No one likes us - do we care?

rob_spedding

If you check out the 'Radar homepage you'll see that Parris has apologised about his ridiculous article in the Times...well a small apology anyway.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 123486.ece

But we do seem to have become easy targets for non-cycling journos recently. Sure Clarkson will have a go at anything that hasn't got four wheels and an engine, but at least we expect that from him but when respected writers like Matthew Parris and the FT's Richard Tomkins - http://www.bikeradar.com/blogs/article/ ... nger-13018 - start having a pop it really does make you wonder. And then there's Motorcycle News...

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/ ... =EPI-97136


What have we done to deserve this?

andyp

The roads are getting ever more crowded and congestion is worsening. When drivers do get a clear road they can't go faster than the speed limit due to the ever increasing numbers of traffic cameras. Fuel prices are increasing too.

It's no wonder drivers and motorcyclists are grumpy.

Then we come along, moving briskly, looking like we are enjoying ourselves and we don't have to pay any extra to use the roads. We're the obvious (lazy) target to vent their frustrations at.

Gavin Gilbert

On one hand fat lazy hack journalists tend not to like anyone/anything that isn't another fat lazy hack journalist; we're just easy fodder for some shock copy that they don't need to think about whilst they are typing.

On the other hand - most of those fat lazy hack journalists are London-centric and the road manners of yer typical London bikey are appalling. It has been stated here many many times, but it does tar the 'cycling-is-my-life' types like many of us with the same rancid brush.....

bagpusscp

The person who has not made a mistake,has not be born yet. It takes a big person to say sorry. Well done Matthew P

Random Vince

the motorbiking guys are annoyed at the lobbying group's proposed legislation that would put them to blame for pedestirans and cyclists mistakes.

Fab Foodie

Gavin Gilbert wrote:

On one hand fat lazy hack journalists tend not to like anyone/anything that isn't another fat lazy hack journalist; we're just easy fodder for some shock copy that they don't need to think about whilst they are typing.

On the other hand - most of those fat lazy hack journalists are London-centric and the road manners of yer typical London bikey are appalling. It has been stated here many many times, but it does tar the 'cycling-is-my-life' types like many of us with the same rancid brush.....

Agree
I recall many a RLJ thread/debate where pro RLJ'ing fraternity cannot seem to understand that their actions have a negatively impact upon the perception of cyclists. Whilst I do my utmost to be a good road user, my reputation is sullied by cyclist who think they are above the law.
We've made our own beds...but we don't like lying in them.

See responses to Matt Seatons article in the liberal Grauniad to see what a state we're in.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mat ... e_pas.html

pedylan

Parris, and many other journalists, are intelligent enough to write thoughtful, informed and stimulating articles on any of a wide range of subjects. Sadly, controversy and invective makes better copy and so that's what gets published.

So yes, it is lazy sloppy journalism because it panders to the LCD. It's bad enough when it appears in the tabloids but frankly it shouldn't be typical of newspapers like the Times. Don't buy it.

Having said that, Parris directs consistent contempt and vitriol at cyclists so he obviously has a problem.

Anyone who hates cyclists (every and all cyclists) has no more defensible a position than anyone who hates all drivers, all women, all (insert racial or religious group), it's bigotry no matter whether it's justified by citing the selfish behaviour of a minority or not.

And Parris's apology was woeful.

fizz

I'm a cyclist, a motorcyclist and a car driver.

I find that

Cyclists dislike any other forms of motorised transport + Pedestrians + Other cyclists
Motorcylists any other forms of motorised transport + Cyclists + Pedestraians
Car drivers hate any other forms of motorised transport, + Cyclists + Pedestrians

Whatever transport you use one day some other moron that isnt representative of that genre will do something that annoys you.

To be honest I dont really care what people think about me. If somebody does someting stupid I just tend to ignore now whatever I am doing be that cycling, riding my motorbike or driving my car and as long as I'm not in the wrong I just dont acknowledge that they are there and let them get on with it.

Robspedding

Here's a thought: is everyone who rdies a bike a cyclist?

webbhost

not if the bike has a moto. lol.

daniel_b

Random Vince wrote:

the motorbiking guys are annoyed at the lobbying group's proposed legislation that would put them to blame for pedestirans and cyclists mistakes.

That would piss me off greatly as well - not that it is our fault as cyclists that this has been proposed though - who is the lobbying group in question?

Pedestrians do seem to have no accountability though, 'If I walk out they will stop' appears to be the general approach, though maybe they just can't be bothered to look anymore.

Dan

Crapaud

Daniel B wrote:

Pedestrians do seem to have no accountability though, 'If I walk out they will stop' appears to be the general approach, though maybe they just can't be bothered to look anymore.

I think that they expect us to text them. It's probably the best way to get their attention.

Salsiccia

Rob Spedding wrote:

respected writers like Matthew Parris

That's where your argument falls down

ddraver

it annoys me somewhat when people say - i was hit by a cyclist and was seriously hurt etc etc - when in they walked out without looking, what exactly did they expect?!

rob_spedding

Salsiccia

Good point, well made!

ermintrude

what really annoys me is that the Clarkson. Havers, Parris type remarks all occur because their experinece is mostly of cyclists in LONDON, so we all have to get tarred with the same brush. I've ridden a bike in London and find most of the cyclists there downright wreckless and stupid (pretty much like the drivers).

geoff_ss

Unfortunately, as very vulnerable road users we have to care. We continually have to trust motorised road users to miss us - we can't get out of the way. If the general attitude to cyclists is that we're vermin and don't count then our future is bleak.

I am currently a pedestrian, a motorist and a pedal cyclist. I was a very enthusiastic motorcyclist in my youth and competed in long distance trials both solo and sidecar. I hope I always showed care to avoid conflict in all my transport. I think jumping red lights and riding on pavements is wrong and should be condemned if we want to be taken seriously.

We often walk along narrow lanes to go shopping in the nearest town and I find cars often give us minimal clearance even when the road is empty. Cyclists tend to be more considerate simply because they're as vulnerable as we are when walking.

Many of the responses to Matt Seaton's article in the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' section are truly frightening. Matt is a commuting and racing cyclist and writes a weekly column. We are members of the Tandem Club which has many family cyclists with small children, I wonder how the guy who advocated using a 12 bore to blow our heads off would treat a youngster pedalling on the back of Dad's tandem?

Geoff

giant_man

I couldn't give two hoots what people thing personally. It's a jungle out there, and on a bike it has always been about survival. Nobody and nothing will stop me riding.

geoff_ss

giant mancp wrote:

I couldn't give two hoots what people thing personally. It's a jungle out there, and on a bike it has always been about survival. Nobody and nothing will stop me riding.

Unfortunately, that's not true. Several of my friends have been stopped cycling - or even living - because of non-survival. In a cycle/car physical conflict the bike or, more importantly, the rider, rarely come off best.

A big part of the survival you desire is dependent on how other road users treat us. We are always very vulnerable and a soft target - literally and metaphorically. We simply cannot afford to allow cyclo-phobic attitudes to become the acceptable norm or there's a danger that cycling will become restricted to allocated cycle tracks..

Geoff

webbhost

Just out of interest, am always hearing about cyclist / car collisions. How many of these cyclsts would be wearing helmets at the time?

Reason I ask is because being one of the people that does wear a helmet, I find it amazing how many people I pass that do not.

It makes me feel alot safer knowing that I am wearing the helmet, but if say I got hit by a car, how much does this piece of foam effect my chances?

On the downside, I also figure that feeling safer I am likely to take risks that I would not if I was not wearing a helmet too through.

geoff_ss

webbhost wrote:

Just out of interest, am always hearing about cyclist / car collisions. How many of these cyclsts would be wearing helmets at the time?

Reason I ask is because being one of the people that does wear a helmet, I find it amazing how many people I pass that do not.

It makes me feel alot safer knowing that I am wearing the helmet, but if say I got hit by a car, how much does this piece of foam effect my chances?

On the downside, I also figure that feeling safer I am likely to take risks that I would not if I was not wearing a helmet too through.

I've seriously road tested 2 helmets. On neither occasion was a car involved. In the first case it was a cat and the second was (I think) ice on lime stone when descending Mastiles Lane. I doubt if a helmet helps all that much in a hard car/cycle collision.

When a very dear friend was killed by a hit and run drunk driver ( he was eventually caught and jailed for 3 years) and her husband seriously injured, it was the car number plate through her chest that did the damage - not something a helmet would have prevented. However, my wife fell off her bike 4 weeks ago and despite her helmet was unconscious for 5 minutes. The helmet was slightly damaged on the side and we've replaced it. I think it's likely it would have been worse had she not worn the helmet. Those relative minor tumbles are what a helmet helps most to limit.

I don't think I take any more risks when riding now I wear a helmet. The rest of me, especially in Summer, is too exposed and I know it'll hurt a lot if I come off. I almost always wore a helmet when I rode a motor cycle but the rest of me was more protected. Oddly enough I used to wear a tweed cap when competing - it was the fashion then

Geoff

redddraggon

webbhost wrote:

It makes me feel alot safer knowing that I am wearing the helmet, but if say I got hit by a car, how much does this piece of foam effect my chances?

I wear my helmet because of cars/motor vehicles. But NOT because of the chance of collision with a car. I wear a helmet because I can imagine the conditions that will cause me to need a helmet will happen when I have to avoid an idiot driver.

NWLondoner

well as an on/off cyclist I am disgusted at some of the cyclists I see everyday

No lights, jumping red lights, riding at speed with NO hands on handlebars while speaking into a mobile phone, riding 2 abreast, riding on pavements at speed and forcing me to move/jump out of the way. Most of these are on the busy A5 Edgware Road in Colindale

These are just a selection of things I see everyday on my walk to work

Shadowduck

It never ceases to amaze me, the number of numpties who ride around on their MTBs* at night in dark clothing with no lights. I just posted this morning in the "most dangerous thing on the road" thread about one who nearly took me out on my way to work today... Even a set of Halfords LED lights for a tenner would make a world of difference, there's really no excuse for it.

*Not wishing to stereotype, but it's always an MTB.

FitzyNC

it seems to me that a lot of cyclists out there need to get thicker skins. what have we ever done to deserve these unprovoked attacks from the press. try looking at the cyclists who prefer to ride at full pelt along the pavements, cyclists who jump red lights, cyclists who ride two and three abreast on a and b roads like they have a divine right. cyclistswho have spat at motorists, swear at motorists and pedestrians and wonder why the journos out there are they having a go at us.

you may say yeah but thats not me, i dont do that. but you see its those that do, whether they are a member of a cycling club or not, they are on a bike. therefore to joe public a cyclist. you may disagree by the definition of a cyclist, but there are a great number of people who have never been on a biike that would definitely agree with the clarksons and parris' of this world.

ignore the abuse . enjoy your bikes, stay safe.

mea00csf

The problem is that when these veiws become the norm and acceptable it's only a matter of time before the actions are taken to the next logical level by some. It's already deemed socially acceptable to hate cyclists and veiw them as unacceptable on our roads.

Only last week when taking a full lane through a large multi lane junction i had a driver driving extremely close to my rear wheel and beeping his horn at me as i was holding him up for less then 10seconds. Hate articles in national newspapers only serve to justify these kind of actions, and lets not forget the incidents which have taken place such as the ones recommended by parris and others such as the cyclist who i believe was killed by a car being delayed, overtaking a bike then reversing into him deliberatley as well as the spate of cyclists being pushed off cycles from passengers in cars.

I'm not saying that everyone who reads these articles is going to go out and deliberately try and kill/injure cyclists. It does however lead to a social acceptance of irrational hatred to cyclists and poor / dangerous driving when around cyclists as they feel justified and endorsed by the majority.