[Closed] Inconsiderate Cycling Polite Rant

It looks like a good path, the side roads might be a bit of a bother but I'd use it to avoid that bypass every time. Strange that the path doesn't seem to show up on an OS map.

Totally behind grum's point about not being a d!ck, and all things being equal I'd use a path like that instead of the road. But very often things aren't equal, for some of the reasons listed above- ice, glass, getting onto it in the first place. On my old commute in and out of Cambridge there were paths I didn't use because they were on the opposite side of the road and I'd have to sit and wait to cross to get onto them.

some people need to stop thinking about their 'rights' all the time and just get on with being a reasonable, considerate person.

One could argue that insisting on driving to work rather than walking / cycling / using public transport is more selfish than cycling on the roads....

Go on miketaully Begin but before you do think.

Go on yes we allpay tax's which probably all go towards the road etc. but they also go towards bike lanes, pavements train l9 lines etc.

Just because you pay taxes and they get used for something doesn't mean you should avoid using alternative methods.

Heres an example. a man who doesn't Drive but payes taxes is walking down the middle of the road, to his let there is a usable safe, his responce to this is wellipay my taxes so why shouldn't i use it. footpath.

common sense says because your putting yourself in more danger than neccisery.

now this cyclist is riding in the road (possibly inocently and if so for give me) but there is what i can only persume is a safer place to do it that he has also payed for.

But what your saying is he is in the right just because he has payed his taxes.

well in that case I pay my taxes and they pay for the payevment so i'll drive my car on that. NO BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE ME AN IDIOT

What i was saying if your going to pull the paying your taxes cards out, you should think of all the other things that that can be related to.

Maybe the cycle path isnt a strava segment.

Go on miketaully Begin but before you do think.

Go on yes we allpay tax's which probably all go towards the road etc. but they also go towards bike lanes, pavements train l9 lines etc.

Just because you pay taxes and they get used for something doesn't mean you should avoid using alternative methods.

Heres an example. a man who doesn't Drive but payes taxes is walking down the middle of the road, to his let there is a usable safe, his responce to this is wellipay my taxes so why shouldn't i use it. footpath.

common sense says because your putting yourself in more danger than neccisery.

now this cyclist is riding in the road (possibly inocently and if so for give me) but there is what i can only persume is a safer place to do it that he has also payed for.

But what your saying is he is in the right just because he has payed his taxes.

well in that case I pay my taxes and they pay for the payevment so i'll drive my car on that. NO BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE ME AN IDIOT

What i was saying if your going to pull the paying your taxes cards out, you should think of all the other things that that can be related to.

Any chance of a translation?

Also, people seem to forget that car domination of our roads is a relatively recent fad, all the roads I commute on were originally built for horse and carts, horses, cyclists and pedestrians. To demand we all get off them so as not to inconvenience car drivers seems a bit perverse, I don't remember the law changing giving drivers priority over other users.....

Any chance of a translation?

Yes he's a car driver who hates cyclists because they don't pay road tax (not that its existed since 1937).

To demand we all get off them so as not to inconvenience car drivers seems a bit perverse

You seem to have completely missed the point. No-one is saying that. What I am saying is that if there is a safe, well maintained, direct cycle path running parallel to the road, this would be a more considerate, and safer alternative.

Go on miketaully Begin but before you do think.

I'll answer. No one pays road tax there isn't a single person pays it. Fuel tax, well yes it's high but go on take a guess why cyclists don't pay it?

That looks an excellent path. Trouble is, coming westbound, it wouldn't look to me as any good at all. You arrive along the bypass with no footpaths , just verges. The path starts, at a set of steps down to who knows where, hardly suggesting a cycling facility, and just trundles along roadside for a fair distance, narrow and no clue if it's going to disappear down more steps. To join the path where it starts, you'd need to cross 60mph traffic, either by sitting in the middle of the road (60mph traffic passing you on either side) or by sitting by the kerb and waiting for both sides to be clear. Then when it does separate from the road, it does so at a fair old angle, not immediately obvious whether it's going to stick parallel to the road or veer off into town. Since it's the only path in view I'd have to assume at best shared use and therefore my front wheel would soon be sharing the forks with an extended lead and half a westie. It might be better on the ground, but that's my quick impression from streetview. Great to have nice paths, but if they're not signposted it's a bit like baking a nice cake then leaving it in the oven and not telling anyone about it.

Edit:yes, I am bored this morning, waiting for our allotted 10 minute slot at school for "progress day".

Sorry My key board is not working so i'll send this one from My phone.

Yes i am a car Driver, no i don't hate cyclists, I commute by bike around 50% of the time, but what i do hate is people who think that because you pay taxes it means you don't have to use common sense.

My example is basically saying that because you pay a tax for something doesn't mean you shouldn't use the alternative. You would never drive your car down a rail way. would you? your Taxes pay for them to you know.

I believe that if there is a alternative there for you,that is designed for you,you should try and use it.

And as for Road tax not existing, Just because they call it car tax, doesn't change what it actually does, you can enquirer with your local council about it, and will be told that it goes towards the maintenance of the roads alongside other things.

My example is basically saying that because you pay a tax for something doesn't mean you shouldn't use the alternative. You would never drive your car down a rail way. would you? your Taxes pay for them to you know.

Driving on the railway is illegal, cycling on roads isn't.

And as for Road tax not existing, Just because they call it car tax,

Vehicle Excise Duty – a tax on vehicles, not a payment for use of roads

You would never drive your car down a rail way. would you?

What? That's not a comparison at all.

And as for Road tax not existing, Just because they call it car tax, doesn't change what it actually does, you can enquirer with your local council about it, and will be told that it goes towards the maintenance of the roads alongside other things.

Well as pointed out above it's VED, yes we call it Car Tax but then that's because that's what it is a tax on cars not tax for using roads. I pay council tax, VAT, NI, PAYE and other taxes all of these help pay for all the things I get to use.

I like to hold all motorists responsible for the 1.6 million undutied, uninsured vehicles on the road. Therefore using the OPs logic all car drivers are legitimate targets for my wrath even if they do pay VED and have insurance.

Stereotype all you like, just don't get upset when people call you a fool for doing so!

Footflaps you don't seem to grasp the exaggeration in the examples, to try and put a point across.

Are you a very literal person always or do you just, not want to see that your way of looking at something is not the only one there is.

And i'm offended you think i hate cyclists, I have nowhere said you shouldn't ride on the road. I have even suggested that the person in question may not have known.

And as for Road tax not existing, Just because they call it car tax, doesn't change what it actually does, you can enquirer with your local council about it, and will be told that it goes towards the maintenance of the roads alongside other things.

Can I suggest you look at the (ironically named) http://ipayroadtax.com/

It's called VED - Vehicle Excise Duty and it's a tax/duty paid on the emissions given out per km by your car. It's not especially fair or balanced (I could have a massive gas guzzler which I drive for 200 miles/year and still pay more in "road tax" than a Nissan Micra which does 20,000 miles/yr but hey, lifes full of unfairness...

Like all taxes and duties, it goes straight into Government coffers for them to do with as they see fit - install duck houses, clean out moats, fund illegal wars or regime change, you name it. Maybe a few pence of it went towards fixing a pothole 500 miles from where you live. Well done.

I'm not sure that the cyclist, if confronted would use the "I've paid tax so I'll use it" argument. It's genuinely possible that he didn't know it was there, missed the turning onto it, is actually turning off somewhere else in a few minutes or whatever. Or maybe he's an inconsiderate arse in which case, at least he's being inconsiderate on a bike rather than inconsiderate in 2 tonnes of metal box.

And legally, he's still doing nothing wrong.

OP - are you a Daily Mail journalst? I mean seriously, you witness somebody riding a bike in a perfectly legal and acceptable manner then over exaggerate (50? Really?) the amount of vehicles driving behind him showing due care and attention and feel the need to rant about it. If this is all you've got to be worried about in your life then your a very lucky man.

All forms of vehicles have to share the same space (roads). I guess if there's a cycle lane present, there's an option to use it if wanted, but no legal/moral imperative to do so.
On my daily (cycle) commute, I get held up/slowed down by cars/buses/lorries/pedestrians/bin lorries - c'est la vie. Not something to get upset about, we all need to be on the roads.

Part of my commute takes in a path like that, but i don't use it and here's why.

I join the busy 60 mph road and turn left and after about 200 mtrs the road turns to a 30 mph residential area. In order get to the path i would have to cross 2 lanes of traffic and the grass verge (which you can't cycle over) separating the road and the cycle path. I would then cycle 200 metres, where the path the crosses the same road to join up with cycle path on the opposite side of the road at a pinch point, this cycle path i do use, although its marked on the road not a separate path.

I get no end of abuse from motorists for doing this, presumably because all they can see is a cyclist not using the cycle lane.

thirdly,cyclistsdont pay road tax/rediculouse fule tax which the majority of motorists do, (im not saying we should)but there's another way to look at the tax sitution.

I think you've also missed the other point

cyclist != non car owner*

Most 'cyclists' and when I say that I mean 'person riding a bike' also own cars so they DO pay all the associated taxes of owning and using a vehicle, like VED and tax on fuel.

*even yourself, as a cyclist own a car, so stop equating cyclists with people who don't own cars.

Strikes me as a case of bad road design/network management.

If better cycling option is constructed then that should be made clear to road users.

Information sign and road markings plus a TRO for pedal cycles on the bypass.

The network needs to be managed better for all road users because every mode of transport currently in use is necesscary.

agree with the op

selfishness from anyone gets on my thre'pennies

I think you've also missed the other point

cyclist != non car owner*

Most 'cyclists' and when I say that I mean 'person riding a bike' also own cars so they DO pay all the associated taxes of owning and using a vehicle, like VED and tax on fuel.

*even yourself, as a cyclist own a car, so stop equating cyclists with people who don't own cars.

It's even worse than that, I'm a cyclist that doesn't own a car so I don't pay VED on my own vehicle. However I regularly use hire cars and car club cars, which I do pay VED on!

We need a word/phrase for people who shouldn't be using the roads because they don't pay VED, I propose "classic car owners" or how about "electric vehicle owners" or "police car drivers" actually this is getting a bit silly now...

I love how the default position from people in cars in cases like this seems to be:

'there's a perfectly good cycle path there, why isn't he using it?'

When we should probably be asking the car driver:

'there's a perfectly good cycle path there, why aren't YOU using it?'

As has been said by so many people and backed up by many many legitimate studies, most car journies are short, and completed with a single occupant. If more people thought about it, were less lazy, and in fact you might argue, more considerate (;-)) then they would not be using cars for short single occupancy trips.

We need a word/phrase for people who shouldn't be using the roads because they don't pay VED

you're right it is silly, we don't need a word, we need to just stop mentioning VED/car tax in these discussions it simply is not relevant to your 'right' to be on the road.

And as for Road tax not existing, Just because they call it car tax, doesn't change what it actually does, you can enquirer with your local council about it, and will be told that it goes towards the maintenance of the roads alongside other things.

And if they told you that then they would be [i]wrong[/i]. Or if you prefer, they would be [i]correct[/i] but only because the exact same answer could be offered for ALL taxes, including VAT, Income Tax, Capital Gains etc etc.

In fact the only tax you pay that goes directly to the council to pay for roads (and other local services) is Council Tax.

Moreover, if you base road priorities on how much tax people pay then the ones with the most "rights to the road" would be rich alcoholic smokers that own their own businesses.

It says a lot about the infrastructure in this country that that's considered to be a high-quality bike path.

I'd probably not have ridden that this morning, as it's pretty icy out and I'd assume it's not gritted.

Shhh, whisper, I even took the dual carriageway as traffic was backed up on it.

To be honest if i was on that side of the road i might use it, but it doesn't look very wide, and is as seems normal infested with dogs leads and joggers with ipods at stupid volume. I certainly would not cross that road to use the cyclepath, i would only have to cross back over later which means twice the chance of getting killed as i see it.

As for ice, are there any wet leaves in the wooded sections,

My point on tax was to try and see how how silly an argument using tax was,to justify anything.

And cyclist +non car owner,what so because i own a car that only get used for when i work away from my home i'm not a cyclist, I cycle to work 50% of the time my journy is a 30mile round trip. when i work away the other 50% of time its around 50 miles each way and i usualy do 15 hour shift of physical work.

So because i have a car i'm not in your upper echalon of cyclists,that can disregard curtsy for others, and moan there is not enough cycle lanes for there commute (which there isn't) but then defend not using them.

I'm more proud to say i am a cyclist i do have and use a car, not all car drivers are are out to get cyclists infact itsthe minority and if i am riding in a area where there is a cycle lane and i'm not using it feel free to politly inform me.

Alot of hypocrisy from some i feel

My point on tax was to try and see how how silly an argument using tax was,to justify anything.

put the spade down and walk away.

Kinda bemused by the number of "mountain bikers" that apparently can't ride up kerbs or over ice and wet leaves 😀

My point on tax was to try and see how how silly an argument using tax was,to justify anything.

Well you've demonstrated a very silly argument, so job well done 😀

Kinda bemused by the number of "mountain bikers" that apparently can't ride up kerbs or over ice and wet leaves

I don't commute on a mountain bike, wet leaves/ice and 23mm tyres don't mix very well. Plus why put yourself in danger, crash on ice you slide, and sods law means you end up on the road anyway! been there done that and luckily no cars were there to greet me when i stopped. Local section of cyclepath, similar to above, is currently covered in grit and mud from tractor movements. The road is nice and clean because they bothered to clean it afterwards.

.

@Rscott

Perhaps if you took the time to arrange your words into sentences that convey the meaning you intend them to, we would have a better chance of understanding your points.

I don't mean that to sound as harsh as it does, but I genuinely have difficulty trying to work out what you are on about from some of your posts.

This isn't about why aren't car drivers cycling themselves! It's about why delay others regardless of their choice of transport, when your mode of transport can be used in a safer environment specifically created for you and your needs whilst also making things easier for others....?

Apart from environmental considerations cycling as a form of transport does not hold the moral high ground over other users - unless in specific incidents where other road users are at fault. We are not inherently 'better'.

I am not a better person worth more consideration because I cycle to work occasionally - I deserve and should give the same consideration from and to all others.

wet leaves/ice and 23mm tyres don't mix very well

Good reason to stay out of heavy traffic in my book!

I do ride a mountain bike for my commute, but use 1.75 slicks and can fall over without worrying about the truck behind me making things a lot more serious than a bruised ego.

when your mode of transport can be used in a safer environment specifically created for you and your needs whilst also making things easier for others....?

but this is what is in contention.

A lot of the time the cycle paths and facilities are not safer, and are not easier.

But viewed from any vantage point other than that of the user in question, at the time in question, it can sometimes be hard to see why.

For all we know that cyclist was not being inconsiderate, he may have had a very good reason for not being on the cycle path.

I'll throw a few out there for consideration (some repeats of what others have already mentioned)

> ice/ungritted cycle path
> litter on path
> poor surface
> interruptions
> hard to get on/off at source/destination
> other users
> not aware it was a cycle path
> missed the entrance and now stuck on road with only options being carry on or STOP on a 60mph road to lift bike over kerb <-- this one caught my poor mum out once and she was terrified of stopping and being in more danger.

As well as many others...

Unless you actually spoke to the cyclist and asked why he was not using the path you have no idea why and to assume it was because he was being inconsiderate is unfair.

Unless you actually spoke to the cyclist and asked why he was not using the path you have no idea why and to assume it was because he was being inconsiderate is unfair.

I'd say if they have 50 odd cars behind them and don't have the courtesy to pull over and let them pass then they [i]are[/i] being inconsiderate, regardless of their mode of transport or reason for using the road.

thirdly,cyclistsdont pay road tax/rediculouse fule tax which the majority of motorists do

It's Vehicle excise duty not road tax and the majority of cyclist do pay VED and tax on fuel because the majority of cyclists are also car owners.

You know how you sometimes see people driving along a motorway at 50mph or in the middle lane when the inside is perfectly clear or without lights in the rain.

They simply don't realise they are being an impediment to others. For whatever reason, they're in their own little world. Some are too stupid to realise, some possibly do realise but are terrified (the ones with a death-grip on the steering wheel and afraid to go over 50mph...)

I'm guessing this cyclist quite probably didn't even realise he was holding anyone up. After all, he's not got mirrors to easily see behind him. Maybe he was hard of hearing and couldn't hear the line of traffic (no law against deaf people riding a bike).

Whatever, the fact remains that regardless of any other facilities present, he was not doing anything wrong. Other than possibly being a bit dim (although again, he may simply not have known there was a bike path there or he may have missed the turning).

grahams i tend to agree and where practicably possible i will stay away from busy roads, it just isn't fun, i don't think there are that many people who actually enjoy riding in heavy traffic.

But from experience, busy roads get gritted, traffic keeps the surface free of debris etc. I have used quiet roads in the past only to find the surface covered in ice, if i had stuck to the main road it would be safer.

I'd say if they have 50 odd cars behind them and don't have the courtesy to pull over and let them pass then they are being inconsiderate

Unless as crazy-legs has said, they didn't notice, or knew but were too scared to stop or looking for a place to get on to the path...

We are all making assumptions here, I stand by my point that to brand him 'inconsiderate' without knowing his motive (or lack of) is unfair.

A lot of the time the cycle paths and facilities are not safer, and are not easier

Great!

No need to spend that £20 million on cyclepaths then as they provide no greater safety or amenity than bypasses.

Spend the £20 million on bypasses instead. They provide better cycling facilities than cycle tracks and accomodate high speed motor traffic.