Why the road user 'hatred'
Discussion
hatred? Maybe a little strong a word but there is a question I've been pondering which is why cyclists in particular seem to garner more vociferous protests than just about any other group of road users. Please excuse the rambling half-formed nature of the post but here we go
Cyclists might claim (with some justification) that drivers are just jealous that they can't always make as good progress in cities as they can - but surely this can't be the only reason? I mean motorcyclists can also make better progress than anything on four wheels and yet there isn't the same level of animosity (or at least not that I've noticed). Horses slow you down worse than a bike would and (by and large) there's not the same level of animosity there either. You could argue that lorries and buses don't engender the same types of negative feelings either.
Truth be told I can't even really say that it's down to the people who like to pretend they're Tour de France riders with their lycra gear - let's face it the amount of people wondering around with football/rugby shirts (or leather riding gear in the cases of motorcyclists) far outweighs the 'lycra-brigade' so that can't be it either.
What makes it even more puzzling is that most of us either ride or have ridden in the past so it's not even that than can cause this animosity.
In examining my own thoughts (quite negative sometimes!) about cycling the only thing I can think is that some of them do come across a little 'preachy' or holier than thou (cf militant vegans/vegetarians/global-warmist doom-mongers) which does put my back up (and I'm sure others), but surely this can't be a reason to (generalising here!!) tar everyone with the same brush. Have I been held up by cyclists before? Of course, has it affected my life in any meaningful way? Of course not - it's a minor irritation if that.
On the flip-side, why the seeming animosity between cyclists and car-drivers in particular? It can't purely be down to 'squishyness' as I've not noticed the same amount of bad feeling between motorbikers and drivers and IIRC they are more at risk than cyclists.
I'm genuinely curious on this one and really hope that this won't descend into a soon to be locked willy-waving b
h-fest (HAH!)...
Cyclists might claim (with some justification) that drivers are just jealous that they can't always make as good progress in cities as they can - but surely this can't be the only reason? I mean motorcyclists can also make better progress than anything on four wheels and yet there isn't the same level of animosity (or at least not that I've noticed). Horses slow you down worse than a bike would and (by and large) there's not the same level of animosity there either. You could argue that lorries and buses don't engender the same types of negative feelings either.
Truth be told I can't even really say that it's down to the people who like to pretend they're Tour de France riders with their lycra gear - let's face it the amount of people wondering around with football/rugby shirts (or leather riding gear in the cases of motorcyclists) far outweighs the 'lycra-brigade' so that can't be it either.
What makes it even more puzzling is that most of us either ride or have ridden in the past so it's not even that than can cause this animosity.
In examining my own thoughts (quite negative sometimes!) about cycling the only thing I can think is that some of them do come across a little 'preachy' or holier than thou (cf militant vegans/vegetarians/global-warmist doom-mongers) which does put my back up (and I'm sure others), but surely this can't be a reason to (generalising here!!) tar everyone with the same brush. Have I been held up by cyclists before? Of course, has it affected my life in any meaningful way? Of course not - it's a minor irritation if that.
On the flip-side, why the seeming animosity between cyclists and car-drivers in particular? It can't purely be down to 'squishyness' as I've not noticed the same amount of bad feeling between motorbikers and drivers and IIRC they are more at risk than cyclists.
I'm genuinely curious on this one and really hope that this won't descend into a soon to be locked willy-waving b
h-fest (HAH!)... I wouldn't dream of being unpleasant or threatening toward a cyclist on the road etc. I treat them with respect and a desire not no maim them, same as I would with anyone.
However that isn't to say that I don't find them intensely irritating when I'm trying to get somewhere in an urban environment and get stuck behind one, then come the next set of lights (they may or may not stop - it's irrelevant) they're back in front again and you have to go through the same fking hassle over again. Rinse and repeat. Motorbikes don't cause this irritation because they come past and are gone.
However that isn't to say that I don't find them intensely irritating when I'm trying to get somewhere in an urban environment and get stuck behind one, then come the next set of lights (they may or may not stop - it's irrelevant) they're back in front again and you have to go through the same f
king hassle over again. Rinse and repeat. Motorbikes don't cause this irritation because they come past and are gone.irocfan said:
hatred? Maybe a little strong a word but there is a question I've been pondering which is why cyclists in particular seem to garner more vociferous protests than just about any other group of road users.
A mixture of arrogance (bigger = better), ignorance (complete lack of experience of what it's like to cycle on the road), lack of self perception (regarding the true cause of being "held up", who breaks the law the most, who poses the most risk), hypocrisy, stupidity and narrow mindedness perhaps?There is likely to be an element of cyclists being a minority, and a "pack mentality" particularly on here. Add to the fact that cyclists are generally growing in number now and are increasingly visible. People who want to hate cyclists will, of course, only see the bad.
If there were more horses around, they would no doubt face the same.
"Hating" any group of road users is completely irrational so you can't expect those who do to be able to justify it in any rational, supportable or meaningful way.
As we have the highest proportion of cyclists in traffic just about anywhere in the world here in the Lowlands, I can give you a few pointers:
- I have experienced one (1) instance where a cyclist gave way to me as a pedestrian when I wanted to use a pedestrian crossing. All others prefer to try and go right through you in order to preserve precious momentum, even when they are required by law to give way to pedestrians wanting to cross just like everyone else.
- Similarly, stopping for red lights is strictly seen as optional, and the option isn't being taken up very often.
- At night, about one in ten bicyclists will carry light, and that is nearly always in the shape of a tiny LED worn on their coat or bag.
- If you are unfortunate enough to be in/on a motorised vehicle and being ridden into by a bycyclist, you are liable by law unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that their behaviour was so terminally stupid that it couldn't be anticipated on. Well - good luck with that given the above being the norm.
- The widespread belief that if you shout abuse loudly enough, people will give you right of way. The cyclist is always right, everyone else are the morons.
900T-R said:
As we have the highest proportion of cyclists in traffic just about anywhere in the world here in the Lowlands, I can give you a few pointers:
- I have experienced one (1) instance where a cyclist gave way to me as a pedestrian when I wanted to use a pedestrian crossing. All others prefer to try and go right through you in order to preserve precious momentum, even when they are required by law to give way to pedestrians wanting to cross just like everyone else.
- Similarly, stopping for red lights is strictly seen as optional, and the option isn't being taken up very often.
- At night, about one in ten bicyclists will carry light, and that is nearly always in the shape of a tiny LED worn on their coat or bag.
- If you are unfortunate enough to be in/on a motorised vehicle and being ridden into by a bycyclist, you are liable by law unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that their behaviour was so terminally stupid that it couldn't be anticipated on. Well - good luck with that given the above being the norm.
- The widespread belief that if you shout abuse loudly enough, people will give you right of way. The cyclist is always right, everyone else are the morons.
900T-R said:
As we have the highest proportion of cyclists in traffic just about anywhere in the world here in the Lowlands, I can give you a few pointers:
This isn't very relevant though is it. You are in the Netherlands. In the UK the anti cyclist anger is more a perceived wrong. "All cyclists ignore red lights etc"- I have experienced one (1) instance where a cyclist gave way to me as a pedestrian when I wanted to use a pedestrian crossing. All others prefer to try and go right through you in order to preserve precious momentum, even when they are required by law to give way to pedestrians wanting to cross just like everyone else.
- Similarly, stopping for red lights is strictly seen as optional, and the option isn't being taken up very often.
- At night, about one in ten bicyclists will carry light, and that is nearly always in the shape of a tiny LED worn on their coat or bag.
- If you are unfortunate enough to be in/on a motorised vehicle and being ridden into by a bycyclist, you are liable by law unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that their behaviour was so terminally stupid that it couldn't be anticipated on. Well - good luck with that given the above being the norm.
- The widespread belief that if you shout abuse loudly enough, people will give you right of way. The cyclist is always right, everyone else are the morons.
In the Uk the issue from a cyclists perspective is that a large proportion of drivers do not feel that they need to share the road space and a proportion of those will actively try to intimidate you off the road.
Unfortunately they only have to be successful once to harm or kill. Cyclists have to e successful 100% of the time to survive.
I believe the law needs to be changed to ensure any deliberate action against a cyclist is classed as attempted murder, and any accidental killing is classed as manslaughter.
There is no other activity where killing by another person is dealt with as lightly as driving a car. Even more so if a person cycling is killed.
Edited by Simond S on Monday 10th March 11:28
I have previously explained the reasons for this, in my seminal thread "The Hierarchy of the Food Chain"
BOR said:
My theory involves two elements, and where they overlap, is when the friction occurs.
Element 1: The Hierarchy of the Food Chain
This doesn't just apply to cars vs cyclists, it affects all the road using groups:
Truck>Van>SUV>Car>Motorcycle>Bicycle>Pedestrian
An SUV is higher in the hierarchy than a car, so expects the car to defer to the larger, more expensive SUV. You have experienced that, right ?
There are also plenty of anecdotes on PH, about a guy borrowing a Fiat 500, instead of his 5-Series, and complaining about being harassed by other cars – A Fiat 500 perceived to be lower in the hierarchy than most other cars, so gets bullied.
That damn cyclist on his cheap bike deliberately blocking you from overtaking in your expensive 320d. He probably doesn’t even have a job etc.
All examples where the hierarchy is not being obeyed, where it’s not adhering to the natural order.
But why is it so important to people ?
Element 2: The Hierarchy of the Wolf-Pack
No, we aren’t wolves, but we are to a greater or lesser extent aware of our position in the pack hierarchy. When some upstart on a cheap bike filters in front of us at a traffic light, then that is a direct challenge to our status in the pack. That bike has to be overtaken at all costs, before that next set of lights 200m further on, even if it is dangerous for the cyclist. After all, they started it…
My theory is, that the more insecure you are about your life, the success of your career etc. the more likely you are to react against something trivial like the car>bike hierarchy not being obeyed. You have to maintain your status in the pack.
So what’s the solution ?
There isn’t one. Sorry.
There is also a similar idea called "Outlier Groups" or something like that.Element 1: The Hierarchy of the Food Chain
This doesn't just apply to cars vs cyclists, it affects all the road using groups:
Truck>Van>SUV>Car>Motorcycle>Bicycle>Pedestrian
An SUV is higher in the hierarchy than a car, so expects the car to defer to the larger, more expensive SUV. You have experienced that, right ?
There are also plenty of anecdotes on PH, about a guy borrowing a Fiat 500, instead of his 5-Series, and complaining about being harassed by other cars – A Fiat 500 perceived to be lower in the hierarchy than most other cars, so gets bullied.
That damn cyclist on his cheap bike deliberately blocking you from overtaking in your expensive 320d. He probably doesn’t even have a job etc.
All examples where the hierarchy is not being obeyed, where it’s not adhering to the natural order.
But why is it so important to people ?
Element 2: The Hierarchy of the Wolf-Pack
No, we aren’t wolves, but we are to a greater or lesser extent aware of our position in the pack hierarchy. When some upstart on a cheap bike filters in front of us at a traffic light, then that is a direct challenge to our status in the pack. That bike has to be overtaken at all costs, before that next set of lights 200m further on, even if it is dangerous for the cyclist. After all, they started it…
My theory is, that the more insecure you are about your life, the success of your career etc. the more likely you are to react against something trivial like the car>bike hierarchy not being obeyed. You have to maintain your status in the pack.
So what’s the solution ?
There isn’t one. Sorry.
Before I start, I will say I commute in by pushbike. 4 miles each way from the Park and Ride site to my office, come rain, shine, sleet or snow. That's FOUR miles. Each way. Yep, I'm a big deal around here.
Pedal-powered hatred is such a common attitude, not just among keen drivers/PHrs.
I've just undertaken a survey of around 34,500 residents in Cambridge, concerning highway improvements. Now, whenever you put your head above the parapet and ask for opinion, locals take it as an opportunity to get off their chests anything that's been bugging them. For example, I had one letter telling me I should be sacked for having a public sector pension (er, I'm a contractor) and another saying that I should give the money to a cancer hospice.
Anyway, my survey attracted an awful lot of ranting and raving about the roads in general. Maybe a third of comments were to do with potholes (fair enough, but REPORT THEM!), a handful moaning about cars/vans parking in cycle lanes/bus lanes/DYLs (we have a real problem with parking enforcement), and the rest - easily the majority - very vocal about cycles generally ignoring road rules.
Comments include:
Cyclists ride on the pavement, run red lights, ride without lights, dress like Darth Vader, can't ride in a straight line, can't understand why it's a bad idea to undertake left-turning traffic, etc etc the list goes on.
"I have never lived anywhere with such arrogant cyclists who constantly go unreproached or tackled..."
"You need to re-educate cyclists"
"I would like to see cycles banned from using pavements"
"If cycles used the road properly, by stopping at red lights, and by having lights and reflective clothing, they would not feel so victimised"
And this is supposedly from a famously well-educated city, not exactly your Jeremy Kyle nursery towns.
I think a major attitude and culture change is needed, from both sides. Sadly, unless cyclists are forced in to some sort of answerable situation (licenses etc) then I can't see things changing. It's too easy to pick and choose what rules to follow on a bike. We've all ignored a "No Entry" here or there, or something equally minor but similar.
(epic flame suit on and backs away cautiously)
Pedal-powered hatred is such a common attitude, not just among keen drivers/PHrs.
I've just undertaken a survey of around 34,500 residents in Cambridge, concerning highway improvements. Now, whenever you put your head above the parapet and ask for opinion, locals take it as an opportunity to get off their chests anything that's been bugging them. For example, I had one letter telling me I should be sacked for having a public sector pension (er, I'm a contractor) and another saying that I should give the money to a cancer hospice.
Anyway, my survey attracted an awful lot of ranting and raving about the roads in general. Maybe a third of comments were to do with potholes (fair enough, but REPORT THEM!), a handful moaning about cars/vans parking in cycle lanes/bus lanes/DYLs (we have a real problem with parking enforcement), and the rest - easily the majority - very vocal about cycles generally ignoring road rules.
Comments include:
Cyclists ride on the pavement, run red lights, ride without lights, dress like Darth Vader, can't ride in a straight line, can't understand why it's a bad idea to undertake left-turning traffic, etc etc the list goes on.
"I have never lived anywhere with such arrogant cyclists who constantly go unreproached or tackled..."
"You need to re-educate cyclists"
"I would like to see cycles banned from using pavements"
"If cycles used the road properly, by stopping at red lights, and by having lights and reflective clothing, they would not feel so victimised"
And this is supposedly from a famously well-educated city, not exactly your Jeremy Kyle nursery towns.
I think a major attitude and culture change is needed, from both sides. Sadly, unless cyclists are forced in to some sort of answerable situation (licenses etc) then I can't see things changing. It's too easy to pick and choose what rules to follow on a bike. We've all ignored a "No Entry" here or there, or something equally minor but similar.
(epic flame suit on and backs away cautiously)
I think a fundamental problem is the state/interest groups pushing the agenda that some forms of road transport are better than others, in a multitude of little ways.
As soon as the impression is given that somehow, for example, public transport is more ethical than private transport, it's only a short step to seeing buses as goodies and cars as baddies.
ETA if I wanted to get really tin foil helmet, I'd say that as we no longer have the national will or the money to expand transport provision, setting different road user groups against each other is a good way to keep them from joining up and campaigning for more transport provision for all, rather than the way it seems to be seen as now: a zero sum game.
As soon as the impression is given that somehow, for example, public transport is more ethical than private transport, it's only a short step to seeing buses as goodies and cars as baddies.
ETA if I wanted to get really tin foil helmet, I'd say that as we no longer have the national will or the money to expand transport provision, setting different road user groups against each other is a good way to keep them from joining up and campaigning for more transport provision for all, rather than the way it seems to be seen as now: a zero sum game.
Edited by Johnnytheboy on Monday 10th March 11:59
BOR said:
I have previously explained the reasons for this, in my seminal thread "The Hierarchy of the Food Chain"
Now I've read your post properly, I'm thinking about the same kind of thing as you but as an 'ethical food chain'.Buses, pedestrians and cyclists are seen as being superior to cars, motorbikes and lorries for environmental reasons.
As nation, we seem to be a gang of tribalists.
There seem to be large numbers of people who have a need to belong to a particular gang and align themselves with that gang - witness people who have tattoos and people who loathe tats etc. I accidentally stumbled upon a Sci-fi convention the other week - the tribalism was stunning!
Couple that with all the people who are convinced they have a much better way to run your life than you do, and put large numbers of people on a tiny island, all trying to do something to a daft deadline, and it becomes less of a surprise.
There seem to be large numbers of people who have a need to belong to a particular gang and align themselves with that gang - witness people who have tattoos and people who loathe tats etc. I accidentally stumbled upon a Sci-fi convention the other week - the tribalism was stunning!
Couple that with all the people who are convinced they have a much better way to run your life than you do, and put large numbers of people on a tiny island, all trying to do something to a daft deadline, and it becomes less of a surprise.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff