Idiot Cyclist

[Earl Aelfheah]

Ayn Rand made me do it officer.

[Penguin68]

The driving test now requires you to be 'hazard aware' - and most driving instructors teach the concept of 'defensive driving' - where you are trained to anticipate stupidity and error in others. Cyclists (those who are not drivers) are not required to be so trained - which might be part of the reason why some are both prepared to take risks, and seem less aware of potential hazards around them - many do seem to cycle as if requiring (which they won't get) thoughtful and anticipatory actions in fellow road users (including pedestrians - also perhaps not trained to be hazard aware) such that this obviates the need for them to act similarly.

All road users (including pedestrians) should ideally be aware that they can rely only on themselves - and that actions they take may become perilous in combination with what others are doing. That would mean not darting across roads without looking (or walking diagonally across the road with your back to oncoming traffic) even where you know that you are in the right - not crossing at lights or zebra crossings unless you are sure that oncoming traffic has seen you and is slowing down and so on.

Cyclists need to act as if the rules of the road apply to them also - to watch out for signalling or changes in road positioning which might portend a turn in traffic they are approaching etc. etc. Equally, where something is signalling, they should not assume that a turn will necessarily then be made, sometimes signals don't cancel or people change their minds.

As a motorist I have been trained (and more modern drivers than me tested) on awareness and anticipation - but many road users (pedestrians and cyclists) haven't. I have to drive to take this into account, but this doesn't let the untrained off the hook as regards care. Or at least it shouldn't.

With the massive increase of traffic and concomitant dangers, and with all these special routes being created for cyclists throughout London it does seem to me that the case for only allowing cycling people to use town roads where they can demonstrate some level of skill and road knowledge (and perhaps forcing them to wear protective gear as is required of motor cyclists - and indeed car drivers with seat belts etc.) is becoming increasingly difficult to refute.

[JohnL]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Really? No-one in this country has read Ayn Rand,

> never mind know who the hell she was. And

> Thatcher's comment was perhaps harsh, but in

> context makes more sense. If 'society' is going to

> solve your problem, then who do you actually turn

> to? Here's what she said:

>

> "I think we've been through a period where too

> many people have been given to understand that if

> they have a problem, it's the government's job to

> cope with it: 'I have a problem, I'll get a

> grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house

> me.' They're casting their problem on society.

> And, you know, there is no such thing as society.

> There are individual men and women, and there are

> families. And no government can do anything except

> through people, and people must look to themselves

> first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and

> then, also to look after our neighbour. People

> have got the entitlements too much in mind,

> without the obligations. There's no such thing as

> entitlement, unless someone has first met an

> obligation."

>

> Some would argue that industrial relations in the

> 1970s perfectly exemplified the 'sod you' attitude

> you mention. And don't forget that the film "I'm

> All Right Jack" came out way back in the 1950s.

>

> And FYI I hated Thatcher and think Ayn Rand was a

> weird psycho.

I think in my mind I've mixed up Thatcher and her spitting image puppet.

Can't really separate the two :)

Wasn't her mentor Sir Keith Joseph ?

[davidk]

Why does collective responsibility and punishment apply to people on bikes in a way that it doesn't apply to people in almost any other way?

I cycle most days. Like 80% of British Cycling members I also own a car and have a driving licence. And my activities on my bike are insured through my home insurance and my cycling club membership. I am a responsible, careful and confident cyclist. There are far more people like me on bikes than people like those described above. So why the hate?

[Otta]

davidk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are far more people like

> me on bikes than people like those described

> above. So why the hate?

because as with many other things, the arseholes are the noticeable ones. it's like people moaning about selfish parents in pubs with kids. most parents are not like that, but there are a few who are, and they're the ones that people notice and everyone else gets tarred with the same brush.

[Penguin68]

Why does collective responsibility and punishment apply to people on bikes in a way that it doesn't apply to people in almost any other way?

Why on earth are you assuming that this is part of any argument being put forward? Most people have been careful to suggest that it is a minority of cyclists (as of other road users) that act stupidly or carelessly. Most have been careful to stress that it is a duty on all road users to act carefully (hence applying their strictures, in so far as they have any) on all road users.

It is true that many cyclists do seem to claim some sort of moral high ground - that being a cyclist per se is in some way meritorious - since, I assume, it is understood to be both healthy and low carbon (in which case joggers of course morally trump cyclists - as their carbon cost doesn't require the manufacture of a bicycle, or indeed the creation of special cycle roads, hardly a carbon neutral construction)

Of course, if you believe that having to be trained and take a test is a 'collective punishment' - well that has been being applied to motorists and motor-cyclists for some considerable time. That you (voluntarily) have insurance and that you have taken a driving test is of course admirable - my experience is that (partly for cost reasons) many young people do not now learn to drive - so proceed on roads without any training - and I have to say without accident or third party insurance either.

[Earl Aelfheah]

And so it builds....

[Otta]

Angharad_L Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Waiting to cross at the zebra crossing on

> Bellenden Road yesterday with a pram, 3 cars drive

> straight over the Zebra crossing without stopping

> to let me across.

This happens to me ALL THE TIME at a zebra near me in penge. In fact, much as I love the place, Penge does have an exceptionally high number of total arsehole boy racers and 4x4 driving morons that zoom down little side roads.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yeah, I got 'buzzed' the other day at the crossing by ED station. Car went straight through a red light. It's annoying but it happens, which is why we all have to take a bit of care.

[Zebedee Tring]

Davidk, as the lawyers say, for the avoidance of doubt my comment above about there being generally far too much selfishness and "sod you" attitude around these days was directed at representatives from all sections of the community, including not only cyclists but careless motorists, people texting while travelling at 70 mph on motorways, jaywalking, kiddie cyclists, parents with children out of control, people playing loud rap music from their mobile phones in buses etc etc. So I wouldn't get too paranoid as far as I am concerned - I'm not picking on cyclists.

[stringvest]

How eloquent penguin68. I am enjoying reading all the posts.

[wulfhound]

It is true that many cyclists do seem to claim some sort of moral high ground - that being a cyclist per se is in some way meritorious - since, I assume, it is understood to be both healthy and low carbon (in which case joggers of course morally trump cyclists - as their carbon cost doesn't require the manufacture of a bicycle, or indeed the creation of special cycle roads, hardly a carbon neutral construction)

Also quieter, lower emissions, taking up less road space, imposing less danger on others while accepting more risk to oneself, remaining connected to street life instead of boxed-in and isolated. All these are rather more important, in a city, than carbon emissions. The health benefit goes only to the person riding the bike, so it's not really something to be smug about - though making a harder physical effort & being, as a result, more socially responsible, perhaps is.

Of course, if you believe that having to be trained and take a test is a 'collective punishment' - well that has been being applied to motorists and motor-cyclists for some considerable time.

As a consequence of some considerable carnage, it must be said. If bikes were killing dozens or hundreds of innocent bystanders a year? Sure, I'd sign up to that.

But until that time, how do you decide who has to take the test? The old fellow who gets his bike out of the shed on a couple of nice weekends in June, rides around the park, and then puts it away again for another year? The tourist on a Boris Bike (those, responsible for some of the most self-endangering riding I've seen)? The nine-year-olds doing wheelies in their suburban cul-de-sac?

That you (voluntarily) have insurance and that you have taken a driving test is of course admirable - my experience is that (partly for cost reasons) many young people do not now learn to drive - so proceed on roads without any training - and I have to say without accident or third party insurance either.

I'm all in favour of people voluntarily signing up for cycle training (especially those who haven't learned to drive & so may not know the Highway Code), and taking out insurance if they ride regularly, but for the reasons above, making it mandatory just doesn't make sense.

[Sue]

People who are idiots, angry or whatever will still be idiots, angry or whatever whether they are cycling, walking or driving a car.

The problem is, being an idiot and/or angry when you're cycling or driving is likely to be more dangerous to others than when you're walking.

[Penguin68]

As a consequence of some considerable carnage, it must be said. If bikes were killing dozens or hundreds of innocent bystanders a year? Sure, I'd sign up to that.

Well, it's just so good that cyclists don't have any accidents themselves, so that they can ride (untrained) happily knowing that they are invulnerable to bad things happening to them...oh, wait a minute...

Many people learn to act safely for purely selfish reasons, so that they don't get injured or die themselves - I am so happy that cyclists apparently are so generous and altruistic that, not being able to hurt people so much, they feel no need to gain expertise, knowledge and behaviour patterns that might, in any way, protect them. Legislation around crash helmets and seat belts (the use thereof) was not designed to save other road users, but the drivers/ passengers of vehicles in use. That wasn't about 'innocent bystanders'. But let's not constrain cyclist freedoms in any way...

[Blah Blah]

Let's look at training Penguin. It does takes considerable training to learn how to drive a car or motorcycle for obvious reasons. It takes five minutes to learn how to ride a bicycle. The Highway Code is also something that can be learned in an afternoon. As we all know, just because someone goes through training, it doesn't mean they will abide by that training. If they did, there would never be any speeding motorists for example. Everyone knows that red means stop, but some cyclists deliberately decide to ignore that.

Crash helmets and seat belts are much tougher items than a cycling helmet. They are designed to have some effect in high impact situations. A cycle helmet is just a bit of polystyrene. In common situations where a cyclist is killed, a cycle helmet won't make any difference. A cycle helmet will however help in non life threatening collisions, in certain circumstances. So seat belts and crash helmets were made compulsary because they do things that cycle helmets don't do, namely save lives.

[Tractorlad]

Cyclists and pedestrians are motorists on their day off! If you're an adult walking the streets or cycling, chances are you also have a driving license. I cycle to work daily from ED. The vast majority of cyclists obey the rules of the road. Sadly there are a few idiots out there on two wheels and four.

[Penguin68]

The Highway Code is also something that can be learned in an afternoon.

And yet - for the last year that there were figures only 51% of motorists (48.7% male, 53.6% female) passed their motoring theory tests - and for motorcyclists it was 74.1% (male - 73.8%, female 76.6%) https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/driving-test-operational-statistics

This might suggest that the theory of (safely) using roads was not quite as simple as is being described - it is as important for cyclists as for any drivers to understand, for instance, about stopping distances, and indeed, hazards.

I also remember that it takes rather longer than 5 minutes to learn to ride a bicycle - particularly one-handed - rather a requisite if you plan to signal any turning intentions - although, of course I had forgotten that cyclists are excused any requirement to alert other road users to their intentions.

[MissMadMoo]

Oh do shut up Penguin68...

[Earl Aelfheah]

And now here we are in full swing.

[Blah Blah]

Penguin you are being daft. The theory test for drivers is much more complex because of the speeds and types of roads that vehicles use. Use your common sense for goodness sake if you have any.

Most people learn to cycle as young children, and they do learn in 5 minutes. Cycling, including a cycles stopping distance are second nature well before teens. They don't need to do special training for that. And as far as I'm aware, most schools still do have cycling proficiency courses, which is all that is needed to learn about signalling and riding correctly. If people then choose to ignore their training, that is on them.

Let me also tell you this. As someone who did that proficiency course, when I stick out my hand to move to the centre of the road (to make a right turn ahead) drivers do NOT on the whole slow down to let me move into position. I almost always have to force them to do so. Now you tell me who needs some training there?

I could fill this debate with countless examples of how cycle training is pointless against drivers that don't see cyclists as valid road users. Just as I could do the same for those cyclists who break the rules too. What would be the point though? In my experience, most drivers who complain about cyclists as a group (as opposed to individual acts of poor behaviour), are simply impatient people who think they shouldn't ever have to slow down for another vehicle, cycle or otherwise. London roads are crowded at times, end of. Cyclists have the advantage of getting through jams, cycle too if you want to have that advantage. At all other times, just chill dude. Perspective goes a long way.

[JohnL]

I still would like to split the roads (more cycle paths I mean).

The south london superhighway (for bikes) is coming :)

[TheArtfulDogger]

Interesting point raised by uncleglen (the op) about cyclists not giving way to pedestrians yet it has now spiralled out to be a them against us (cars vs. cycles or visa-versa)

I agree with uncleglen that care must be taken around pedestrians by all (cyclists, cars and others) and that a red light means stop to all regardless.

As a pedestrian, cyclist and driver it is up to all of us to take care out there.

Just as a mute point, whilst I understand where Blah Blah is going with the following quote, indicating your intention to move (either in a car or as a cyclist) does not automatically give you right of way over other traffic users.

Quote "Let me also tell you this. As someone who did that proficiency course, when I stick out my hand to move to the centre of the road (to make a right turn ahead) drivers do NOT on the whole slow down to let me move into position. I almost always have to force them to do so. Now you tell me who needs some training there?"

[hoser]

Close to 2000 people a year are killed by cars in the UK. Bring on driverless cars!

[MissMadMoo]

Motor vehicle and cycle involvement in pedestrian fatal and serious injuries, annual

average 2009-13 in URBAN areas (excluding motorways:

% of pedestrians killed

By Car 99.2

By Idiot cyclist 0.82

Evil naughty cyclist, ban them all i say!

[wulfhound]

Many people learn to act safely for purely selfish reasons, so that they don't get injured or die themselves - I am so happy that cyclists apparently are so generous and altruistic that, not being able to hurt people so much, they feel no need to gain expertise, knowledge and behaviour patterns that might, in any way, protect them. Legislation around crash helmets and seat belts (the use thereof) was not designed to save other road users, but the drivers/ passengers of vehicles in use. That wasn't about 'innocent bystanders'. But let's not constrain cyclist freedoms in any way...

Instead of making up new, impractical, and probably unenforceable, rules, making it a legally significant act to step over the crossbar of a bicycle in a way that would accomplish little apart from discouraging occasional/casual riders, would it not make far more sense to make Bikeability (the modern-day replacement for Cycling Proficiency) a compulsory part of the National Curriculum? It would also help make those who do later choose to get cars a lot more cycle-aware than some of those behind the wheel currently.

Indeed, I can't think of any activity aside from perhaps hiking/orienteering or sailing that teaches a better hands-on mix of self-reliance, fitness and responsibility/risk management - and roads suitable for cycle training are rather a lot more accessible than Cowes or Dartmoor from your average London secondary school.