Does it bother you that we are mostly hated?

shirley_basso

neeb wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

It would help the vegan cause if meat didn't taste so damn good.

if vegetarianism and beibg vegan is so great, why do they always name their food after meat?

veggie steaks
vegan burgers
xyz product tastes as good as meat
veggie bacon

They don't, that's just the supermarkets trying to sell to two markets at the same time, veggies and non-veggies who are looking for "healthier choices" (of course the stuff marketed as burgers/steaks etc is likely to be the most processed and least healthy).

Often smaller branches of Sainsburys etc. will have a sizeable range of veggie sliced ham, veggie sausages etc (often based on quorn or highly processed soya) but won't stock tofu. I guess they must just make more money from selling cheaper processed veggie food to non-veggies (and veggies who can't find anything half decent on the shelves) than quality plant based foods to people who want them.

One of the most annoying things about being vegetarian or vegan is that the rest of society (in the UK at least) is still stuck in a permanent "meat and two veg" mindset when it comes to how they think about food. If you approach veggie food that way then it's always going to seem less appetising - keeping the same structure of the meal but just substituting the lump of meat for a lump of something non-meat. Good vegetarian meals are structured differently. That said, there are plenty meal types that work equally well from a vegetarian or meat based perspective - pasta, pizza, curry etc. Indian and Italian are the go-to choices if you are vegetarian and needing fast food, or a restaurant choice that will work equally well for meat eating companions. Much, much more difficult if you are vegan of course.

My wife is trying to force me onto a veggie diet and what has interested me is every time I buy a veggie cookbook, it shows you how to cook something to accompany a meat based dish, instead of putting veg at the center of the meal.

Can you recommend a great one? I have access to all sorts of veg as one client pays for goods with a pallet of fresh fruit and veg every week!

webboo

Vegetarian Kitchen by Sarah Brown
New Complete Vegetarian Rose Elliot
Delia has done one as well as Gino also there are several volumes of Good House Keeping veg cook books.

keef66

Shirley Basso wrote:

My wife is trying to force me onto a veggie diet and what has interested me is every time I buy a veggie cookbook, it shows you how to cook something to accompany a meat based dish, instead of putting veg at the center of the meal.

Can you recommend a great one? I have access to all sorts of veg as one client pays for goods with a pallet of fresh fruit and veg every week!

Are you sure you've been looking at vegetarian cookbooks? What you describe sounds more like the Vegetables section of a conventional recipe book.

Since my student days in the 70s I've used Rose Elliot's Bean Book, but now the choice of veg / vegan recipes is almost endless. Lots of recipes are available online too.

Good luck getting through a pallet of F&V a week!

bongofish

Honestly the original topic of this thread has gone AWOL

neeb

Bongofish wrote:

Honestly the original topic of this thread has gone AWOL

Yeah, sort of, but hardly surprising - the question of what the attitude of the public is towards cyclists and cycling necessary leads into more general social questions. There’s obviously more to it than any justifiable annoyance of drivers at being held up for 30s every now and again.

kingstongraham

Bumo_b wrote:

In many ways we don't help ourselves. You have that fool who went up the inside of a horse in the Windsor triathlon, and a load of close passes on the outside in the same footage. Gave the media real fodder to hate us. Recently I was driving near Stepney and where the pavement/cycle lane merges with the road, I saw a cyclist (Castelli kitted) not even looking over his shoulder before crossing the line. I beeped to make him aware there were vehicles (me and a motorcyclist) and he just pulled out giving the finger and swearing. Caught him at the lights (was surprised he stopped at red in fairness), explained I was trying to warn him of other vehicles, and swiftly got a "f**k you c**t". It was only when this big beefy motorcyclist put his bike on the stand to take him to task for his arrogance did he cycle off at bolt neck speed. Unless we shame our own whose behaviour is poor, we cant expect respect from others. It also doesn't fairly represent other cyclist who behave well.

Thing is, why should he be "one of mine"? I don't regard all car drivers as my comrades when I'm driving.

kingstongraham

(he says, posting on a cycling forum).

neeb

KingstonGraham wrote:

Thing is, why should he be "one of mine"? I don't regard all car drivers as my comrades when I'm driving.

You’re right of course, but that’s the universal peril of being a minority - the majority (wrongly of course) tend see you as all the same.

priory

fortunately , the traffic light camera captured the moment he rode off at bolt-neck speed.

joenobody

Shirley Basso wrote:

Can you recommend a great one? I have access to all sorts of veg as one client pays for goods with a pallet of fresh fruit and veg every week!

Bosh, or any of the Happy Pear books.

crescent

The handful of colleagues that I have encountered who "hate" cyclists generally trot out the tired old road tax / hold everyone up arguments and I lose interest and don't dignify them by responding. I find that when most people find out you are "serious" about cycling they are genuinely interested and want to know more about it, often from a health or weight perspective. As a driver myself it irritates me no end when I see a cyclist being a dick - either flouting rules or putting themselves in harm's way. Worst culprits are the ones who put themselves into a small gap (either by filtering or undertaking) that would have them ranting and raving if a driver was to put them in a similarly small gap - both wrong in my opinion. Its not difficult, common sense and a bit of courtesy.

neeb

Crescent wrote:

As a driver myself it irritates me no end when I see a cyclist being a dick - either flouting rules or putting themselves in harm's way. Worst culprits are the ones who put themselves into a small gap (either by filtering or undertaking) that would have them ranting and raving if a driver was to put them in a similarly small gap - both wrong in my opinion. Its not difficult, common sense and a bit of courtesy.

One issue that isn't talked about much and which is a major source of mistakes and misunderstandings between drivers and cyclists is how behaviour that is sensible and safe when motor traffic is completely stationary is much less so when traffic is moving, although the transition between these states is sometimes very unpredictable.

The classic example is when a cyclist is approaching a queue of traffic stopped at a traffic light from behind, and goes up either the marked cycle lane on the inside, or overtakes on the outside, in order to get to the advanced stop box in front of the queue. What sometimes happens is that the light turns to amber just as the cyclist is moving or about to move into the box and the traffic is starting to move. Of course the whole point of the amber light should be to warn road users that the lights are about to change, but as we know most drivers will just treat it as a green light.. From the cyclists PoV the motor traffic is cutting him/her up by being too quick off the mark and not being aware, while from the driver's PoV the cyclist is dangerously trying to cut in in front of him.

There are lots of much more ambiguous situations caused by the interaction of stationary or very slowly moving motor traffic and cycles. It's not really reasonable to expect cyclists to remain stationary in a long queue of motor traffic when there's plenty room to overtake or undertake. But if the cyclist isn't an expert at reading traffic flow it's easy for them to be put in a dangerous situation if the traffic suddenly starts to move. Another classic source of accidents is when a gap has been left by drivers in a stationary queue of traffic at a junction on a main road to let cars enter from a side road or turn right into the side road from the other carriageway. An overtaking or undertaking cyclist strictly speaking has right of way but is highly unlikely to be seen by cars entering from or turning into the side road through the gap in the stationary traffic.

Cheeseface22

Crescent wrote:

Worst culprits are the ones who put themselves into a small gap (either by filtering or undertaking) that would have them ranting and raving if a driver was to put them in a similarly small gap

I don't get this either. There's a rightful and completely valid campaign to make at least 1.5m width gap the law to overtake a cyclist, yet I see so many occasions where a cyclist zooms off on the gutter or between traffic as if they must get in front (MGIF, oh the irony).

Okay, if the traffic is completely stationary, and there's a space to pass through comfortably, then I see the point of filtering. But what I don't see is when the traffic is creeping or slow, or even sometimes at steady pace, some determined cyslits do MGIF, often time without any space to spare.

Now what does that demonstrate to some simpleton drivers? That cyclists don't actually need 1.5m width gap... dangerous assumption.

svetty

The counter argument is that the 'out front' box at traffic lights etc can only be accessed if cyclists do filter past stationary vehicles - the 'MGIF' is appropriate in this context.

timothyw

Loving that I'm now getting hate from fellow cyclists for filtering.

Honestly, if I'm not going to filter past stationary/slow moving cars on my commute, I might as well be in one of them. I'd rather have the extra time in bed thanks.

And when I do filter, the only person who is at risk is me. If I somehow manage to damage a car I'm insured.....

Cheeseface22

I sense a knee jerk response above.

TimothyW, who is sending a personal hate towards you for filtering? I don't see any comments of targeted hate towards you.

Of course, filtering through traffic is allowed and very useful when cycling (and motorbiking, but I don't know the intricacies filtering when motorbiking). But filtering becomes pointless in certain circumstance, for example when there's no adequate space to pass through comfortably (but yet some persist in filtering, just because "they can"), whether that is between the curb and cars on left lane or between cars on two lanes.

Another pointless filtering is when the traffic is temporarily still, creeping, or steady-moving which then clears in near distance (so close that, with observation and anticipation, it should be noticeable), perhaps caused by a car that's indicating to turn right across an oncoming traffic, or a short queue at traffic light / roundabout. There's not much point of desperately squeezing, snaking, or filtering through "get in front," (thus the MGIF action that some cyclists love to hate when driver do) only to be overtaken immediately after by the cars that a cyclist just filtered through. Why shouldn't a cyclist wait patiently in the que in this circumstance, just like any other road users.

Perhaps it's a different story in London where traffic is constantly heavily congested and drivers are generally accustomed to cyclists weaving through the traffic? I wouldn't apply that form of cycling on my commute (and there's absolutely no "advance stop line / box" either), as generally any congestion clears within a matter of few seconds as they are very often caused by traffic lights, queues at roundabouts, and cars indicating and waiting to turn right across an oncoming traffic.

Frankiemann93

To be fair, it goes both ways; some cyclists are utter idiots on the route and make life hard for car drivers to get past, or fly past horses without alerting them. I know its a minority but some people don't help the case for why people hate on cyclists. The ones who take cycling a bit over the top I have found are more prone to doing this.
Then again, most are decent and normal human beings, but it's easy to pick faults with any group of people.

Cheeseface22

Frankiemann93 wrote:

Then again, most are decent and normal human beings, but it's easy to pick faults with any group of people.

Amen to that. Why is it so easy to complain or criticise one's fault over appreciate one's goodness? It's not just about cycling and cyclists, but human behaviour in general. I haven't found a solution to that, obviously, from re-reading my own comments above.

crescent

General rule for me on the road is that I don't put my bike where I wouldn't put my car. Designated cycle lanes are fair enough but in mainstream traffic I'm not a fan of filtering, too much ambiguity and scope for conflict. Road sense.

neeb

There's no comparison between the 1.5m rule for cars passing cyclists and any expectation for cyclists to leave similar room when passing cars, that would be ridiculous.

The reason for the 1.5m rule is that cars are massive lumps of metal passing vulnerable road users at often considerable speed, and the driver generally can't estimate the actual distance to the cyclist very accurately. It's a rule of thumb designed to protect the lives of cyclists given the massive imbalances in vulnerability and spatial awareness. Note that there is no 1.5m rule for cars passing other cars..

Cycle lanes themselves are narrower than 1.5m. The only responsibility cyclists need to have in terms of distance when passing motor vehicles is not to touch them. Of course they still need to ensure that they don't pass unless it is safe to do so.

keef66

I give cars a wide berth out of a sense of self-preservation, because every now and then a door is flung open without a backwards glance, or a car I thought was stationary suddenly becomes mobile. 1.5m is usually enough room for me to take avoiding action...

john1967

Yes it bothers me I'm hated because some lazy C**T in car got held up for 10 secs.Yes it bothers me I'm hated because some meat heads girlfriend checked me out and he felt a good response was to pass me at 10cm.Yes it bothers me I'm hated when a training instructor takes the piss out of cyclists Infront of a group of impressionable HGV drivers.Yes it bothers me I'm hated when a judge fails to hand out a suitable sentence for yet another impatient motorist.Yes it bothers me I'm hated because I just want to get home safely and see my family and it would be nice for my wife not to be on tender hooks every time I'm out cycling.

superkenners

Crescent wrote:

Worst culprits are the ones who put themselves into a small gap (either by filtering or undertaking) that would have them ranting and raving if a driver was to put them in a similarly small gap

Perspective required. A cyclist going through a small gap is in control of the situation, whereas he is not if a car swipes past him with a few mm to spare. The most obvious difference between these two scenarios is the speed involved. Very rare to see a cyclist undercut you in a tiny gap at 50mph!

Motorists always pissed at cyclists as in any form of traffic its quicker on the bike and they resent being stuck while you sail past.

crescent

Superkenners wrote:

Perspective required. A cyclist going through a small gap is in control of the situation, whereas he is not if a car swipes past him with a few mm to spare. The most obvious difference between these two scenarios is the speed involved. Very rare to see a cyclist undercut you in a tiny gap at 50mph!

A fair point about perspective, but I didn't mention anything about 50mph - that would be an extreme case and not my intended point. What I was suggesting was that in a filtering scenario in stop/start traffic, for example, would a cyclist be happy if a car passed them as closely as they were prepared to pass the car? I suspect not in some cases. I would also argue that the cyclist is not necessarily in control of the situation - if the traffic starts to move while they are filtering through it then the whole dynamic changes - what started as a "safe" manoeuvre may now result in them being in a more vulnerable position. There are too many scenarios to deal with each one specifically, hence my follow up comment about removing ambiguity where possible. I will continue to do what I do, I suspect others will continue to do what they do, too.

shimanobottombracket

Bumo_b wrote:

In many ways we don't help ourselves. You have that fool who went up the inside of a horse in the Windsor triathlon, and a load of close passes on the outside in the same footage. Gave the media real fodder to hate us. Recently I was driving near Stepney and where the pavement/cycle lane merges with the road, I saw a cyclist (Castelli kitted) not even looking over his shoulder before crossing the line. I beeped to make him aware there were vehicles (me and a motorcyclist) and he just pulled out giving the finger and swearing. Caught him at the lights (was surprised he stopped at red in fairness), explained I was trying to warn him of other vehicles, and swiftly got a "f**k you c**t". It was only when this big beefy motorcyclist put his bike on the stand to take him to task for his arrogance did he cycle off at bolt neck speed. Unless we shame our own whose behaviour is poor, we cant expect respect from others. It also doesn't fairly represent other cyclist who behave well.

:shock: :shock:!

tangled_metal

Does it bother me that we are mostly hated?

Really? Are we hated?

How does it price we're hated when cars close pass? Apart from a few revenge passes for you perving on the driver's girlfriend / boyfriend excepted.

Does bad driving indicate hate? Does bad cycling indicate hate? Does pushing cyclists over count as hate? AFAIK no official classes these as hate or hate fuelled crimes. Perhaps they should of there's evidence to support it. Although just because a cyclist gets hit by a truck doesn't make that hate.

I will stand to be comvinced otherwise by e evidenced argument as opposed to emotional argument due to bad experiences cycling.

alex222

john1967 wrote:

Yes it bothers me I'm hated because some lazy C**T in car got held up for 10 secs.Yes it bothers me I'm hated because some meat heads girlfriend checked me out and he felt a good response was to pass me at 10cm.Yes it bothers me I'm hated when a training instructor takes the wee-wee out of cyclists Infront of a group of impressionable HGV drivers.Yes it bothers me I'm hated when a judge fails to hand out a suitable sentence for yet another impatient motorist.Yes it bothers me I'm hated because I just want to get home safely and see my family and it would be nice for my wife not to be on tender hooks every time I'm out cycling.

Absolutely agree

neeb

Crescent wrote:

What I was suggesting was that in a filtering scenario in stop/start traffic, for example, would a cyclist be happy if a car passed them as closely as they were prepared to pass the car? I suspect not in some cases.

Of course not, because the two situations are obviously completely incomparable. The cyclist is much more aware of the distance involved and the likely consequences of screwing it up are on utterly different scales.

The point someone else made about car doors is fair enough, but that's a specific situation where it's sensible to leave room when passing, not a sensible general rule.

kingstongraham

john1967 wrote:

Yes it bothers me I'm hated because I just want to get home safely and see my family and it would be nice for my wife not to be on tender hooks every time I'm out cycling.

More perspective needed. While things can be (and need to be) improved, the stats say there are about 1100 serious injuries per billion miles cycled. If you cycle 100 miles every week, you will on average have a serious injury once every 175 years.

neeb

KingstonGraham wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Yes it bothers me I'm hated because I just want to get home safely and see my family and it would be nice for my wife not to be on tender hooks every time I'm out cycling.

More perspective needed. While things can be (and need to be) improved, the stats say there are about 1100 serious injuries per billion miles cycled. If you cycle 100 miles every week, you will on average have a serious injury once every 175 years.

Where's that stat from as a matter of interest? It seems pretty incredible. I suppose it depends on how you define a "serious" injury. Subjectively it seems to me that most road cyclists who've been cycling for a few decades have had at least one accident involving something like a minor fracture, concussion or serious cuts and bruises.

And if serious means life-changing or fatal, then it's actually a very scary statistic. It would mean that if you cycle 100 miles a week for 50 years or equivalent (you are a lifelong cyclist basically) you have something like a 25-30% of being killed or suffering a life-changing injury...