Cyclists 'a menace', road-user poll says

"Matt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

From Surveyor magazine, 25/10/2007

"While authorities do their best to get people out of cars and on to
bikes, a new poll suggests cyclists are becoming an increasing menace to
other road-users. In a survey commissioned by classifieds website
www.gumtree.com, half of the 2,058 road-users polled called for compulsory
proficiency tests, after experiencing 'bike rage' and law-breaking by
cyclists. The research reveals that nine out of 10 pedestrians and
motorists have seen cyclists riding on footpaths, with 74% of British
road-users catching cyclists riding through red lights. More cycle lanes
were called for by 55% of road-users, who thought this was the easiest way
to reduce cycle offences. "

I particularly like the last sentence. I think that on balance the
average Joe really doesn't understand just how difficult it can be to
build a cycle lane.

Still it's nice to be loved isn't it?

Original press release can be found on the gumtree website. TBH it looks
somewhat they conducted their survey on somewhere like uk.transport, with
questions inviting negative responses, so I've asked them for some further
details.

cheers,
clive

Matt said:

From Surveyor magazine, 25/10/2007

73.5% of statistics are made up on the spot, the other 32% were invented
yesterday..

Quoted message said:

"While authorities do their best to get people out of cars and on to bikes,
a new poll suggests cyclists are becoming an increasing menace to other
road-users. In a survey commissioned by classifieds website www.gumtree.com,
half of the 2,058 road-users polled called for compulsory proficiency tests,
after experiencing 'bike rage' and law-breaking by cyclists.

There are cagers round here who have experienced by rage from me,
normally when they cut me up, or pretend that I am not there.

The research

Quoted message said:

reveals that nine out of 10 pedestrians and motorists have seen cyclists
riding on footpaths,

And here is one we made earlier.

I bet if you poll pedestrians on many roads near me 99% will say they
regularly see cars parked on footpaths.

with 74% of British road-users catching cyclists riding

Quoted message said:

through red lights.

Ditto, another non-statistic.
I wonder how many road users spotted cars driving through red lights.
I wonder how many road users hear the car behind revving up to go
through a red light whilst they are breaking for it.

These statistics do not say how many are breaking the law, just what
people see when they are out.

More cycle lanes were called for by 55% of road-users,

Quoted message said:

who thought this was the easiest way to reduce cycle offences. "

I particularly like the last sentence. I think that on balance the average
Joe really doesn't understand just how difficult it can be to build a cycle
lane.

I vidded a brilliant one today, it goes from a usual width, to less than
a drain width in 2 meters, there is even a couple of drains in it.

Martin.

Matt said the following on 06/11/2007 19:41:

Quoted message said:

From Surveyor magazine, 25/10/2007

"While authorities do their best to get people out of cars and on to bikes,
a new poll suggests cyclists are becoming an increasing menace to other
road-users. In a survey commissioned by classifieds website www.gumtree.com,
half of the 2,058 road-users polled called for compulsory proficiency tests,
after experiencing 'bike rage' and law-breaking by cyclists. The research
reveals that nine out of 10 pedestrians and motorists have seen cyclists
riding on footpaths, with 74% of British road-users catching cyclists riding
through red lights. More cycle lanes were called for by 55% of road-users,
who thought this was the easiest way to reduce cycle offences. "

Hang on! Cyclists, who have an absolute right to use the roads along
with pedestrians and horses are a menace to road users who are only
allowed to use the roads under licence? Surely it's the motorists that
are a menace to other road users?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Matt said:

From Surveyor magazine, 25/10/2007

"While authorities do their best to get people out of cars and on to
bikes, a new poll suggests cyclists are becoming an increasing menace
to other road-users. In a survey commissioned by classifieds website
www.gumtree.com, half of the 2,058 road-users polled called for
compulsory proficiency tests, after experiencing 'bike rage' and
law-breaking by cyclists. The research reveals that nine out of 10
pedestrians and motorists have seen cyclists riding on footpaths,
with 74% of British road-users catching cyclists riding through red
lights. More cycle lanes were called for by 55% of road-users, who
thought this was the easiest way to reduce cycle offences. "
I particularly like the last sentence. I think that on balance the
average Joe really doesn't understand just how difficult it can be to
build a cycle lane.

Still it's nice to be loved isn't it?

Matt

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the survey, this does illustrate
something; a concerted effort needs to be made by ALL cyclists and cycling
pressure groups to change the prejudices that have built up - sadly unless
such time as this happens we're all going to be tarred by a very dirty
brush.....

Paul Boyd said:

Matt said the following on 06/11/2007 19:41:

Quoted message said:

From Surveyor magazine, 25/10/2007

"While authorities do their best to get people out of cars and on to
bikes, a new poll suggests cyclists are becoming an increasing menace
to other road-users. In a survey commissioned by classifieds website
www.gumtree.com, half of the 2,058 road-users polled called for
compulsory proficiency tests, after experiencing 'bike rage' and
law-breaking by cyclists. The research reveals that nine out of 10
pedestrians and motorists have seen cyclists riding on footpaths, with
74% of British road-users catching cyclists riding through red lights.
More cycle lanes were called for by 55% of road-users, who thought
this was the easiest way to reduce cycle offences. "

Quoted message said:

Hang on! Cyclists, who have an absolute right to use the roads along
with pedestrians and horses are a menace to road users who are only
allowed to use the roads under licence? Surely it's the motorists that
are a menace to other road users?

Apparently not, according to the opinions of the majority* (which I
suggest are intuitive even if not determined by means of a poll). I
don't expect you are suggesting that the opinions of a minority* in
any way outweigh majority opinion.

[*Majority opinion is indicated by the reported poll; minority opinion
is suggested anecdotally here.]

cupra said:

Matt said:

From Surveyor magazine, 25/10/2007

"While authorities do their best to get people out of cars and on to
bikes, a new poll suggests cyclists are becoming an increasing menace
to other road-users. In a survey commissioned by classifieds website
www.gumtree.com, half of the 2,058 road-users polled called for
compulsory proficiency tests, after experiencing 'bike rage' and
law-breaking by cyclists. The research reveals that nine out of 10
pedestrians and motorists have seen cyclists riding on footpaths,
with 74% of British road-users catching cyclists riding through red
lights. More cycle lanes were called for by 55% of road-users, who
thought this was the easiest way to reduce cycle offences. "
I particularly like the last sentence. I think that on balance the
average Joe really doesn't understand just how difficult it can be to
build a cycle lane.

Still it's nice to be loved isn't it?

Matt

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the survey, this does illustrate
something; a concerted effort needs to be made by ALL cyclists and cycling
pressure groups to change the prejudices that have built up - sadly unless
such time as this happens we're all going to be tarred by a very dirty
brush.....

I'm not sure I agree with that (though "I see where you are coming
from"😉. Drivers can do nothing to change popular beliefs about (say)
drunk drivers or dangerous drivers - not least because there is no
mechanism for it to be done. And so it is with lawful cyclists vis a
vis unlawful cyclists. The only thing that the law-abiding can do (in
either category) can do is condemn the lawless and campaign for proper
and adequate law-enforcement by the police.

JNugent said:

cupra said:

Matt said:

From Surveyor magazine, 25/10/2007

"While authorities do their best to get people out of cars and on to
bikes, a new poll suggests cyclists are becoming an increasing
menace to other road-users. In a survey commissioned by classifieds
website www.gumtree.com, half of the 2,058 road-users polled called
for compulsory proficiency tests, after experiencing 'bike rage' and
law-breaking by cyclists. The research reveals that nine out of 10
pedestrians and motorists have seen cyclists riding on footpaths,
with 74% of British road-users catching cyclists riding through red
lights. More cycle lanes were called for by 55% of road-users, who
thought this was the easiest way to reduce cycle offences. "
I particularly like the last sentence. I think that on balance the
average Joe really doesn't understand just how difficult it can be
to build a cycle lane.

Still it's nice to be loved isn't it?

Matt

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the survey, this does
illustrate something; a concerted effort needs to be made by ALL
cyclists and cycling pressure groups to change the prejudices that
have built up - sadly unless such time as this happens we're all
going to be tarred by a very dirty brush.....

I'm not sure I agree with that (though "I see where you are coming
from"😉. Drivers can do nothing to change popular beliefs about (say)
drunk drivers or dangerous drivers - not least because there is no
mechanism for it to be done. And so it is with lawful cyclists vis a
vis unlawful cyclists. The only thing that the law-abiding can do (in
either category) can do is condemn the lawless and campaign for proper
and adequate law-enforcement by the police.

And that condemnation needs to be louder than these kinds of surveys - and
these kinds of surveys need to be offset against the numbers of drivers who
flout the law, to provide a balance.....

cupra said:

Matt said:

From Surveyor magazine, 25/10/2007

"While authorities do their best to get people out of cars and on to
bikes, a new poll suggests cyclists are becoming an increasing menace
to other road-users. In a survey commissioned by classifieds website
www.gumtree.com, half of the 2,058 road-users polled called for
compulsory proficiency tests, after experiencing 'bike rage' and
law-breaking by cyclists. The research reveals that nine out of 10
pedestrians and motorists have seen cyclists riding on footpaths,
with 74% of British road-users catching cyclists riding through red
lights. More cycle lanes were called for by 55% of road-users, who
thought this was the easiest way to reduce cycle offences. "
I particularly like the last sentence. I think that on balance the
average Joe really doesn't understand just how difficult it can be to
build a cycle lane.

Still it's nice to be loved isn't it?

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the survey, this does illustrate
something; a concerted effort needs to be made by ALL cyclists and cycling
pressure groups to change the prejudices that have built up - sadly unless
such time as this happens we're all going to be tarred by a very dirty
brush.....

Bit it is difficult. Someone in a car sees J. Random Cyclist apparently
on a footpath. What they don't know is that is a shared use path. It
will still get perceived as yet another law-breaking cyclist. There are
just too many shared facilities and too much laissez-faire attitude on
pavement cycling (built up over the last 25 years) for anyone to turn
around. I have even seen plenty of policemen ignore pavement cycling.

As for going through red-lights. I think that is much more location
specific. Certainly around me I have seen far more cars go through
on red and amber (when they were quite able to stop in time).

Personally I doubt that this study was scientifically carried out,
most such that appear in the press are done by PR companies, and the
opinions in it are near worthless.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Andy Leighton said:

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:29:45 -0000, cupra <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Matt said:

From Surveyor magazine, 25/10/2007

"While authorities do their best to get people out of cars and on to
bikes, a new poll suggests cyclists are becoming an increasing
menace to other road-users. In a survey commissioned by classifieds
website www.gumtree.com, half of the 2,058 road-users polled called
for compulsory proficiency tests, after experiencing 'bike rage' and
law-breaking by cyclists. The research reveals that nine out of 10
pedestrians and motorists have seen cyclists riding on footpaths,
with 74% of British road-users catching cyclists riding through red
lights. More cycle lanes were called for by 55% of road-users, who
thought this was the easiest way to reduce cycle offences. "
I particularly like the last sentence. I think that on balance the
average Joe really doesn't understand just how difficult it can be
to build a cycle lane.

Still it's nice to be loved isn't it?

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the survey, this does
illustrate something; a concerted effort needs to be made by ALL
cyclists and cycling pressure groups to change the prejudices that
have built up - sadly unless such time as this happens we're all
going to be tarred by a very dirty brush.....

Bit it is difficult. Someone in a car sees J. Random Cyclist
apparently on a footpath. What they don't know is that is a shared
use path. It will still get perceived as yet another law-breaking
cyclist. There are just too many shared facilities and too much
laissez-faire attitude on pavement cycling (built up over the last 25
years) for anyone to turn around. I have even seen plenty of
policemen ignore pavement cycling.

As for going through red-lights. I think that is much more location
specific. Certainly around me I have seen far more cars go through
on red and amber (when they were quite able to stop in time).

Personally I doubt that this study was scientifically carried out,
most such that appear in the press are done by PR companies, and the
opinions in it are near worthless.

That's the nub of my point - you need to fight against this type of survey
to stand any chance of altering prejudice, and I know how damn hard that
would be to do!

JNugent said:

The only thing that the law-abiding can do (in
either category) can do is condemn the lawless and campaign for proper
and adequate law-enforcement by the police.

I'd suggest that the current law enforcement (proportional to danger
posed) is adequate. Campaigning for the type of law enforcement that
might reduce the anger from motorists against cyclists, i.e. _strict_
law enforcement would reduce the appeal of cycling. Current road traffic
laws are aimed at and designed for the danger that motorists pose.
Forcing cyclists to strictly adhere to those rules doesn't make sense to
me.

That said, there is a problem some city cyclists who are acting the
maggot [1], for example by riding on footpaths at speed. More so than
other road users, these muppets currently run little risk of being held
to account for their behaviour.

[1] http://digave.com/videos/

--
Membrane

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

That's the nub of my point - you need to fight against this type of survey
to stand any chance of altering prejudice, and I know how damn hard that
would be to do!

But you need to fight smart. Too many undertake fights that create
cognitive dissonance that just reinforces the prejudice. Reading about
that and the excellent article in the Washington Post on the persistence
of myths would be a good start to working out how to fight smarter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933_pf.html

At the moment I think we are generally just worsening the situation by
the way we react.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Membrane said:

JNugent said:

The only thing that the law-abiding can do (in
either category) can do is condemn the lawless and campaign for proper
and adequate law-enforcement by the police.

I'd suggest that the current law enforcement (proportional to danger
posed) is adequate. Campaigning for the type of law enforcement that
might reduce the anger from motorists against cyclists, i.e. _strict_
law enforcement would reduce the appeal of cycling.

What, cycling is only "attractive" if cyclists are allowed to
continually break the law?

Come off it!

Quoted message said:

Current road traffic
laws are aimed at and designed for the danger that motorists pose.
Forcing cyclists to strictly adhere to those rules doesn't make sense to
me.

But it does to the law, and it does to the majority.

Quoted message said:

That said, there is a problem some city cyclists who are acting the
maggot [1], for example by riding on footpaths at speed

....and by ignoring traffic lights, one-way working and pedestrian
crossings.

Quoted message said:

More so than
other road users, these muppets currently run little risk of being held
to account for their behaviour.

My point exactly. Don't support them or defend them.

JNugent said the following on 07/11/2007 09:01:

Quoted message said:

Apparently not, according to the opinions of the majority* (which I
suggest are intuitive even if not determined by means of a poll). I
don't expect you are suggesting that the opinions of a minority* in any
way outweigh majority opinion.

I'm not quite sure which opinion you're disagreeing with. The fact that
cyclists, peds and horses have an absolute right to use the road isn't
opinion, it's fact in law. The fact that motorists use the roads under
license is likewise not opinion.

My opinion that motorists are a menace to other road users is just that
- my opinion. Are you suggesting that we're not allowed to have opinions?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

That's the nub of my point - you need to fight against this type of
survey to stand any chance of altering prejudice, and I know how
damn hard that would be to do!

But you need to fight smart. Too many undertake fights that create
cognitive dissonance that just reinforces the prejudice. Reading
about that and the excellent article in the Washington Post on the
persistence of myths would be a good start to working out how to
fight smarter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933_pf.html

Interesting reading.... tinyurl for OE users who didn't get the wrap:

http://tinyurl.com/29ey6e

Quoted message said:

At the moment I think we are generally just worsening the situation by
the way we react.

I think so, too. I'd like to see this kind of survey before and after the
respondents undertook (probably their first since childhood) a ride through
a busy town!

Clive George said:

Original press release can be found on the gumtree website. TBH it looks
somewhat they conducted their survey on somewhere like uk.transport,
with questions inviting negative responses, so I've asked them for some
further details.

Good move; well done.

BugBear

JNugent said:

Quoted message said:

I'd suggest that the current law enforcement (proportional to danger
posed) is adequate. Campaigning for the type of law enforcement that
might reduce the anger from motorists against cyclists, i.e. _strict_
law enforcement would reduce the appeal of cycling.

What, cycling is only "attractive" if cyclists are allowed to
continually break the law?

"reduce the appeal of cycling" != "only attractive if"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Current road traffic
laws are aimed at and designed for the danger that motorists pose.
Forcing cyclists to strictly adhere to those rules doesn't make sense to
me.

But it does to the law

'If the law supposes that,' said Mr Bumble..., 'the law is a ass'

Quoted message said:

, and it does to the majority.

Motorists possibly, and that is a problem in itself, but not one that
should be solved by enforcing rules on cyclists that have been designed
for and only make sense for motor vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That said, there is a problem some city cyclists who are acting the
maggot [1], for example by riding on footpaths at speed

...and by ignoring traffic lights, one-way working and pedestrian
crossings.

By "acting the maggot" I mean posing a danger to others, ignoring
traffic lights and one way markings is not automatically dangerous.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

More so than
other road users, these muppets currently run little risk of being held
to account for their behaviour.

My point exactly. Don't support them or defend them.

I referenced a specific type of behaviour, i.e. the type that hinders or
endangers others.

--
Membrane

Membrane said:

JNugent said:

Quoted message said:

I'd suggest that the current law enforcement (proportional to danger
posed) is adequate. Campaigning for the type of law enforcement that
might reduce the anger from motorists against cyclists, i.e. _strict_
law enforcement would reduce the appeal of cycling.

Quoted message said:

What, cycling is only "attractive" if cyclists are allowed to
continually break the law?

"reduce the appeal of cycling" != "only attractive if"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Current road traffic
laws are aimed at and designed for the danger that motorists pose.
Forcing cyclists to strictly adhere to those rules doesn't make sense to
me.

Quoted message said:

But it does to the law

'If the law supposes that,' said Mr Bumble..., 'the law is a ass'

Quoted message said:

, and it does to the majority.

Motorists possibly, and that is a problem in itself, but not one that
should be solved by enforcing rules on cyclists that have been designed
for and only make sense for motor vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That said, there is a problem some city cyclists who are acting the
maggot [1], for example by riding on footpaths at speed

Quoted message said:

...and by ignoring traffic lights, one-way working and pedestrian
crossings.

By "acting the maggot" I mean posing a danger to others, ignoring
traffic lights and one way markings is not automatically dangerous.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

More so than
other road users, these muppets currently run little risk of being held
to account for their behaviour.

Quoted message said:

My point exactly. Don't support them or defend them.

I referenced a specific type of behaviour, i.e. the type that hinders or
endangers others.

--
Membrane

It would be more meaningful if the CTC came out with a call to crack
down on pavement cycling and riding with no lights. At least they
would be in a position to put across the position of the serious
cyclist, noting that we get P'ed off by being blamed for the actions
of POBs and numpties.

David Lloyd

JNugent said:

cupra said:

Matt wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the survey, this does illustrate
something; a concerted effort needs to be made by ALL cyclists and cycling
pressure groups to change the prejudices that have built up - sadly unless
such time as this happens we're all going to be tarred by a very dirty
brush.....

I'm not sure I agree with that (though "I see where you are coming
from"😉. Drivers can do nothing to change popular beliefs about (say)
drunk drivers or dangerous drivers - not least because there is no
mechanism for it to be done. And so it is with lawful cyclists vis a
vis unlawful cyclists. The only thing that the law-abiding can do (in
either category) can do is condemn the lawless and campaign for proper
and adequate law-enforcement by the police.

You've probably all had this argument before... but much of traffic law
and road furniture is designed around cars since they've been the
vehicles requiring the most management over the last 80 years or so.

It's common sense, and I feel safer, to go through some red lights on a
bicycle, for example.

I remember quite a few years ago a coach crushed my front wheel between
his tyre and the kerb as he swung onto the pavement without looking or
signalling.

I wrote to the bus company to complain and they said I was in the wrong
because I was "overtaking on the inside". WTF?!

So do we need different laws for bicycles? I'm not sure we need laws at
all, or if we do, not very many of them. After all there aren't really
any laws for pedestrians (jaywalking perhaps, but it's not enforced),
and they manage to sort themselves out.

David Lloyd <[email hidden]> wrote:

[please snip quotes down to the minimum]

Quoted message said:

It would be more meaningful if the CTC came out with a call to crack
down on pavement cycling and riding with no lights.

Neither of which I consider in itself to cause hinder or danger to
others.

--
Membrane