^.Edit –

Actually I agree that roads were subsequently built with only cars in mind. I think that the new ‘motorway’ was campaigned for by the CTC, so as to leave existing roads free for cycling. The rest is history:

The highly-influential Traffic in Towns report of 1963 – the report by Professor Buchanan which town planners used to create urban motorways and pedestrian zones separated from motor traffic – mentioned cyclists only in passing, and clearly believed, desired even, that urban cycling would soon wither to nothing:

“We also considered the question of cyclists. Although in the mode of travel diagram for the year 2010 there is an allocation of movements to pedal cycles, it must be admitted that it is a moot point how many cyclists there will be in 2010…[This] does affect the kind of roads to be provided. On this point we have no doubt at all that cyclists should not be admitted to primary networks, for obvious reasons of safety and the free flow of vehicular traffic. It would make the design of these roads far too complicated to build ‘cycle tracks’ into them, nor would this be likely to provide routes convenient for cyclists in any case. It would be very expensive, and probably impracticable, to build a completely separate system of tracks for cyclists.”

Interesting read: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/alnessreport/

Malvern Rider – Member

^.Edit –

Actually I agree that roads were subsequently built with only cars in mind.

Yeah, it’s slightly moot. Main routes may have been established for cart and horse, then perhaps bikes but after a certain point the bike aspect was clearly forgotten or ignored. Arguing that point isn’t going to change minds, drivers aren’t suddenly going to start looking at cyclists as the native tribes-people of the road network who need to be protected, they’ll just hate even more.

Anyway back to your op, having read through the thread and gathered my own thoughts on it, my answer would still be not much. I think these anti cycling rants are repeated / given airtime is because they are basically media clickbait. People like to hear them, or like to repeat them because they resonate. It’s like Michael McIntyre’s “comedy”.

It’s funny because I also have a drawer with stuff in it etc etc. Cyclists make me mad because I also got held up once.

EDIT: Also worth considering that 99% of drivers won’t dedicate any considerable time actually thinking about this issue.

but if you cycle any kind of distance in variable conditions you’re a masochist if you don’t get the specialist kit.

Not really, you’ve just bought into the marketing of what kit you need to cycle, the dutch manage perfectly well & I used to quite happily do 5000 miles pa without any “proper” cycling kit, regularly used to wear through the arse of my jeans through cycling & pretty much only used bikes as a means of transport (no mtn biking or “racing”).

Live in a house instead of a cave? You’ve just bought into the marketing of houses.

If you want to arrive at your destination in anyway warm and dry, or to put it another way, if you don’t want to spend your day at work soaked through to your arse hole then it’s a good idea to at least buy over trousers. And you might as well buy a waterproof jacket too. And it might as well have a drop tail…….oh and you’ll probably want gloves to stop your hands freezing. Might as well get some glasses to stop shit getting in your eyes etc etc etc.

I’m sure cycling must be lovely in places where the weather is lovely and no doubt it requires a lot less kit, but where I live it’s cold wet and windy about 9 months of the year, and the remaining months are just wet 😆

EDIT: Also worth considering that 99% of drivers won’t dedicate any considerable time actually thinking about this issue

Now we’re getting somewhere re my OP.

You have that figure from somewhere? Are they regional figures?

The only data I can seem to find hints at (sample of 1000 drivers) how many/most motorists actually know little about the law and cycling/cyclists. For instance, 92% of London drivers think that cycling two abreast is illegal.

I haven’t found any data on changing attitudes towards cyclists in light of this last decade’s (sticky) ‘anti-cyclist meme’ as you term it. That was the reason for my OP. This is the best data I can find regarding how much thought motorist’s give to cyclist’s rights, it’s slightly more than your (citation appreciated) figure of how much thought motorist’s give to anti-cycling articles/memes/repeated untruths. Whether or not there is a correlation between these misgivings clickbait tirades of misleading untruths and other total bollocks and the below (very real and dangerous) misunderstandings is (I suppose) the point I’m trying to reach?

Survey reveals just how little some motorists know about cyclists’ rights

That indication should be shocking in itself. I would like to see a much larger survey, anyone know if one exists?

Malvern Rider – Member

EDIT: Also worth considering that 99% of drivers won’t dedicate any considerable time actually thinking about this issue

Now we’re getting somewhere re my OP.

You have that figure from somewhere? Are they regional figures?[/quote]

No it’s honestly off the top of my head – just a guess, sorry. But I really doubt non cyclists think about bikes apart from when they get held up.

The only data I can seem to find hints at (sample of 1000 drivers) how many/most motorists actually know little about the law and cycling/cyclists. For instance, 92% of London drivers think that cycling two abreast is illegal.

Which would reinforce my earlier post about drivers feeling aggrieved at cyclists “breaking rules”.

The rules of the road are very clearly defined (for cars). From the perspective of a non cyclist bikes and the rules around them aren’t so clear cut and much about them isn’t fair.

Examples, they don’t pay tax, they didn’t pass a test, they have no number plates, they can filter, they can behave erratically, they can mount the kerb……and loads more.