Militant runners on country lanes
Discussion
I think the overwhelming majority of people, runners included (I am a “runner” and do own a road bike too) can be broken down into two categories. 1. The “don’t put your shopping trolley back” crowd- I.e a total Bell-*** that physically won’t make the effort to be a good, harmonious citizen and should be extradited to their own island, full of other like -minded, miserable oxygen thieves, or 2. Have the situational awareness abilities of a lump of granite.
The combination of total bell-*** and situationally unaware isn’t one that I’ve come across on the road too often, but I have seen other runners that religiously will not run on both sides of the road (see point 1.) , and/or have massive noise cancelling headphones on (see point 2).
It’s not hard, but as a society people are learning “actions no longer have consequences”. And if there is a consequence, it’s always someone else’s fault.
The combination of total bell-*** and situationally unaware isn’t one that I’ve come across on the road too often, but I have seen other runners that religiously will not run on both sides of the road (see point 1.) , and/or have massive noise cancelling headphones on (see point 2).
It’s not hard, but as a society people are learning “actions no longer have consequences”. And if there is a consequence, it’s always someone else’s fault.
Rough101 said:
Believing that because you can afford a car, that all non motorised road users are beneath you is a third world driving habit.
It’s in the training manual.
You’re turning the UK into the third world, theses issues are so much less in the developed parts of Europe, but pretty similar in the rural US.
Its is weird that isnt it ? thinking you are top of the tree because you have a car, there are fifty million of them in the country, its not like having a Platinum Amex card, there is that the motorist is the generous benefactor paying for the car roads and graciously allowing cyclists and others to use them.It’s in the training manual.
You’re turning the UK into the third world, theses issues are so much less in the developed parts of Europe, but pretty similar in the rural US.
Cars are bigger, thats the only differentiation, no one road user is any more important than any other, and becuase cars are bigger, heavier and more powerful they are subject to registration, taxation and insurance. And paying £0 to £740 a year isnt to use the roads, its to use a motor vehicle on them, the roads are free to use, motor vehicles are not.
It does seem to have a demographic element, those being nearer to having to use a bicycle as no choice, either due to the economics or more recently having got a car seem more opposed to cycling as I get the impression, in some cases they dont want to look like they cant afford a car.
Its this strange car > bicycle thing, and in reality, they are just tools for doing a job, pick the correct one for the job in hand if you have a choice.
I have seen a few like this. I understand the need to get off the pavement where there are obstacles (pedestrians, dogs etc), it's why I don't bother trying to cycle in woodland trails anymore. But fast rural roads don't seem appropriate for it at all, a lot to go wrong and people aren't expecting a runner.
Tommo87 said:
Yes. Typically a cyclists will deliberately mention this message early in a thread as a talking point, so they and others can tell everyone that cyclists drive cars also as some form of points winning exercise.
It’s become a bit of a standing joke/talking point as everyone has known for a very long time, but a cyclist will still still mention it, often with the words ‘I’m surprised nobody has said’.
On the other hand, there often are silly people on threads on various platforms who do complain about cyclists "not paying road tax"....It’s become a bit of a standing joke/talking point as everyone has known for a very long time, but a cyclist will still still mention it, often with the words ‘I’m surprised nobody has said’.
...that is why it has become "a thing".
The UK is very car-centric and there are many people appearing to drive around with an inflated sense of entitlement.
On this thread, it is encouraging to see that PH is not entirely populated by myopic, narrow-minded, selfish people with anger issues.
Muddle238 said:
Lotobear said:
I do find that cyclists can be a lot more aggressive - the 'middle age male peletons' but even they are usually fine if you show them a bit of courtesy and space - after all they and runners are the more vulnerable road user.
I saw the absolute stereotypical cyclist the other day, I was in a line of cars moving through some temporary roadworks, having been waiting at the red traffic light for a couple of minutes. The lead car then came face to face with an oncoming cyclist, who was furiously pedalling filtering his way to the front of the opposing traffic queue. Except he had no intention of stopping at the red light, of course. The road is not the widest but the cyclist was so busy shouting at quite literally every car, regardless of which way it was going, he almost fell off his bike by having a little wobble. He ended up wobbling off between the cones, into the roadworks, practically foaming at the mouth as he shouted at everyone else to "F off". I couldn't help but laugh, I've seen plenty of cyclists being discourteous or running red lights before, but I've never seen one so unbelievably outraged at a set of temporary roadworks. Poor chap should chill out and cycle along a canal if he's struggling to cope with roads.
J4CKO said:
Rough101 said:
Believing that because you can afford a car, that all non motorised road users are beneath you is a third world driving habit.
It’s in the training manual.
You’re turning the UK into the third world, theses issues are so much less in the developed parts of Europe, but pretty similar in the rural US.
Its is weird that isnt it ? thinking you are top of the tree because you have a car, there are fifty million of them in the country, its not like having a Platinum Amex card, there is that the motorist is the generous benefactor paying for the car roads and graciously allowing cyclists and others to use them.It’s in the training manual.
You’re turning the UK into the third world, theses issues are so much less in the developed parts of Europe, but pretty similar in the rural US.
Cars are bigger, thats the only differentiation, no one road user is any more important than any other, and becuase cars are bigger, heavier and more powerful they are subject to registration, taxation and insurance. And paying £0 to £740 a year isnt to use the roads, its to use a motor vehicle on them, the roads are free to use, motor vehicles are not.
It does seem to have a demographic element, those being nearer to having to use a bicycle as no choice, either due to the economics or more recently having got a car seem more opposed to cycling as I get the impression, in some cases they dont want to look like they cant afford a car.
Its this strange car > bicycle thing, and in reality, they are just tools for doing a job, pick the correct one for the job in hand if you have a choice.
BikeSausage said:
J4CKO said:
Rough101 said:
Believing that because you can afford a car, that all non motorised road users are beneath you is a third world driving habit.
It’s in the training manual.
You’re turning the UK into the third world, theses issues are so much less in the developed parts of Europe, but pretty similar in the rural US.
Its is weird that isnt it ? thinking you are top of the tree because you have a car, there are fifty million of them in the country, its not like having a Platinum Amex card, there is that the motorist is the generous benefactor paying for the car roads and graciously allowing cyclists and others to use them.It’s in the training manual.
You’re turning the UK into the third world, theses issues are so much less in the developed parts of Europe, but pretty similar in the rural US.
Cars are bigger, thats the only differentiation, no one road user is any more important than any other, and becuase cars are bigger, heavier and more powerful they are subject to registration, taxation and insurance. And paying £0 to £740 a year isnt to use the roads, its to use a motor vehicle on them, the roads are free to use, motor vehicles are not.
It does seem to have a demographic element, those being nearer to having to use a bicycle as no choice, either due to the economics or more recently having got a car seem more opposed to cycling as I get the impression, in some cases they dont want to look like they cant afford a car.
Its this strange car > bicycle thing, and in reality, they are just tools for doing a job, pick the correct one for the job in hand if you have a choice.
sutoka said:
BikeSausage said:
J4CKO said:
Rough101 said:
Believing that because you can afford a car, that all non motorised road users are beneath you is a third world driving habit.
It’s in the training manual.
You’re turning the UK into the third world, theses issues are so much less in the developed parts of Europe, but pretty similar in the rural US.
Its is weird that isnt it ? thinking you are top of the tree because you have a car, there are fifty million of them in the country, its not like having a Platinum Amex card, there is that the motorist is the generous benefactor paying for the car roads and graciously allowing cyclists and others to use them.It’s in the training manual.
You’re turning the UK into the third world, theses issues are so much less in the developed parts of Europe, but pretty similar in the rural US.
Cars are bigger, thats the only differentiation, no one road user is any more important than any other, and becuase cars are bigger, heavier and more powerful they are subject to registration, taxation and insurance. And paying £0 to £740 a year isnt to use the roads, its to use a motor vehicle on them, the roads are free to use, motor vehicles are not.
It does seem to have a demographic element, those being nearer to having to use a bicycle as no choice, either due to the economics or more recently having got a car seem more opposed to cycling as I get the impression, in some cases they dont want to look like they cant afford a car.
Its this strange car > bicycle thing, and in reality, they are just tools for doing a job, pick the correct one for the job in hand if you have a choice.
I used to work in a pub and see the elderly, pissed patrons wobbling off on bikes, used to live near to a young lad who had Down Syndrome who was allowed to use his brothers old bike and his condition meant he wasnt capable of making safe progress.
Lots is said about going through red lights, and part of that is because without a registration plate you can get away with it, you see cars on dashcam videos doing it with one so its no barrier, but a bike is smaller and somehow less formal but as a driver, its kind of programmed into you not to go through red lights, perhaps less so if you have never driven ?
There is a massive range of driving ability in the UK, and not all drivers are legal, all cyclists are legal, insomuch as they dont need anything to ride on the road, but quite a lot cant manage a set of lights or not doing something really stupid or dangerous, I can see, in part why drivers may get annoyed, but I also think its really rather over emphasised, and one cyclists doesnt equal all cyclists, just like the drunk idiot who crashes his car isnt you.
sutoka said:
BikeSausage said:
J4CKO said:
Rough101 said:
Believing that because you can afford a car, that all non motorised road users are beneath you is a third world driving habit.
It’s in the training manual.
You’re turning the UK into the third world, theses issues are so much less in the developed parts of Europe, but pretty similar in the rural US.
Its is weird that isnt it ? thinking you are top of the tree because you have a car, there are fifty million of them in the country, its not like having a Platinum Amex card, there is that the motorist is the generous benefactor paying for the car roads and graciously allowing cyclists and others to use them.It’s in the training manual.
You’re turning the UK into the third world, theses issues are so much less in the developed parts of Europe, but pretty similar in the rural US.
Cars are bigger, thats the only differentiation, no one road user is any more important than any other, and becuase cars are bigger, heavier and more powerful they are subject to registration, taxation and insurance. And paying £0 to £740 a year isnt to use the roads, its to use a motor vehicle on them, the roads are free to use, motor vehicles are not.
It does seem to have a demographic element, those being nearer to having to use a bicycle as no choice, either due to the economics or more recently having got a car seem more opposed to cycling as I get the impression, in some cases they dont want to look like they cant afford a car.
Its this strange car > bicycle thing, and in reality, they are just tools for doing a job, pick the correct one for the job in hand if you have a choice.
Motorists are required to take a test, have insurance, register their vehicle, abide by speed limits, etc because of the carnage they cause to others. Even with those restrictions in place currently, 80 people every single day are killed or seriously injured by motorists and they cause £12,000,000,000 of damage annually.
In the UK you are more likely to be killed by a bee than a cyclist.
sutoka said:
True but the main difference is that drivers with minor exceptions have been taught to drive and passed a two part test in order to gain a licence. Anyone gt get on a bicycle and ride it and I'd say very few ever did a cycling proficiency course. Of course most of it is common sense but then so is driving a car and you see dozens of stupid and downright dangerous decision making every single day.
I reckon most cyclists also have a driving license. But do most drivers also cycle and therefore have the same dual perspective?nickfrog said:
I reckon most cyclists also have a driving license. But do most drivers also cycle and therefore have the same dual perspective?
speaking as a London pedestrian (with a driving licenCe and a bike in the country) I feel safer around London motorists than cyclists. For all the sins of motorists, and there are many, too many cyclists in the capital have a sense that they are beyond the law, or even basic manners.I would happily deploy garrottes across many a pathway.
in the country however, people do seem to get along far more reasonably.
AndyWoodall said:
nickfrog said:
Exactly. They don't even pay road tax, nor insurance, no registration either. Cyclists are barely human. The b
ds.
Is this tongue in cheek?ds.I appreciate sarcasm and subtlety are harder to pick up in the written word but folk really are not this dim are there?
Well perhaps this thread suggests they are. Op clearly did some bad driving to trigger mad runner then furiously backtracked about the nature of his stop when called out on it.
Would be a case of when 2 idiots meet, but one who could easily have killed the other due to inattentiveness so maybe runner had a point.
CABC said:
nickfrog said:
I reckon most cyclists also have a driving license. But do most drivers also cycle and therefore have the same dual perspective?
speaking as a London pedestrian (with a driving licenCe and a bike in the country) I feel safer around London motorists than cyclists. For all the sins of motorists, and there are many, too many cyclists in the capital have a sense that they are beyond the law, or even basic manners.I would happily deploy garrottes across many a pathway.
in the country however, people do seem to get along far more reasonably.
Londoners don't have basic manners anyway, so it's not especially surprising that they don't as road users either. Perils of big city life.
As for cyclists darting around pedestrians - I think something you don't realise without thinking about it (even as an experienced cylcist) when you're a pedestrian is how much the cyclist can see, to you it will look like them swishing past out of nowhere but they've seen you ages ago. Of course there are nutty ones too but most of the so-called near misses seem to be in the first category.
My illustration of why. Basically the cyclist is watching the pedestrian all the time about to pass in front of him quite closely. The pedestrian cannot see the cyclist until the last second. HTH.
Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Friday 26th April 00:52
theplayingmantis said:
No Andy it's deadly serious.
I appreciate sarcasm and subtlety are harder to pick up in the written word but folk really are not this dim are there?
Well perhaps this thread suggests they are. Op clearly did some bad driving to trigger mad runner then furiously backtracked about the nature of his stop when called out on it.
Would be a case of when 2 idiots meet, but one who could easily have killed the other due to inattentiveness so maybe runner had a point.
That's some talent to apparently be able to write a post with virtually every word wrong. Hats off.I appreciate sarcasm and subtlety are harder to pick up in the written word but folk really are not this dim are there?
Well perhaps this thread suggests they are. Op clearly did some bad driving to trigger mad runner then furiously backtracked about the nature of his stop when called out on it.
Would be a case of when 2 idiots meet, but one who could easily have killed the other due to inattentiveness so maybe runner had a point.
Can’t say I have ever had any issues whilst driving by a runner, militant or otherwise ?
As an occasional runner, 5k once or twice a week, not really had any issues, did have someone beep at me as I stopped at a junction. Was strange as I saw them, stopped and was waiting, they saw me and assumed I was crossing as I stopped and it made them jump as they obviously thought I was going to run out but like I say do it fairly regularly and have done for a while and managed to not get squashed.
Nothing spoils your 5k time like adding in an ambulance trip, don’t make drivers jump though, can be terrifying there being people who appear on the pavements.
As an occasional runner, 5k once or twice a week, not really had any issues, did have someone beep at me as I stopped at a junction. Was strange as I saw them, stopped and was waiting, they saw me and assumed I was crossing as I stopped and it made them jump as they obviously thought I was going to run out but like I say do it fairly regularly and have done for a while and managed to not get squashed.
Nothing spoils your 5k time like adding in an ambulance trip, don’t make drivers jump though, can be terrifying there being people who appear on the pavements.
What is most noticeable about this issue is the lazy stereotyping, the polarisation of different groups, the astonishing levels of arrogance and selfishness , and the sheer intolerance. It's a small country, and folk with different priorities and modes of transport share the roads. Some folk need to grow up and stop acting like children.
Antony Moxey said:
theplayingmantis said:
No Andy it's deadly serious.
I appreciate sarcasm and subtlety are harder to pick up in the written word but folk really are not this dim are there?
Well perhaps this thread suggests they are. Op clearly did some bad driving to trigger mad runner then furiously backtracked about the nature of his stop when called out on it.
Would be a case of when 2 idiots meet, but one who could easily have killed the other due to inattentiveness so maybe runner had a point.
That's some talent to apparently be able to write a post with virtually every word wrong. Hats off.I appreciate sarcasm and subtlety are harder to pick up in the written word but folk really are not this dim are there?
Well perhaps this thread suggests they are. Op clearly did some bad driving to trigger mad runner then furiously backtracked about the nature of his stop when called out on it.
Would be a case of when 2 idiots meet, but one who could easily have killed the other due to inattentiveness so maybe runner had a point.
Theplayingmantis, in case you didn't quite understand, I didn't backtrack at all. I agreed that some of the replies had understood the situation better than others and [i]confirmed[/] that I had come to gradual stop long before the runner got to me, and not just slammed my brakes on at the last second. My driving was absolutely to the letter of the law and Highway Code, in fact, well beyond both in terms of situational awareness and response. I've spent enough driving time with RegLocal of this parish to know that I was driving very safely, didn't make a mistake or respond inappropriately. I'm more than happy with his actual assessment of my driving while he was in the seat next to me in my car than yours gleaned incorrectly from posts which you've clearly misunderstood and misinterpreted as a result of your own cognitive biases. I'm normally happy to admit when I've made a mistake, but I most certainly did not on this occasion. The runner was an absolute loon and 100% in the wrong with what he did.
I may have met the Kenneth Noye of runners which has coloured my opinion of other runners somewhat. That doesn't mean I drive at the other runners I see, don't give them enough room when I'm going past them or do anything dangerous. Unlike you, I'm not actually stupid. I can be wary or I can be annoyed, but I still follow the HWC and the law, but I like to have rant and get things off my chest every once in a while. Clearly, some aren't intelligent enough to understand.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff