[Closed] Effect of the popular press on attitudes to cycling as transport?

as a cyclist have you felt an increase in hostility/decrease in respect towards you from other road-users?

Nope. I have ridden the same roads for 17 years and it was the same 17 years ago as now. Every other motorist seems to have zero patience and can't even wait 10 seconds to get to a straight piece of road to overtake safely on.

Any similar experiences? Or am I imagining it? What is written in the papers/mouthed online stays in the papers/online?

Regarding media, newspapers, websites etc I think there's something of a chicken and egg discussion needed. For a story or an issue to resonate or spread as a meme for want of a better word there has to be a shred of truth to it. Or at least the perception of truth.

I've had a large gap in my road cycling life stopping at roughly 20, starting to commute through Belfast in my mid 30s, now recreationally cycling on country roads.

For as much as the media contributes to attitudes towards cycling and cyclists I think the real issue is stressed, frustrated, overweight, overworked, down trodden, paranoid, medicated, hung over, self obsessed, conceited, lonely, isolated, bullied people are using their cars to get one back on someone they perceive to be smaller or weaker.

I think there's a media view of roads, and there's a real life version where mostly folks get on with what they're doing.

99% of folk in cars are perfectly reasonable and try (as much as they can) to make sure that they don't harm you, you get the occasional close pass, but those folks are as much dickheads to other drivers as well as us, so it would be unfair to tar everyone with the same brush.

I think the roads have got worse and the behaviour of the users is extremely poor - almost no one obeys the rules and getting cut up /having to take severe avoidance is a weekly [ possibly even daily] event* whether on the bike or in the car.The only difference is one annoys me and the other scares me
I now take a longer route to work to avoid the busy way for me as its not worth the danger and even that is not foolproof.

* thursday had to brake hard to avoid a copper who went across three lanes to get off at an exit without bothering to indicate - not even the coppers can be trusted theses days to drive according to the rules

three things I REALLY HATE:
1 - bigots who lump everyone together on the basis of race, sex, religion, mode of transport, or whatever
2 - lists
3 - irony
4 - innumeracy

News media are terrible for it. On the radio there are frequently topics of cycling and they have a steady stream of callers with anti bike rants full of the usual garbage about taxes and insurance, and never once does the presenter correct them despite some claiming to be cyclists themselves.

News organisations on social media post deliberately inflaming topics whenever there's an accident or tragic death, and despite being claimed as an accident or the driver's fault, they wade in with some statement about whether they were wearing a helmet, hi-viz, two abreast, then sit back and watch the hits with hundreds of anti-bike rants.

The worrying thing about that TV clip is the way that it seems to be OK to effectively persecute one sector of society, on national TV, and have a laugh about the whole thing.
Now, if that sector of society was some other 'minority' there would (very rightly) be serious repercussions for the broadcaster.

What a strange world we live in.

That video reinforces my opinion of Christopher Biggins.

And it also confirms my suspicion that statistically, people who like to have a go at cyclists seem to be a few spokes short of a wheel.

Anecdote:

Last week needed to move a large item, our cargo bike or car couldn't do the job so I traded a journey with a (think slightly right of UKIP) friend in his big van. We got talking en-route and he was asking how I was getting on with cycling? I said that of late I feel more vulnerable and seem to experience more fast and close passes. So try to find quietest routes or sometimes not at all. I pointed out that driving standards (not indicating, using phones etc) seemed to be falling dramatically. He nodded. Then thought back and laughed: 'Wait, don't you have to give a cyclist 3 metres? And aren't they allowed to ride in the middle of the (sic) road?' It was semi-rhetorical (am pretty sure he has next to no idea about the law and cycling so was fishing a little for the answers).

After some back and forth clarfication, he then contended that (regardless of the law) having to 'wait behind every cyclist' is intolerable and that the motoring/road tansport experience overall is worse for it. He freely admitted close-passing (cutting up) cyclists and laughed with Clarksonesque glee. (We are surely only friends today because we can both comfortably laugh at ourselves and each other)

I nonetheless at that point called him a bad word and made it clear at that point it was no longer a joking matter. After a moment's silence he changed the subject to 'those cyclists who undertake lorries and buses deserve to be flattened'.

After the journey I (jokingly) asked how many cyclists had 'held him up' that day?

'Don't remember'

'I remember - it was none. We waited behind scores if not hundreds of cars though..'

'Yeah but it's not always like that'

'*, have you become a Daily Mail reader'?

(Laughs)'What?'

'Seriously, where do you get all this anti-cyclist stuff from'?

'Well, (evades question), I'm not 'anti-cyclist' so much as they're IN THE F** WAY!!'

Etc. 🙄

I never remembered cycling being a 'political' thing as a kid. You just rode (in the gutter or the park) and then 'grew up' and bought a car. Except that I really got into cycling in late teens so used bike as sole personal transport (as well as MTB). Just seemed logical to me to make local journeys by bike. And more fun (IME)

It feels most my (non-cyclist) peers and elders seem to think that cycling really belongs either in the gutter or (preferably) in the park, just not on the roads. Would be interested to hear from younger cyclists here, and their (non-cycling) peer's attitudes? It is worrying that this populist legacy of anti-cycling, entitlement and ignorance will be handed down the generations? I have to agree with Cartlon Reid's comments after that (terrible) 'debate'.

Inciting frustrated and angry plebeians to take it out on someone else.

Standard tabloid playbook "The Peoples Champion" as like to see themselves, sticking up for the repressed masses. In reality creating further division allowing their sponsors to exploit peoples stupidity for their own ends. Have long memories, remember the names involved and make sure they are under scrutiny where ever they move.

so as a cyclist have you felt an increase in hostility/decrease in respect towards you from other road-users?

nope.

Sticking up fo the repressed masses

Seems that way. But is the whole issue a mock debate? Is there even a problem for cyclists? I feel it, as stated. Yet others here don't. Which makes me think it's either always been bad and I didn't notice in my youth, or I'm imagining it now. I'm living in the same county I grew up in. I have 'only' been knocked off bike twice by careless drivers, yet both times were in the 1980s. Both times commuting. I no longer commute so often but I'd prefer not to as it *feels* mad out there, if not openly hostile. My age maybe? ie I have to dismount frequently on some busy country roads where impatient drivers often overtake me right before the crest or a bend. Why do I dismount? Because even though they are in the wrong, I don't want to be calling an ambulance for his/her passengers (or for any poor sods in unseen oncoming traffic)

Yet I have to agree with Carlton Reid's comments re the (awful) 'debate':

But why was this mock debate framed in such a disparaging and leading way? The audience's reaction to the red light issue was instructive: for all the talk of a bike boom, cyclists are still an out-group and, on light entertainment shows, it's deemed perfectly OK to seek a ban for legitimate road users.

Lots of cyclists want to Go Dutch. If much of the country is as anti-cycling as this audience suggests it is we've a long way to go yet. We're not 40 years behind the Netherlands, we're 100 years behind. In the Netherlands, cycling is "normal for nippers and nannas." How long before an audience of British nannas will cheer for transport cycling?

Malvern Rider - Member

Anecdote:

Didn't you already post that anecdote?

I never remembered cycling being a 'political' thing as a kid.

Other than politics, what did you actually remember being political when you were a kid? Everything is sensationalised and politicised these days.

Didn't you already post that anecdote?

I did, OP was much longer (way too long) so I pared it down and included in later comment. It was that anecdote (and I few discussions with other friends and family of late) that me think 'is this a 'thing' now?

Other than politics, what did you actually remember being political when you were a kid? Everything is sensationalised and politicised these days

As a kid (by that I meant teen) I remember sexual/gender politics being a 'thing', fox-hunting' another, and 'race/immigrants', of course - but cyclists? Not so much.

That video reinforces my opinion of Christopher Biggins.

And it also confirms my suspicion that statistically, people who like to have a go at cyclists seem to be a few spokes short of a wheel

What, 50% of the audience? Even if *only* 30 percent of the population wanted to ban cyclists (not just 'have a go', I mean actually ban) - would a psychiatrist declare them all 'a few spokes short'?

Now, if that sector of society was some other 'minority' there would (very rightly) be serious repercussions for the broadcaster.

Weird isn't it?

what i don't understand is that anti cycling people seem to forget that the bicycle has been around long before any motorised vehicle.

when they rant on about cyclists not paying road tax e.t.c that annoys the hell out of me also.

i haven't had a car since i was 18 (now 42) so i use my bike or public transport to get around.

there are good and bad drivers just like in all walks of life. most of the time i have had no issues with any drivers to be fair.

Malvern Rider - Member

Other than politics, what did you actually remember being political when you were a kid? Everything is sensationalised and politicised these days

As a kid (by that I meant teen) I remember sexual/gender politics being a 'thing', fox-hunting' another, and 'race/immigrants', of course - but cyclists? Not so much.

Ok, I agree but don't you think I have a point regarding the over politicisation of everything today? It's a subject or theme that I do find very interesting*.

*The anti cycling meme that is. Not the over politicisation.

99% of folk in cars are perfectly reasonable and try (as much as they can) to make sure that they don't harm you, you get the occasional close pass, but those folks are as much dickheads to other drivers as well as us.

Pretty much agree completely.

News media are terrible for it. On the radio there are frequently topics of cycling and they have a steady stream of callers with anti bike rants full of the usual garbage.

I'd put someone who botherd to phone into a radio station and rant about cyclists firmly in the above 1% :(.

People hate anyone they see as holding them up (see also tractors, lorries, old people and wimmin drivers) and doubly hate those who go faster than them. Cyclist do both. Most people are pretty shit drivers, both of these things have always been so it’s just today there are far more people on the roads. That means there’s a greater chance, every time youre out, of encountering a dickhead. Oddly, I encounter very very few, but I live in rural Somerset. I suspect if lived around a big city, I’d have far more problems.

That twunt in the op however needs his teeth rearranging, he’s clearly a bellend and I genuinely hope he gets knocked over by a car

People hate anyone they see as holding them up (see also tractors, lorries, old people and wimmin drivers) and doubly hate those who go faster than them

I don't (at least not beyond incidental, humorous frustration, closely followed by a few deep breaths and a word with self for not having started my journey sooner)

But I do hate when people endanger other's [s]safety[/s] lives for 'convenience' or via rage.

Is this partly the fault of the cycling lobby?

For years we’ve sold cycling not as aspirational, enjoyable or fun but instead the only reasons to we ever publically broadcast to ride a bike were either competitive, beasting yourself up a hill to be the fittest, fastest swinging D in the room... or as a form of public self flagellation, saving the planet through modal shift, one journe6 at a time.

It’s as if the people promoting cycling somehow forgot that it could be enjoyable. Contrast with how cars are marketed.

I've just cycled home from Richmond. There's a relatively new mini(ish) roundabout near home that is always an issue. Tonight as I was on the roundabout turning to the right a woman just drove on from the left hand junction and drove right across me I stopped and she had less than 6" clearance from my front wheel. I shouted and she just gave the lazy, sorry(!) wave that seems to indicate 'yes I know I'm wrong, but to be honest I don't give a shit' and carried on. Of course it's London and there was a queue just 10m up the road. It took her a long time of staring rigidly ahead whilst I walked alongside her in traffic asking 'at what point did you think that was acceptable?' Before she was able, eventually to continue.
The arsehole who fixied a woman dead in central London has caused a clear and noticeable change in many driver's actions relative to cyclists. I've cycled in London pretty much every day for the last 22 years and it's never been as bad as it is now.

Well I was thinking about this some more while out on the bike, as you do. People instinctively operate with rules, or hierarchies. 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.

Then there's the hierarchy of vehicles. Bikes being at the bottom, everything else is bigger and more important than them. They should ride in the gutter and get out of the way since they are at the bottom of the totem pole.

Tractors are also a slow moving nuisance, but they are big and strong and could crush a car, so drivers know their place and behave accordingly.

Added to all of that you have a lot of people with a lot of toxicity and negativity in their lives, as I mentioned above. So you take some angry, frustrated people, give them a little bit of "power" and a set of rules and they get upset when they see people deviating from "the rules".

If you look at the Milgram experiment and the like there's ample evidence that ordinary folk will inflict pain on others if they believe it's the correct way to act. All very much amateur psychology on my part of course, so sorry about that 😉

And don't underestimate the Clarkson effect.

I also drive, and hardly ever have to overtake a cyclist. Is my experience really so different than theirs?

Its the rarity that makes it memorable. Drivers will have far more stressful encounters with tractors, buses. HGVs and with other speeding or reckless driver far more often. But having those encounters more often makes them less memorable.

In most parts of the country the increase in the uptake in cycling means car drivers who used to almost never encounter cyclists are now encountering them as often as 'rarely'. Only often enough to remember each encounter rather than take those encounters for granted.

racefaceec90 - Member
what i don't understand is that anti cycling people seem to forget that the bicycle has been around long before any motorised vehicle.

and that the surfacing of roads was primarily down to making them suitable for bikes, as riding on horse tracks is a nightmare, even on modern bikes with suspension.

what i don't understand is that anti cycling people seem to forget that the bicycle has been around long before any motorised vehicle.

I hear a number of 'anti-cycling people' as all of my friends and family (bar one) use their cars for effectively all of their transport and leisure requirements. So much so that if they want to 'go for a walk' they'll always drive there first. This is an important distinction as for them 'driving a car' is a normalzed everyday activity, (more nomalized even than the act of walking)

Anyway, being the token cyclist, I hear it all.

The answer to your question is - 'Cars superseded bicycles, all the roads are since designed for cars.'

Bla bla road tax

It's plain to see that the fat Mr Biggins wants the buff looking cyclist in a sexual way but doesn't quite know how to express it so instead he trys to put him down.
It's like a school playground out there kids. 😉

Malvern Rider

I never remembered cycling being a 'political' thing as a kid.

I do.
Richard's Bicycle book was a big influence and resolutely political.

Bit before my time, but cycling had a role in the emancipation of women too.

Also, Clarion Cycling Clubs, Reclaim The Streets etc.

And we wouldn't have half as many places to ride if it wasn't for the mass trespasses of the 30's etc.

Viva la cycling revolution, comrades.
🙂

Malvern Rider - Member

what i don't understand is that anti cycling people seem to forget that the bicycle has been around long before any motorised vehicle.

The answer to your question is - 'Cars superseded bicycles, all the roads are since designed for cars.'

That's actually true though.

[img] [/img]

I hear a number of 'anti-cycling people' as all of my friends and family (bar one) use their cars for effectively all of their transport and leisure requirements. So much so that if they want to 'go for a walk' they'll always drive there first. This is an important distinction as for them 'driving a car' is a normalzed everyday activity, (more nomalized even than the act of walking)

That’s an interesting point.

A series of meetings I have been involved in recently regards charging for countryside car parks culminated earlier this week with councillors suggesting that they would provision to encourage alternative transport by putting cycle racks in the car parks too.

I have to admit that the concept of riding my bike to a county park in order to lock it up and then go for a walk seemed to me so utterly bonkers that my response may have been slightly lacking in the proper decorum

Motorways are a legal exception as they are exclusively for motorised traffic (and not all motorised traffic).

A lot of roads I ride or drive on are there because of horses and bikes after. Later came the car.

Though thankfully some of them have discontinued use for cars and are now bridleways. Still though, bloody horses 👿 😈

Is this partly the fault of the cycling lobby?

For years we’ve sold cycling not as aspirational, enjoyable or fun but instead the only reasons to we ever publically broadcast to ride a bike were either competitive, beasting yourself up a hill to be the fittest, fastest swinging D in the room... or as a form of public self flagellation, saving the planet through modal shift, one journe6 at a time.

It’s as if the people promoting cycling somehow forgot that it could be enjoyable. Contrast with how cars are marketed.

The problem with cycling in the mainstream is that it is a sport (good when done on velodromes and winning us gold medals) and a leisure pastime (bad because 2-abreast, MAMILS...) and a means of transport (good & bad depending on which side of the fence you're sitting).

And the three get completely mixed in, you get the standard op-ed piece in papers/online which invariably starts "I love cycling, I cheered at the Olympics..." immediately followed by "helmets, road tax, MAMILS, they get in my way, lycra louts, cycle lanes..."

News reports ask Lord Sir Bradley for his opinion on helmets and the idiot responds by saying the Government [url= http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/bradley-wiggins-tells-cyclist-to-help-themselves-by-wearing-a-helmet-172022 ]should think about making them compulsory[/url]

Somehow no-one ever contacts Jenson Button for his views on helmets or seatbelts when a driver is killed though. No-one ever mixes up World Rally Champs with driving to work. No article ever says how proud they are to cheer on Lewis Hamilton but then complain about congestion on the roads.

That's what needs to happen with cycling, the "sport" aspect of it needs to be totally removed from the "it's far and away the best means of getting round a city" aspect.

I have to admit that the concept of riding my bike to a county park in order to lock it up and then go for a walk seemed to me so utterly bonkers that my response may have been slightly lacking in the proper decorum

Why?

We have a couple of country parks locally that aren't great for cycling in, but perfect for cycling to.

Would you rather we drove there?

I have to admit that the concept of riding my bike to a county park in order to lock it up and then go for a walk seemed to me so utterly bonkers that my response may have been slightly lacking in the proper decorum

Because you're doing exactly what I wrote about a couple of posts ago.
The idea that "going for a bike ride" involves lycra, helmet, cycling shoes etc - ie cycling as a sport or hobby.
Whereas what the councillor means is cycling as a mode of transport for a family - normal clothes, normal shoes and you can lock the bike up and go shopping, go for a walk etc.

The first requires the usual specialist attire that any sport requires. The second requires some proper infrastructure and a safe, ideally traffic-free environment which is what we should be pushing for..

You can run a flow chart of this kind of stuff but it ALL boils down to "build some proper ****ing infrastructure!"

Do you hate cyclists and want them off the road?
Do you love cyclists and want to see them protected from harm on the roads?
Do you think all cyclists get in the bloody way?
Do you want your kids to be able to cycle to school so you don't have to do the school run in the morning?
Do you think there is too much traffic and people should travel by other means if possible?
Would you like to cycle but are scared of the traffic?

The answer to ALL of those questions is simple and it's the same. Build proper safe protected infrastructure and miraculously, people are safe, drivers are not "held up by bloody cyclists", there is less congestion and pollution and basically it's a win all round.

Shame that the media is so hellbent of pushing an anti-cyclist agenda.

Whereas what the councillor means is cycling as a mode of transport for a family - normal clothes, normal shoes and you can lock the bike up and go shopping, go for a walk etc.

Why would I want to when I could just as happily go for a ride (in normal clothes and shoes) both to AND around the country park?

crazy-legs - Member

Because you're doing exactly what I wrote about a couple of posts ago.
The idea that "going for a bike ride" involves lycra, helmet, cycling shoes etc - ie cycling as a sport or hobby.
Whereas what the councillor means is cycling as a mode of transport for a family - normal clothes, normal shoes and you can lock the bike up and go shopping, go for a walk etc.

The first requires the usual specialist attire that any sport requires. The second requires some proper infrastructure and a safe, ideally traffic-free environment which is what we should be pushing for..

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

The problem with cycling in the mainstream is that it is a sport (good when done on velodromes and winning us gold medals) and a leisure pastime (bad because 2-abreast, MAMILS...) and a means of transport (good & bad depending on which side of the fence you're sitting).

Not sure that's the problem, given we have F1, Indy Cars, Banger racing, etc, etc, kit-cars (definitely scorned upon by Mercedes drivers), vintage cars, etc, etc.

The answer to your question is - 'Cars superseded bicycles, all the roads are since designed for cars.'

That's actually true though.

Except it isn't* (discounting motorways of course, even the most ardent anti-cyclist is surely smart enough to realise that his argument isn't with cyclists on motorways 🙄 )

*This is why so many residential and business districts have cars parked all the way along them, effectively restricting many of the already narrow carriageways to a one-way traffic flow (whether designated one-way or not). And almost permanent kerbside parking in streets that were never designed for such an eventuality.

^.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 [i]in light of[/i] 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 [i]correlation[/i] between these [s]misgivings[/s] clickbait tirades of misleading untruths and other total bollocks [i]and[/i] the below (very real and dangerous) misunderstandings is (I suppose) the point I'm trying to reach?

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/study-reveals-just-how-little-some-motorists-know-about-cyclists-rights-332631

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?

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.