Forum menu
Standard pish.
Funny though 🙂
to helemet or not, bikes with carvans, we pay no road tax gambit etc.
There was apparently some sort of rant on BBC Breakfast about cyclists as well, connected to The Times #cyclesafe campaign.
Cyclists should all be on bike paths and never on the roads. Oh and also, we all jump red lights.
🙄
This country's all pervading attitude towards cyclists is only given a boost by these shitty radio discussions.
Woman cut me up on a roundabout this morning and then gave [i]me[/i] a ****er sign... Where does this come from? It's fudging despressing is what it is.
I see The Times were extolling the virtues of wearing helmets and high viz at all times, plus suggesting that bike licenses might be a good idea.
With friends like those...
Far too many do jump red lights, I'm not listening to the radio but I assume it's a two way discussion, it's good for this debate to get the air time though good or bad, I find generally more motorists are becoming cycle aware, and then some of us undo all the good work by riding like idiots.
I'd be happy to wear a hi viz bib with a license number, I can't see it happening though.
My belief is that until society gets past their obsession with cyclists not paying anything, then things'll never progress.
We're seen as getting something for nothing, and this perception is very deelpy ingrained.
What we really need is a national awareness campaign supported by the Government, or a motoring organisation, to spell out the reality.
I don't see any point in a cycling organsation being involved in this because the bike haters will immediately turn off or turn against it.
Far too many do jump red lights
There are many cyclists who seem to think this is perfectly acceptable, usually justifying it as being 'for their own safety'.
If cyclists want to be respected as road users then this attitude needs to change as it just serves to fuel the fires of the anti-cyclist brigade.
[i] the bike haters will immediately turn off or turn against it.[/i]
Of course they will. As you say, the attitude is deeply ingrained.
Of course they will. As you say, the attitude is deeply ingrained
This is why I mentioned Govt or Motoring Org supporting/fronting.
Coming from somewhere with no vested interest in cycling would have greater impact, and would (hopefully) come across with more authority and as a fact rather than 'what cyclists beleive in their heads'.
If that makes sense.
These lot usually have another car so probably do, like most cyclists.These lot don't pay 'road tax' either!
There are many cyclists who seem to think this is perfectly acceptable, usually justifying it as being 'for their own safety'.If cyclists want to be respected as road users then this attitude needs to change as it just serves to fuel the fires of the anti-cyclist brigade.
Very much this - I see idiot cyclists more than any other road users (jumping red lights, using pavements and pedestrian crossings to circumvent them etc). Just yesterday I narrowly missed one woman riding straight out of a Give Way (fully laden with bags of shopping and looking very unstable) and then watched a man (on his mobile) ride through two sets of reds - both in the space of 100 metres. This sort of behaviour does nothing to help the cyclists' cause.
I see The Times were extolling the virtues of wearing helmets and high viz at all times, plus suggesting that bike licenses might be a good idea.
Where was that - I had a skim through their latest articles, and couldn't find anything like that?
Far too many do jump red lights,
Agreed. But sit at a busy junction for a while and you'll probably count more cars jumping the red light than cyclists.
[url= http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf ]TfL did a study and found that only around 14-15% of cyclists were jumping the red lights at popular sites in London. (PDF)[/url]
I'd be happy to wear a hi viz bib with a license number
Errr... no thanks.
These lot don't pay 'road tax' either!http://www.roadtaxprices.co.uk/Road_Tax_Band_A_Cars.htm
br />
This information causes the average motorists brain to haemorrhage as it can't compute 'car on road' with 'not paid VED'
Bike = No VED = Be angry
Low Emmission Car = No VED = Does not compute. Me love car. But he no pay.
If cyclists want to be respected as road users then this attitude needs to change as it just serves to fuel the fires of the anti-cyclist brigade.
Indeed - hence why this article gets included in part of the Times' campaign.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309134.ece
There are many cyclists who seem to think this is perfectly acceptable, usually justifying it as being 'for their own safety'.If cyclists want to be respected as road users then this attitude needs to change as it just serves to fuel the fires of the anti-cyclist brigade.
This! Too many cyclists opt to pick and choose which aspects of the highway code / motoring laws to observe. Yet the same ones are very quick to condemn anyone driving a car who may make a similar minor transgression. It works both ways people. Roads are congested and will continue to be so. All road users need to respect each other and play by the rules.
*Awaits TJ to come along and tell me I'm wrong*
When a non-cyclist spouts off about hi-viz, what they're really saying is "I'm too stupid/ignorant to pay appropriate attention to other road users".
I'll agree to wear hi-viz all the time on the condition that motorists agree to paint their cars in hi-viz.
Or, we can both agree to PAY PROPER ATTENTION TO OTHER ROAD USERS.
There are many cyclists who seem to think this is perfectly acceptable, usually justifying it as being 'for their own safety'.
If cyclists want to be respected as road users then this attitude needs to change as it just serves to fuel the fires of the anti-cyclist brigade.
The problem here is lumping cyclists together in one homogeneous group.
If some idiots cycle through red lights its got nothing to do with me simply because i happen to have chosen the same form of transport.
Why is this kind of stereotyping reserved solely for cyclists?
I tend to disagree we this, as a "weekend motorist", I think some all in black stealth cyclists are difficult to see, some kind of bright clothing or hi-viz is helpful, most of the time we're talking split second decisions, most road junctions are busy, pulling out opportunities are few and far between, let's be sensible here.When a non-cyclist spouts off about hi-viz, what they're really saying is "I'm too stupid/ignorant to pay appropriate attention to other road users".
glitch post
[i]Why is this kind of stereotyping reserved solely for cyclists?[/i]
It's not from me! All motorists are moronic, blind, ignorant retards. It's what keeps me safe. 😉
I was worried that this #cyclesafe campaign would degenerate into this. Tit-for-tat accusations, calls for cyclists to always wear hi viz (basically, blame the victim/vulnerable) and woolly calls for "something to be done" without actually specifying much.
I don't want segregation and more bike paths, I just want to ride on the roads without lunatics telling me to "pay yer road tax". Cyclists jump lights because, often, it's safer. Getting away from the F1 start grid lined up behind me and getting a few clear metres of road space actually benefits me and the motorists but they don't see that aspect, they just see "bloody cyclist jumping red lights".
There's the other issue that, to us as users of a very niche forum, we don't consider a lot of people on bikes to be cyclists, they're just people using bikes. The general public perception is "cyclist" no matter whether you're a tourist on a Boris Bike, a downhiller in full armour, a roadie or a commuter on a Brompton. And all those niches within a niche want different things but the public perception is that we're all one and the same and the actions of one tar everybody.
/sigh
Will Radio Bristle debate make my blood boil!?
Why is this kind of stereotyping reserved solely for cyclists?
It's not. The trouble is, as much as you'd like to claim you're not the same as the RLJers, the average moron motorist (SWIDT?) can't tell the difference.
Where was that - I had a skim through their latest articles, and couldn't find anything like that?
"If you are cycling without a helmet, you are being selfish to your family and friends. If I don’t wear a helmet and I get knocked off and devastatingly hurt, how can I look my wife, kids or parents in the eye and say I did everything possible to make it home safely to them? It is like with football in the Eighties, where a violent 1 per cent minority of football fans meant the other 99 per cent were tarred as hooligans. "
-- [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309109.ece ]James Cracknell article[/url] (coincidentally James is sponsored by a helmet maker).
[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3308569.ece ]"How to Cycle Safely" Graphic on this article[/url]:
Number 1 point: wear a helmet and high viz. With a spurious "60% of cycling fatalities are head injuries" (no source).
[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3307439.ece ]Point 4 on their "Road Ahead" infographic here[/url]: "Should we have number plates for bikes? If cyclists want respect and consideration on the roads then perhaps they should be held accountable for their cycling."
On the bright side, they did publish a small but good article:
[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311131.ece ]Cyclists and “road tax”: the truth[/url]
I was worried that this #cyclesafe campaign would degenerate into this. tit-for-tat accusations, calls for cyclists to always wear hi viz (basically, blame the victim/vulnerable) and woolly calls for "something to be done" without actually specifying much.
But it's not has it? Of course the idiot drivers will come out with those things, but as far as I can see it's not derailing the main aim. I mean some stuff is already happening - review of dangerous junctions, EDMs in the commons etc. I can't say I agree with all the details of the campaign, but I agree with most of it, and we're far better off with a united front getting something done than nit-picking.
The problem here is lumping cyclists together in one homogeneous group.If some idiots cycle through red lights its got nothing to do with me simply because i happen to have chosen the same form of transport.
Why is this kind of stereotyping reserved solely for cyclists?
True, it has nothing to do with you directly, but indirectly you're seen as one of 'them' and attitudes/behaviour toward you is based on this negative experience.
This stereotyping is reserved for cyclists because ... I don't know for certain, but my opinion is it all boils down to money: bikes don't pay for all the stuff that other road users are mandated to (VED, licence, insurance).
aracer +1
My attitude to RLJ has softened recently. Funnily enough becuse I've been using the car more.
If I'm in the car and a cyclist is ahead of me at the lights I'm quite happy if they jump the lights it means I can pass the cyclist further up the road when both of us are up to speed. This means less time spent passing the cyclist which is safer for everyone
As long as they aren't doing something stupid like RLJing at crossroads or busy pedestrian crossings I really don't see the issue. I mean for intance turning left at a red, going straight along the main route at a controlled junction, joining one way traffic etc. There are lots of times is perfectly safe for a cyclist to jump a red. What would you do at the same junstion if it was uncontrolled?
What we need is education of all road users as to how to share the road, not appeasement of one group by another.
Let the flaming commence!
some stuff is already happening - review of dangerous junctions, EDMs in the commons etc
True. Very slowly, things are happening.
Over time, perhaps it'll all gain enough momentum to see major changes in attitudes.
Alghough it's going to be a bit like stopping/turning an oil tanker.
Cyclists jump lights because, often, it's safer.
Hence my comment about ALL road users respecting each other. You can't pick and choose and not expect other road users to get pissed off.
James Cracknell article
Well that's his personal POV, one which is quite well known (I've seen him saying something similar before) - hardly a Times party line.
"How to Cycle Safely" Graphic on this article:
It's a kind of minor point - hardly them extolling the virtues. I also don't see anything wrong with recommending hi-viz.
Point 4 on their "Road Ahead" infographic here:
That's not good - but as above, it's a minor point, and not one which makes it into any main articles. Also lots of question marks and "perhaps", so at the worst a debating point. Also something which will never be taken seriously once anybody looks at the practicalities.
I think you're getting overly worked up by the negatives.
TfL did a study and found that only around 14-15% of cyclists were jumping the red lights at popular sites in London. (PDF)
Only? That's a huge percentage!
Very slowly, things are happening.
Well give them a chance - this campaign has only been going less than a week - how quickly do you expect things to happen?!
This information causes the average motorists brain to haemorrhage as it can't compute 'car on road' with 'not paid VED'
Yep, always a good point to make to these muppets. There a ~2 million VED-exempt motor vehicles on UK roads (Band A, or exempt for other reasons).
http://ipayroadtax.com/bloody-tax-dodgers/bloody-tax-dodgers-theres-millions-of-em/
There are lots of times is perfectly safe for a cyclist to jump a red. What would you do at the same junstion if it was uncontrolled
This is all very well, but those people with a chip on their shoulder about bikes don't see it this way.
They just see someone breaking the law.
There are probably (fewer) occasions when technically it's perfectly safe for me to drive through a red light.
But I suspect this would enrage cyclists as being dangerous and illegal.
You can't have it both ways.
If cyclists want to be treated equally and respected then we need to be seen to be cycling legally at the very least.
Heaven forbid, some of us might need to change our behaviour if we want to positively contribute to the greater good / bigger picture.
We can't really complain about things being the way they are if we're not willing to be proactive in helping things to change.
Very slowly, things are happening.
Well give them a chance - this campaign has only been going less than a week - how quickly do you expect things to happen?!
Heh. I was referring to cycle-related things in general, not specifically The Times' campaign.
+1 joao3v16.
Only? That's a huge percentage!
All in the phrasing isn't it?
[i]"[u]All[/u] cyclists jump red lights"[/i] is clearly not true, 85%, the vast majority, obey red lights.
Whereas I suspect [i]"All drivers speed or drive too fast for conditions"[/i] is much closer to a truth. Certainly it's a big majority round my way.
But that's alright cos cars never hurt people, all those road deaths are caused by cyclists jumping red lights. Everyone knows that.
Here's a quandary for the masses:
I cycle along a guided bus route with a cycle path to the side, periodically it crosses roads, there are pedestrian crossing on the pavement (of the adjacent roads you are crossing) which you are sort of led to by the path, should I dismount, walk my bike to the lights, press the button and wait for the pedestrian light to change to green before proceeding?
Or am I an rlj for heading through when I see the road is clear (oh and mental for using the pavement also?)
I'm sure there are a few who know the route I'm on about 🙂
http://www.bikebiz.com/features/read/the-times-is-wrong-to-focus-on-cyclists-alone/012577
Some good points made in that. As I mentioned above, by making it a #cyclesafe campaign, there's been a backlash against cyclists by some journalists who know they can get some easy copy/website views by printing inflammatory anti-cyclist articles. Focus on making streets safer though and the whole thing works.
Don't get me wrong, it's great that a respected broadsheet is doing this, I just think that some of the messages coming from them are a bit ... unhelpful.
[i] TfL did a study and found that only around 14-15% of cyclists were jumping the red lights at popular sites in London. (PDF)
Only? That's a huge percentage! [/i]
Compared to my perception of how many cyclists jump red lights in london, that's a very small amount. As far as I can tell, it's more like 50%. I've seen cyclists getting angry with other cyclists when they *don't* jump the lights.
I was referring to cycle-related things in general, not specifically The Times' campaign.
But the bit of mine you quoted and were seemingly referring to was related specifically to the campaign.
Not a good enough reason, think of the children, seriously though, is it setting a good example to the younger riders. I don't really see that many motorist jump lights. Mobile phone use, doing make-up and tinted windows is a bigger issue.There are lots of times is perfectly safe for a cyclist to jump a red.