Why do we always blame the motorists?

DonDaddyD

Why is it that when we read tragic news about a colision between a cyclist and motorists many always and immediately assume that it was the motorists fault and often perceive the cyclist as blameless?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Because a lot of cyclists hate cars and/or car drivers so passionately it colours their view of the world.

Gussio

Because it is usually the fault of the motorist?

rjsterry

Precisely, Greg66. Sshhh. You'll only set them of again.

asprilla

This morning, having badgered our H&S project manager I found out the reason cyclists have to dismount and use a special gate as opposed to using the vehicle gates was because cyclists were causing car accidents.

Apparently drivers would stop place their pass on the reader and the gate would open, but if a cyclist nipped though on the left the metal detectors would register the vehicle have passed and so the gates would close one the car and an underground bollard would raise the car into the air.

Happened twice despite big signs warning of tailgating. Stupid cyclists.

coopster_the_1st

Because you look at it from the perspective of who would be at fault in that situation if it was you on the bike

rjsterry

Flippin' Nora! I think if I was the motorist in question, I'd have been none too pleased.

jim.the.saint

Asprilla wrote:

This morning, having badgered our H&S project manager I found out the reason cyclists have to dismount and use a special gate as opposed to using the vehicle gates was because cyclists were causing car accidents.

Apparently drivers would stop place their pass on the reader and the gate would open, but if a cyclist nipped though on the left the metal detectors would register the vehicle have passed and so the gates would close one the car and an underground bollard would raise the car into the air.

Happened twice despite big signs warning of tailgating. Stupid cyclists.

Since when does a sign warning about tailgating also become a sign warning cyclists not to overtake?

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

Because a lot of cyclists hate cars and/or car drivers so passionately it colours their view of the world.

But this is something I don't understand. A lot of cyclists can drive are motorists or have friends and family who are motorists. So do they hate those people (including themselves if they drive) too?

Cooper the 1st wrote:

Because you look at it from the perspective of who would be at fault in that situation if it was you on the bike?

Yeah see I don't get this because I can admit my faults its how I become a better person, better employee and a better cyclists. Looking at a situation and acknowledging my fault and realising what I can do better to avoid it happening again.

It's like today, I'm well ahead of a cyclist riding along a main road I'm approaching a side road on my left and I stop. I stop for two reasons, the vehicle on the right has given way to an oncoming vehicle wanting to turn onto the side - so big gap ahead of me. I can see car's are coming out of the side road. What does the cyclist behind me do? Flies right through, gets beeped and starts moaning about motorists. Had he have been hit my police statement would have read "not the motorists fault".

From no perspective I can see is it anyone elses fault but the cyclists.

Sometimes some cyclists need to accept responsiblity for their actions.

kelsen

DonDaddyD wrote:

Why is it that when we read tragic news about a colision between a cyclist and motorists many always and immediately assume that it was the motorists fault and often perceive the cyclist as blameless?

Because whenever a group of individuals with a shared interest come together, the herd behaviour usually prevails, and there is a tendency to show mistrust or animosity towards any individual or group that doesn't belong in the herd. This behaviour manifests itself in all groups of individuals whether it be cyclists, motorcyclists, motorists, school pupils, street gangs, football fans, political parties, religion, countries, etc

prawny

Motorists always blame the cyclist, ying and yang innit.

asprilla

jim.the.saint wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

This morning, having badgered our H&S project manager I found out the reason cyclists have to dismount and use a special gate as opposed to using the vehicle gates was because cyclists were causing car accidents.

Apparently drivers would stop place their pass on the reader and the gate would open, but if a cyclist nipped though on the left the metal detectors would register the vehicle have passed and so the gates would close one the car and an underground bollard would raise the car into the air.

Happened twice despite big signs warning of tailgating. Stupid cyclists.

Since when does a sign warning about tailgating also become a sign warning cyclists not to overtake?

In this context it does; you are stopping at a security barrier you'd have to be fairly dumb not to realise that 'no tailgating' means only one though at a time; especailly as everyone has to use their own pass to enter the campus / any building at all times.

The no tailgating wasn't the only signage and there were others telling people that they must use their pass etc.

Admitedly they cyclists weren't to know the consequences of their actions, but they shouldn't have done it and so now we get treated like children and have to go though a little turnstile.

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Because a lot of cyclists hate cars and/or car drivers so passionately it colours their view of the world.

But this is something I don't understand. A lot of cyclists can drive are motorists or have friends and family who are motorists. So do they hate those people (including themselves if they drive) too?

Possibly not, but it's the same contradiction that leads some people to blame all of society's evils on (say) unfettered immigration, whilst at the same time claiming that they have friends who are Indian/Polish/whatever nationality they also claim to hate.

It's easy to hate a group vehemently and yet at the same time like or be indifferent to a member of that group who you know personally. Human nature.

always_tyred

I have found that people who know me well now drive differently around cyclists.

You have to therefore presume that they were previously at least slighltly less tolerant or patient, or were simply ignorant as to how it felt to be passed in certain ways by motor vehicles until someone eloquently explained it to them.

i.e. Most cyclists are motorists, few motorists are cyclists.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Because a lot of cyclists hate cars and/or car drivers so passionately it colours their view of the world.

But this is something I don't understand. A lot of cyclists can drive are motorists or have friends and family who are motorists. So do they hate those people (including themselves if they drive) too?

Possibly not, but it's the same contradiction that leads some people to blame all of society's evils on (say) unfettered immigration, whilst at the same time claiming "I have friends who are Indian" or whatever nationality you choose.

It's easy to hate a group vehemently and yet at the same time like or be indifferent to a member of that group who you know personally. Human nature. Hate's easier focussed on the abstract.

True, but if we do that and some of us do, we in turn do nothing to raise the fact that some cyclists need to be more aware that safety on the road is also their responsibility.

It's not good enough to say "fatal collison involving cyclist and vehicle". More than half the cycling community blames motorists. Debates take place abotu cycle lanes, not letting HGV's in London during rush hour etc. What about simply acknowledging that it could be the cyclists fault and that they needed to be more responsible on the road to ensure their safety?

jonginge

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's like today, I'm well ahead of a cyclist riding along a main road I'm approaching a side road on my left and I stop. I stop for two reasons, the vehicle on the right has given way to an oncoming vehicle wanting to turn onto the side - so big gap ahead of me. I can see car's are coming out of the side road. What does the cyclist behind me do? Flies right through, gets beeped and starts moaning about motorists. Had he have been hit my police statement would have read "not the motorists fault".

From no perspective I can see is it anyone elses fault but the cyclists.

Sometimes some cyclists need to accept responsiblity for their actions.

I agree with the last sentence and also agree that the other cyclist was probably a bit reckless. However, it's the duty of the driver turning to check for oncoming traffic even if most has already given way. Rule 181 blah, blah, blah http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070332

asprilla

JonGinge wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's like today, I'm well ahead of a cyclist riding along a main road I'm approaching a side road on my left and I stop. I stop for two reasons, the vehicle on the right has given way to an oncoming vehicle wanting to turn onto the side - so big gap ahead of me. I can see car's are coming out of the side road. What does the cyclist behind me do? Flies right through, gets beeped and starts moaning about motorists. Had he have been hit my police statement would have read "not the motorists fault".

From no perspective I can see is it anyone elses fault but the cyclists.

Sometimes some cyclists need to accept responsiblity for their actions.

I agree with the last sentence and also agree that the other cyclist was probably a bit reckless. However, it's the duty of the driver turning to check for oncoming traffic even if most has already given way. Rule 181 blah, blah, blah http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070332

I frequently end up in similar situations on Fulham Palace Road. I don't stop, but I do slow down. The traffic on my right is usually gridlocked but leaving gaps for oncomming traffic to turn though. However, it's still my right of way, and observing that is what should prevent accidents. It's when people start taking priotities into their own hands that things get confusing.

andy83

Always Tyred wrote:

I have found that people who know me well now drive differently around cyclists.

You have to therefore presume that they were previously at least slighltly less tolerant or patient, or were simply ignorant as to how it felt to be passed in certain ways by motor vehicles until someone eloquently explained it to them.

i.e. Most cyclists are motorists, few motorists are cyclists.

Thats exactly the same with me, its amzing that if im in the car with someone they give the cyclist loads of room

I will admit when im wrong and on occasions things are my fault. I use the road so I obey by the rules of it. We also make mistakes when driving and apologise to fellow motorists, it shouldnt be any different if we make a mistake on a bike.

I actually had a close call the other week with a bus who hadnt saw me but i noticed this and moved lane, when he saw me he slammed on his brakes, and then continued up the dual carriage way i was on. He actually made a point of slowing down, opening his door and saying "sorry that was totally my fault, i didnt see you"

I think the prob is if your on a bike and not expecting a loud bib from a car then when it happens your instant reaction may be to shout abuse, but if your in the wrong just try stay calm and say sorry

If the driver is in the wrong and your shouting abuse there more likely to get angry

why cant everyone in the world be peacful

lost_in_thought

I think Greg's right, but also reckon there may be some underlying feeling that cars are the big bully to cyclists' little victim - there's a lot of feeling among the more vehement car-haters that drivers should be seen as to blame for everything because they're driving X tons of steel versus 80kg of cyclist...

kieronymous

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's like today, I'm well ahead of a cyclist riding along a main road I'm approaching a side road on my left and I stop. I stop for two reasons, the vehicle on the right has given way to an oncoming vehicle wanting to turn onto the side - so big gap ahead of me. I can see car's are coming out of the side road. What does the cyclist behind me do? Flies right through, gets beeped and starts moaning about motorists. Had he have been hit my police statement would have read "not the motorists fault".

Many cyclists don't like to slow down, even when they clearly should.

Kinetic energy being proportional to the square of velocity, slowing down - god forbid stopping - is 'costly'. Dude from CTC (I think, forget who) wrote a good lay explanation of this.

In your car, the cost is felt in the wallet (later), as opposed to in the legs (right now). As such, we cyclists understand this, literally in our bones, every day, at every set of lights. Some of us, however, take it as carte blanche to ignore traffic ettiquette, efficiency etc.

Man up, hit the brakes, let 'em through with a smile, then put the hammer back down and burn off the car that slowed down with you. All whilst breathing normally natch. Boooooom.

None of this applies to the silly tart who overtook me only to turn left across my bows the other day. Eyyyy, I'm doing 20mph here, work on your judgement you useless crone.

BR 1979

I don't know who this "we" you speak of is, but "I" don't.

I see at least as much cretinous cycling as driving.

Every time I see someone pedal through a red light I can't help but chalk it up as another loss to the diplomatic corps.

W1

BR 1979 wrote:

I don't know who this "we" you speak of is, but "I" don't.

I see at least as much cretinous cycling as driving.

Every time I see someone pedal through a red light I can't help but chalk it up as another loss to the diplomatic corps.

Wot e says.

I think generally we as a group are quite good at looking at things from both perspectives. It's notable in the Daily Mail rant pages that when an accident happens it appears that most people attempt to blame the cyclist.

I think there is actually quite a lot of overlap of people who like cars and ride bikes (I say that as one of them).

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

I think Greg's right, but also reckon there may be some underlying feeling that cars are the big bully to cyclists' little victim - there's a lot of feeling among the more vehement car-haters that drivers should be seen as to blame for everything because they're driving X tons of steel versus 80kg of cyclist...

There SHOULD be a different duty of care for someone operating a 100kg vehicle capable of 30mph and someone operating 2 tons of vehicle capable of a top speed of 150mph.

Just as there is a greater duty of care (and training) imposed on HGV drivers, pilots and so forth.

General motorists are, per mile, more likely to kill someone than operators of any other form of transport. They are literally 100's of times more likely to kill someone than a cyclist per mile, or hour, however you want to calculate it.

Precisely why cyclists should be apologetic for feeling vunerable and bullied, and precisely why a cyclist should be treated equally, is quite beyond me.

DonDaddyD

I don't think the culture of automatically blaming motorists helps to improve road safety of cyclists.

northstar

W1 wrote:

BR 1979 wrote:

I don't know who this "we" you speak of is, but "I" don't.

I see at least as much cretinous cycling as driving.

Every time I see someone pedal through a red light I can't help but chalk it up as another loss to the diplomatic corps.

Wot e says.

I think generally we as a group are quite good at looking at things from both perspectives. It's notable in the Daily Mail rant pages that when an accident happens it appears that most people attempt to blame the cyclist.

I think there is actually quite a lot of overlap of people who like cars and ride bikes (I say that as one of them).

What they both says.

BR 1979

Always Tyred wrote:

(1)Precisely why cyclists should be apologetic for feeling vunerable and bullied, and (2)precisely why a cyclist should be treated equally, is quite beyond me.

(1) They shouldn't.
(2) It is in all road users interests to broadly conform to the rules of the road.

lost_in_thought

Always Tyred wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I think Greg's right, but also reckon there may be some underlying feeling that cars are the big bully to cyclists' little victim - there's a lot of feeling among the more vehement car-haters that drivers should be seen as to blame for everything because they're driving X tons of steel versus 80kg of cyclist...

There SHOULD be a different duty of care for someone operating a 100kg vehicle capable of 30mph and someone operating 2 tons of vehicle capable of a top speed of 150mph.

Just as there is a greater duty of care (and training) imposed on HGV drivers, pilots and so forth.

General motorists are, per mile, more likely to kill someone than operators of any other form of transport. They are literally 100's of times more likely to kill someone than a cyclist per mile, or hour, however you want to calculate it.

Precisely why cyclists should be apologetic for feeling vunerable and bullied, and precisely why a cyclist should be treated equally, is quite beyond me.

So I'm right then.... :P

always_tyred

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't think the culture of automatically blaming motorists helps to improve road safety of cyclists.

Why not? Are they automatically blamed by a significant section of society now?

The answer is clearly not.

For the most part, society and judges alike seek to find mitigation for a motorist inadvertantly killing someone. Driving is virtually the only activity where you can take a large heavy object, injure someone with it and then get a £60 fine by arguing that the sun was in your eyes.

However if you lob a house brick towards the sun on an autumnal evening and it happens to brain someone who you were unaware was present, you'd probably wind up in jail.

So, to point the finger at motorists is merely to every so slightly redress the hopelessly imbalanced.
Personaly, I think that people should be so afraid of the consequences of making an error when driving, thatthat they are afraid to drive sometuimes. After all, I'm a competent cyclist, but I'm afraid sometimes.

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I think Greg's right, but also reckon there may be some underlying feeling that cars are the big bully to cyclists' little victim - there's a lot of feeling among the more vehement car-haters that drivers should be seen as to blame for everything because they're driving X tons of steel versus 80kg of cyclist...

There SHOULD be a different duty of care for someone operating a 100kg vehicle capable of 30mph and someone operating 2 tons of vehicle capable of a top speed of 150mph.

Just as there is a greater duty of care (and training) imposed on HGV drivers, pilots and so forth.

General motorists are, per mile, more likely to kill someone than operators of any other form of transport. They are literally 100's of times more likely to kill someone than a cyclist per mile, or hour, however you want to calculate it.

Precisely why cyclists should be apologetic for feeling vunerable and bullied, and precisely why a cyclist should be treated equally, is quite beyond me.

So I'm right then.... :P

Yes, but I thought you were a bit apologetic about it. :P

DonDaddyD

So AT let me get this straight. It's OK to blame motorists then?

Are you saying that that attitude doesn't help lead to some of the bloody minded cycling that many have witnessed recently?

I'm just tired of some cyclists using cycling as a way of circumnavigating rules and general road safety and then called up upon it or in the face of endangering themselves standing firm to the belife that it was the motorists fault.

In truth I know psychologically why it happens. Much like I know that instinctively we fear what we don't understand and things that appear different to what we are used to. Like those what I'm saying is that the compulsion isn't OK.

snailracer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... ents-study

"...police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time."

And assigning "blame" to children is unrealistic, IMO. Motorists should know children haven't got a clue what they're doing.