Do SOME cyclists bring trouble upon themselves

jds_1981

How about tipping the question on its head - are some cyclists socially irresponsible by not pointing out the bad driving habits and aggressive driving that puts them and other cyclists in danger?

jonginge

I tut under my breath. Surely that's enough?

Pufftmw

Probably

nation

I think that there is a certain type of cyclist that refuses to ride in a manner that meets drivers halfway.

I mean, we get riled up when cars pass too close for no better reason than to get to the tail end of a clearly visible queue 250 metres up the road, and I do think it is possible for a cyclist to ride in such a manner that they are (or appear to be, which amounts to the same thing) unreasonably holding up or otherwise making life difficult for other traffic.

Sometimes it's people that use primary aggressively rather than assertively, in that the situation arises where a driver clearly wants to pass, and could do so safely, but is prevented from doing so by a cyclist holding primary unnecessarily. Now, it may be true that the cyclist knows full well that said driver will be at the back of the inevitable queue two corners and thirty seconds ahead, but the driver may not and they are unlikely to be particularly introspective enough for this to occur to them when they reach it.

The other one I see a lot, although mostly in helmet cam videos (!), is overly aggressive filtering. I don't see the point in filtering past one or two cars at a set of lights. Nothing is gained by this because the cyclist will make it through in the same sequence as the cars and then those cars are going to immediately want to pass the cyclist.

Basically, there are those that ride assertively and in the interest of their own safety that are going to annoy a certain kind of driver of the "roads are for cars" type. Then there are those that ride aggressively, and haven't figured out that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is invariably a good idea. Such cyclists will annoy all drivers and it would seem likely that they'd end up in confrontations more often.

kurako

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd suggest people who are particularly hot on 'cyclists' rights' and getting police involved with everything etc, are less likely to avoid a potentially inflammatory situation.

I used to be like that. I got LOADS of hassle.

Now I'm pretty calm about more or less anything that happens, and if I can spot a way to avoid hassle, I will, even if I have right of way etc.

Guess what, I get MUCH less hassle.

So yes, people bring it on themselves.

Even the most zen cyclist around will get some abuse however - though that abuse is unlikely to escalate.

I got pushed off my bike by a passenger leaning out of his window - the first I knew of a car being there I was already heading pretty sharpish towards the ground.

Edit: For what it's worth, I found the rage/anger I got on the road really very addictive. I very occasionally crave it.

I'll +1 this. I get a lot less agro these days. Most trouble I get is from nodders who can't ride properly.

Oh. And scooters. I hate scooters. People who ride scooters are king caaaaants

shm_uk

Do SOME cyclists bring trouble on themselves?

I'm inclined to think they do. Some cyclists seem to have far too many incidents for them all to be an unfortunate coincidence.

In 15 years of commuting and generally riding about I've never been involved in an altercation/incident/collision with another road user.

Do I live in a Truman Show-esque little world where motorists are the perfect embodiment of safe and courteous driving?

Or is it more likely that I'm not one of the self-righteous "rather be right than alive" breed of cyclist who seems to have to make their point every time a motorist commits the slightest infringement.

shm_uk

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd suggest people who are particularly hot on 'cyclists' rights' and getting police involved with everything etc, are less likely to avoid a potentially inflammatory situation.

I used to be like that. I got LOADS of hassle.

Now I'm pretty calm about more or less anything that happens, and if I can spot a way to avoid hassle, I will, even if I have right of way etc.

Guess what, I get MUCH less hassle.

So yes, people bring it on themselves.

Even the most zen cyclist around will get some abuse however - though that abuse is unlikely to escalate.

Another +1 for this. Agree 100%.

Jay dubbleU

I have been known to shake my head sadly on occasion but normally I find anticipation and reading the road keeps me out of trouble

notsoblue

Jay dubbleU wrote:

I have been known to shake my head sadly on occasion but normally I find anticipation and reading the road keeps me out of trouble

Yes, because people who have altercations with drivers are bad cyclists. I see what you did there

MrChuck

nation wrote:

I think that there is a certain type of cyclist that refuses to ride in a manner that meets drivers halfway.

I mean, we get riled up when cars pass too close for no better reason than to get to the tail end of a clearly visible queue 250 metres up the road, and I do think it is possible for a cyclist to ride in such a manner that they are (or appear to be, which amounts to the same thing) unreasonably holding up or otherwise making life difficult for other traffic.

Sometimes it's people that use primary aggressively rather than assertively, in that the situation arises where a driver clearly wants to pass, and could do so safely, but is prevented from doing so by a cyclist holding primary unnecessarily. Now, it may be true that the cyclist knows full well that said driver will be at the back of the inevitable queue two corners and thirty seconds ahead, but the driver may not and they are unlikely to be particularly introspective enough for this to occur to them when they reach it.

The other one I see a lot, although mostly in helmet cam videos (!), is overly aggressive filtering. I don't see the point in filtering past one or two cars at a set of lights. Nothing is gained by this because the cyclist will make it through in the same sequence as the cars and then those cars are going to immediately want to pass the cyclist.

Basically, there are those that ride assertively and in the interest of their own safety that are going to annoy a certain kind of driver of the "roads are for cars" type. Then there are those that ride aggressively, and haven't figured out that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is invariably a good idea. Such cyclists will annoy all drivers and it would seem likely that they'd end up in confrontations more often.

+1 to this, especially:

Then there are those that ride aggressively, and haven't figured out that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is invariably a good idea.

jds_1981

notsoblue wrote:

Yes, because people who have altercations with drivers are bad cyclists. I see what you did there

I find my anticipation saves me from being hit, or much closer to being hit by drivers frighteningly often. If they've done something stupid then I'm happy to point it out to them.
Saying that though the last shouting match I had with a driver was when they were behind me, the lights changed and the cars in front didn't start moving quickly enough for them. A little shake of my head & that was enough for them to accelerate up next to me and start shouting....

nation

I basically think of the type of aggressive cyclist that is likely to experience problems as being the same type of person that will passionately defend their sitting in the right hand lane of a motorway doing precisely 70mph.

The Ors

MrChuck wrote:

nation wrote:

I think that there is a certain type of cyclist that refuses to ride in a manner that meets drivers halfway.

I mean, we get riled up when cars pass too close for no better reason than to get to the tail end of a clearly visible queue 250 metres up the road, and I do think it is possible for a cyclist to ride in such a manner that they are (or appear to be, which amounts to the same thing) unreasonably holding up or otherwise making life difficult for other traffic.

Sometimes it's people that use primary aggressively rather than assertively, in that the situation arises where a driver clearly wants to pass, and could do so safely, but is prevented from doing so by a cyclist holding primary unnecessarily. Now, it may be true that the cyclist knows full well that said driver will be at the back of the inevitable queue two corners and thirty seconds ahead, but the driver may not and they are unlikely to be particularly introspective enough for this to occur to them when they reach it.

The other one I see a lot, although mostly in helmet cam videos (!), is overly aggressive filtering. I don't see the point in filtering past one or two cars at a set of lights. Nothing is gained by this because the cyclist will make it through in the same sequence as the cars and then those cars are going to immediately want to pass the cyclist.

Basically, there are those that ride assertively and in the interest of their own safety that are going to annoy a certain kind of driver of the "roads are for cars" type. Then there are those that ride aggressively, and haven't figured out that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is invariably a good idea. Such cyclists will annoy all drivers and it would seem likely that they'd end up in confrontations more often.

+1 to this, especially:

Then there are those that ride aggressively, and haven't figured out that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is invariably a good idea.

Yep; Nation hits the nail squarely on the head.

iPete

The Ors wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

nation wrote:

I think that there is a certain type of cyclist that refuses to ride in a manner that meets drivers halfway.

I mean, we get riled up when cars pass too close for no better reason than to get to the tail end of a clearly visible queue 250 metres up the road, and I do think it is possible for a cyclist to ride in such a manner that they are (or appear to be, which amounts to the same thing) unreasonably holding up or otherwise making life difficult for other traffic.

Sometimes it's people that use primary aggressively rather than assertively, in that the situation arises where a driver clearly wants to pass, and could do so safely, but is prevented from doing so by a cyclist holding primary unnecessarily. Now, it may be true that the cyclist knows full well that said driver will be at the back of the inevitable queue two corners and thirty seconds ahead, but the driver may not and they are unlikely to be particularly introspective enough for this to occur to them when they reach it.

The other one I see a lot, although mostly in helmet cam videos (!), is overly aggressive filtering. I don't see the point in filtering past one or two cars at a set of lights. Nothing is gained by this because the cyclist will make it through in the same sequence as the cars and then those cars are going to immediately want to pass the cyclist.

Basically, there are those that ride assertively and in the interest of their own safety that are going to annoy a certain kind of driver of the "roads are for cars" type. Then there are those that ride aggressively, and haven't figured out that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is invariably a good idea. Such cyclists will annoy all drivers and it would seem likely that they'd end up in confrontations more often.

+1 to this, especially:

Then there are those that ride aggressively, and haven't figured out that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is invariably a good idea.

Yep; Nation hits the nail squarely on the head.

+ some more. If cyclists learnt not to always aimless push to the front, sit under vehicles etc etc etc there would be far less confrontation. I have very very little incident these days since adding a bucket load of zen and experience to my riding. I'm more likely to shout a warning at a cyclist going under a lorry at an obvious pinch point than at a driver being daft.

Jay dubbleU

notsoblue wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

I have been known to shake my head sadly on occasion but normally I find anticipation and reading the road keeps me out of trouble

Yes, because people who have altercations with drivers are bad cyclists. I see what you did there

Perhaps they ride more aggressively than me - doesn't make them bad cyclists 8)

shouldbeinbed

The Ors wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

nation wrote:

I think that there is a certain type of cyclist that refuses to ride in a manner that meets drivers halfway.

I mean, we get riled up when cars pass too close for no better reason than to get to the tail end of a clearly visible queue 250 metres up the road, and I do think it is possible for a cyclist to ride in such a manner that they are (or appear to be, which amounts to the same thing) unreasonably holding up or otherwise making life difficult for other traffic.

Sometimes it's people that use primary aggressively rather than assertively, in that the situation arises where a driver clearly wants to pass, and could do so safely, but is prevented from doing so by a cyclist holding primary unnecessarily. Now, it may be true that the cyclist knows full well that said driver will be at the back of the inevitable queue two corners and thirty seconds ahead, but the driver may not and they are unlikely to be particularly introspective enough for this to occur to them when they reach it.

The other one I see a lot, although mostly in helmet cam videos (!), is overly aggressive filtering. I don't see the point in filtering past one or two cars at a set of lights. Nothing is gained by this because the cyclist will make it through in the same sequence as the cars and then those cars are going to immediately want to pass the cyclist.

Basically, there are those that ride assertively and in the interest of their own safety that are going to annoy a certain kind of driver of the "roads are for cars" type. Then there are those that ride aggressively, and haven't figured out that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is invariably a good idea. Such cyclists will annoy all drivers and it would seem likely that they'd end up in confrontations more often.

+1 to this, especially:

Then there are those that ride aggressively, and haven't figured out that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is invariably a good idea.

Yep; Nation hits the nail squarely on the head.

absolutely right and very well put ,I'm another one in the Nation fanclub.

Levi_501

Sorry to join late, I have not read all previous posts;

Hell yeah, some cyclist attract trouble like flys around sh one t

We all want to get to work/home, but why some people have to make it hard for themselves and worse others!

To all those who attract trouble; Why ???

mrdoofer

I definitely get more hassle when I ride feeling a bit ill, or really tired. Although I don't generally get much hassle usually, if I'm feeling ill or riding slowly I generally get people shouting and being idiots. I could just be feeling sorry for myself, but I believe people can tell if you're feeling weak and give you hassle, like some weird animal instinct.

I'm an advocate of cycling assertively, but I always try to think what I would want a cyclist to do in a situation if I was driving the car behind me. I think you can cycle assertively without being a dick. I think body language is a big part of this.

Jay dubbleU

I think there's a difference between riding assertively and aggression - I ride assertively but I don't yell at drivers or get wound up - I've only really had one incident this year and that was when a bus attempted to pass me without noticing an oncoming car and squeezed me into the kerb - I did speak to the driver at the next stop but I didn't yell at him and he apologised . Strangely I have noticed fellow cyclists get more aggressive when I'm on the collapsing bike - maybe they don't like being passed by a folder

Initialised

I shouted at a guy in all the gear on a mobile phone on the wrong side of the path (his right) the other day. I sometimes shout a nodders for being slow or in the wrong place (pavement, opposite lane etc). Tonight I simultaneously drafted two other cyclists, the morning drafting/draftee was consensual . Am I annoying the wrong people? Should I be winding up drivers instead?

I find that drafting buses and lorries when possible and safe, taking primary whenever your going the same speed as traffic and cruising around corners that cars have to slow down for lets them know it's not you slowing them down.

bails87

I rarely see other cyclists, so my perception is skewed, perhaps, to drivers being the danger. I was in the car today, following a girl in a Fiat 500, approaching a RAB she tried to overtake a cyclist who was already in primary, she almost hit him as she dived back in before the bollards. If that was me (on the bike) I'd probably have shouted (a 'warning' shout, not abuse), this bloke didn't. Maybe she didn't realise she did anything wrong and next time she tries it she'll hit someone, or maybe if he had shouted 'woah' she'd have reversed over him, who knows.

But, I have seen cyclists who've done unwise things, of course I have. Were they opening themselves up for abuse? No. Putting themselves in a position where they could get squished by a bus or lorry? Yes.

Initialised

Yes, you get both, I got beeped at for overtaking a pair of cyclists the other day. Another time I lost some facial tissue and three knuckles because a nodder was riding on the (his) right of a cyclepath. As I see it the more we expose our selves to the motorist by riding assertively the more they will be aware of our presence and respond accordingly. But don't go out of your way to antagonise motorists. Training other cyclists to behave properly, gain the confidence to ride in traffic increases our exposure to the motorist and will make more of a difference to cycling safety than a handful of webcam warriors.

mouth

Absolutely, categorically without a doubt YES SOME cyclists do bring trouble to themselves.

Example from work today: I'm a bus driver and was positioned correctly and signalling in what is clearly marked as a left turn only lane, only to find a cyclist in the 'blind spot' on my left as I was about to make my move. Luckily I'd made a conscious mental note of the fact I'd overtaken him 500 yards previously and was actively looking for him to make sure there was no death. He hadn't done anything 'wrong' until this point but I like to look after my own.

Example from work last week: a guy swung out of a side road - no stopping, no signal or eye contact whilst giving a a backie/croggie (insert local dialect as appropriate - someone sitting on the seat whilst the other pedals and steers) to a 4 year old. The kid couldn't even reach Dad's (assumption) hips and had to hold on to his back pack instead. I literally feared for their safety. Had I been travelling at normal speed and not just pulling away from a stop I reckon you'd be reading this in the paper instead.

As for the other people who shout and scream abuse at drivers, then yes sometimes it is warranted but a lot of occasions it is a little over the top IMO. Nothing wrong with a deep breath and muttering something under your own breath rather than agitating someone who will likely want to defend themselves.

On the whole nearly all cyclists I see on a daily basis, be it whilst riding myself or working (7-8 hours daily at the wheel) are generally pleasant and sensible folk. Strikes me a little like motorbike riders. An old traffic cop I used to know swore blind that the commuters were okay, just the 'weekenders' who caused all the trouble.

Initialised

Mouth wrote:

An old traffic cop I used to know swore blind that the commuters were okay, just the 'weekenders' who caused all the trouble.

The same applies to motorists. If I take a halfday and commute in or out around midday I a more likely to have a near miss with a numpty in a car than if I go at the usually times. Basically our presence on the road during the rush hour trains the motorists that share our roads to look out for us. As fuel prices rise and more (otherwise car bound) people take to bikes realising they can have a decent or better bike for the cost of their annual car insurance let alone fuel, tax, repairs and depreciation the emphasis will change as it is or has in London.

NevilleC

Obviously ALL motorists are sensible, civilised and rational people and if they get angry with a cyclist there must be some very good reason. They cheerfully shoulder the burdens of vehicle excise duty and fuel taxes to pay for those roads we use, so it is only fair that we use up the very minimum of roadspace required and take care at all times not to impede their progress. I have sufficient 'roadcraft' and sense now to appreciate that I can stay out of trouble if I ride in the gutter every time an important motorist comes by or, even better when I can, dismount and walk my bicycle along the pavement and maybe give a suitably deferential wave to the motorist to thank him for not abusing me. Naturally I do this even where I can keep up with the flow of traffic because staying behind a cyclist is for the important time-pressed motorist obviously intolerably demeaning.
Anyone who rides along the road and does not get out of the way of motor traffic is obviously just asking for trouble so yes, as Spen666 so rightly infers SOME cyclists (obviously not sensible cyclists like me and Spen and the other roadwise people who read this) do bring it on themselves and the idea that they should trouble our busy and important police officers with such trifles clearly merits the utmost ridicule. I am so excited to find a place full of so many like minded people who can hoot with derision at these daft and ridiculous 'warriors'.
Unctuously yours
Neville

Initialised

iPete wrote:

The Ors wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

nation wrote:

I think that there is a certain type of cyclist that refuses to ride in a manner that meets drivers halfway.

I mean, we get riled up when cars pass too close for no better reason than to get to the tail end of a clearly visible queue 250 metres up the road, and I do think it is possible for a cyclist to ride in such a manner that they are (or appear to be, which amounts to the same thing) unreasonably holding up or otherwise making life difficult for other traffic.

Sometimes it's people that use primary aggressively rather than assertively, in that the situation arises where a driver clearly wants to pass, and could do so safely, but is prevented from doing so by a cyclist holding primary unnecessarily. Now, it may be true that the cyclist knows full well that said driver will be at the back of the inevitable queue two corners and thirty seconds ahead, but the driver may not and they are unlikely to be particularly introspective enough for this to occur to them when they reach it.

The other one I see a lot, although mostly in helmet cam videos (!), is overly aggressive filtering. I don't see the point in filtering past one or two cars at a set of lights. Nothing is gained by this because the cyclist will make it through in the same sequence as the cars and then those cars are going to immediately want to pass the cyclist.

Basically, there are those that ride assertively and in the interest of their own safety that are going to annoy a certain kind of driver of the "roads are for cars" type. Then there are those that ride aggressively, and haven't figured out that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is invariably a good idea. Such cyclists will annoy all drivers and it would seem likely that they'd end up in confrontations more often.

+1 to this, especially:

Then there are those that ride aggressively, and haven't figured out that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is invariably a good idea.

Yep; Nation hits the nail squarely on the head.

+ some more. If cyclists learnt not to always aimless push to the front, sit under vehicles etc etc etc there would be far less confrontation. I have very very little incident these days since adding a bucket load of zen and experience to my riding. I'm more likely to shout a warning at a cyclist going under a lorry at an obvious pinch point than at a driver being daft.

+1 motorists usually can't hear what you're yelling, cyclists can.

deptfordmarmoset

NevilleC wrote:

Obviously ALL motorists are sensible, civilised and rational people and if they get angry with a cyclist there must be some very good reason. They cheerfully shoulder the burdens of vehicle excise duty and fuel taxes to pay for those roads we use, so it is only fair that we use up the very minimum of roadspace required and take care at all times not to impede their progress. I have sufficient 'roadcraft' and sense now to appreciate that I can stay out of trouble if I ride in the gutter every time an important motorist comes by or, even better when I can, dismount and walk my bicycle along the pavement and maybe give a suitably deferential wave to the motorist to thank him for not abusing me. Naturally I do this even where I can keep up with the flow of traffic because staying behind a cyclist is for the important time-pressed motorist obviously intolerably demeaning.
Anyone who rides along the road and does not get out of the way of motor traffic is obviously just asking for trouble so yes, as Spen666 so rightly infers SOME cyclists (obviously not sensible cyclists like me and Spen and the other roadwise people who read this) do bring it on themselves and the idea that they should trouble our busy and important police officers with such trifles clearly merits the utmost ridicule. I am so excited to find a place full of so many like minded people who can hoot with derision at these daft and ridiculous 'warriors'.
Unctuously yours
Neville

Classic first post, NevilleC!

notsoblue

NevilleC wrote:

Obviously ALL motorists are sensible, civilised and rational people and if they get angry with a cyclist there must be some very good reason. They cheerfully shoulder the burdens of vehicle excise duty and fuel taxes to pay for those roads we use, so it is only fair that we use up the very minimum of roadspace required and take care at all times not to impede their progress. I have sufficient 'roadcraft' and sense now to appreciate that I can stay out of trouble if I ride in the gutter every time an important motorist comes by or, even better when I can, dismount and walk my bicycle along the pavement and maybe give a suitably deferential wave to the motorist to thank him for not abusing me. Naturally I do this even where I can keep up with the flow of traffic because staying behind a cyclist is for the important time-pressed motorist obviously intolerably demeaning.
Anyone who rides along the road and does not get out of the way of motor traffic is obviously just asking for trouble so yes, as Spen666 so rightly infers SOME cyclists (obviously not sensible cyclists like me and Spen and the other roadwise people who read this) do bring it on themselves and the idea that they should trouble our busy and important police officers with such trifles clearly merits the utmost ridicule. I am so excited to find a place full of so many like minded people who can hoot with derision at these daft and ridiculous 'warriors'.
Unctuously yours
Neville

CrackFox

I try to avoid getting angry. It tends to impair your judgment and it spoils your enjoyment of your commute. I've also found that I tend to be more aggressive in my remonstrations with drivers who are not physically intimidating. Knowing that I would behave differently if the motorist was a large, tattooed Maori leads me to attempt to treat them all as if they were i.e. stay calm and reasonable.

The last time I let fly a stream of invective at some dizzy wench who almost knocked me over, I spent the rest of the morning feeling guilty about it (damned Catholicism). And I doubt she took anything positive from the encounter. Besides that, there's something distinctly undignified about the sight of angry cyclist waving his fist in impotent fury at some bemused roadhog. People respond to aggression with aggression. It's not the most effective way to change their behavior. But if you insist on resorting to anger then you are most likely to eventually end up on the wrong side of a motorist with the same philosophy, and you will have brought that upon yourself.

cje

It isn't really about cyclists. Some people just seem to attract trouble, be they on a bike, in a car or down the pub. Like anyone, I occasionally see road users make mistakes and drive / ride badly, but I wouldn't dream of escalating the situation by chasing someone down and arguing with them. Not unless it was a really serious incident anyway.

I'll leave it to Buddha:

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."