Why cyclists are hated

Blandiblub

In fairness to that BBC video clip, that left hook by the Zafira was shockingly bad, even if nothing dreadful resulted. Left hooks may be depressingly common but the driver turned left to (apparently) park up a driveway, not even at the junction. Awful piece of driving.

The rest of it? Meh.

Kieran_Burns

cookdn wrote:

woodnut wrote:

supersonic wrote:

People hate motorists; people hate ramblers; people hate horse riders: everyone is bloody hated! By someone...

Surely no-one hates horse riders!...The majority are gorgeous

Careful....you'll get Kieran_Burns all hot and bothered again.

:P

wgwarburton

adr82 wrote:

That's quite the list of cycling stereotypes! Would be easy enough to write a similar list about motorists I'm sure...

Something that's always puzzled me is why the lyrca thing gets picked up on by non-cyclists... nobody would expect even amateur footballers or tennis players or distance runners to wear jeans and a t-shirt (or whatever), so why expect cyclists to wear casual clothing? All pro cyclists wear lycra and nobody thinks that's worthy of comment. Do people just not realise what a difference it makes compared to a pair of baggy cargo shorts?

Example non-cyclist commuter:

Lycra is sports-gear. Cycling is a sport. If you're on a bike in lycra then you are out riding for fun, as a recreational activity... so why are you doing it when everyone else is just trying to get to work? It's just damn selfish.

If you are riding for transport, why are your wearing that daft fancy dress? It's not like you're trying to win the Tour, is it? It just makes you look silly...

Does that help?

One of the big differences between cycling in the UK and cycling in some parts of the continent (Holland? Copenhagen?) is that cycling in the UK is seen as a Sport, not as a sensible means of transport.

Sometimes it's seen as a foolish means of transport (uncomfortable, dangerous). That doesn't help the cause....

The comparison you make yourself- to tennis, football, running is significant. Sport. Not transport; in your eyes not just those of the non-cyclist.

To the non-cyclist, it would make a lot more sense for you to be riding in "sensible clothes". I know that's a tautology... in a way that's the point!

Cheers,
W.

PBo

I keep meaning to ask, but does anyone know of data which shows average distance commuted by bike in different cities?

The whole thing about Lycra v normal clothes in Copenhagen/ Amsterdam depends on distances. I reckon the shortest commute I've done in London is 6 miles. Not hilly, not pan flat, but no way I could do it in a decent amount of journey time in office clothes without getting drenched in sweat (although admittedly my sweat threshold is quite low....).

Currently, my commute is 13miles. Some bumps. Takes me 50-55minutes on an average run. Once again, I can't cycle that even in smart casual, never mind suit.

Even a 3-4 mile commute in Sheffield was too sweaty due to hills.

Last time I could comfortably cycle in normal clothes was when I was a student. Pan flat Cambridge. Lived in one of he central colleges, reckon 2 miles was the furthest I ever needed to cycle....or when I worked near Waterloo, and often needed to pop a couple of miles to other central locations.

Don't the anti-Lycra-look-at-the-dutch brigade get this???

jonny_trousers

PBo wrote:

Don't the anti-Lycra-look-at-the-dutch brigade get this???

Who are the anti-lycra-look-at-the-dutch brigade? I'm really not convinced your average non-cyclist is even aware that the whole Dutch thing exists.

Apart from the fact that the press love the "lycra-lout" cliche so much - purely because both words begin with the same letter and therefore sounds super-snappy in a headline (not really) - does anyone actually care what cycle commuters wear?

DonDaddyD

The 'dutch-brigade' are just cyclists who hate other cyclists.

Rick.

CiB

WGWarburton wrote:

Example non-cyclist commuter:

Lycra is sports-gear. Cycling is a sport. If you're on a bike in lycra then you are out riding for fun, as a recreational activity... so why are you doing it when everyone else is just trying to get to work? It's just damn selfish.

If you are riding for transport, why are your wearing that daft fancy dress? It's not like you're trying to win the Tour, is it? It just makes you look silly...

Well as the originator of that nonsense starts out with a false premise and then amplifies his stupidity by claiming that it's selfish to wear the right togs when riding a bike, I think he can be safely dismissed a a thicko.

Lycra is not sports gear - it's what you ride if you're planning on doing a decent distance at a decent speed on a bike. Take away either of those 'decents' and there's no need for lycra, but for getting to work, I'll do it in the right kit if it's all the same to you thanks very much. It'll take me over an hour and I'll be pressing on for pretty much all of that time. It's not a sport, it's a means of getting about that involves some effort over some time. Technology has given us the ideal clothing to do it in. How in heaven's name is it selfish to wear the right stuff for what we're doing?

Making facts up to back up a flimsy argument is a bit ridiculous. Whoever wrote that nonsense hasn't got the first clue. How do we educate these muppets?

PBo

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

PBo wrote:

Don't the anti-Lycra-look-at-the-dutch brigade get this???

Who are the anti-lycra-look-at-the-dutch brigade? I'm really not convinced your average non-cyclist is even aware that the whole Dutch thing exists.

Apart from the fact that the press love the "lycra-lout" cliche so much - purely because both words begin with the same letter and therefore sounds super-snappy in a headline (not really) - does anyone actually care what cycle commuters wear?

Actually you are right. Brigade is overstating the amount of people who are aware of the whole Copenhagen thang. But journalists have latched onto it a bit. And you are right about Lycra lout. But it is catchy and is entering the argot, even if within the confines of online newspapers comments sections....

greg66_tri_v2.0

When a driver is stuck in a queue of traffic and sees cyclists/moped riders/motorcyclists breeze by, I can understand why they feel pissed off. I don't sympathise with them - that's life - but I can understand their feelings.

Where I do have sympathy for them is when those same overtakers, whatever they are on, then go on to contribute to the slow speed at which the queue moves - eg by bunching at the front of the lights them moving off slowly and taking a long time to clear a lane.

The points listed from that article are just the usual old balls though.

Basically that's not really different to someone who queue jumps you then holds you up more by cocking around.

rick_chasey

PBo wrote:

I keep meaning to ask, but does anyone know of data which shows average distance commuted by bike in different cities?

The whole thing about Lycra v normal clothes in Copenhagen/ Amsterdam depends on distances. I reckon the shortest commute I've done in London is 6 miles. Not hilly, not pan flat, but no way I could do it in a decent amount of journey time in office clothes without getting drenched in sweat (although admittedly my sweat threshold is quite low....).

Currently, my commute is 13miles. Some bumps. Takes me 50-55minutes on an average run. Once again, I can't cycle that even in smart casual, never mind suit.

Even a 3-4 mile commute in Sheffield was too sweaty due to hills.

Last time I could comfortably cycle in normal clothes was when I was a student. Pan flat Cambridge. Lived in one of he central colleges, reckon 2 miles was the furthest I ever needed to cycle....or when I worked near Waterloo, and often needed to pop a couple of miles to other central locations.

Don't the anti-Lycra-look-at-the-dutch brigade get this???

AFAIK Dutch cycle commuters travel further by bike on average than any other nation in Europe - so distance isn't really a good argument.

The environment in which you cycle probably has a bigger effect.

If you imagine yourself living in the Netherlands for a minute, going down one of the many cycle lanes you see pictures of everywhere, you wouldn't be getting into your lycra either.

Everyone cycles more slowly, the effort akin to a brisk walk at best, and that's fine.

In the UK, being alongside traffic makes you hurry up. Often I find it's safer to be going at a fair lick to reduce the relative speed between me and the traffic since I'm part OF the traffic.

Cycling in London, however experience you are is a reasonably intense experience. It's rarely relaxing in the conventional sense. The same goes for most of the UK. You need to be more alert, more aware, etc etc.

Anyway, calling me anti lycra is a bit rich since I commuted in lycra in London when I had a job.

Also, cycling in a suit is do-able on a Dutch bike. It's just not on any other.

PBo

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBo wrote:

I keep meaning to ask, but does anyone know of data which shows average distance commuted by bike in different cities?

The whole thing about Lycra v normal clothes in Copenhagen/ Amsterdam depends on distances. I reckon the shortest commute I've done in London is 6 miles. Not hilly, not pan flat, but no way I could do it in a decent amount of journey time in office clothes without getting drenched in sweat (although admittedly my sweat threshold is quite low....).

Currently, my commute is 13miles. Some bumps. Takes me 50-55minutes on an average run. Once again, I can't cycle that even in smart casual, never mind suit.

Even a 3-4 mile commute in Sheffield was too sweaty due to hills.

Last time I could comfortably cycle in normal clothes was when I was a student. Pan flat Cambridge. Lived in one of he central colleges, reckon 2 miles was the furthest I ever needed to cycle....or when I worked near Waterloo, and often needed to pop a couple of miles to other central locations.

Don't the anti-Lycra-look-at-the-dutch brigade get this???

AFAIK Dutch cycle commuters travel further by bike on average than any other nation in Europe - so distance isn't really a good argument.

The environment in which you cycle probably has a bigger effect.

If you imagine yourself living in the Netherlands for a minute, going down one of the many cycle lanes you see pictures of everywhere, you wouldn't be getting into your lycra either.

Everyone cycles more slowly, the effort akin to a brisk walk at best, and that's fine.

In the UK, being alongside traffic makes you hurry up. Often I find it's safer to be going at a fair lick to reduce the relative speed between me and the traffic since I'm part OF the traffic.

Cycling in London, however experience you are is a reasonably intense experience. It's rarely relaxing in the conventional sense. The same goes for most of the UK. You need to be more alert, more aware, etc etc.

Anyway, calling me anti lycra is a bit rich since I commuted in lycra in London when I had a job.

Also, cycling in a suit is do-able on a Dutch bike. It's just not on any other.

Just to clarify, I wasn't implying you we're anti Lycra Rick.

That "average" figure could be misleading though. Imagine average Dutch lives 4 miles from work. Plausible to commute by bike, so 20% do. 8 miles per day, maybe 2 to meet someone for lunch, plus a detour of 2 miles on the way home for some reason. Even a 3 mile round trip to a meeting during the day. 15 miles no sweat. 200 working days a year

But in London, lets say ave commute is 10. Much harder, so much less people do it. Less extra use of the bike, as people want to get home and commute already takes 45 minutes. Say 5%. Only 4 days cos on one day they are knackered/need the car/starting the day off site. 160 days per year.

This would return a higher average for the Dutch, but is predicated on short distances.

My assumptions could be complete b0ll0cks, mind...

Drfabulous0

PBo wrote:

My assumptions could be complete b0ll0cks, mind...

^This, unless you have facts at your disposal your conjecture is meaningless

wod1

I listened to bits of the Vine show and phone in.

I don`t find it an issue about the fact that some overweight silly opinionated woman thinks wearing Lycra is bad. At the end of the day jeans and a t-shirt is going to be less visible on the roads than the bright colours.

Cyclists are not allowed to use the road as a race track - so they are holding her up and also cycling too fast. As long as red lights traffic rules are followed.

Cyclists are rude - well at times I do feel like being rude when drivers try and think that I as a cyclist are not allowed on the road, or try and tell me to ride in the gutter, or how to ride because they are in a car and if I hold them up it is not acceptable to them.

SMUG - 100%, pouring rain earlier this week and road works, commute home past 50+ stationary cars out of my office park. very smug thank you very much. may have been raining but I know who was getting somewhere.

wod1

Apologies if this has been mentioned else where, but this is top of the BBC News Video chart at the moment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-19710937

No one likes crap drivers but i had my head in my hands when i watched this. I thought it would be a story similar to the ones we get on here every now and then with people getting pushed off bikes and the like, but no, its just a report with footage of people driving within about 2 foot of him. I cant blame non-cyclists for thinking we're all pernickety little tossers finger wagging at people who create less of a breeze than a wasp farting as they go past us. The fact that they show him there with his editing software behind him...and then showing it on the TV to the whole family. Of course this may have been set up by the news team filming it, but god its embarrassing. If they're going to make a story on this at least make it something shocking or terrible.

I'm sure I can hear all non-cyclists sneering as they watch that report. ugh.

I have to say the one with the bus was pretty bad. I have looked at many cycling cam videos and I think the camera does make it look less close than it actually is. But in my opinion it should not be legal to overtake a cyclist on a two way road in the path of oncoming traffic unless it is superwide. Plenty of overtakes I get cause the person the way to alter course or flash the overtaking car.

mtb-idle

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBo wrote:

I keep meaning to ask, but does anyone know of data which shows average distance commuted by bike in different cities?

The whole thing about Lycra v normal clothes in Copenhagen/ Amsterdam depends on distances. I reckon the shortest commute I've done in London is 6 miles. Not hilly, not pan flat, but no way I could do it in a decent amount of journey time in office clothes without getting drenched in sweat (although admittedly my sweat threshold is quite low....).

Currently, my commute is 13miles. Some bumps. Takes me 50-55minutes on an average run. Once again, I can't cycle that even in smart casual, never mind suit.

Even a 3-4 mile commute in Sheffield was too sweaty due to hills.

Last time I could comfortably cycle in normal clothes was when I was a student. Pan flat Cambridge. Lived in one of he central colleges, reckon 2 miles was the furthest I ever needed to cycle....or when I worked near Waterloo, and often needed to pop a couple of miles to other central locations.

Don't the anti-Lycra-look-at-the-dutch brigade get this???

AFAIK Dutch cycle commuters travel further by bike on average than any other nation in Europe - so distance isn't really a good argument.

The environment in which you cycle probably has a bigger effect.

If you imagine yourself living in the Netherlands for a minute, going down one of the many cycle lanes you see pictures of everywhere, you wouldn't be getting into your lycra either.

Everyone cycles more slowly, the effort akin to a brisk walk at best, and that's fine.

In the UK, being alongside traffic makes you hurry up. Often I find it's safer to be going at a fair lick to reduce the relative speed between me and the traffic since I'm part OF the traffic.

Cycling in London, however experience you are is a reasonably intense experience. It's rarely relaxing in the conventional sense. The same goes for most of the UK. You need to be more alert, more aware, etc etc.

Anyway, calling me anti lycra is a bit rich since I commuted in lycra in London when I had a job.

Also, cycling in a suit is do-able on a Dutch bike. It's just not on any other.

That's not really statistical is it? I could truthfully state that "AFAIK Dutch cycle commuters do not travel further by bike on average than any other nation in Europe" and we wouldn't be any the wiser.

txom

I've always been under the impression that a lot of Dutch commuters tend to get the train into city centres and cycle the last bit to work, leaving their bikes parked at the stations overnight. Check out some of the articles here about cycle parking at stations http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/se ... %20parking

In this country, or in London at least, we don't really have this option so cyclists tend to do longer commutes on their bikes and dress accordingly.

mtb-idle

Have we done this article yet from every Champagne Socialist's favourite rag?

(you need to scroll down to the penultimate paragraph for the anti-cycling "sweaty pests" piece)

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

AFAIK Dutch cycle commuters travel further by bike on average than any other nation in Europe - so distance isn't really a good argument.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... s-too.html

That might address the distance point...or it might not. CBA to read it all!

adr82

WGWarburton wrote:

Lycra is sports-gear. Cycling is a sport. If you're on a bike in lycra then you are out riding for fun, as a recreational activity... so why are you doing it when everyone else is just trying to get to work? It's just damn selfish.

If you are riding for transport, why are your wearing that daft fancy dress? It's not like you're trying to win the Tour, is it? It just makes you look silly...

Does that help?

One of the big differences between cycling in the UK and cycling in some parts of the continent (Holland? Copenhagen?) is that cycling in the UK is seen as a Sport, not as a sensible means of transport.

Sometimes it's seen as a foolish means of transport (uncomfortable, dangerous). That doesn't help the cause....

The comparison you make yourself- to tennis, football, running is significant. Sport. Not transport; in your eyes not just those of the non-cyclist.

To the non-cyclist, it would make a lot more sense for you to be riding in "sensible clothes". I know that's a tautology... in a way that's the point!

Cheers,
W.

That does help a bit... I hadn't (consciously) thought of making that sort of distinction between sport and transport myself. To me cycling to work is just a way to turn a boring commute into a chance to do something I enjoy. I'd love to know how whoever wrote that quote came up with the idea that it's "selfish"... sounds like he just hates his job and doesn't want to see anyone else looking like they're enjoying themselves while he's stuck in traffic.

Green Brompton

I couldn't help but Google things such as 'wearing trainers to work forum', and you guessed it, there is another forum (OK, not on such a grand scale as BR) out there chatting nonsense about what people (non cyclists!!!) wear to get to work. I mean really, who cares about what another person wears to get to work in?

I suppose my point is, someone, somewhere will have an issue with something about someone else about nothing in particular.

junglist_matty

Who gives a toss if someone hates a cyclist? I mean, there's a lot of things I don't like but seriously, does it really matter to anyone other than myself?

If you ride on the road, be prepared for bad drivers, if they don't hit you it's fine, if they do, then you're fu@#!d

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

Also, cycling in a suit is do-able on a Dutch bike. It's just not on any other.

Ah but it is, went to the funeral of one of my guys. had some funny looks as I rode in on this


with the full suit, black tie etc. took it easy and was fine, did get some looks mind!

ben@31

I listened to the BBC2 debate on BBC iplayer last night.

For me, they could not have found a more biased, one sided, blinkered woman if they tried. Everything she said was a typecast or sweeping generalisation "every cyclist... ". I'm glad the host of the show, Jeremy Vine was quite defensive about cyclists to try give the show some credibility and make it a more balanced argument.

Smug - Nope I'm not, is she sure it's not her thats jealous and using smug as a way to attack us?
Do not pay to be on the road - I'm sure this has been said before but vehicle excise duty does not pay for the roads, other forms of tax does. However, I have just paid £118 for 6 months VED for my car. My ex's VED for her new car was £0 for the year.
Do not have insurance - This is not a mandatory requirement, I've never caused damage on my bike.
Do not pass a test - Nether do pedestrians or people on roller blades, pogo sticks or walking dogs. For all the motorists that complain about tax, licenses and tests... You could travel for free too without taking a test, but you decided not cycle.
Jump red lights - No I don't. She made a sweeping generalisation that "cyclists jump read lights".
Ride many abreast - Usually I cycle alone on the most quietest country roads I can find, but when I've cycled with my mate we don't cycle abreast if a car is approaching us.
Dont use lights at night Every cyclist I know does use lights. I even use a reflective band around my black rucksack.
....and astonishingly...
Lycra is not a good look - I don't tell others what to wear, what I wear is upto me. But as I am physically fit (partly thanks to cycling) I do look ok in lycra.

Still any bicycle hater out there? Here's some facts for you = A bicycle (well set up road bike) is the most efficient form of transport with 99% of energy inputted through the pedals being outputted through the back wheel. The internal combustion engine of the car is only 20% efficient. One hundred calories can power a cyclist for three miles, but it would only power a car 280 feet. I learned the other day the bicycle chain is the most efficient way of moving energy from one place to another.

Green Brompton

British Cycling has over 50,000 members... even the basic membership package includes insurance. So, that rubbishes her claim we don't have insurance. As said above, it hasn't been made mandatory, yet over 50,000 cyclists 'choose' to have it. I guess that makes us smug!

rick_chasey

What's wrong with being smug anyway?

PBo

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's wrong with being smug anyway?

Nothing - gets you a role as a mod!!!

rick_chasey

*shakes fist*

Grr!

*fumbles around for mod hammer*

Kerguelen

Green Brompton wrote:

British Cycling has over 50,000 members... even the basic membership package includes insurance. So, that rubbishes her claim we don't have insurance. As said above, it hasn't been made mandatory, yet over 50,000 cyclists 'choose' to have it. I guess that makes us smug!

I got bike liability insurance thrown in for free with my home & contents policy.

Went for BC anyway for the legal representaion and the discount on theft cover.

rhext

I don't think that any of these are the reasons that cyclists are hated: they're just the stereotypes that people trot out to justify a deep-seated, probably evolutionary tendency to look for another tribe to be a scapegoat when faced with a difficult situation. 'There's no sheep left to eat in this valley, and haven't been since our mid-winter barbecue and sheep-slaughtering contest! Must be those b*ggers over the hill coming to steal them with their smug expressions and stupid-looking woad. Better go over there and slaughter every single one of them.'

Most of us probably don't notice, but driving a car is a frustrating experience these days: expensive, slow and stressful. So you need someone to blame. The government cops a bit of it, of course, but they're somewhat faceless. And you can't blame the people who really cause the problems (other motorists), because you're a motorist too and like it or not are in the same tribe. So who's left?

Regardless of the rights and wrongs the chief whip was doomed as soon as he said 'ahem, would it bother you awfully if I left by the vehicle gate': member of the government and a cyclist? Pass me that spear will you.

airbag

ben@31 wrote:

Still any bicycle hater out there? Here's some facts for you = A bicycle (well set up road bike) is the most efficient form of transport with 99% of energy inputted through the pedals being outputted through the back wheel. The internal combustion engine of the car is only 20% efficient.

Point of pedantry - that's not really a fair comparison, the bicycle drivetrain is just moving mechanical energy from one place to another and fiddling with it a bit, which is a lot easier than turning chemical energy into mechanical energy (which is what the car engine is doing). A fairer comparison is car engine versus rider's legs - your muscles are about 25% efficient when working aerobically (an engine really focussed on efficiency like big marine engines will beat this significantly, but car engines need to meet other demands as well). Comparing drivetrains, a car drivetrain is normally 80-90% efficient. To get any further you need to start thinking about complicated questions like 'how much energy was used to deliver the energy to the rider's mucles?' and 'how much energy would they have consumed regardless of whether they cycle or not?'. Of course, the actual energy demand of a bicycle is much lower, as it's lighter, doesn't create as much drag, and has no real auxiliary loads.

As for the psychology, rhext has got it right - cyclists are an easy target if you don't cycle as they don't include you. People are idiots when they can afford to be.