Guardian article on cyclist attacks
Discussion
It's quite an interesting read, and many of the issues get aired in GG on a boringly weekly basis.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/0...
Having cycled in London for nearly four years this quote doesn't ring true though
"...cyclists experience on average one “very scary” incident involving another road user every week. Female riders suffer disproportionately more, thought to be because drivers are less patient with their slower average speeds"
I would say my scare rate is about once a year, possibly less, but over time I've learnt to smile, stop at lights and say thanks to people who let me out.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/0...
Having cycled in London for nearly four years this quote doesn't ring true though
"...cyclists experience on average one “very scary” incident involving another road user every week. Female riders suffer disproportionately more, thought to be because drivers are less patient with their slower average speeds"
I would say my scare rate is about once a year, possibly less, but over time I've learnt to smile, stop at lights and say thanks to people who let me out.
Gah! Read this, agreed with most riders on the thread and then got clipped on the way into work by some bint on her phone. She stopped further up the road, which I hoped was to apologise, but it was for her to shout at me for damaging her paint! Now the silly cow has scratches on both sides of the car 
TheAllSeeingPie said:
Gah! Read this, agreed with most riders on the thread and then got clipped on the way into work by some bint on her phone. She stopped further up the road, which I hoped was to apologise, but it was for her to shout at me for damaging her paint! Now the silly cow has scratches on both sides of the car
Presumably because you willfully damaged the other side?Whatever moral high ground you had, you've now committed an offence.
Not cool.
It's always struck me as odd that the Guardian is exactly the sort of left-leaning, environmentally aware paper that would want to promote cycling, yet it seems to do it's level best to make it sound unappealing as possible. Pretty much every cycling article they run is about how dangerous it is, how crap cycling facilities are, how mad drivers are etc etc. And then you've got the commenters who seem to want to make cycling seem as boring as possible - try suggesting that it might be fun to ride an expensive bike quickly for an extended period of time and you'll be told that actually we should ride for utilitarian purposes, should all ride Dutch bikes that weigh as much as a Fiat 500, should never need to go more than 10mph, you only need to wear normal clothes, you only need hub gears, all bikes should have a chain guard etc.
A bit OT but I've spent too long looking at, and being depressed by, Guardian cycling articles in the past.
A bit OT but I've spent too long looking at, and being depressed by, Guardian cycling articles in the past.
Hackney said:
Presumably because you willfully damaged the other side?
Whatever moral high ground you had, you've now committed an offence.
Not cool.
I assume you advocate turning the other cheek and smiling sweetly when another road users recklessly endangers your life then gets gobby as though it's your fault?Whatever moral high ground you had, you've now committed an offence.
Not cool.
That's not cool.
Having just been clipped doing 20ish mph and the shock involved in that, then having someone flag me down so she can start shouting at me about 6 inches from my face, having the morale high ground was irrelevant and I was trying to contain my anger. It took all the restraint I had to not punch her and instead I told her to get back in her car and f
k off, which she refused to until I told her I'd kick her car until she left. Funnily enough one kick of the car and she was down the road and nowhere near me. The alternative would have been to have cycled off and risk her coming past me again, this time with an already damaged car and frothing at the mouth and probably with the intention to "teach me a lesson" or worse ...
k off, which she refused to until I told her I'd kick her car until she left. Funnily enough one kick of the car and she was down the road and nowhere near me. The alternative would have been to have cycled off and risk her coming past me again, this time with an already damaged car and frothing at the mouth and probably with the intention to "teach me a lesson" or worse ...Not very often for me either. I would say they are no more often than in the car, just a little more worrying as I am so much more vulnerable.
That's not cool.Whatever they have done it's not worth intentionally damaging their car. They get done for careless driving at most, you get done for criminal damage. Better off taking the details and calling the police and not engaging with the driver if you can, but a few choice words would be understandable. Putting another scratch on the car just opens you up to all sorts of problems, means that driver will probably target you in future and possibly other cyclists.
BGarside said:
Hackney said:
Presumably because you willfully damaged the other side?
Whatever moral high ground you had, you've now committed an offence.
Not cool.
I assume you advocate turning the other cheek and smiling sweetly when another road users recklessly endangers your life then gets gobby as though it's your fault?Whatever moral high ground you had, you've now committed an offence.
Not cool.
That's not cool.
TheAllSeeingPie said:
Having just been clipped doing 20ish mph and the shock involved in that, then having someone flag me down so she can start shouting at me about 6 inches from my face, having the morale high ground was irrelevant and I was trying to contain my anger. It took all the restraint I had to not punch her and instead I told her to get back in her car and fk off, which she refused to until I told her I'd kick her car until she left. Funnily enough one kick of the car and she was down the road and nowhere near me. The alternative would have been to have cycled off and risk her coming past me again, this time with an already damaged car and frothing at the mouth and probably with the intention to "teach me a lesson" or worse ...
Completely understandable reaction.k off, which she refused to until I told her I'd kick her car until she left. Funnily enough one kick of the car and she was down the road and nowhere near me. The alternative would have been to have cycled off and risk her coming past me again, this time with an already damaged car and frothing at the mouth and probably with the intention to "teach me a lesson" or worse ...Personally, I would (I hope) have called the police, or grabbed the keys off her and thrown them as far as I could into a hedge.
Roger Irrelevant said:
It's always struck me as odd that the Guardian is exactly the sort of left-leaning, environmentally aware paper that would want to promote cycling, yet it seems to do it's level best to make it sound unappealing as possible. Pretty much every cycling article they run is about how dangerous it is, how crap cycling facilities are, how mad drivers are etc etc. And then you've got the commenters who seem to want to make cycling seem as boring as possible - try suggesting that it might be fun to ride an expensive bike quickly for an extended period of time and you'll be told that actually we should ride for utilitarian purposes, should all ride Dutch bikes that weigh as much as a Fiat 500, should never need to go more than 10mph, you only need to wear normal clothes, you only need hub gears, all bikes should have a chain guard etc.
A bit OT but I've spent too long looking at, and being depressed by, Guardian cycling articles in the past.
N+1 means you need both.A bit OT but I've spent too long looking at, and being depressed by, Guardian cycling articles in the past.
I have a nice road bike for those long Sunday rides. I have a Brompton for when I'm taking it on the train. I have a utility bike for going to the shops and the like. Each suits the task well - I can ride the utility bike in normal shoes without needing padded shorts to protect my arse or getting soaking wet when there is a bit of rain; I can do 100km on the road bike wearing lycra and cleated shoes and still be home for lunch.
It's the same with cars: a Ferrari might be a hoot and a holler on a weekend, but it would probably be a lot more pleasant to be sat in a Ford Focus in a Monday morning traffic jam.
I like both sorts of cycling equally for different reasons.
Chris Boardman speaks a lot of sense. The rest of the article falls a little bit too much into the trap of "something must be done". I don't know how you catch people going out throwing tacks, but I hope a way is found, so that said tacks can be sewn into their underpants for the next five years.
okgo said:
Hackney said:
Presumably because you willfully damaged the other side?
Whatever moral high ground you had, you've now committed an offence.
Not cool.
ZzzzzzzzzzWhatever moral high ground you had, you've now committed an offence.
Not cool.
I raced the Redhill Race which saw drawing pins laid all over the road for the 2nd year running, not good.
I agree with Hackney. All it does is perpetuate the them and us attitude.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff