Demise of commuting cycling

[wafflycat]

"Mark McNeill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Exactly so. I make my disgracefully short commute a couple of times a
> day, and there's one short stretch, a few yards before I take a left
> turn, where I invariably take the primary position. I'll get honked at
> on the upright on average once every couple of weeks; in two years, it's
> happened only once on the trike.
>
> I think the most likely reason is simply that the trike looks more
> impressive - a bike, to many drivers, may be just a toy, and the rider
> needn't be taken seriously as a road user; but the trike can be seen as
> a more "serious" machine. I'm not by any means saying that's a
> defensible point of view, but I'll bet that's the way a lot of drivers
> see it.

I have an additional musing on that. The motorist sees low-trike. Where does
ye average bod see low trikes? Why, on TV doing the London Marathon... the
disabled athletes in their racing machines! I reckon that, for some at
least, they think trike = disabled person. And the average selfish motorist
wants to be seen to be nice to the disabled and doesn't want to end up in
the local press as the person who ran over that disabled person bravely
trying to maintain independent mobility... Of course, I may just be far too
cynical ;-)

Cheers, helen s

 

[Peter Clinch]

wafflycat wrote:

> I have an additional musing on that. The motorist sees low-trike. Where
> does ye average bod see low trikes? Why, on TV doing the London
> Marathon... the disabled athletes in their racing machines! I reckon
> that, for some at least, they think trike = disabled person.

Jon S reported being asked if he was disabled while riding his 'bent
/bike/. He replied that yes, it was his legs...

> Of course, I may just be far too cynical ;-)

My guess is it's just unfamiliar so it goes into the WTF? folder rather
than the Bloody Cyclist folder, so requires a bit of thought about what
to do. If people think then they tend to do HCish sorts of things.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Richard]

wafflycat wrote:
> And the
> average selfish motorist wants to be seen to be nice to the disabled

....although they're quite happy to park in the disabled parking bay
because they're just "nipping into the shops for a minute, I won't be long".

R.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> writes:
|>
|> I have an additional musing on that. The motorist sees low-trike. Where does
|> ye average bod see low trikes? ...

Look, this was StageRoach drivers - the last of whom, deliberately
and with malice aforethought, used his vehicle as a weapon to
knock me off my bicycle when I was doing 17 MPH. And then happily
admitted in the presence of a witness that he had done it
deliberately.

Do you think that someone like that would give a tinker's toss
whether he thought that the rider was disabled or not?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Clive George]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> writes:
> |>
> |> I have an additional musing on that. The motorist sees low-trike. Where
> does
> |> ye average bod see low trikes? ...
>
> Look, this was StageRoach drivers - the last of whom, deliberately
> and with malice aforethought, used his vehicle as a weapon to
> knock me off my bicycle when I was doing 17 MPH. And then happily
> admitted in the presence of a witness that he had done it
> deliberately.

(little bit of a tangent)

Did you get plod involved? What actions were taken against the driver? Can
you give a full description of what happened? (Have you written it up
somewhere?)

cheers,
clive

 

[wafflycat]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> writes:
> |>
> |> I have an additional musing on that. The motorist sees low-trike. Where
> does
> |> ye average bod see low trikes? ...
>
> Look, this was StageRoach drivers - the last of whom, deliberately
> and with malice aforethought, used his vehicle as a weapon to
> knock me off my bicycle when I was doing 17 MPH. And then happily
> admitted in the presence of a witness that he had done it
> deliberately.
>
> Do you think that someone like that would give a tinker's toss
> whether he thought that the rider was disabled or not?
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

I can understand your fear. It's not one of life's more pleasant experiences
being knocked off the bike. My husband was victim of a hit-and-run when out
on his bike one day. The twunt motorist (male) deliberately aimed at my
husband and crossed the carriageway to hit him. In another area of life, I
was attacked by a bloke - does this mean I should remain frightened and not
venture outside just in case it happens again? Does it mean all men are evil
thugs waiting to pounce if I venture outside? Of course it doesn't, but it
would be very easy to let fear rule my life. I'm not going to let the
b*st*rds win, by making me too frightened to live my life *normally*.

I truly can understand your fear - it's a rational one in the circumstances,
but try not to let it run your life (said gently I hope).

Cheers, helen s

 

[Robin Stevens]

In cam.transport Negative Mr Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:

> Anyway, I am now a car commuter - a BIG car commuter.

What's wrong with a small car?

--
Robin Stevens <[email protected]>
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----

 

[Mike Clark]

In message <[email protected]>
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:

>
> "Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>A suggestion. A recumbent trike, see http://www.ice.hpv.co.uk/
> >
> > Sigh. I thought of that, but it obviously wouldn't help. As I posted,
> > I had an essentially zero accident rate (including even trivial ones),
> > which indicates that I could compensate for my loss of middle-ear
> > function. And a tricycle of any sort would INCREASE the conflict
> > (being wider and not able to use the so-called cycle path on that
> > road), which would almost certainly increase the rate of assault.
> >
> > What is the betting that a StageRoach driver wouldn't run right over
> > me on a recumbant tricycle, and then claim that it was unlit and he
> > didn't see me? Lights tend not to work after being squashed, so it
> > would be very hard to disprove.
> >
> >
> You see, that's where, through experience of cycling both a 'normal'
> bike and a recumbent trike I completely disagree with you. What you
> believe is what a lot of non-recumbent riders think before they've
> given a recumbent a go. Aggressive drivers are not exclusive to
> Cambridge. I cycle assertively be it on the 'normal' bike or on the
> trike. In either case I take the road room I need for my safety. I do
> not cycle in the gutter. I am considerate, I will say/wave a thank
> you to drives who show me courtesy. Where I do a lot of my cycling, I
> see the same drivers day after day. Without fail, I am shown more
> courtesy when I am on the recumbent trike than when I'm on the
> upright two-wheeler. You'd think that the 'bent taking up more room
> that drivers would be more impatient when I'm on the 'bent, but they
> are not: they are *noticeably* more patient and courteous when I'm on
> the 'bent. I can be on my bike and a driver can act as if I'm
> invisible, yet the same driver, on the same bit of road, at the same
> time of day will cheerily pull in and wave to gve me priority over
> him when I'm on the 'bent. Go figure. It's not just me that has
> noticed this difference in reaction as my son has the same experience
> when he's riding the 'bent compared to when he's on his normal bike,
> as does my husband when he's ridden the 'bent. Indeed, cycling the
> 'bent through the middle of Dereham, the traffic stopped.... I kid you
> not!
>
> Cheers, helen s
>

I suspect that you are just demonstrating an application of the
"Theory of Big"

http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/big.html

Also by looking out of the ordinary and thus not being expected you will
be treated differently. If a large number of cyclists took up riding
recumbent trikes the threshold of drivers would eventually reset such
that they would no longer show you the same courtesy.

I saw a similar phenomena when I first started wearing a cycle helmet
many years ago. At that time few cyclists wore them and I noticed that
drivers seemed to pay more attention to me, particularly at road
junctions etc. It was easier to establish eye contact and thus ensure
that they had noticed me. Wearing a cycle helmet no longer produces that
effect. As another example, if a driver only occasionally met a car
towing a caravan they'd probably not be too annoyed, but when caravans
are about in large numbers............

Probably what is crucial is the immediate emotional response of the
driver on seeing you. If the response is towards curiosity and interest
then you will probably see it followed up with courtesy, if it is
towards irritation or frustration then you won't.

The major part of the problem that Nick refers to has been generated in
Cambridge by the change in road layouts. Several of the commuter roads
were once two wide lane roads where it was possible for traffic to
comfortably overtake slower moving vehicles and bicycles. Then the local
authority had the bright idea to turn them into three narrow lanes where
one lane in one direction was dedicated to a bus lane. Non of these
lanes is wide enough for a vehicle to easily overtake a slower moving
vehicle, and because of traffic flow in each lane it is not easy for a
bus or other vehicle to move into the next lane and back in again. The
result is frustration and conflict. I've not been assaulted in the
manner described by Nick, but I have experienced attempted intimidation
and also shouts and horn blasts by drivers. This has been on roads such
as Trumpington Street and Milton Road. I don't have a balance problem,
neither am I a slow cyclist. These so called "improvements" in road
layout are frequently what discourages commuting cycling.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

 

[Mike Clark]

In message <[email protected]>
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> wafflycat wrote:
>
> > I have an additional musing on that. The motorist sees low-trike. Where
> > does ye average bod see low trikes? Why, on TV doing the London
> > Marathon... the disabled athletes in their racing machines! I reckon
> > that, for some at least, they think trike = disabled person.
>
> Jon S reported being asked if he was disabled while riding his 'bent
> /bike/. He replied that yes, it was his legs...
>
> > Of course, I may just be far too cynical ;-)
>
> My guess is it's just unfamiliar so it goes into the WTF? folder rather
> than the Bloody Cyclist folder, so requires a bit of thought about what
> to do. If people think then they tend to do HCish sorts of things.
>
> Pete.

That's my thinking too. If it's unexpected and out of the ordinary it
generates a different reaction.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

 

[wafflycat]

"Mike Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I suspect that you are just demonstrating an application of the
> "Theory of Big"
>
> http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/big.html
>

Probably so. I tend to 'claim' space on the road by riding well out from the
gutter. I am not small. I wear *lots* of bright/fluorescent yellow, I use
many lights, acres of reflectives and carry stuff on bike/'bent. Just call
me Lycra Woman, Warrior of the Road! ;-)


snipped...


>
> Probably what is crucial is the immediate emotional response of the
> driver on seeing you. If the response is towards curiosity and interest
> then you will probably see it followed up with courtesy, if it is
> towards irritation or frustration then you won't.
>


I find that if I'm courteous, as a cyclist, to other road users, then I tend
to get courtesy back e.g. a wave to notify the driver of the HGV that's just
overtaken me that he's completely passed me and it's safe for him to move
back in; I get waves back from them.



> The major part of the problem that Nick refers to has been generated in
> Cambridge by the change in road layouts. Several of the commuter roads
> were once two wide lane roads where it was possible for traffic to
> comfortably overtake slower moving vehicles and bicycles. Then the local
> authority had the bright idea to turn them into three narrow lanes where
> one lane in one direction was dedicated to a bus lane. Non of these
> lanes is wide enough for a vehicle to easily overtake a slower moving
> vehicle, and because of traffic flow in each lane it is not easy for a
> bus or other vehicle to move into the next lane and back in again. The
> result is frustration and conflict. I've not been assaulted in the
> manner described by Nick, but I have experienced attempted intimidation
> and also shouts and horn blasts by drivers. This has been on roads such
> as Trumpington Street and Milton Road. I don't have a balance problem,
> neither am I a slow cyclist. These so called "improvements" in road
> layout are frequently what discourages commuting cycling.


Happens a lot of places. All the more reason to be an *assertive* cyclist,
to help remain safe and to be part of the traffic, not to cower in the
gutter.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Clive George" <[email protected]> writes:
|> >
|> > Look, this was StageRoach drivers - the last of whom, deliberately
|> > and with malice aforethought, used his vehicle as a weapon to
|> > knock me off my bicycle when I was doing 17 MPH. And then happily
|> > admitted in the presence of a witness that he had done it
|> > deliberately.
|>
|> (little bit of a tangent)
|>
|> Did you get plod involved? What actions were taken against the driver? Can
|> you give a full description of what happened? (Have you written it up
|> somewhere?)

The plod refused to accept the report. They classified it as an
accident report, to be closed as "no blame" without contacting
the culprit, the victim or the witnesses. As is their policy.

I wrote up a full description of the event, complete with two
witnesses (one of whom heard his statement of deliberation).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Mike Clark]

In message <[email protected]>
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:

>
> "Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> writes:
> > |>
> > |> I have an additional musing on that. The motorist sees low-trike. Where
> > does
> > |> ye average bod see low trikes? ...
> >
> > Look, this was StageRoach drivers - the last of whom, deliberately
> > and with malice aforethought, used his vehicle as a weapon to
> > knock me off my bicycle when I was doing 17 MPH. And then happily
> > admitted in the presence of a witness that he had done it
> > deliberately.
> >
> > Do you think that someone like that would give a tinker's toss
> > whether he thought that the rider was disabled or not?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nick Maclaren.
>
> I can understand your fear. It's not one of life's more pleasant
> experiences being knocked off the bike. My husband was victim of a
> hit-and-run when out on his bike one day. The twunt motorist (male)
> deliberately aimed at my husband and crossed the carriageway to hit
> him. In another area of life, I was attacked by a bloke - does this
> mean I should remain frightened and not venture outside just in case
> it happens again? Does it mean all men are evil thugs waiting to
> pounce if I venture outside? Of course it doesn't, but it would be
> very easy to let fear rule my life. I'm not going to let the b*st*rds
> win, by making me too frightened to live my life *normally*.
>
> I truly can understand your fear - it's a rational one in the
> circumstances, but try not to let it run your life (said gently I
> hope).
>
> Cheers, helen s
>

I think you do need to factor frequency and probability into your
thought processes though. If the occurrence is judged to be a rare event
then it is perhaps wrong to change your habits on the small chance it
will occur again. However as another example of how some occurrences can
be higher probability and need to be taken more seriously, my cycle
commute regularly takes me down a street with a deliberately constructed
narrowing of single lane width for part of the way along (Magdelene
Street in Cambridge). Vehicles travelling South have a sign that gives
them priority. However it is a frequent occurrence to be part way along
this lane on a bicycle and to be confronted by a bus or delivery van
coming the other way, whose drivers blatantly ignore your priority and
enter the lane forcing you into the gutter or off of the road. Along
with other cyclists I lodged a series of complaints with the bus
company, the local councillors, and the police. Eventually these
complaints were acknowledged and the problem has reduced in frequency,
but not to vanishing point. It makes that stretch of road more dangerous
and more unpleasant for cycling.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> writes:
|>
|> I can understand your fear. ...
|>
|> I truly can understand your fear - it's a rational one in the circumstances,
|> but try not to let it run your life (said gently I hope).

It's not fear. It's rational calculation. I shall never recover
completely from the last injury, and shall always be in some pain.
It is futile to sue, as it would be impossible to prove that it
was that assault that caused the damage - though the physiotherapist
was certain of it. I estimated that I was unlikely to last to
retirement without being killed or, worse, crippled by StageRoach
at that rate, the police were/are clearly making it clear that they
regard such assaults as acceptable, so I now drive and walk.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Robin Stevens <[email protected]> writes:
|> In cam.transport Negative Mr Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
|>
|> > Anyway, I am now a car commuter - a BIG car commuter.
|>
|> What's wrong with a small car?

You can't get a lot of junk in it, which we sometimes need to
do. And, because of the conspiracy between the government,
the insurance companies and the motor industry in the UK, it
isn't economically feasible to run a small one and hire (or
even keep) a large one for occasional use.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> a wave to notify the driver of the HGV that's just
> overtaken me that he's completely passed me and it's safe for him to
> move back in

There are now a lot of lorry drivers who are very disappointed to learn
that that's why you wave at them.

 

[Clive George]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> writes:
> |> >
> |> > Look, this was StageRoach drivers - the last of whom, deliberately
> |> > and with malice aforethought, used his vehicle as a weapon to
> |> > knock me off my bicycle when I was doing 17 MPH. And then happily
> |> > admitted in the presence of a witness that he had done it
> |> > deliberately.
> |>
> |> (little bit of a tangent)
> |>
> |> Did you get plod involved? What actions were taken against the driver?
> Can
> |> you give a full description of what happened? (Have you written it up
> |> somewhere?)
>
> The plod refused to accept the report. They classified it as an
> accident report, to be closed as "no blame" without contacting
> the culprit, the victim or the witnesses. As is their policy.
>
> I wrote up a full description of the event, complete with two
> witnesses (one of whom heard his statement of deliberation).

Got a copy?

cheers,
clive

 

[wafflycat]

"Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>> a wave to notify the driver of the HGV that's just
>> overtaken me that he's completely passed me and it's safe for him to
>> move back in
>
> There are now a lot of lorry drivers who are very disappointed to learn
> that that's why you wave at them.

LOL!

I've actually written to the company of said drivers, asking that, if
possible, the drivers be told that their courtesy is appreciated as it isn't
always possible or safe to take a hand off the handlebars to wave a thank
you. The transport manager of said company telephoned to say that they'd
never received a compliment before, as people usually only complain, and
he'd make sure the message was passed along to the drivers. I believe that
when necessary, yes I'll complain, but when I am the recipient of courtesy,
it's only correct to acknowledge that too. Life proceeds so much smoother
when people are polite

Cheers, helen s

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Clive George" <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> Got a copy?

Yes. It was deliberately understated.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Clive George]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> Got a copy?
>
> Yes. It was deliberately understated.

Thank you. Here is my third time of asking. This time I'll be less subtle
about it. TELL US WHAT HAPPENED.

Why are you being so shy? Are you afraid that your account won't meet up to
the description you've given of it so far?
As it is you appear like just another usenet kook.

clive

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Clive George" <[email protected]> writes:
|> >
|> > Yes. It was deliberately understated.
|>
|> Thank you. Here is my third time of asking. This time I'll be less subtle
|> about it. TELL US WHAT HAPPENED.
|>
|> Why are you being so shy? Are you afraid that your account won't meet up to
|> the description you've given of it so far?
|> As it is you appear like just another usenet kook.

Now will you tell me precisely why I should publish such a report
on Usenet?

At the very least, I would have to edit it to remove the names
and addresses, for legal reasons. Also, you would have no way
of telling the truth of my statement unless you spoke to those
witnesses.

Why don't you publish your Email address? I might consider
sending a copy by that route if you did.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.