faster traffic… you’ve never been stuck behind a truck, old person or tractor?
Its interesting to listen to truckies on the UHF when confronted with impatient drivers. They have many of the same frustrations that cyclists do when an impatient driver does something stupid or dangerous, only it usually ends badly for the motorist.
> I’ve had cars cut me off in an unsafe manner to turn right in front of me so fast I had to slam my bicycle breaks… while I was going the speed limit.
To be fair, I've had this as a driver too. Everyone has seen the driver in an outside lane cut across two lanes of traffic to take a turn that they were in the wrong lane for.
To be fair, I've had this as a driver too. Everyone has seen the driver in an outside lane cut across two lanes of traffic to take a turn that they were in the wrong lane for.
I would not like to be stuck behind a car either. It's even against the law where I live to impede traffic with a motor vehicle.
[deleted]
Its a speed limit, not a minimum speed.
I would recommend getting a bike and trying it out. It makes you a better driver, because being considerate of other road users is its own reward.
I would recommend getting a bike and trying it out. It makes you a better driver, because being considerate of other road users is its own reward.
Not just this, but you will learn to read and anticipate traffic in a far deeper way, through the human survival instinct: a slight swerve foreshadowing a lane change before an indicator is pressed; an aggressive posture and edging forward indicating unreasonable eagerness to enter an intersection. These are the kinds of things you'll particularly notice as a commuting cyclist, and which I have found to be of great value as a driver too.
I'm pretty sure the years where I cycled to school and work without any regard to the traffic code didn't make me a better driver; I just learned to expect the worst possible behavior from cyclists and to expect them to appear from unexpected directions (from the sidewalks, from one-way streets, running red lights...)
On Australian roads, Mustang and HSV Commodore drivers always seem to be on the verge of doing something incredibly stupid and endangering others. In reality its probably just confirmation bias but if I'm driving or cycling they always get a wide berth.
A cyclist doing something stupid is unlikely to live long and is mostly a danger to themselves.
A cyclist doing something stupid is unlikely to live long and is mostly a danger to themselves.
> A cyclist doing something stupid is unlikely to live long and is mostly a danger to themselves.
well, I survived a few years of daily stupidity on two wheels.
well, I survived a few years of daily stupidity on two wheels.
>Its a speed limit, not a minimum speed.
Technically and legally yes, but in practice it's the minimum you are expected to drive.
>I would recommend getting a bike
I do have a bike and I always get off the road to let cars pass when there is one nearby.
Technically and legally yes, but in practice it's the minimum you are expected to drive.
>I would recommend getting a bike
I do have a bike and I always get off the road to let cars pass when there is one nearby.
> but in practice it's the minimum you are expected to drive.
No, it's not. Far from it. A speed limit of 70mph on a motorway is not the minimum, just because you, or other vehicles want to exceed it.
A speed limit of 20/30mph in a city center is not a minimum; it's actively dangerous to exceed it, and if you regularly exceed these you are a danger on the road.
A limit of 60mph on a national road is often granted based on road classification rather than the actual road; There are numerous A roads in Scotland that are _not_ safe to travel at 60mph for large stretches of due to poor road camber, poor visibility, narrow lanes, etc.
> I do have a bike and I always get off the road to let cars pass when there is one nearby.
This is a dangerous and unpredictable way to cycle, and can lead to cars overtaking you when it's dangerous to do so/they're not confident to do so, in the same way that an unconfident driver travelling at 40mph on a motorway is dangerous, or a car driving in a hard shoulder to allow overtaking is dangerous.
No, it's not. Far from it. A speed limit of 70mph on a motorway is not the minimum, just because you, or other vehicles want to exceed it.
A speed limit of 20/30mph in a city center is not a minimum; it's actively dangerous to exceed it, and if you regularly exceed these you are a danger on the road.
A limit of 60mph on a national road is often granted based on road classification rather than the actual road; There are numerous A roads in Scotland that are _not_ safe to travel at 60mph for large stretches of due to poor road camber, poor visibility, narrow lanes, etc.
> I do have a bike and I always get off the road to let cars pass when there is one nearby.
This is a dangerous and unpredictable way to cycle, and can lead to cars overtaking you when it's dangerous to do so/they're not confident to do so, in the same way that an unconfident driver travelling at 40mph on a motorway is dangerous, or a car driving in a hard shoulder to allow overtaking is dangerous.
>and if you regularly exceed these you are a danger on the road.
98% of my driving is not in city centers
>A roads in Scotland that are _not_ safe to travel at 60mph for large stretches of due to poor road camber, poor visibility, narrow lanes, etc.
Slowing down for safety is different than going slow just because you feel like it.
>This is a dangerous and unpredictable way to cycle
It's not more dangerous that being a pedestrian. I'm already off the road before they even get close. I can trust that drivers can stay on the road.
98% of my driving is not in city centers
>A roads in Scotland that are _not_ safe to travel at 60mph for large stretches of due to poor road camber, poor visibility, narrow lanes, etc.
Slowing down for safety is different than going slow just because you feel like it.
>This is a dangerous and unpredictable way to cycle
It's not more dangerous that being a pedestrian. I'm already off the road before they even get close. I can trust that drivers can stay on the road.
Oh bless the almighty car. We cannot question it's authority and we are all the better for serving it.
What's your point here? Are you advocating that drivers have no responsibility when it comes to road safety?
For context, everyone else's point is that both drivers and cyclists are struggling to maintain a safe environment because good infrastructure is lacking. But I just can't see your angle here.
What's your point here? Are you advocating that drivers have no responsibility when it comes to road safety?
For context, everyone else's point is that both drivers and cyclists are struggling to maintain a safe environment because good infrastructure is lacking. But I just can't see your angle here.
"I do have a bike and I always get off the road to let cars pass when there is one nearby."
So if you were in London you would never get to the destination?
So if you were in London you would never get to the destination?
>So if you were in London you would never get to the destination?
I don't live in London, but if I were to do what I do where I live I would just push my bike around assuming there are always cars driving near me.
I don't live in London, but if I were to do what I do where I live I would just push my bike around assuming there are always cars driving near me.
> I do have a bike and I always get off the road to let cars pass when there is one nearby.
I'll take "things that never happened" for two hundred, Alex
I'll take "things that never happened" for two hundred, Alex
But it does happen. The probability of me encountering even one car during a bike ride is like considerably lower that you are expecting.
> "bikes are much closer to pedestrians than cars, yet we ask them to share the road with cars."
Not in terms of infrastructure. A mistake that planners often seem to make is to build "cycle lanes" that resemble footpaths: lots of zig-zags, stops and starts, clutter, obstacles to manoeuvre around, and diversions at junctions that make cyclists take longer routes than cars and force them to give way to all other traffic.
The best bike lanes resemble motor traffic lanes: straight and continuous with as few interruptions as possible.
If you build bad cycle lanes, most cyclists just won't use them and you haven't really solved anything.
Not in terms of infrastructure. A mistake that planners often seem to make is to build "cycle lanes" that resemble footpaths: lots of zig-zags, stops and starts, clutter, obstacles to manoeuvre around, and diversions at junctions that make cyclists take longer routes than cars and force them to give way to all other traffic.
The best bike lanes resemble motor traffic lanes: straight and continuous with as few interruptions as possible.
If you build bad cycle lanes, most cyclists just won't use them and you haven't really solved anything.
The other insane anti-pattern I see in US cities is to have the bike lane directly next to on-street parking. So if someone parks and opens the driver's side door it opens directly into the path of any oncoming cyclists. Almost every regular bike commuter I know has a story of being "car doored" or at least having several close calls.
> The best bike lanes resemble motor traffic lanes: straight and continuous with as few interruptions as possible.
This. 100% this. The county highways around where I live have a paved shoulder that is as wide as a full lane of traffic. I routinely cycle on that shoulder safely with cars zipping by me at 55-60 mph and no one gets angry about it.
But I do run into the bottom 1% of drivers occasionally (usually at intersections) who either simply do not see me, despite the fact I'm wearing fire-engine red kit and have flashing headlamp and taillight in broad daylight, or choose to ignore that I'm there and intentionally put me in danger.
There are a couple of longer-distance high-quality road cycling trails around here (one is ~50 miles long, the other is ~120 miles long) but they are an inconvenient distance away. The other park-style trails around here simply aren't meant for road cyclists, for reasons that you've noted already.
This. 100% this. The county highways around where I live have a paved shoulder that is as wide as a full lane of traffic. I routinely cycle on that shoulder safely with cars zipping by me at 55-60 mph and no one gets angry about it.
But I do run into the bottom 1% of drivers occasionally (usually at intersections) who either simply do not see me, despite the fact I'm wearing fire-engine red kit and have flashing headlamp and taillight in broad daylight, or choose to ignore that I'm there and intentionally put me in danger.
There are a couple of longer-distance high-quality road cycling trails around here (one is ~50 miles long, the other is ~120 miles long) but they are an inconvenient distance away. The other park-style trails around here simply aren't meant for road cyclists, for reasons that you've noted already.
"clutter, obstacles to manoeuvre around"
Of the clutter can be insane, there is a new, 3 meter wide path, and some donkeyballs-brained perdon has installed a lamppost, a large metal 'internet box', and some other metal box duagonally across the path, so you can't cycle through it any more, and get through on a wheelchair!
Of the clutter can be insane, there is a new, 3 meter wide path, and some donkeyballs-brained perdon has installed a lamppost, a large metal 'internet box', and some other metal box duagonally across the path, so you can't cycle through it any more, and get through on a wheelchair!
> The problem is, when there is a 20 car queue stuck behind two cyclists riding next to each other, cruising along at 30kph in a 100kph zone (yes, this actually happens, often)
At least in the part of Australia I live in the only roads that are 100km/h are highways and bikes aren’t allowed there. I’ve yet to see this particular scenario. I don’t want to say it doesn’t happen but I don’t think it’s as common as it’s made out to be here
I do 100% agree on separated lanes with barriers or dedicated paths for bikes. Keeping it separate, even as a dedicated bike lane with a small barrier is so much better than trying to share the road with parked cars or crappy pot holes.
Ultimate I also think people just need to learn empathy. Loosing a minute of your commute isn’t worth getting angry.
At least in the part of Australia I live in the only roads that are 100km/h are highways and bikes aren’t allowed there. I’ve yet to see this particular scenario. I don’t want to say it doesn’t happen but I don’t think it’s as common as it’s made out to be here
I do 100% agree on separated lanes with barriers or dedicated paths for bikes. Keeping it separate, even as a dedicated bike lane with a small barrier is so much better than trying to share the road with parked cars or crappy pot holes.
Ultimate I also think people just need to learn empathy. Loosing a minute of your commute isn’t worth getting angry.
Well, in the city centers, bikes are a LOT faster than both cars and pedestrians.
Within cities, bikes should share the road with motorists.
Outside of cities, they should share with pedestrians.
This aligns with my experience.
I cycle a lot in inner London - zones 1 - 2 ish. There are a few cycle lanes, paths through parks, canal towpaths, etc, but mostly, i'm on the road. For me, that's fine; traffic is never very fast, and the next junction is never far away, so there's a mix of overtaking cars, being overtaken by cars, and each of us blocking the other for a little while where there's no room to overtake. Also, there are a lot of bus lanes, which are even better - fewer vehicles, and less likely to misbehave.
I occasionally cycle in outer London, and there, i'm glad of the network of long-distance cycle paths, sparse though it is. Speeds are higher, and drivers are more impatient.
I once cycled in Swindon, including across the White Hart roundabout. I won't be doing that again.
I cycle a lot in inner London - zones 1 - 2 ish. There are a few cycle lanes, paths through parks, canal towpaths, etc, but mostly, i'm on the road. For me, that's fine; traffic is never very fast, and the next junction is never far away, so there's a mix of overtaking cars, being overtaken by cars, and each of us blocking the other for a little while where there's no room to overtake. Also, there are a lot of bus lanes, which are even better - fewer vehicles, and less likely to misbehave.
I occasionally cycle in outer London, and there, i'm glad of the network of long-distance cycle paths, sparse though it is. Speeds are higher, and drivers are more impatient.
I once cycled in Swindon, including across the White Hart roundabout. I won't be doing that again.
Hungary has a great approach. The "cycling" infra is shared with tractors and carts outside of cities. They're basically agricultural access roads.
I didn’t notice any cycling infra when I was there 2 years back, and as far as I could tell, some regional roads were barred to cyclists. (To the point of a randonneur ride around lake Balaton advertising that you needed specific permits for the main road)
Not that the side roads were bad. Cars were better behaved than they are in Ireland anyway.
Not that the side roads were bad. Cars were better behaved than they are in Ireland anyway.
Cycling provision in Hungary is patchy, to a point where journeys may be impossible in areas where cycling is banned on certain roads.
But as far as I can tell (without being able to understand Hungarian), it seems that there is a big push underway to develop infrastructure.
I recently had a ride from Bük to Csepreg which was mainly on a separate cycleway by the road. From Csepreg I was able to enter forest tracks which were very beautiful. I've also noticed quite a bit of new infrastructure in various parts of the country.
I can imagine Hungary becoming a very appealing cycling destination if they continue to develop the network.
I recently had a ride from Bük to Csepreg which was mainly on a separate cycleway by the road. From Csepreg I was able to enter forest tracks which were very beautiful. I've also noticed quite a bit of new infrastructure in various parts of the country.
I can imagine Hungary becoming a very appealing cycling destination if they continue to develop the network.
[deleted]
Until as a pedestrian, you are hit by a bike.
In terms of efficient use of the road, it's clear to me that single occupancy cars should be eliminated as much as possible from cities and busy areas. 100 people cycling will take up substantially less room than 100 cars with one person in each and more importantly, 100 cyclists won't suffer from congestion.
As Cory Doctorow put it recently, geometry is against cars.
As Cory Doctorow put it recently, geometry is against cars.
> The problem is, when there is a 20 car queue stuck behind two cyclists riding next to each other, cruising along at 30kph in a 100kph zone (yes, this actually happens, often)
I used to bike commute and I never caused this.
I also can't remember the last time I've seen this in real life as a driver.
Sometimes I get stuck behind a bicyclist that I'd rather not pass because there's oncoming traffic but that never lasts much more than 1 or 2 blocks and is inconsequential to my travel time.
I used to bike commute and I never caused this.
I also can't remember the last time I've seen this in real life as a driver.
Sometimes I get stuck behind a bicyclist that I'd rather not pass because there's oncoming traffic but that never lasts much more than 1 or 2 blocks and is inconsequential to my travel time.
It takes a long time to build the right infrastructure, the Dutch have been doing it for forty years and they aren't finished yet.
I could say the same about roads and highways, given that long stretches of the Autobahn are seemingly always in construction and/or certain stretches have been in construction for years.
When you're "done" with infrastructure you tend to get spectacular collapses.
When you're "done" with infrastructure you tend to get spectacular collapses.
Autobahn?
I think you mean Gemany, the other person was talking about the Dutch (Netherlands)
Autobahn just means Highway, regardless I think the person you're replying to was making a general observation that public infrastructure, much like software is never really "finished".
I was making the point that we have a long way to go before the infrastructure is at an acceptable level, where there is no conflict between drivers and cyclists. Not that it never needs maintenance.
Vehicular cycling (bikes being treated as other vehicles) is dangerous if it‘s used to guide infrastructure (then the correct answer is complete separation and a few other tricks that boil down to avoiding contact between bikes, cars and pedestrians), vehicular cycling is, however, exactly the right approach of no biking infrastructure exists.
So vehicular cycling is both wrong and right at the same time. Correct as in guiding laws and behaviors when no infrastructure exists, but at the same time wrong in guiding new infrastructure. It should strictly be seen as a stop-gap, a measure only in place until infrastructure is in place.
Until then and in those places vehicular cycling is exactly the right thing to do.
I think this discussion often suffers from people thinking they have to find one correct answer for all situations. That‘s not needed. We just have to know when in which context vehicular cycling is the correct answer.
So vehicular cycling is both wrong and right at the same time. Correct as in guiding laws and behaviors when no infrastructure exists, but at the same time wrong in guiding new infrastructure. It should strictly be seen as a stop-gap, a measure only in place until infrastructure is in place.
Until then and in those places vehicular cycling is exactly the right thing to do.
I think this discussion often suffers from people thinking they have to find one correct answer for all situations. That‘s not needed. We just have to know when in which context vehicular cycling is the correct answer.
Bicycles go 4-5 times faster than pedestrians. In the city, bicycles are more than half the speed of cars. I can't seen any rational reason to class things with the larger speed difference together.
> the only reason this problem exists
Is because passing legislation designed to protect cyclists with dedicated lanes and clear up the roads for cars would require the votes of people who hate cyclists, and everything they think they represent.
Is because passing legislation designed to protect cyclists with dedicated lanes and clear up the roads for cars would require the votes of people who hate cyclists, and everything they think they represent.
> If they must share, bikes are much closer to pedestrians than cars
I disagree. Aggressive and fast driving cyclists are in no way less dangerous to pedestrians than a car. Keep the cyclists away, in their own area. This makes for easier rules based on consistent behavior of the participants.
Sometimes I wonder, why cyclist complain about the dangers of cars, while on the other hand they are a thread to pedestrians.
I think that every form of mobility has its own rules. Pedestrians walk fast at around 6km/h. Average is maybe around 4. A cyclist is way faster than that.
I disagree. Aggressive and fast driving cyclists are in no way less dangerous to pedestrians than a car. Keep the cyclists away, in their own area. This makes for easier rules based on consistent behavior of the participants.
Sometimes I wonder, why cyclist complain about the dangers of cars, while on the other hand they are a thread to pedestrians.
I think that every form of mobility has its own rules. Pedestrians walk fast at around 6km/h. Average is maybe around 4. A cyclist is way faster than that.
> Aggressive and fast driving cyclists are in no way less dangerous to pedestrians than a car.
That's just not true. A car weighs well over a tonne, and can comfortably travel at twice the speed any random bike can in a city (15mph on a bike in a city center is snappy, 30mph in a car is achieveable by the time you've cleared a junction). The impact of being hit by a car at 20mph and being hit by a cyclist at 20mph are also completely different for a pedestrian. You are far more likely to sustain serious injuries by being hit by a ton and a half of metal than 100kg of metal and squish.
That's just not true. A car weighs well over a tonne, and can comfortably travel at twice the speed any random bike can in a city (15mph on a bike in a city center is snappy, 30mph in a car is achieveable by the time you've cleared a junction). The impact of being hit by a car at 20mph and being hit by a cyclist at 20mph are also completely different for a pedestrian. You are far more likely to sustain serious injuries by being hit by a ton and a half of metal than 100kg of metal and squish.
And how many cars are in a car-free zones can hit you?
Biggest problem with cyclist is not what they are fast driving and behave aggressively. It is what they do it where people don't expect them.
And your whole comment reads like "You were made to an improvised bowling pin by a 100kg person a on a 25kg bike? Praise God it wasn't A CAR".
"Well thanks. Maybe a car would have been better, because it just would had driven over me and killed me, instead I'm now have a broken base of the skull and disabled down the waist."
Biggest problem with cyclist is not what they are fast driving and behave aggressively. It is what they do it where people don't expect them.
And your whole comment reads like "You were made to an improvised bowling pin by a 100kg person a on a 25kg bike? Praise God it wasn't A CAR".
"Well thanks. Maybe a car would have been better, because it just would had driven over me and killed me, instead I'm now have a broken base of the skull and disabled down the waist."
In the UK many pedestrians are killed by motorists illegally driving on the pavement (sidewalk) every year. The only example of a pedestrian being killed by a cyclist I can think of happened on the road, and was so rare it was a major news story.
You clearly missed "Well thanks. Maybe a car would have been better".
I don't say cyclists kills people, of course not, you need to have a very bad circumstances for it to happen (mostly - hit the head on the pavement or have a great weight disparity, like running over a kid), but arrogance of many cyclists (just as like as arrogance of many pedestrians, especially on bicycle lanes TBH) coupled with speed and weight is a dangerous combination.
OP's comment has a light "bicycles are less dangerous than cars" fleur in it. Sure, of course 1000kg would always be heavier than 100kg (m * v = F; I know), but the problem is what we don't (or at least shouldn't) compare cars with bicycles here. We should compare how dangerous are both to pedestrians.
I don't say cyclists kills people, of course not, you need to have a very bad circumstances for it to happen (mostly - hit the head on the pavement or have a great weight disparity, like running over a kid), but arrogance of many cyclists (just as like as arrogance of many pedestrians, especially on bicycle lanes TBH) coupled with speed and weight is a dangerous combination.
OP's comment has a light "bicycles are less dangerous than cars" fleur in it. Sure, of course 1000kg would always be heavier than 100kg (m * v = F; I know), but the problem is what we don't (or at least shouldn't) compare cars with bicycles here. We should compare how dangerous are both to pedestrians.
> And how many cars are in a car-free zones can hit you?
That's not OP said, they claimed "Aggressive and fast driving cyclists are in no way less dangerous to pedestrians than a car".
That's not OP said, they claimed "Aggressive and fast driving cyclists are in no way less dangerous to pedestrians than a car".
Which is assuming the conclusion - yes, that kind of cyclist would be dangerous but their number and danger is vanishingly small compared to aggressive and fast drivers (50x more numerous and 10x more dangerous).
In the UK, drivers kill about 500-1000 pedestrians a year, cyclists maybe 10 at worst...
In the UK, drivers kill about 500-1000 pedestrians a year, cyclists maybe 10 at worst...
Indeed, there's a survivorship bias with cyclists.
If you've ever been hit by a cyclist going too fast, you'll have a very opinionated story to tell. If you've ever been hit going by a car too fast, you're just a faceless member of one of our more embarrassing statistics.
If you've ever been hit by a cyclist going too fast, you'll have a very opinionated story to tell. If you've ever been hit going by a car too fast, you're just a faceless member of one of our more embarrassing statistics.
Please see the comment in the neighbouring thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30415828
It appears a cyclist has never zoomed past you on a path downhill. If for whatever reason you step in a direction the cyclist doesn't expect and you collide, at the bare minimum both of you are going to the hospital.
Happened all the time to me on the way to work (cyclists zooming by, no collision fortunately, but some VERY close calls). Not the best to be honest.
Happened all the time to me on the way to work (cyclists zooming by, no collision fortunately, but some VERY close calls). Not the best to be honest.
And if a car is zooming down said hill, you're dead. That's the difference.
Physics says that if a car and a cyclist hit you at the same speed you will come off worse from the car. Cars weigh a hell of a lot more than bikes.
The only way you get equal outcomes is that if both impacts will kill you.
The only way you get equal outcomes is that if both impacts will kill you.
The KSIs would show otherwise. More pedestrians are killed on pavements (i.e. not whilst crossing the road) by drivers than cyclists.
There's a fundamental difference between the danger posed by cyclists and the danger posed by motorists. Cyclists have significant 'skin in the game' and can easily be hurt more in a collision with pedestrians. Motorists, meanwhile are unlikely to be hurt when colliding with either pedestrians or cyclists and so they can often get complacent about the danger they are presenting.
The UK is currently re-wording some of the Highway Code and an important part of this is the concept of responsibility - the faster, heavier vehicles bear more responsibility to keep everyone safe. HGVs>cars>cyclists>pedestrians
There's a fundamental difference between the danger posed by cyclists and the danger posed by motorists. Cyclists have significant 'skin in the game' and can easily be hurt more in a collision with pedestrians. Motorists, meanwhile are unlikely to be hurt when colliding with either pedestrians or cyclists and so they can often get complacent about the danger they are presenting.
The UK is currently re-wording some of the Highway Code and an important part of this is the concept of responsibility - the faster, heavier vehicles bear more responsibility to keep everyone safe. HGVs>cars>cyclists>pedestrians
This couple of comments sums up the problem with cycling so well.
Cyclists are neither pedestrians nor cars, and (I assume?) generally both groups would prefer the other had to deal with them. So, as a cyclist, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
> Sometimes I wonder, why cyclist complain about the dangers of cars, while on the other hand they are a thread to pedestrians.
Because, statistically speaking, cars are a way bigger threat to cyclists than cyclists are to pedestrians. Here's an article fearmongering against cyclists [1] (notice how even the link says "cyclist-killed...two-pedestrians-every-week", even though the true figure is "killed less than 10 pedestrians every year, compared with hundreds killed by cars"), compare it with the government's report for road casualties [2].
[1] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863550/cyclist-killed-bicy...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
Cyclists are neither pedestrians nor cars, and (I assume?) generally both groups would prefer the other had to deal with them. So, as a cyclist, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
> Sometimes I wonder, why cyclist complain about the dangers of cars, while on the other hand they are a thread to pedestrians.
Because, statistically speaking, cars are a way bigger threat to cyclists than cyclists are to pedestrians. Here's an article fearmongering against cyclists [1] (notice how even the link says "cyclist-killed...two-pedestrians-every-week", even though the true figure is "killed less than 10 pedestrians every year, compared with hundreds killed by cars"), compare it with the government's report for road casualties [2].
[1] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863550/cyclist-killed-bicy...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
> Aggressive and fast driving cyclists are in no way less dangerous to pedestrians than a car.
Although I agree with your larger point, this is obviously not true.
Although I agree with your larger point, this is obviously not true.
Depends on where you are in the world.
the Netherlands, this doesn't apply. Cyclists might be dicks (especially in amsterdam) but everyone cycles.
In the UK in the big cities, there tends to be lots of cycling. Adherence to the rules of red lights is lax amongst <15% of cyclist. However they are the obnoxious noisy shites whom everyone hates. (fellow cyclists included)
Again, not subhuman, but classic dickheads.
In the US(well NYC), from the time I lived there, cyclists are either raging hippies, or aggressive couriers. On the westcoast it was more of a lifestyle choice.
the Netherlands, this doesn't apply. Cyclists might be dicks (especially in amsterdam) but everyone cycles.
In the UK in the big cities, there tends to be lots of cycling. Adherence to the rules of red lights is lax amongst <15% of cyclist. However they are the obnoxious noisy shites whom everyone hates. (fellow cyclists included)
Again, not subhuman, but classic dickheads.
In the US(well NYC), from the time I lived there, cyclists are either raging hippies, or aggressive couriers. On the westcoast it was more of a lifestyle choice.
If you cycle enough you'll know that often red lights are silly for bicycles. Bicycles shouldn't be treated like cars. They are better. In particular, smaller, more nimble and less dangerous.
I'm a big fan of the "Idaho stop". Essentially it "downgrades" the meaning of stop signs and red lights for cyclists, turning a red light into a stop and a stop into a give way. It makes a lot of sense. Traffic lights and other complications are there because cars are dangerous. People using other modes shouldn't be forced to take the same responsibility as a car driver.
I'm a big fan of the "Idaho stop". Essentially it "downgrades" the meaning of stop signs and red lights for cyclists, turning a red light into a stop and a stop into a give way. It makes a lot of sense. Traffic lights and other complications are there because cars are dangerous. People using other modes shouldn't be forced to take the same responsibility as a car driver.
> If you cycle enough you'll know that often red lights are silly for bicycles.
I disagree. I have witnessed a large number of pedestrian collisions because fellow cyclists didn't want to stop. In london the large majority of traffic lights that "make no sense" are normally pedestrian crossings. This is why I stop at red lights, even though its more tiring.
I had to administer first aid to someone who was knocked over on london bridge by a cyclist and was rendered unconscious. The sniveling little shit fucked off and left the man in the middle of the road.
Yes Cyclists are smaller and more nimble, to a point. But that does not mean they are less dangerous to pedestrians.
The rules are there for all road users, or not at all. In the UK at least they are there to protect the most vulnerable: pedestrians.
I disagree. I have witnessed a large number of pedestrian collisions because fellow cyclists didn't want to stop. In london the large majority of traffic lights that "make no sense" are normally pedestrian crossings. This is why I stop at red lights, even though its more tiring.
I had to administer first aid to someone who was knocked over on london bridge by a cyclist and was rendered unconscious. The sniveling little shit fucked off and left the man in the middle of the road.
Yes Cyclists are smaller and more nimble, to a point. But that does not mean they are less dangerous to pedestrians.
The rules are there for all road users, or not at all. In the UK at least they are there to protect the most vulnerable: pedestrians.
The Idaho Stop doesn't mean you blast through red. You stop. Then proceed through if it's safe. This would be about as dangerous as accidentally walking into someone on the pavement.
There are idiots with no regard to others' safety everywhere, unfortunately. I'd rather they were riding bikes than driving cars.
I'm not sure if pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists. Maybe marginally if the cyclist is wearing a helmet but they are both essentially as vulnerable as you can be.
There are idiots with no regard to others' safety everywhere, unfortunately. I'd rather they were riding bikes than driving cars.
I'm not sure if pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists. Maybe marginally if the cyclist is wearing a helmet but they are both essentially as vulnerable as you can be.
> The Idaho Stop doesn't mean you blast through red. You stop.
Aha, this make much more sense!
> Maybe marginally if the cyclist is wearing a helmet but they are both essentially as vulnerable as you can be.
Its more the point of impact, the pedestrian gets hit by the handlebars which are small and pointy. The cyclist will normally get cushioned by the pedestrian.
However I suspect that numbers and collisions are tightly coupled to country. the pavement layouts are different.
Aha, this make much more sense!
> Maybe marginally if the cyclist is wearing a helmet but they are both essentially as vulnerable as you can be.
Its more the point of impact, the pedestrian gets hit by the handlebars which are small and pointy. The cyclist will normally get cushioned by the pedestrian.
However I suspect that numbers and collisions are tightly coupled to country. the pavement layouts are different.
Red lights are sometimes silly for cars too. And sometimes they are upgraded with sensors that make them automatically go green when you approach an empty intersection, making them a little less silly.
They don't always work well; in my area some sensors seem to trigger too late, resulting in unnecessary braking, and others trigger too early and might encourage you to speed up for the intersection to avoid getting a yellow or even red just before you enter. Sometimes they give a green for the go-straight lane just when you're switching to the turn lane, which stays red even though there's no traffic..
One of my favorite solutions is simply turning the lights off altogether when there's not much traffic. They do that at quite a few intersections here.
They don't always work well; in my area some sensors seem to trigger too late, resulting in unnecessary braking, and others trigger too early and might encourage you to speed up for the intersection to avoid getting a yellow or even red just before you enter. Sometimes they give a green for the go-straight lane just when you're switching to the turn lane, which stays red even though there's no traffic..
One of my favorite solutions is simply turning the lights off altogether when there's not much traffic. They do that at quite a few intersections here.
In our town the trafic lights work perfectly. I seldom have to stop at anything that the first redlight, everything after that is in perfect flow as long as I keep on the straight path. Even left turn in empty crossings work fine, both left and straight goes green and when I enter the turn lane, the straight goes red and only the turn stays green. It's all about setting them up right.
I'm so used to this since I started driving 30+ years ago so I get pretty surpriced when I visit people in Germany and stand in an empty crossing with a redlight. Or have to stop at every single redlight thrugh the whole town.
I'm so used to this since I started driving 30+ years ago so I get pretty surpriced when I visit people in Germany and stand in an empty crossing with a redlight. Or have to stop at every single redlight thrugh the whole town.
It's interesting how train drivers treat signals compared to car drivers. Train drivers treat them more as a way to regulate their speed. The idea is not to ever have to stop at a red light because you would have already regulated your speed such that it's not red by the time you get there. Car drivers see green and immediately speed up to whatever the speed limit is and end up maximising the amount of time spent waiting at the next red light.
The difficulty is that traffic lights are rather unpredictable. Some actually require you to speed up to the limit if you want to keep up with the wave. And others won't light up until you pass a sensor so coasting and regulating speed far ahead doesn't work. Others still may be triggered by sensors on crossing traffic, whether you get a green or red is unknowable.
I'm guessing the signals on railways are much more predictable.
I'm guessing the signals on railways are much more predictable.
> I'm guessing the signals on railways are much more predictable.
Possibly, but it's mostly just a better system which works because railway lines are linear. On British railways at least (not sure about around the world), each signal informs the driver about the current state of the next two signals.
- Red (danger): absolutely do not enter the next piece of track (with serious consequences if breached),
- Single yellow (caution): the next signal is red,
- Double yellow (preliminary caution): the next signal is a single yellow,
- Green (clear): next signal is double yellow or green.
This way you can tell if you are catching up with the red and adjust speed accordingly (and I guess they would incorporate knowledge about the line, ie. if they know there is only one signal to the next station they wouldn't worry too much about a double orange).
I think the "smart motorway" variable speed limits are an attempt to implement this on the road. Unfortunately a large number of people think the temporary speed restrictions cause congestion and others think smart motorway simply means no hard shoulder.
You can't really treat current traffic signals like railways signals, but motorists would do well to learn to regulate their speed better and understand the concept of average speed.
Possibly, but it's mostly just a better system which works because railway lines are linear. On British railways at least (not sure about around the world), each signal informs the driver about the current state of the next two signals.
- Red (danger): absolutely do not enter the next piece of track (with serious consequences if breached),
- Single yellow (caution): the next signal is red,
- Double yellow (preliminary caution): the next signal is a single yellow,
- Green (clear): next signal is double yellow or green.
This way you can tell if you are catching up with the red and adjust speed accordingly (and I guess they would incorporate knowledge about the line, ie. if they know there is only one signal to the next station they wouldn't worry too much about a double orange).
I think the "smart motorway" variable speed limits are an attempt to implement this on the road. Unfortunately a large number of people think the temporary speed restrictions cause congestion and others think smart motorway simply means no hard shoulder.
You can't really treat current traffic signals like railways signals, but motorists would do well to learn to regulate their speed better and understand the concept of average speed.
Incidentally, Dutch law does not require helmets based on research that shows this 'dehumanizes' cyclists; car drivers take disproportionally more risk when they see helmets, assuming that they are safe.
My biggest cycling friend in the US convinced me not to where a helmet for this reason.
Where I am - there's pretty good bike infrastructure - and I can get to and from work and anywhere else I bike on good separated but not completely protected bike paths.
I'm assuming not wearing a helmet was proved to be good on an individual level? Does it mean you're less likely to get in an accident? When you get in an accident, are you also less likely to be severely injured?
Also - are there any stats on how likely you are to be injured on different types of bike paths? Like just sharing the road vs separated paths vs protected paths?
Where I am - there's pretty good bike infrastructure - and I can get to and from work and anywhere else I bike on good separated but not completely protected bike paths.
I'm assuming not wearing a helmet was proved to be good on an individual level? Does it mean you're less likely to get in an accident? When you get in an accident, are you also less likely to be severely injured?
Also - are there any stats on how likely you are to be injured on different types of bike paths? Like just sharing the road vs separated paths vs protected paths?
There are statistics for head injuries incurred riding a bicycle, but some find that these alone do not show the full effect of making a helmet mandatory.
The Dutch Cyclists’ Union is particularly vocal about this¹. Their take is that creating a culture where wearing a helmet on a bicycle is normal has a significant negative effect on health in general and safety by raising the barrier of riding a bicycle.
When you need a helmet, you have to lug it around even when you're just popping out for some groceries. The effects of mandatory helmets in neighbouring countries show that these have a non-negligible effect on participation, leading to fewer cyclists. For cyclists however, there is safety in numbers; motorists are more considerate of cyclists simply because they are everywhere and part of the normal roadscape². There is also the simple weighing of risks: head injuries are, comparatively, very rare. The energy devoted to making helmets mandatory are better spent in improving road safety by different means.
For children the risk of head injury occurring is simply higher, which is why you will see many children wear helmets in the Netherlands until they reach their teens.
1: https://www.fietsersbond.nl/ons-werk/fietsers-en-veiligheid/...
2: Almost exclusively low speed roads; up to 30 km/h within built-up areas, 60 km/h without. Faster roads tend to have separate cycleways near or parallel to them and prohibit cyclists from using the roads themselves.
The Dutch Cyclists’ Union is particularly vocal about this¹. Their take is that creating a culture where wearing a helmet on a bicycle is normal has a significant negative effect on health in general and safety by raising the barrier of riding a bicycle.
When you need a helmet, you have to lug it around even when you're just popping out for some groceries. The effects of mandatory helmets in neighbouring countries show that these have a non-negligible effect on participation, leading to fewer cyclists. For cyclists however, there is safety in numbers; motorists are more considerate of cyclists simply because they are everywhere and part of the normal roadscape². There is also the simple weighing of risks: head injuries are, comparatively, very rare. The energy devoted to making helmets mandatory are better spent in improving road safety by different means.
For children the risk of head injury occurring is simply higher, which is why you will see many children wear helmets in the Netherlands until they reach their teens.
1: https://www.fietsersbond.nl/ons-werk/fietsers-en-veiligheid/...
2: Almost exclusively low speed roads; up to 30 km/h within built-up areas, 60 km/h without. Faster roads tend to have separate cycleways near or parallel to them and prohibit cyclists from using the roads themselves.
What I love most with wearing a helmet as an adult is hearing kids walking with their mother (it's always a mother) after a stare at me asking "Mum, why don't you wear a helmet?". Always makes me smile :-)
No law in Sweden for adults but many do wear it. Just not mothers apparently. Or students. Or people way past pension. Come to think about it, is it only middle age white males wearing a helmet? Ouch.
I don't have any problem going for some groceries on my bike, the helmet stays on in the store. But we have a pretty cold climate so most hats stays on too, nothing strange there.
No law in Sweden for adults but many do wear it. Just not mothers apparently. Or students. Or people way past pension. Come to think about it, is it only middle age white males wearing a helmet? Ouch.
I don't have any problem going for some groceries on my bike, the helmet stays on in the store. But we have a pretty cold climate so most hats stays on too, nothing strange there.
In China you can tell the Americans by their helmets, well oiled chains that don't squeak, and they are going 2x-3x the speed of other cyclists.
I ride fast, too.i feel a bit naked without a helmet. But I ride mainly for fitness.
The Dutch ride for transportation. The bike racks at train stations are filled with thousands of bikes. Very few of them with drop bars. A totally different thing.
I ride fast, too.i feel a bit naked without a helmet. But I ride mainly for fitness.
The Dutch ride for transportation. The bike racks at train stations are filled with thousands of bikes. Very few of them with drop bars. A totally different thing.
I think that with their level of infrastructure, along with how the law weighs fault when collisions do occur I can see why thats the case.
In the UK its not a legal requirement, but at least during my commute about 60-70% of people wear a helmet cycling. (I do)
In the UK its not a legal requirement, but at least during my commute about 60-70% of people wear a helmet cycling. (I do)
Famously Henry Marsh (neurosurgeon) wears a cowboy hat instead.
> but everyone cycles
This is probably the key. A cyclist behind the wheel will usually show some consideration for other cyclists. Same for motorcyclists.
Besides, there are just more cyclists in Europe in general. Drivers are used to seeing them, and driver training accounts for them. It's easy to hate the single cyclist on your commute, but when there are hundreds of them, you must accept their existence.
This is probably the key. A cyclist behind the wheel will usually show some consideration for other cyclists. Same for motorcyclists.
Besides, there are just more cyclists in Europe in general. Drivers are used to seeing them, and driver training accounts for them. It's easy to hate the single cyclist on your commute, but when there are hundreds of them, you must accept their existence.
What's more likely: millions (tens of millions?) of people are "dicks", "raging hippies", or "noisy shites", for no other reason than the mode of transport they choose, or you're lazily generalising to justify an extremely solipsistic world view?
Very gracious of you to clarify they're "not subhuman" too, that definitely makes clear that you are making a balanced and thorough assessment. Thanks for your erudite contribution to this matter, the Nobel peace prize committee will be getting in touch shortly.
Very gracious of you to clarify they're "not subhuman" too, that definitely makes clear that you are making a balanced and thorough assessment. Thanks for your erudite contribution to this matter, the Nobel peace prize committee will be getting in touch shortly.
This is not a great take. You're generalising based on some half-formed observations. Of course US cyclists are not either "raging hippies or aggressive couriers". Next time someone riding a bike is in intensive care after being knocked down by a motorist I hope you have more sympathy than your comment would suggest.
I have not, and will not condone drivers that cause accidents because "ugh cyclists".
I commute in london by cycle. I am also a driver. I expect both driver and cyclist to respect the rules and each other. I do not jump red lights, because that is not what one does.
Over the last 5 years cycling has become much safer and less dangerous. The traffic is slower, and there is more segregation in central london. In the suburbs its not as rosy.
I have not, and did not seek to justify the viewpoint expressed in the article, only to add my observations, which were clearly marked as personal opinions.
I commute in london by cycle. I am also a driver. I expect both driver and cyclist to respect the rules and each other. I do not jump red lights, because that is not what one does.
Over the last 5 years cycling has become much safer and less dangerous. The traffic is slower, and there is more segregation in central london. In the suburbs its not as rosy.
I have not, and did not seek to justify the viewpoint expressed in the article, only to add my observations, which were clearly marked as personal opinions.
> Adherence to the rules of red lights is lax amongst <15% of cyclist.
Cars and trucks break rules all the time, but drivers don't get collectively punished with logic like "this is the driver that gives all drivers a bad name".
The dehumanization of cyclists is precisely the reason why so many people are okay with the logic of collective punishment towards them. People don't do that with drivers because usually when they're observing the poor behavior of drivers they are driving themselves.
Cars and trucks break rules all the time, but drivers don't get collectively punished with logic like "this is the driver that gives all drivers a bad name".
The dehumanization of cyclists is precisely the reason why so many people are okay with the logic of collective punishment towards them. People don't do that with drivers because usually when they're observing the poor behavior of drivers they are driving themselves.
Cycling in Belgium is different from cycling in the UK. From what I saw in Brugge, people just get on a bike to cycle to work, or the shops, on a regular sit up and beg type bike. They're just getting from place to place. They're not trying to set a new personal best.
In the UK, it more tends to be packs of 10 or so middle aged men aggressively riding racing bikes delaying all the traffic for 100s of metres behind them.
In the UK, it more tends to be packs of 10 or so middle aged men aggressively riding racing bikes delaying all the traffic for 100s of metres behind them.
For a while I lived in a city with overall car-centric culture but somewhat decent bicycling lane infrastructure (some in parks completely separate from roads), and as someone who never drove a car: racing cyclists can be a menace. Delivery couriers are nowhere near as disruptive as some of them (except delivery couriers on scooters, but those don’t go on bicycle lanes… generally).
IMO if you use public bicycle lanes for what is pretty much sport (as opposed to getting where you need to go), there should be a dedicated park or track you could use instead. Imagine if racing motorcycle owners got in groups and maxed out speedometers on city streets…
IMO if you use public bicycle lanes for what is pretty much sport (as opposed to getting where you need to go), there should be a dedicated park or track you could use instead. Imagine if racing motorcycle owners got in groups and maxed out speedometers on city streets…
Terrible analogy. Road cyclist time trial speed tops out around 32-33 mph, and the top cyclists can sustain that for about 30-45 minutes.
"Oh no, those racing cyclists got in groups and maxed out their speedometers in the city center ... at the speed limit." See how silly that sounds?
"Oh no, those racing cyclists got in groups and maxed out their speedometers in the city center ... at the speed limit." See how silly that sounds?
It matters not in absolute but in relative terms. It is impossible to misunderstand that I am not talking about pedestrians and bicyclists on the roads with motorcyclists, but other drivers and riders.
The analogy is imperfect, like all analogies, and the modicum of empathy required to understand the actual point behind it may be missing in those who shout at you, who dares to ride in a bicycle lane slowly, because they take bells off their bicycles to save on weight.
The analogy is imperfect, like all analogies, and the modicum of empathy required to understand the actual point behind it may be missing in those who shout at you, who dares to ride in a bicycle lane slowly, because they take bells off their bicycles to save on weight.
I lived in Canada for ten years. I biked every day. However, during that time Canada's gold medal cyclist was paralyzed by being hit by a garbage truck whose driver had been deliberately trying to scare the cyclist repeatedly (to the point he'd called the cops) and yet got off entirely.
I moved to New York City and I stopped cycling almost immediately. Vacillating between anxiety, terror and rage was not good for me. Twenty years later I bought a bike, and a month later give it to my neighbor - even with a few bike paths, it was just as bad.
Thirty years after I had come to NYC, I moved to the Netherlands. And now I bike absolutely everywhere. Cars treat bikes like they are gold. Several times, cars have hard-braked because they suddenly noticed me, even though I wasn't in danger.
Every single car that stops for me here gets a smile and a wave, because I so, so, so appreciate being able to bike again, and being treated like my life has value.
I moved to New York City and I stopped cycling almost immediately. Vacillating between anxiety, terror and rage was not good for me. Twenty years later I bought a bike, and a month later give it to my neighbor - even with a few bike paths, it was just as bad.
Thirty years after I had come to NYC, I moved to the Netherlands. And now I bike absolutely everywhere. Cars treat bikes like they are gold. Several times, cars have hard-braked because they suddenly noticed me, even though I wasn't in danger.
Every single car that stops for me here gets a smile and a wave, because I so, so, so appreciate being able to bike again, and being treated like my life has value.
I think driving a vehicle is like strapping yourself into a mobile suit of armour, thrown in exposure to lots of red tail lights and you have the perfect recipe for seeing red.
The bad press for cyclists in some countries dont help, probably some oil company kickback or someone who relies on tax revenues and more can then be explained.
The bad press for cyclists in some countries dont help, probably some oil company kickback or someone who relies on tax revenues and more can then be explained.
Also doesn't help how much newspapers rely on car dealerships and manufacturers for advertising, or what percentage of radio listeners are driving while they listen.
I honestly think cars are our "sacred cows". That's why we're not talking about people inconveniencing people, we're talking about bicycles inconveniencing cars. We're not talking about people's rights, we're talking about cars' rights. This is of course tongue-in-cheek, but do watch how we word this - surprisingly few people talk about drivers, most talk about cars.
Even road rage makes a lot more sense when you realise we're rushing to defend the honour of our sacred cow.
And it's so deeply cultural, not driving is like being "culturally catholic" - you might not be practicing, but you've been raised in it and accept it as the default.
So we won't ask why cars have some god-given right over all other road users. That's just a given, that's how the west works. Instead we ask why those lesser road users dare inconvenience them, and how we can get those lycra-wrapped vegans out the way of our fire-breathing demigods.
And within this terrible analogy, the Dutch are of course heathen. We accept that they've somehow made being godless work, but we won't even try to wrap our heads around how.
Even road rage makes a lot more sense when you realise we're rushing to defend the honour of our sacred cow.
And it's so deeply cultural, not driving is like being "culturally catholic" - you might not be practicing, but you've been raised in it and accept it as the default.
So we won't ask why cars have some god-given right over all other road users. That's just a given, that's how the west works. Instead we ask why those lesser road users dare inconvenience them, and how we can get those lycra-wrapped vegans out the way of our fire-breathing demigods.
And within this terrible analogy, the Dutch are of course heathen. We accept that they've somehow made being godless work, but we won't even try to wrap our heads around how.
Just because you think they are sometimes jerks and may be dangerous doesn't mean you think they are not human.
As a pedestrian and driver I've nearly been hit multiple times by cyclists (or scooter riders, who are similar) going full speed downhill on the sidewalk, or flying through crosswalks and straight through a red light, or going the wrong way on a one-way street. One time, as I stepped off the curb, a man on a bike nearly hit me as he flew the wrong way through a red light and across a busy intersection -- and he shouted at me as he did it.
I'm of the view that riding bicycles is great, but that people on bikes need to obey the rules of whatever infrastructure they are using just like everyone else. I don't know why some people think as soon as they hop on a bike the rules no longer apply to them.
As a pedestrian and driver I've nearly been hit multiple times by cyclists (or scooter riders, who are similar) going full speed downhill on the sidewalk, or flying through crosswalks and straight through a red light, or going the wrong way on a one-way street. One time, as I stepped off the curb, a man on a bike nearly hit me as he flew the wrong way through a red light and across a busy intersection -- and he shouted at me as he did it.
I'm of the view that riding bicycles is great, but that people on bikes need to obey the rules of whatever infrastructure they are using just like everyone else. I don't know why some people think as soon as they hop on a bike the rules no longer apply to them.
The same way some people on cars don't give a shit about rules. Because people are selfish.
The question is, how much are these people outliers? How much of it is you remembering and inflating the few bad situations, and forgetting the uneventful interactions? Compare this to how often people do shit in (much more dangerous) cars, that we just take for granted as regular road behaviour.
The question is, how much are these people outliers? How much of it is you remembering and inflating the few bad situations, and forgetting the uneventful interactions? Compare this to how often people do shit in (much more dangerous) cars, that we just take for granted as regular road behaviour.
How often do I see cars blatantly ignore red lights and stop signs, drive on busy sidewalks, and go the wrong way on one-way streets? It's very uncommon.
Bicycles here are much rarer, but when you see them, they are vastly more likely to be doing those things.
Bicycles here are much rarer, but when you see them, they are vastly more likely to be doing those things.
Next time you are walking past a junction take a peek at how many drivers are using their phones. A telltale sign is a delayed response when the signal changes green.
That aside, I don’t understand why your experiences of bad cycling are relevant here.
That aside, I don’t understand why your experiences of bad cycling are relevant here.
What? I am sometimes pissed at cyclists, but to think "they're not [fully] human" would imply significant cognitive deficiency.
...to think "they're not [fully] human" would imply significant cognitive deficiency.
I mean, it is one the world has been plagued with. You can find past examples in constitutions viewing slaves as lesser and forbidding Jewish folks from a country. In modern times - at least in the US - folks use it for immigrants and prisoners and to a lesser extent, poor people.
And sure, a deficiency, but I'm pretty sure it is one folks choose part of the time.
Admittedly, however, I think what the article refers to is kind of a mental shortcut folks do unknowingly - one of those things that usually just helps us process the world around us. A car isn't full of people, it is a thing. A bike is a mini car on wheels. Walking folks, even with a bike, are people, though.
I mean, it is one the world has been plagued with. You can find past examples in constitutions viewing slaves as lesser and forbidding Jewish folks from a country. In modern times - at least in the US - folks use it for immigrants and prisoners and to a lesser extent, poor people.
And sure, a deficiency, but I'm pretty sure it is one folks choose part of the time.
Admittedly, however, I think what the article refers to is kind of a mental shortcut folks do unknowingly - one of those things that usually just helps us process the world around us. A car isn't full of people, it is a thing. A bike is a mini car on wheels. Walking folks, even with a bike, are people, though.
“The gross and net result of it is that people who spent most of their natural lives riding iron bicycles over the rocky roadsteads of this parish get their personalities mixed up with the personalities of their bicycle as a result of the interchanging of the atoms of each of them and you would be surprised at the number of people in these parts who are nearly half people and half bicycles...when a man lets things go so far that he is more than half a bicycle, you will not see him so much because he spends a lot of his time leaning with one elbow on walls or standing propped by one foot at kerbstones.”
― Flann O'Brien, The Third Policeman
― Flann O'Brien, The Third Policeman
Unfortunately human beings do have many significant cognitive deficiencies, some of which have severe impacts on those around them.
Why are you pissed at them for? Using the same road as you?
> Why are you pissed at them for?
Just like some car drivers feel entitled to "own" the road and feel that if they hit a cyclist, it was the cyclist at fault, also some cyclists feel entitled to "own" the shared pedestrian and cycle paths, and occasionally hit pedestrians and then blame the pedestrians.
Just like some car drivers feel entitled to "own" the road and feel that if they hit a cyclist, it was the cyclist at fault, also some cyclists feel entitled to "own" the shared pedestrian and cycle paths, and occasionally hit pedestrians and then blame the pedestrians.
Even pedestrians occasionally hit pedestrians and then blame pedestrians. Very high maneuverability makes pedestrians unpredictable. The only way to avoid a collision with a pedestrian is to keep distance between you and a pedestrian, or accept that they will step right in front of your bike sometimes, or hit you on the side, when you're passing them slowly, or bump into you, when you're standing or walking with a bicycle. When on foots, I can avoid a collision with another pedestrian easily, but when I'm on a bike, I cannot do that, even when I drive at pedestrian speed.
Doing things that are annoying, just like every other class of human? Exactly the same way cyclists get pissed at drivers, or pedestrians, or other cyclists.
Cyclists get pissed at drivers because they dehumanise them, threaten and murder them.
I don’t think that’s the problem that drivers have with cyclists.
I don’t think that’s the problem that drivers have with cyclists.
Using the same road as me, at a fourth of my speed, thus risking a potentially dangerous situation for everyone involved, while obviously mistaking a public road for a sports arena (as evidenced by the outfit), while there is a perfectly good bike lane ten meters to the right of them.
No sane person hates the random civilian cyclist who rides inner-city to his place of work, on bike lanes where available, and who acts in a predictable manner (give hand signs when making a turn, stopping when the traffic lights say so, ...). But those wannabe-Lance-Armstrongs on the country road, I can understand how they can make someone's blood boil. Even worse when they do everything to be as invisible as possible (for example, wearing mostly black).
No sane person hates the random civilian cyclist who rides inner-city to his place of work, on bike lanes where available, and who acts in a predictable manner (give hand signs when making a turn, stopping when the traffic lights say so, ...). But those wannabe-Lance-Armstrongs on the country road, I can understand how they can make someone's blood boil. Even worse when they do everything to be as invisible as possible (for example, wearing mostly black).
> Using the same road as me, at a fourth of my speed, thus risking a potentially dangerous situation for everyone involved
Sounds like it's you with the heavy fast moving object that's creating the danger in that situation.
Sounds like it's you with the heavy fast moving object that's creating the danger in that situation.
It's like a person walking on train tracks - the train is the big, dangerous fast-moving thing, but the danger comes from mixing the two. You expect to see trains on a train track, indeed they can't go anywhere else. Pedestrians should walk on the pavement, not the train track.
That's the "pro-car / anti-bike" angle, I think. If cars had been invented first, it would probably be illegal to ride bikes on the road. They basically were grandfathered-in.
That's the "pro-car / anti-bike" angle, I think. If cars had been invented first, it would probably be illegal to ride bikes on the road. They basically were grandfathered-in.
If a car went 10 mph on a 50 mph road I would be just as mad as if it was a biker.
> a perfectly good bike lane
Let's see it. Street View link, please?
You'd be amazed how inconvenient or dangerous many "perfectly good bike lanes" turn out to be.
Let's see it. Street View link, please?
You'd be amazed how inconvenient or dangerous many "perfectly good bike lanes" turn out to be.
Just to give one example that I am faced with regularly:
> https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2815263,9.5021834,162m/data=...
On the right side, there's the L1045. Speed Limit 100 km/h (around 60mph). Large curves. Lots of woods, thus shady in the summer, which reduces visibility for thin, slow-moving objects in dark clothing.
On the other side of the river, there's the Kochertalradweg, which is forbidden to motor vehicles, a designated bike road, goes on for the next 25 kilometers while still hitting all the same towns the street does, and is over most of it's stretch a one-lane asphalt road. (There is a small stretch where it becomes a gravel road, with very fine gravel, for about 200 meters).
Sane cyclists use the Kochertalradweg. The bike folks I encounter on the L1045 are almost exclusively 40-year-old folks who dream of their imagined glory days as a bike racers.
> https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2815263,9.5021834,162m/data=...
On the right side, there's the L1045. Speed Limit 100 km/h (around 60mph). Large curves. Lots of woods, thus shady in the summer, which reduces visibility for thin, slow-moving objects in dark clothing.
On the other side of the river, there's the Kochertalradweg, which is forbidden to motor vehicles, a designated bike road, goes on for the next 25 kilometers while still hitting all the same towns the street does, and is over most of it's stretch a one-lane asphalt road. (There is a small stretch where it becomes a gravel road, with very fine gravel, for about 200 meters).
Sane cyclists use the Kochertalradweg. The bike folks I encounter on the L1045 are almost exclusively 40-year-old folks who dream of their imagined glory days as a bike racers.
I think I'm in agreement with your analysis. It looks like the L1045 has no car-width shoulder (or much of a shoulder at all) and there are some nice alternate routes that wind through in the same general direction without much disruption from stop-signs at intersections every 500-800 feet. In that situation, as a cyclist I would not be riding on the L1045.
A few hours later, I would like to emphasise a few things:
1. I am not saying "Don't ever use roads". Sometimes, I accept that road use by cyclists is unavoidable.
2. I am all for more money spent on bike roads and -lanes, both for upkeep as well as for building new ones. More good bike roads means less bike traffic on standard roads, mean less dangerous situations.
3. I do not hate cyclists. I just have been in situations that became incredibly dangerous because cyclists slowed down traffic considerably (either because they had low visibility, or they inspired other drivers to dangerous overtaking attempts, or because they acted in an unpredictable manner (e.g. by not signalling or not following stop signs/red lights, or sneaking up from behind at a traffic stop and appearing out of the blind spot).
4. Some car owners are assholes and do stupid things to annoy you - much like some cyclists may act less than gentlemanly. We need more street laws enforcement to get either of these groups under control - these groups are those that make their supergroup problematic to the other road parties.
In short: Be considerate, be responsible, be visible (high-visibility clothing is worn by construction workers on road locations for a reason), be predictable. Use designated lanes/roads if available. Even if you may be technically in your right, do not demand it if the situation could be unclear to other road users - chances are they have a lot more survivability than you have if things go wrong.
And for god's sake, there's no reason to use a country road as a bike sports racing track during rush hour.
1. I am not saying "Don't ever use roads". Sometimes, I accept that road use by cyclists is unavoidable.
2. I am all for more money spent on bike roads and -lanes, both for upkeep as well as for building new ones. More good bike roads means less bike traffic on standard roads, mean less dangerous situations.
3. I do not hate cyclists. I just have been in situations that became incredibly dangerous because cyclists slowed down traffic considerably (either because they had low visibility, or they inspired other drivers to dangerous overtaking attempts, or because they acted in an unpredictable manner (e.g. by not signalling or not following stop signs/red lights, or sneaking up from behind at a traffic stop and appearing out of the blind spot).
4. Some car owners are assholes and do stupid things to annoy you - much like some cyclists may act less than gentlemanly. We need more street laws enforcement to get either of these groups under control - these groups are those that make their supergroup problematic to the other road parties.
In short: Be considerate, be responsible, be visible (high-visibility clothing is worn by construction workers on road locations for a reason), be predictable. Use designated lanes/roads if available. Even if you may be technically in your right, do not demand it if the situation could be unclear to other road users - chances are they have a lot more survivability than you have if things go wrong.
And for god's sake, there's no reason to use a country road as a bike sports racing track during rush hour.
It's been shown often that people are very capable of thinking of others as not human. Now wrap them in a nice metal bubble (car), and put the other human into a weird pose on a metal frame (bike) and the division is even easier. I'd then also imagine it's a coping mechanism for the guilt/stress drivers face worrying about cyclists, given the difference of damage in a crash, so they think of the cyclists as "a cyclist who decided to ride up next to me" rather than "a human on a bike trying to get to work".
I found one easy trick to make cars and pedestrians love me while a bike commute...
I attached a fake pigeon to my helmet. Every commute was filled with smiles. Someone even made a spoof movie trailer about it once.
I don't pigeonride as much now because of COVID.
https://youtu.be/7pYRsLedthI
I attached a fake pigeon to my helmet. Every commute was filled with smiles. Someone even made a spoof movie trailer about it once.
I don't pigeonride as much now because of COVID.
https://youtu.be/7pYRsLedthI
Could there be something alien and unnatural about cycling that triggers a visceral response in our brains resulting in fear, anger, and aggression?
In New Zealand and Australia there is a bird called the Magpie. During their nesting season in the spring, they sometimes get very aggressive towards cyclists. It's not unusual for them to swoop down and hit at you from behind with their claws. There are even cases of cyclists being killed by Magpies after being knocked off their bikes.
But in my experience, if a Magpie is swooping you, the best way to make it stop is to get off your bike! As soon as the bird sees you on your feet and pushing your bike, they will calm down and back off.
I've also heard of bulls in farmer's fields behaving the same way - aggressive towards someone on a bike, but calming down when you're pushing it.
Could human brains be similar, especially for those not used to seeing cyclists so often?
In New Zealand and Australia there is a bird called the Magpie. During their nesting season in the spring, they sometimes get very aggressive towards cyclists. It's not unusual for them to swoop down and hit at you from behind with their claws. There are even cases of cyclists being killed by Magpies after being knocked off their bikes.
But in my experience, if a Magpie is swooping you, the best way to make it stop is to get off your bike! As soon as the bird sees you on your feet and pushing your bike, they will calm down and back off.
I've also heard of bulls in farmer's fields behaving the same way - aggressive towards someone on a bike, but calming down when you're pushing it.
Could human brains be similar, especially for those not used to seeing cyclists so often?
Lots a animals become agitated by humans in contraptions that they haven't experienced a lot. I once talked with a wheelchair-bound man that told me that it is very common for dogs to bark at people in wheelchairs if the dog hasn't see that before.
Most animals and especially wild animals are just neophobic, including humans.
Most animals and especially wild animals are just neophobic, including humans.
Yep. Stray dogs hate my motorcycle.
Maybe there is something alien and unnatural about driving that makes people more aggressive in general. Road rage is definitely not limited to targeting cyclists. It's just much deadlier if you attack a cyclist with your vehicle than if you do it to a driver.
> Could there be something alien and unnatural about cycling that triggers a visceral response in our brains resulting in fear, anger, and aggression?
I have to say that in a long life, I've heard a lot of arguments by drivers against bikes, but never one as extreme as this one!
"Bikes are alien and unnatural and trigger fear, anger and aggression [and therefore it's perfectly natural that drivers try to deliberately kill cyclists as in this article]"
> especially for those not used to seeing cyclists so often?
90% of Australians live in cities, where they see cyclists every single day.
I have to say that in a long life, I've heard a lot of arguments by drivers against bikes, but never one as extreme as this one!
"Bikes are alien and unnatural and trigger fear, anger and aggression [and therefore it's perfectly natural that drivers try to deliberately kill cyclists as in this article]"
> especially for those not used to seeing cyclists so often?
90% of Australians live in cities, where they see cyclists every single day.
> Could there be something alien and unnatural about cycling that triggers a visceral response in our brains resulting in fear, anger, and aggression?
Probably not, given that there are many places in the world where cyclists are not met with aggression.
Probably not, given that there are many places in the world where cyclists are not met with aggression.
Interesting thought. I wonder if the combination of forward posture, slim aspect ratio and fluid, fast movement is triggering some bit of neural wiring adapted to look out for big cats. Do the magpies particularly go for roadies?
Short-wheelbase recumbents and tadpole trikes, with cranks out in front, present their own issues with animals. Horses in particular are very likely to spook when they see an oncoming recumbent.
Combine fast movement with a pair of legs flailing in front and Mister Ed is going to think "wolf" or "mountain lion" instead of "goofy human on wheels."
Combine fast movement with a pair of legs flailing in front and Mister Ed is going to think "wolf" or "mountain lion" instead of "goofy human on wheels."
Only piece of quantitative evidence I can find shows that pedestrians are much more likely to be attacked than cyclists.
https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/pdf/WR01108
https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/pdf/WR01108
I think it depends of how many people routinely use a bicycle or have used one. Once you're a cyclist you don't bitch too much at other cyclists when you're driving a car. I do about 15-20k km driving a car per year and 6-7k on a bicycle. I tend to know what to do not to piss off cyclists or car drivers.
Might also depend on how many people routinely use a car. I've seen many comments, here and elsewhere, from the "I never drive [but have other people drive for me]" set, that show a startling ignorance of what's reasonable to expect of drivers. "Never take your eyes off the road" - what, not to check my rear or side mirrors, read a sign, see whether a pedestrian is about to step off the curb, find the defrost button so I don't lose visibility? Some driving is necessary and some is not, but cyclists and pedestrians acting unpredictably makes 100% safety impossible in both cases. People who regularly do both tend to be pretty reasonable about accommodating each other. People who only do one, either way, not so much.
Note that the "cockroaches" slur originated from Queensland police: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/police-...
I won't be giving QL my tourist money in a hurry.
I won't be giving QL my tourist money in a hurry.
I don't drive or cycle (just a pedestrian) and definitely don't want to "dehumanize" cyclists, but I do find it scary (at least here in London) how rarely cyclists follow the Highway Code. In particular, it is very common to see cyclists running red lights or cycling the wrong way down one-way streets. I guess since there's no registration, it's very unlikely cyclists would be penalised for this.
> it is very common to see cyclists running red lights
This must be a cultural thing. I have seen two cyclists run red lights where I live in the past decade. I see motorists do the same thing every day.
> or cycling the wrong way down one-way streets.
I regularly see this happening on a quiet residential street. It's annoying, yet motorists also do the same. While this is a mistake in some cases, it is difficult to see how local residents doing so on a regular basis is a mistake. It also doesn't explain the people who zip along the road in reverse. (By that I mean they are moving in the wrong direction, but at least the car is facing the right way!)
If registration had anything to do with safety, roads would be much safer places. Motor vehicles are already registered, yet people are frequently maimed or killed due to unsafe driving. Some motorists feel free to harass or intentionally endanger the lives of cyclists. Yet police rarely do anything unless someone ends up in a hospital or a morgue. Why should we expect it to be any different for cyclists? If there is an expectation that it will change the behaviour of cyclists, wouldn't the double standard over enforcement reflect a form of harassment?
I am not claiming that cyclists are perfect. Far from it. They are people just as motorists are. They have their bad days. There are also some who refuse to respect the traffic regulations. But at the end of the day I consider the failure to reflect upon the dangers posed by far more dangerous motor vehicles and a desire to focus upon bicycles as ignorant, arrogant, or deliberate acts of malice.
This must be a cultural thing. I have seen two cyclists run red lights where I live in the past decade. I see motorists do the same thing every day.
> or cycling the wrong way down one-way streets.
I regularly see this happening on a quiet residential street. It's annoying, yet motorists also do the same. While this is a mistake in some cases, it is difficult to see how local residents doing so on a regular basis is a mistake. It also doesn't explain the people who zip along the road in reverse. (By that I mean they are moving in the wrong direction, but at least the car is facing the right way!)
If registration had anything to do with safety, roads would be much safer places. Motor vehicles are already registered, yet people are frequently maimed or killed due to unsafe driving. Some motorists feel free to harass or intentionally endanger the lives of cyclists. Yet police rarely do anything unless someone ends up in a hospital or a morgue. Why should we expect it to be any different for cyclists? If there is an expectation that it will change the behaviour of cyclists, wouldn't the double standard over enforcement reflect a form of harassment?
I am not claiming that cyclists are perfect. Far from it. They are people just as motorists are. They have their bad days. There are also some who refuse to respect the traffic regulations. But at the end of the day I consider the failure to reflect upon the dangers posed by far more dangerous motor vehicles and a desire to focus upon bicycles as ignorant, arrogant, or deliberate acts of malice.
> This must be a cultural thing. I have seen two cyclists run red lights where I live in the past decade. I see motorists do the same thing every day.
Fair enough. I only have my own experience to go on. Since writing my original comment and this one, I walked to the supermarket and back. I saw no cars run red lights but 4 cyclists do it (out of 5).
> There are also some who refuse to respect the traffic regulations.
This was the point I was making - specifically that the "some" cyclists who don't follow the rules (at least in ways that put me as a pedestrian at risk) is in my experience significantly more than the number of drivers.
> But at the end of the day I consider the failure to reflect upon the dangers posed by far more dangerous motor vehicles and a desire to focus upon bicycles as ignorant, arrogant, or deliberate acts of malice.
OK, so let's assume that my observation that cyclists break the rules more frequently is based on an "ignorant, arrogant or deliberate [act] of malice" on my part.
Why do you think I would feel that way? I neither drive nor cycle, so it's not like I'm in the drivers' camp, bashing cyclists.
Fair enough. I only have my own experience to go on. Since writing my original comment and this one, I walked to the supermarket and back. I saw no cars run red lights but 4 cyclists do it (out of 5).
> There are also some who refuse to respect the traffic regulations.
This was the point I was making - specifically that the "some" cyclists who don't follow the rules (at least in ways that put me as a pedestrian at risk) is in my experience significantly more than the number of drivers.
> But at the end of the day I consider the failure to reflect upon the dangers posed by far more dangerous motor vehicles and a desire to focus upon bicycles as ignorant, arrogant, or deliberate acts of malice.
OK, so let's assume that my observation that cyclists break the rules more frequently is based on an "ignorant, arrogant or deliberate [act] of malice" on my part.
Why do you think I would feel that way? I neither drive nor cycle, so it's not like I'm in the drivers' camp, bashing cyclists.
Some do, some don't. But so do drivers [1]:
> In 2020, under free-flowing traffic conditions, 56% of cars exceeded the speed limit on 30mph roads compared to 53% on motorways and 12% on national speed limit single carriageway roads.
And that's just speeding. Drivers are constantly breaking the highway code in other ways. If you notice cyclists doing it, but not drivers, that's because you've dehumanised cyclists.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compl...
> In 2020, under free-flowing traffic conditions, 56% of cars exceeded the speed limit on 30mph roads compared to 53% on motorways and 12% on national speed limit single carriageway roads.
And that's just speeding. Drivers are constantly breaking the highway code in other ways. If you notice cyclists doing it, but not drivers, that's because you've dehumanised cyclists.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compl...
> If you notice cyclists doing it, but not drivers, that's because you've dehumanised cyclists.
Whoa! That's a pretty big accusation! I think you might want to rethink.
I do see drivers running red lights, but it's almost always a close-run thing - maybe it's arguable that they couldn't have braked in time - it's hard to say (not a driver). There is a deliberate (short) pause between traffic lights going red and the green man pedestrian signal to show to allow for this. However it is, in my experience, common for cyclists to go through lights even after the green man is showing for pedestrians.
...and while I'm sure it's true that drivers often speed (and I definitely done condone that), I guess it's hard for me as a pedestrian to tell the difference between a car travelling at 30mph and say 40mph?
Whoa! That's a pretty big accusation! I think you might want to rethink.
I do see drivers running red lights, but it's almost always a close-run thing - maybe it's arguable that they couldn't have braked in time - it's hard to say (not a driver). There is a deliberate (short) pause between traffic lights going red and the green man pedestrian signal to show to allow for this. However it is, in my experience, common for cyclists to go through lights even after the green man is showing for pedestrians.
...and while I'm sure it's true that drivers often speed (and I definitely done condone that), I guess it's hard for me as a pedestrian to tell the difference between a car travelling at 30mph and say 40mph?
I think that cyclists running red lights is a symptom that most crossings and junctions are designed primarily for motor vehicles. Some countries modify traffic laws for cyclists such as the Idaho Stop and Paris has also made changes so that red lights can be treated as Give Way/Yield. However that does not excuse cyclists that endanger pedestrians.
One-way streets are also seldom designed to take into account cyclists and again, they're designed for large motor vehicles. Here in the UK, there are lots of one-way streets that have a specific cycle lane to go the wrong way, but it's a lottery as to whether local councils have bothered to examine the one-ways.
One-way streets are also seldom designed to take into account cyclists and again, they're designed for large motor vehicles. Here in the UK, there are lots of one-way streets that have a specific cycle lane to go the wrong way, but it's a lottery as to whether local councils have bothered to examine the one-ways.
Many one-way / no-entry streets in Manchester specifically have ("except cycles") on them, not sure about London.
E.g. https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4423463,-2.190167,3a,75y,71....
E.g. https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4423463,-2.190167,3a,75y,71....
", but".
That's because that highway code was designed for huge and heavy cars that need lots of time and space to come to a stop and that pose a danger for other road users.
Not for agile and light cyclists. The rules just do not make a lot of sense for cyclists.
E.g., in the Netherlands there are traffic lights for cyclists. They turn green for all 4 directions simultaneously, for only a few seconds. That's enough to have tens, sometimes hundreds of cyclists cross a road, WITHOUT any collision or danger.
Cars are just too big and heavy for most urban areas. They belong on _highways_ indeed.
That's because that highway code was designed for huge and heavy cars that need lots of time and space to come to a stop and that pose a danger for other road users.
Not for agile and light cyclists. The rules just do not make a lot of sense for cyclists.
E.g., in the Netherlands there are traffic lights for cyclists. They turn green for all 4 directions simultaneously, for only a few seconds. That's enough to have tens, sometimes hundreds of cyclists cross a road, WITHOUT any collision or danger.
Cars are just too big and heavy for most urban areas. They belong on _highways_ indeed.
I'd be happy with the Highway Code being updated, or with other provision being made for cyclists, but it sounds like you're suggesting cyclists should just ignore the rules?
The trouble with that is that by not following the rules, it's harder for other road users (in particular pedestrians) to predict what they're going to do.
Even though bikes are much lighter than cars, I'd prefer not to be hot by either!
The trouble with that is that by not following the rules, it's harder for other road users (in particular pedestrians) to predict what they're going to do.
Even though bikes are much lighter than cars, I'd prefer not to be hot by either!
I don't think registration would make a blind bit of difference to be honest, based on driver behaviour.
I remember a Churchill Insurance report from 2016ish I think that showed between 13-25% of drivers in East London alone are uninsured and unlicensed to drive.
That's in a city that ranks highly worldwide for the amount of CCTV it has watching its roads.
Personally, I stick to the Highway Code when driving or cycling my bike for self preservation. I want to be predictable and obvious to others.
It "ain't the bear you see what gets ya" as they say.
I remember a Churchill Insurance report from 2016ish I think that showed between 13-25% of drivers in East London alone are uninsured and unlicensed to drive.
That's in a city that ranks highly worldwide for the amount of CCTV it has watching its roads.
Personally, I stick to the Highway Code when driving or cycling my bike for self preservation. I want to be predictable and obvious to others.
It "ain't the bear you see what gets ya" as they say.
I see this said a lot when cyclists come up. Have you ever seen a cyclist cause inconvenience to vehicles because they ran a red light? Or is it just a sense of "How dare you do something I can't"?
I'm not really watching for them inconveniencing vehicles, but I have (as a pedestrian) had to stop or move out if the way to avoid being hit (despite having right of way).
(As I say, I don't drive or cycle, so it's not a case of "doing something I can't".)
(As I say, I don't drive or cycle, so it's not a case of "doing something I can't".)
Exactly right. Focusing on motorists conveniently ignores that many pedestrians also resent cyclists, because they routinely break the rules of the road. I've had a number of near misses with cyclists barrelling through red lights at speed.
I've found that I don't mind cyclists on the road at all - I just pass them at the nearest opportunity maintaining appropriate distance. I don't think I ever experienced any sort of dangerous situation caused by a cyclist while driving.
I do hate having them in places meant for pedestrians though - I don't enjoy being passed at a few centimetre distance by something twice as fast as a jogger.
I've been to places that impose restrictions on cycling in pedestrianized areas. Example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2688632,-2.9319466,3a,75y,28...
The experience of walking is so much better there.
Because of this I don't believe a truly walkable city should prioritize cycling. As with anything the asshole 5% ruin it for everyone else.
I do hate having them in places meant for pedestrians though - I don't enjoy being passed at a few centimetre distance by something twice as fast as a jogger.
I've been to places that impose restrictions on cycling in pedestrianized areas. Example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2688632,-2.9319466,3a,75y,28...
The experience of walking is so much better there.
Because of this I don't believe a truly walkable city should prioritize cycling. As with anything the asshole 5% ruin it for everyone else.
> I don't think I ever experienced any sort of dangerous situation caused by a cyclist while driving.
Lucky you. Besides red light crossing and driving on the wrong side of the road the worst thing i experienced were cyclist in the night without any light or reflective clothing and a drunk cyclist who decided to suddenly change direction, both on country roads. Fortunately, exept some very hard breaking and cursing, nothing happened.
Lucky you. Besides red light crossing and driving on the wrong side of the road the worst thing i experienced were cyclist in the night without any light or reflective clothing and a drunk cyclist who decided to suddenly change direction, both on country roads. Fortunately, exept some very hard breaking and cursing, nothing happened.
I bicycle a lot more than I drive. But I have to say, some of my fellow cyclists are really obnoxious assholes. Like driving 2 next to each other with 20km/h in a 100km/h area. Of course all the cars that have to wait for them are going to be pissed. And especially so if those morons drive on the road even when there's a perfectly workable dedicated bike lane next to the road. And why is it that elderly men who drive super slowly always feel the need to dress up in neon-colored skin-tight pants?
One the one hand, I believe car drivers are somewhat rational in hating cyclists, because 10-20% of them really are assholes.
On the other hand, I am scared that their reaction to asshole bicycle drivers also affects my own bicycling safety.
One the one hand, I believe car drivers are somewhat rational in hating cyclists, because 10-20% of them really are assholes.
On the other hand, I am scared that their reaction to asshole bicycle drivers also affects my own bicycling safety.
You seem to be a cyclist so I'm surprised that you never appear to have been scared by a car passing you closely at 100km/h? Anything less than 2m away at this speed is likely to feel very scary to the cyclist.
So whether there are two cyclists or just one makes no difference, you've likely got to veer into the next lane to pass anyway.
So whether there are two cyclists or just one makes no difference, you've likely got to veer into the next lane to pass anyway.
I usually drive on the bicycle path, so there's no risk of cars driving by very closely.
I think 10-20% is a wild overstatement. There are certainly cyclists who do stupid and inconsiderate things (and in my experience those people are generally reprimanded by other cyclists), but just because they are doing something that you as a driver find inconvenient doesn't make them assholes. For instance, riding side-by-side is often a deliberate strategy because cars will often try to pass you without veering into the opposite lane or slowing down at all. Depending on the width of the traffic lane this is probably illegal (at least where I live and you are required to give cyclists 3 feet of space when passing). Riding side by side just forces the driver to do what they should be doing anyway. Likewise, if a cyclist is in the road despite their being a bike lane, it is quite often for a reason. Believe it or not we do not enjoy riding within inches of cars and try to avoid it if possible. Sometimes bike lanes are full of debris and broken glass and it is safer to ride in the lane than have a tire blowout at high speed.
I genuinely believe the number might be that high in my area.
We have regular events organized by people who like bicycling where they deliberately drive on the road and then stop to create huge traffic jams. The organizers proclaim that this is to demonstrate for their right of way on the road. But obviously the government disagrees and banned them, so people will post suggestions on Facebook and then people will "spontaneously" go on a bicycle trip together and block a main road on Friday evening.
If you don't believe in their cause, that's mainly a huge provocation to everyone else. Especially because these events regularly ignore traffic rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass_(cycling)
"Because Critical Mass takes place without an official route or sanction, participants in some cities have sometimes practiced a tactic known as "corking" in order to maintain the cohesion of the group. This tactic consists of a few riders blocking traffic from side roads so that the mass can freely proceed through red lights without interruption"
"criticized to be contrary to Critical Mass' claim that "we are traffic", since ordinary traffic does not have the right to go through intersections once the traffic signal has changed to red"
"an event known as "Critical Manners" was created as a response to Critical Mass. Critical Manners rides through the city on the second Friday of the month, with riders encouraged to obey all traffic laws such as stopping at red lights and signaling"
If you have a counter-event that encourages people to obey the law, that might be a hint as to how the majority views your event ;)
We have regular events organized by people who like bicycling where they deliberately drive on the road and then stop to create huge traffic jams. The organizers proclaim that this is to demonstrate for their right of way on the road. But obviously the government disagrees and banned them, so people will post suggestions on Facebook and then people will "spontaneously" go on a bicycle trip together and block a main road on Friday evening.
If you don't believe in their cause, that's mainly a huge provocation to everyone else. Especially because these events regularly ignore traffic rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass_(cycling)
"Because Critical Mass takes place without an official route or sanction, participants in some cities have sometimes practiced a tactic known as "corking" in order to maintain the cohesion of the group. This tactic consists of a few riders blocking traffic from side roads so that the mass can freely proceed through red lights without interruption"
"criticized to be contrary to Critical Mass' claim that "we are traffic", since ordinary traffic does not have the right to go through intersections once the traffic signal has changed to red"
"an event known as "Critical Manners" was created as a response to Critical Mass. Critical Manners rides through the city on the second Friday of the month, with riders encouraged to obey all traffic laws such as stopping at red lights and signaling"
If you have a counter-event that encourages people to obey the law, that might be a hint as to how the majority views your event ;)
Yeah, I agree that Critical Mass is wildly counter-productive but would also be extremely surprised if anywhere close to 10-20% of regular cyclists participate in such events.
I get what you're saying but around here we have cyclists who ride 2 abreast to stop dangerous passing (a common problem) and it pisses of drivers, but we have farmers who drive tractors even slower than the cyclists and nobody seems to mind.
One is making food for the community, the other is just enjoying a personal hobby. Makes sense the former would be instinctively judged more leniently than the latter.
> just enjoying a personal hobby
wtaf!!
I mean, what is the point of life if engaging in your hobbies is fair game for hostility from society? The thought that this is something a lot of people actually think scares me to the core.
wtaf!!
I mean, what is the point of life if engaging in your hobbies is fair game for hostility from society? The thought that this is something a lot of people actually think scares me to the core.
Inside a car, pretty much anything becomes "fair game for hostility" - and I say that as somebody who doesn't own one. Something about going at high speed, just gets the worst out of people. It's the same with bikes going fast vs bikes going slow, or any bike vs pedestrians - the "I'm going faster so gtfo my way" mindset is incredibly natural, in all the worst ways.
So... when I'm commuting to work it's a hobby?
Why do people wear 'cycling clothing'? Because, unless you have a short commute, having padded shorts makes riding more comfortable.
If someone is riding slowly, but still riding for a reasonably long time, having padding is a significant comfort.
..then you follow up saying it's rational to hate.
And is it REALLY 10-20%, or is it just that you're so used to asshole drivers that you just REMEMBER the cyclists who ride badly, and thus inflate the number mentally?
I say this as someone who regularly rides ~100-150 miles per week, and pre-covid commuted to work every day.
If someone is riding slowly, but still riding for a reasonably long time, having padding is a significant comfort.
..then you follow up saying it's rational to hate.
And is it REALLY 10-20%, or is it just that you're so used to asshole drivers that you just REMEMBER the cyclists who ride badly, and thus inflate the number mentally?
I say this as someone who regularly rides ~100-150 miles per week, and pre-covid commuted to work every day.
You sound like you're a part of the problem.
A rant about clothing, and motorists are "rational in hating cyclists", because "10-20% of them are assholes"?
Well, when I drive my bicycle, I usually look like a regular person and I drive on the bicycle lane. And it seems no car driver feels bothered by that.
If we want car drivers to be less angry, maybe it makes sense to stop doing what makes them angry.
Also, there is plenty of bicyclists who have a strong reaction towards car drivers, because they had bad experiences in the past. I think 10% asshole ratio is enough to train people to subconsciously expect the worst, even if it is still statistically unlikely.
If we want car drivers to be less angry, maybe it makes sense to stop doing what makes them angry.
Also, there is plenty of bicyclists who have a strong reaction towards car drivers, because they had bad experiences in the past. I think 10% asshole ratio is enough to train people to subconsciously expect the worst, even if it is still statistically unlikely.
Try as I might, I still don’t understand what clothing a person is wearing has to do with anything.
What's your deal with what some people wear to exercise? Is that a fetish or something of yours?
Well, the article is about "dehumanisation of cyclists". I would expect that it is a lot easier to dehumanize people that look really different from anyone else. If most friendly bicycle drivers wear regular clothing and most entitled bicycle drivers wear neon pink, over time car drivers will come to expect a certain behavior just based on looks alone.
> I would expect that it is a lot easier to dehumanize people that look really different from anyone else
I wonder when this has ever got us into trouble as a society before. Maybe check yourself if you find yourself experiencing feelings like this. "The gays" sometimes wear strange clothing just for fun. Do you think it's acceptable to dehumanize them too?
I wonder when this has ever got us into trouble as a society before. Maybe check yourself if you find yourself experiencing feelings like this. "The gays" sometimes wear strange clothing just for fun. Do you think it's acceptable to dehumanize them too?
I live in Stockholm, a lot of cyclist and a lot of cars sharing small roads. I do not drive a car nor do I ride a bike. But TBH there is a bigger chance to get hit by a bike than a car here, and that's why I don't like them.
There seems to be a limbo existing that is been taking advantage of by the cyclist here, they are neither a car nor a pedestrian. They seem to switch between "Move am a car" and "Mind me am a pedestrian", making it very hard to actually know what they are doing.
At the same time cyclist (some) don't seem to follow any unwritten nor written rules about speed. They have no problem passing you as a pedestrian 20 km/h often by surprise cause you cant really hear them coming.
There seems to be a limbo existing that is been taking advantage of by the cyclist here, they are neither a car nor a pedestrian. They seem to switch between "Move am a car" and "Mind me am a pedestrian", making it very hard to actually know what they are doing.
At the same time cyclist (some) don't seem to follow any unwritten nor written rules about speed. They have no problem passing you as a pedestrian 20 km/h often by surprise cause you cant really hear them coming.
Lance Armstrong once said he used to tell younger riders from his team to remove their cycling eye glasses (shades?) and helmet when approaching the finish line, so they could cross it with a bare face to the cameras, especially when winning the race. He said this would "re-humanize" the rider to the public, creating the opportunity for social projection, fame, success etc.
In my own experience as a cyclist, whenever I see myself in a tense situation in the traffic, I remove my glasses, stick them in the helmet and look at drivers' faces in a non provocative way. It helps, I think, in most of the times. I think the driver regains the sensation that I'm not a thing/object, but a human.
In my own experience as a cyclist, whenever I see myself in a tense situation in the traffic, I remove my glasses, stick them in the helmet and look at drivers' faces in a non provocative way. It helps, I think, in most of the times. I think the driver regains the sensation that I'm not a thing/object, but a human.
Here in Australia, I was once riding down a main road, nearly keeping up with the few cars on the road, someone drove past me and blasted the horn for about 10 seconds.
Don't know what their problem was.
Don't know what their problem was.
Here in Australia, I was riding to work one morning, and I filtered through to the front of the grid at a red light. I could hear the passenger in the car to my right abusing me. When the light went green, I took off, and I heard the car come up beside me… they matched my speed, pulled in close, and the passenger opened is car door into me in an attempt to knock me off. I didn’t come off, and followed them to get the number plate.
Went to the police station, and lodged the complaint. They were actually going to charge the passenger and driver with attempted murder.
Turned out the number plate hadn’t been registered in 14 years. I said “that’s weird, why would they be driving around with unregistered plates” and the cops response was dry: “to steal petrol”
Amazing.
Went to the police station, and lodged the complaint. They were actually going to charge the passenger and driver with attempted murder.
Turned out the number plate hadn’t been registered in 14 years. I said “that’s weird, why would they be driving around with unregistered plates” and the cops response was dry: “to steal petrol”
Amazing.
[deleted]
It's a weird conversation that's always biassed by default.
How about if we suggested that if cars can't share the roads with other users, we ban cars from the roads?
Of course I'm not seriously advocating that, but the difference in the knee-jerk reaction is interesting. If we both have a right to be on the road, the question is just as valid either way around.
How about if we suggested that if cars can't share the roads with other users, we ban cars from the roads?
Of course I'm not seriously advocating that, but the difference in the knee-jerk reaction is interesting. If we both have a right to be on the road, the question is just as valid either way around.
It implies that the dehumanisation leads to aggressive behaviour, but it could just be correlation and not causation. How do we know that these people aren't just assholes?
There are unfortunately a segment of Aussies who embrace the aggressive bogan stereotype, and seek out opportunities to insult and belittle other people.
There are unfortunately a segment of Aussies who embrace the aggressive bogan stereotype, and seek out opportunities to insult and belittle other people.
Go along the canal tow path between Hackney and Islington if you want
to see humanity at its lowest :) You'll find;
Walking Pedestrians
Runners
Cyclists
Mums with buggies
Latte drinking hipsters
You could devise a Rock-Paper or Top Trumps type game where each has their own agility, velocity, hit-power, hated outgroups, allies, special powers and so on. The most aggressive by far are runners. They literally hate all other groups and will deliberately elbow you in the ribs or push aside anything that gets between them and the new high-score target time.
Buggy mums have a special power of vulnerability, second only to wheelchair users that can, like Moses, part the sea of apologising docile bodies (Everyone in London is constantly "sorry", simply for existing and being in other people's way. But "sorry" is actually a very subtle and British form of "Fuck you").
Cyclists vary between extremely polite and conscientious folks who gently ring their bells and pass single-file in groups... to absolute assholes. How expensive their bikes are more or less directly correlates with abusive behaviour. The optimal bike in London costs about 50 quid and is a fashion item that demonstrates you have nothing to prove. Anyone on a £400 mountain bike is almost certainly a total tosser.
Pedestrians, necks craned, heads down in their smartphones. earbuds blocking out any warning shouts or cyclists bells, zig-zag across the path while reading Facebook or scrolling on whatever dumb new app they have.
And you don't need to be fast moving and dangerous to cause chaos. Hipsters literally sit in the path, man-spreading their legs across the lane, daring anyone to interrupt their beard-stroking and spill their latte.
On a good day this is all a cosmopolitan good natured jossle. On bad day things get violent and people get thrown in the canal.
The point is, that heterogeneous users in crowded transit paths don't work well together. Amsterdam is another good example, but has a different dynamic once you mix-in ten-ton trams. Car drivers are just one more level of removal. With cars on the roads it's life and death, and scores of cyclists are killed every year in London.
We recently changed the Highway Code in the UK to give pedestrians (and cyclists) far higher priority over cars. But, like using phones while driving, nobody pays the least attention, and laws are barely enforced in Britain anyway, which is a good and bad thing.
Walking Pedestrians
Runners
Cyclists
Mums with buggies
Latte drinking hipsters
You could devise a Rock-Paper or Top Trumps type game where each has their own agility, velocity, hit-power, hated outgroups, allies, special powers and so on. The most aggressive by far are runners. They literally hate all other groups and will deliberately elbow you in the ribs or push aside anything that gets between them and the new high-score target time.
Buggy mums have a special power of vulnerability, second only to wheelchair users that can, like Moses, part the sea of apologising docile bodies (Everyone in London is constantly "sorry", simply for existing and being in other people's way. But "sorry" is actually a very subtle and British form of "Fuck you").
Cyclists vary between extremely polite and conscientious folks who gently ring their bells and pass single-file in groups... to absolute assholes. How expensive their bikes are more or less directly correlates with abusive behaviour. The optimal bike in London costs about 50 quid and is a fashion item that demonstrates you have nothing to prove. Anyone on a £400 mountain bike is almost certainly a total tosser.
Pedestrians, necks craned, heads down in their smartphones. earbuds blocking out any warning shouts or cyclists bells, zig-zag across the path while reading Facebook or scrolling on whatever dumb new app they have.
And you don't need to be fast moving and dangerous to cause chaos. Hipsters literally sit in the path, man-spreading their legs across the lane, daring anyone to interrupt their beard-stroking and spill their latte.
On a good day this is all a cosmopolitan good natured jossle. On bad day things get violent and people get thrown in the canal.
The point is, that heterogeneous users in crowded transit paths don't work well together. Amsterdam is another good example, but has a different dynamic once you mix-in ten-ton trams. Car drivers are just one more level of removal. With cars on the roads it's life and death, and scores of cyclists are killed every year in London.
We recently changed the Highway Code in the UK to give pedestrians (and cyclists) far higher priority over cars. But, like using phones while driving, nobody pays the least attention, and laws are barely enforced in Britain anyway, which is a good and bad thing.
> The optimal bike in London costs about 50 quid and is a fashion item that demonstrates you have nothing to prove. Anyone on a £400 mountain bike is almost certainly a total tosser.
I feel like your bicycle pricing is ten years out of date. £400 is about typical for a low-end bike that'll survive a few years of commuting. £50 will barely get you a stolen bike off Gumtree.
I feel like your bicycle pricing is ten years out of date. £400 is about typical for a low-end bike that'll survive a few years of commuting. £50 will barely get you a stolen bike off Gumtree.
I think you might have demonstrated his point...
In all seriousness, every one of multiple such bikes I owned in London has subsequently been stolen. (Several cheap ones too, but that's an accepted cost of commuting given the Met does sweet f all about theft or burglary.)
In all seriousness, every one of multiple such bikes I owned in London has subsequently been stolen. (Several cheap ones too, but that's an accepted cost of commuting given the Met does sweet f all about theft or burglary.)
I've had too many bikes stolen so my solution now is: I have two bikes.
I have rather expensive e-bike that I for the 20 mile per day commute and I keep it locked inside at both ends.
I also have a £50 (probably stolen) bike from Gumtree that I use to cycle to nearby shops and train stations. It makes a lot of noise and breaks quite often. I metaphorically duct tape it back together, but it doesn't matter because I never go more than a mile from home on it. I made it look intentionally shitty to try and stop it getting stolen. So far it's working...
I have rather expensive e-bike that I for the 20 mile per day commute and I keep it locked inside at both ends.
I also have a £50 (probably stolen) bike from Gumtree that I use to cycle to nearby shops and train stations. It makes a lot of noise and breaks quite often. I metaphorically duct tape it back together, but it doesn't matter because I never go more than a mile from home on it. I made it look intentionally shitty to try and stop it getting stolen. So far it's working...
The congestion on the Regent's Canal towpath is just a demonstration of the fact that London needs more safe, protected bike tracks.
People don't ride the towpath because they like looking at ducks, they ride it because they're not going to get left-hooked by a tipper truck.
People don't ride the towpath because they like looking at ducks, they ride it because they're not going to get left-hooked by a tipper truck.
Cyclists want cycle paths to be built, but (especially in London) how much would this cost? How much would this cost per person-mile ridden on the new routes? Is this proportionate or not? Would cyclists be able or willing to fund the construction?
Repurposing the £27bn "strategic roads budget" in an age of climate change would build a whole lot of cycleways.
I'm sure it would, but 'cost per mile travelled' is a pretty standard measure, it gives a sense of proportion. Maybe it could also have a 'cost per kg CO2 saved" "value of time saved" etc etc.
You are ignoring the big questions!
Will it improve everyone's life to have more cyclists and less cars?
How are we going to deal with the climate emergency without getting rid of cars?
> Would cyclists be able or willing to fund the construction?
Jesus, man. I'm not a parent, but I willingly pay for schools for children.
This perennial argument against any governmental spend at all has been debunked so thoroughly that at this point I believe that most who make it know it's wrong, and use it anyway.
Will it improve everyone's life to have more cyclists and less cars?
How are we going to deal with the climate emergency without getting rid of cars?
> Would cyclists be able or willing to fund the construction?
Jesus, man. I'm not a parent, but I willingly pay for schools for children.
This perennial argument against any governmental spend at all has been debunked so thoroughly that at this point I believe that most who make it know it's wrong, and use it anyway.
Undoubtedly building cycle paths would improve a couple of dimensions (less traffic, pollution etc.) but it would also cost something, I'm simply advocating a cost-benefit analysis, and pondering whether some kind of funding-by-the-users is possible (like happens for other vehicles: fuel duty, road tax, etc.)
Every time someone does one of these, the cost-benefit comes out so far ahead for cycling infrastructure it's not funny. The HS2 cycle paths cost-benefit analysis came out five times better than HS2 itself, despite the cost-benefit ratio for the hs2 cycle paths being rubbish for cycle infrastructure (most of HS2 is in less populated areas).
If you're serious about analysis then you could start by [reading this UK government report](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...) and it's references.
Or a study on the [danish cycling infrastructure investment](https://cyclingsolutions.info/cost-benefit-of-cycling-infras...)
> whether some kind of funding-by-the-users is possible (like happens for other vehicles: fuel duty, road tax, etc.)
Revenues from both go into the same general taxation pot, they're not reserved for funding roads. Incidentally, Tesla and other e-cars pay neither.
If you're serious about analysis then you could start by [reading this UK government report](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...) and it's references.
Or a study on the [danish cycling infrastructure investment](https://cyclingsolutions.info/cost-benefit-of-cycling-infras...)
> whether some kind of funding-by-the-users is possible (like happens for other vehicles: fuel duty, road tax, etc.)
Revenues from both go into the same general taxation pot, they're not reserved for funding roads. Incidentally, Tesla and other e-cars pay neither.
What makes you think that these cost-benefit analyses are not being done by municipalities and related agencies all the time? Roads require upkeep and revision of their layout as a matter of course, or else London would still predominantly feature cobblestone roads suitable for broughams rather than SUVs.
Any action they take will 'cost something', even not doing anything (lack of repairs will cost you double in the long run).
Don't worry about 'funding by the users'. Cycling is a net-positive for population health and government goals (exercise as well as less congestion and pollution); by that logic users should be paid for riding a bike! Besides, most cyclists pay taxes already; or are you advocating charging pedestrians for the use of pavements as well?
Any action they take will 'cost something', even not doing anything (lack of repairs will cost you double in the long run).
Don't worry about 'funding by the users'. Cycling is a net-positive for population health and government goals (exercise as well as less congestion and pollution); by that logic users should be paid for riding a bike! Besides, most cyclists pay taxes already; or are you advocating charging pedestrians for the use of pavements as well?
Cyclists pay taxes like everyone else, so they already fund the construction of cycling infrastructure.
> But "sorry" is actually a very subtle and British form of "Fuck you"
No it's not. It not actually a heartfelt apology, but it's most certainly not an FU either.
No it's not. It not actually a heartfelt apology, but it's most certainly not an FU either.
In my experience it can have a broad spectrum of meaning, the most extreme of which is definitely close to fuck you. "Sorry" said to someone intentionally blocking the path is not an apology, it's a "what the hell are you doing blocking the path, don't you know I'm walking here".
It can be said sarcastically, sure, but if someone wanted to say 'fuck you' they'd just say it.
That stretch of canal is narrow and poorly marked. It's no surprise that people wander all over the place. Also... Hackney, and the east end isn't exactly the nicest part of London either.
> The point is, that heterogeneous users in crowded transit paths don't work well together
Which is a good point - most if not all "cycle paths" in the UK are shared with pedestrians who pay exactly zero attention to the red tarmac (for bikes) and the grey tarmac for them.
> The point is, that heterogeneous users in crowded transit paths don't work well together
Which is a good point - most if not all "cycle paths" in the UK are shared with pedestrians who pay exactly zero attention to the red tarmac (for bikes) and the grey tarmac for them.
> Hackney, and the east end isn't exactly the nicest part of London either.
Are you suggesting that people that because Hackney "isn't exactly the nicest part of London", that people have bad manners? Please clarify, honestly I don't understand this.
Are you suggesting that people that because Hackney "isn't exactly the nicest part of London", that people have bad manners? Please clarify, honestly I don't understand this.
No, I'm stating that if you search for crime statistics in London, east and north east come out highest. And I'm one of those statistics.
Oooh, sounds like I should visit.
In Windsor Great Park we have all of yours and dog walkers. The dogs are either not on a lead and free to unpredictably run across the road to sniff the butt of another dog. Or, they are on a lead but one of those extensible ones that allow the walker and the dog to be on the opposite side of the road - I think that the opening scene in the movie _Ghost Ship_ was inspired by dealing with dog walkers.
In Windsor Great Park we have all of yours and dog walkers. The dogs are either not on a lead and free to unpredictably run across the road to sniff the butt of another dog. Or, they are on a lead but one of those extensible ones that allow the walker and the dog to be on the opposite side of the road - I think that the opening scene in the movie _Ghost Ship_ was inspired by dealing with dog walkers.
We're never getting back all the calories burned for this, our civilization peaked in the year 2000 i'm afraid
Pretty sure it's just the red light jumpers.
Stick a QR code on the front of the bikes, and put some AI cameras at every traffic light.
Problem, solved.
Stick a QR code on the front of the bikes, and put some AI cameras at every traffic light.
Problem, solved.
There is plenty of evidence that cyclists obey the rules of the road more than car drivers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists...
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-b...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists...
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-b...
If cyclists stop running red lights, people will stop running them over? Am I understanding you correctly?
I believe what happens is kind of a cycle feedback - a driver becomes pedestrian. That pedestrian is badly treaded by a cyclist - high speed passing sometimes ending up with a slight hit. Usually angry responses to any comment toward a cyclist. That pedestrian goes back into a car, and spots a cyclist using street that goes perfectly along an unoccupied path for cyclists.
Sorry but, my personal experience with cyclist is that they seem to be worse towards pedestrians than drivers are towards them.
In my limited experience with people on wheels:
- cars, motorbikes: always stop to let you pass. They will even say sorry if they look as if they didn't let us pass in a crosswalk
- cyclists, scooters: never stop. You are the one who has to stop, and if you don't do that they look at you as if you need to say sorry to them
- cars, motorbikes: always stop to let you pass. They will even say sorry if they look as if they didn't let us pass in a crosswalk
- cyclists, scooters: never stop. You are the one who has to stop, and if you don't do that they look at you as if you need to say sorry to them
This is so far from my experience in every single city I've ever lived in or visited across several continents I'm not sure how you have possibly arrived at this experience.
In which city do cars and motorbikes always stop to let you pass? Again, I cannot state how fundamentally foreign this is to me. I can think of only a few cities (which I haven't visited) for which this may be true, and that's limited to a very select number of countries.
In which city do cars and motorbikes always stop to let you pass? Again, I cannot state how fundamentally foreign this is to me. I can think of only a few cities (which I haven't visited) for which this may be true, and that's limited to a very select number of countries.
In Portugal they do stop. That's the only place on earth I've witnessed it.
It's... huh... surprisingly weird to, for example, stop on the sidewalk waiting for someone to then notice all the cars stopping for no apparent reason and then only noticing you're in front of a pedestrian crossing. Oops.
They sometimes even go as far as to brake so hard when seeing a pedestrian that they cause an accident. I witnessed that one at least twice! Once three cars smashed into each other...
It's... huh... surprisingly weird to, for example, stop on the sidewalk waiting for someone to then notice all the cars stopping for no apparent reason and then only noticing you're in front of a pedestrian crossing. Oops.
They sometimes even go as far as to brake so hard when seeing a pedestrian that they cause an accident. I witnessed that one at least twice! Once three cars smashed into each other...
It accords with my experience of multiple big cities. The comment you're responding to mentioned "crosswalk" which I take to mean a zebra/pedestrian crossing. Cars and motorcycles do stop at them, as a rule, if only because if they don't stop and something bad happens they are in serious trouble.
Some cyclists stop, many don't.
Some cyclists stop, many don't.
My experience has been that most people stop, but certainly not all. If they always stopped you would never have to look both ways before crossing at a zebra crossing - but doing so has literally probably saved me from being killed or severely injured multiple times. Certainly there's no place I've been where it's only cyclists who are poorly behaved.
Fair point. Western Europe.
Which country? It sounds like it might be nice to visit.
It takes quite a lot of energy to come to a full stop then accelerate again with a bicycle. Motorists don't have that problem.
Combine that with sudden stops often meaning that you have to start from a higher gear and you end up with potentially dangerous situations where it can take quite some time to get up to speed again. Even slowing down to a snail's pace is safer than stopping completely.
That's part of the reason why cyclists can treat stop signs as yield signs in some states[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
Combine that with sudden stops often meaning that you have to start from a higher gear and you end up with potentially dangerous situations where it can take quite some time to get up to speed again. Even slowing down to a snail's pace is safer than stopping completely.
That's part of the reason why cyclists can treat stop signs as yield signs in some states[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
It shouldn't take that much energy to stop if you are cycling at a reasonable speed. If you are cycling, through an area where there are pedestrians, at such a speed that you cannot stop reasonably quickly, you are cycling too fast.
> It shouldn't take that much energy to stop if you are cycling at a reasonable speed.
I'm going to read between the lines here.
First, you're correct, it takes next zero energy to stop. Squeeze the brake levers and you're done.
What you and the GP seem to be referring to is the energy to start up again from a dead stop. For most people, this means getting back up to putting out around 1.5 W/kg, which I agree is easy. (This is your typical bike commuter.)
For the rest of us that road cycle, this means getting back up to putting out 2-4.5 W/kg, which requires a pretty hefty instantaneous power expenditure if the cyclist wants to get back up to speed quickly. Note that this is still a reasonable speed in many situations, but it is not a reasonable speed for cycling in an area with pedestrians.
I have three rules for red traffic lights and stop signs when cycling:
1) If the light is red, I stop. If the light does not have a sensor, wait for the green. If the light does have a sensor and will detect me, wait for the green. If the light does have a sensor and does not detect me, I have no other choice than to wait for an opening to cross the intersection against a red light. (There are several such lights on some of my cycling routes that I cannot realistically avoid.)
2) I stop at stop signs when there are any other vehicles at intersections controlled by stop signs.
3) In rural areas, when there are no vehicles within visual distance at intersections controlled by stop signs, I slow down and check several times for vehicles in each direction. If there are none, I'll simply pedal through; otherwise I will stop. If I'm pedaling through slowly I'm starting the crossing at less than 5mph, anyway, which is usually slower than most cars roll through stop signs.
I'm going to read between the lines here.
First, you're correct, it takes next zero energy to stop. Squeeze the brake levers and you're done.
What you and the GP seem to be referring to is the energy to start up again from a dead stop. For most people, this means getting back up to putting out around 1.5 W/kg, which I agree is easy. (This is your typical bike commuter.)
For the rest of us that road cycle, this means getting back up to putting out 2-4.5 W/kg, which requires a pretty hefty instantaneous power expenditure if the cyclist wants to get back up to speed quickly. Note that this is still a reasonable speed in many situations, but it is not a reasonable speed for cycling in an area with pedestrians.
I have three rules for red traffic lights and stop signs when cycling:
1) If the light is red, I stop. If the light does not have a sensor, wait for the green. If the light does have a sensor and will detect me, wait for the green. If the light does have a sensor and does not detect me, I have no other choice than to wait for an opening to cross the intersection against a red light. (There are several such lights on some of my cycling routes that I cannot realistically avoid.)
2) I stop at stop signs when there are any other vehicles at intersections controlled by stop signs.
3) In rural areas, when there are no vehicles within visual distance at intersections controlled by stop signs, I slow down and check several times for vehicles in each direction. If there are none, I'll simply pedal through; otherwise I will stop. If I'm pedaling through slowly I'm starting the crossing at less than 5mph, anyway, which is usually slower than most cars roll through stop signs.
Yeah I've noticed since I started driving an Escooter that I'm a lot more willing to brake in front of dodgy intersections rather than taking the risk, since it all it costs me is a bit of battery.
When I'm behind the wheel I hate cyclists. Not all of them, just the part that behaves like they take part in some Olympics challenge. The same is when I ride a bike. I still hate them, because they are a threat. I am afraid to share road with such people. They do not slow down, they squeeze in where there's not enough room. I'm stressed when riding a bike that I get into awful accident. And I'm stressed when riding my car that I will get someone into hospital and I will have to take responsibility of someone dumbness
[deleted]
The recent changes to the Highway Code are just explicit statements about what cyclists and pedestrians can do (edit - actually what cars should do with respect to pedestrians), whereas before it was implicit - if a pedestrian steps out into the road, would you continue to drive and run them over? Of course not. That's now explicitly stated that the pedestrian has right of way. Similarly with cyclists moving to the middle of a lane for safety, it's now explicit in the highway code.
Yet, the Daily Mail have made it out like it's a war and the end of civilization as we know it.
It's both sad and hilarious reading their faux-rage about lanes being taken out in London for cyclists which are full of far more people cycling at 9am and 5pm than the number of people sat in stationary cars in the adjacent lane (Victoria Embankment). And then taking a picture of the cycle lane on a Sunday, publishing it, and claiming 'it's barely used'.