So why do cyclists get a bad name?

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

The title question is actually the really important one... why do cyclists have such a bad name?

We are all trotting out the usual; red light jumping, mobile use, blah, blah, blah, but these are all things that those calling cyclists out will witness daily from car drivers/pedestrians, without labeling or bad mouthing complete user groups...

What I am trying to say is that the obvious behavioral stuff is merely the justification for the label, but the label is already there... why is that?

Its important, as to me, doing as some people say and behaving impeccably on the road will make no difference, as its not addressing the root cause of the problem.

To have a stab at why, may I put forward;

1. The hierarchical nature of our society in action... car drivers are seen as richer and better than lowly bike riders... when cyclists are seen to be getting ahead in queues etc, this goes against the hierarchical system and only deepens animosity.

2. Dealing with cyclists in a car will highlight our own short comings as car drivers - many are not comfortable with how, when and what is appropriate overtaking procedures - which will generate resentment for the thing (cyclists) that is highlighting this shortcoming. Again this is compounded when cyclists are seen to be doing stuff that makes it harder to overtake.

3. Media coverage and the tribe mentality. Society can't help itself.. the media say its OK to hate cyclists, so everyone feels that they should, and its right to hate cyclists.

Any thoughts?

Good observations. The only thing I would disagree on is that car drivers are considered as 'richer'. The hierarchy certainly exists but I think it has more to do with the perception that cyclists are a) wierdos who don't follow social norms and b) that owning and running a car is expensive. Drivers feel that they have paid for a priviledge that cyclists are preventing them from enjoying to the full. Not so much that drivers have more money but that they have spent more and therfore deserve more.

The final point - national politics and big business: they don't really want us to cycle instead of using the car and this is reflected in a range of ways in all aspects of our lives.

MarcMyWords wrote:

...overtaking cars on the outside, which, by the way, means the car swerves in on me when I'm trying to go down the inside as I should.

Are you suggesting cyclists 'should' overtake on the inside and never on the outside? If so, I'm afraid you're plain wrong!

There's no legal or highway code rule directing us to overtake on one side or the other, but assuming there's sufficient width available, overtaking on the inside puts you in far more danger than overtaking on the outside, where drivers have better visibility, they are used to being overtaken (and hopefully checking for motorcycles before pulling out) and you have more room to take avoiding action.

People turning left don't check the inside - they don't expect anyone to be there. That's why so many people die in London under the wheels of large left-turning vehicles.

In the absence of a dedicated cycle lane on the left, it is terribly dangerous to overtake there so please reconsider. If you encounter slow traffic, overtake on the safer outside.

Consider this - when you are overtaking on the inside and another cyclist is doing the same on the outside, you say the driver tends to swerve in towards you? Well, of course he shouldn't swerve, but the reason he does is that he can see the cyclist on the outside, and he can't see you on the inside!

PurpleDog wrote:

MarcMyWords wrote:

...overtaking cars on the outside, which, by the way, means the car swerves in on me when I'm trying to go down the inside as I should.

Are you suggesting cyclists 'should' overtake on the inside and never on the outside? If so, I'm afraid you're plain wrong!

There's no legal or highway code rule directing us to overtake on one side or the other, but assuming there's sufficient width available, overtaking on the inside puts you in far more danger than overtaking on the outside, where drivers have better visibility, they are used to being overtaken (and hopefully checking for motorcycles before pulling out) and you have more room to take avoiding action.

People turning left don't check the inside - they don't expect anyone to be there. That's why so many people die in London under the wheels of large left-turning vehicles.

In the absence of a dedicated cycle lane on the left, it is terribly dangerous to overtake there so please reconsider. If you encounter slow traffic, overtake on the safer outside.

Consider this - when you are overtaking on the inside and another cyclist is doing the same on the outside, you say the driver tends to swerve in towards you? Well, of course he shouldn't swerve, but the reason he does is that he can see the cyclist on the outside, and he can't see you on the inside!

Drivers in CL are more than used to Cyclists being on the inside and when you're riding on a reasonably clear road, where do you ride? On the inside. I'm not saying it's illegal but you shouldn't be overtaking a car on the outside ona road bike, half the time in the opposite lane. You ride on the inside. I believe the reason that drivers swerve sometimes when they see a cyclist on the outside of them is actually because they don't expect to see them there and most of the time because there's not enough room for them to be there! You shouldn't be riding up the inside of a lorry, full stop. They have a blind spot on the outside as well so if they were turning right and you're halfway down the side, you'd likely still get hit. People don't die because they've gone up the inside rather than the outside, they die because they've gone beside a lorry which is simply a massive no-no.

MarcMyWords wrote:

PurpleDog wrote:

MarcMyWords wrote:

...overtaking cars on the outside, which, by the way, means the car swerves in on me when I'm trying to go down the inside as I should.

Are you suggesting cyclists 'should' overtake on the inside and never on the outside? If so, I'm afraid you're plain wrong!

There's no legal or highway code rule directing us to overtake on one side or the other, but assuming there's sufficient width available, overtaking on the inside puts you in far more danger than overtaking on the outside, where drivers have better visibility, they are used to being overtaken (and hopefully checking for motorcycles before pulling out) and you have more room to take avoiding action.

People turning left don't check the inside - they don't expect anyone to be there. That's why so many people die in London under the wheels of large left-turning vehicles.

In the absence of a dedicated cycle lane on the left, it is terribly dangerous to overtake there so please reconsider. If you encounter slow traffic, overtake on the safer outside.

Consider this - when you are overtaking on the inside and another cyclist is doing the same on the outside, you say the driver tends to swerve in towards you? Well, of course he shouldn't swerve, but the reason he does is that he can see the cyclist on the outside, and he can't see you on the inside!

Drivers in CL are more than used to Cyclists being on the inside and when you're riding on a reasonably clear road, where do you ride? On the inside. I'm not saying it's illegal but you shouldn't be overtaking a car on the outside ona road bike, half the time in the opposite lane. You ride on the inside. I believe the reason that drivers swerve sometimes when they see a cyclist on the outside of them is actually because they don't expect to see them there and most of the time because there's not enough room for them to be there! You shouldn't be riding up the inside of a lorry, full stop. They have a blind spot on the outside as well so if they were turning right and you're halfway down the side, you'd likely still get hit. People don't die because they've gone up the inside rather than the outside, they die because they've gone beside a lorry which is simply a massive no-no.

Just as a point of clarification, I don't think that we are talking about overtaking here, more likely filtering when trafic is slow/stationary. In a genuine overtaking situation (free-flowing traffic or an individial slow-moving vehicle) you should always pass on the right.

FWIW I almost always filter on the right as I do believe it's safer and that you are more visible. It's also easier to filter back into the traffic flow when the cars start moving again. Filtering on the left can leave you stuck on the inside; it's both a safety and a practical consideration. I feel that filtering past large vehicles is also OK as long as you are certain that they are not going to move in the time it takes to get past them.

[/quote]Just as a point of clarification, I don't think that we are talking about overtaking here, more likely filtering when trafic is slow/stationary. In a genuine overtaking situation (free-flowing traffic or an individial slow-moving vehicle) you should always pass on the right.

FWIW I almost always filter on the right as I do believe it's safer and that you are more visible. It's also easier to filter back into the traffic flow when the cars start moving again. Filtering on the left can leave you stuck on the inside; it's both a safety and a practical consideration. I feel that filtering past large vehicles is also OK as long as you are certain that they are not going to move in the time it takes to get past them.[/quote]

Certainly something I can agree with. I am referring to generally moving along with the flow of traffic otherwise the cars wouldn't be swerving, they would be stationary. Filtering, I agree, is a different kettle of fish.

MarcMyWords wrote:

I'm not saying it's illegal but you shouldn't be overtaking a car on the outside ona road bike

So it's not illegal, it's not mentioned in the highway code... so where does this "shouldn't" come from?
If I say you shouldn't overtake on the inside on a road bike that presumably carries just as much weight?

Firstly I don't think the kind of bike matters - if I'm going faster than the traffic on my mountain bike I'll overtake, just as I would on my road bike. And in both cases I'll overtake where I have better visibility and more room. Admittedly I don't line in central London (which I assume you meant by CL?) so perhaps the expectation is different, but I ride (mountain bike, road bike and motorbike) and drive (car) in both town and country and I can see people coming up on the right far earlier and easier than someone sneaking up on the left.

You're telling me, without any law, rule or justification that I should not overtake on the right. You have to do a lot more to make any kind of case.
I overtake where I feel safest. Sometimes (depending on the road, the conditions, the traffic etc.) that will be the inside, sometimes I will filter between lanes (i.e. at traffic lights), but most often the outside is where I have the room, the visibility and can be more easily seen by those I am passing.
Simply stating that "you shouldn't" doesn't cut it I'm afraid. At the very least, if you're making such a claim, you should back it up with some reasoning. Make a start by telling us why you feel safer on the inside (which of course has no bearing on the rest of us choosing where we think we are safest), and follow that with why those of us who don't feel the same should be stuck there regardless. I assume you have a reason for your blanket statement that it is wrong to overtake on the outside? What is it?

PurpleDog wrote:

MarcMyWords wrote:

I'm not saying it's illegal but you shouldn't be overtaking a car on the outside ona road bike

So it's not illegal, it's not mentioned in the highway code... so where does this "shouldn't" come from?
If I say you shouldn't overtake on the inside on a road bike that presumably carries just as much weight?

Firstly I don't think the kind of bike matters - if I'm going faster than the traffic on my mountain bike I'll overtake, just as I would on my road bike. And in both cases I'll overtake where I have better visibility and more room. Admittedly I don't line in central London (which I assume you meant by CL?) so perhaps the expectation is different, but I ride (mountain bike, road bike and motorbike) and drive (car) in both town and country and I can see people coming up on the right far earlier and easier than someone sneaking up on the left.

You're telling me, without any law, rule or justification that I should not overtake on the right. You have to do a lot more to make any kind of case.
I overtake where I feel safest. Sometimes (depending on the road, the conditions, the traffic etc.) that will be the inside, sometimes I will filter between lanes (i.e. at traffic lights), but most often the outside is where I have the room, the visibility and can be more easily seen by those I am passing.
Simply stating that "you shouldn't" doesn't cut it I'm afraid. At the very least, if you're making such a claim, you should back it up with some reasoning. Make a start by telling us why you feel safer on the inside (which of course has no bearing on the rest of us choosing where we think we are safest), and follow that with why those of us who don't feel the same should be stuck there regardless. I assume you have a reason for your blanket statement that it is wrong to overtake on the outside? What is it?

Wow - You're a really difficult customer aren't you. Sounds like you just like an online argument. I said road bike because I ride a road bike, is that OK? You said in your first statement that I was just plain wrong and now you're telling me there's no law so it's actually just a matter of opinion and preference? So am I plain wrong or is it just my opinion? You're debating with me about riding in CL (Central London to be completely clear for you) and what is or isn't safe and you don't even ride there? That's end of conversation for me, someone just arguing for the sake of it. All the best.

Sorry, I didn't intend you to think I meant you were wrong to ride where you chose - that is your choice of course - just that you were wrong to tell everyone who made a different choice that they were wrong!

I'm only making my point so strongly because I felt your statement was unjustified, wrong and dangerous. If others read it and thought there was some reason they should undertake rather than overtake, and put themselves in unnecessary danger as a result, that needs to be challenged.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/apr/04/cyclists-pa...
http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/how-to/filtering
http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling

As well as myself, my girlfriend, my kids, many of my friends all cycle on the roads, and safety is a big issue for me When I see statements like yours my hackles raise. I apologise if you think my point was just to be a git - that's the farthest thing from my mind, but the safety of cyclists is very important to me.

I don't expect you to change your mind (you are free to ride however you wish) but I don't want you to persuade anyone to change to a riskier behaviour in the mistaken belief that overtaking is "wrong" and undertaking is "right". Read the links, or don't, but if anyone here is unsure what to do, please read the links I included here before you decide how you will ride.

PurpleDog wrote:

Sorry, I didn't intend you to think I meant you were wrong to ride where you chose - that is your choice of course - just that you were wrong to tell everyone who made a different choice that they were wrong!

...

Eh, I should have waited. You were much nicer in your reply than I was.

PurpleDog wrote:

Sorry, I didn't intend you to think I meant you were wrong to ride where you chose - that is your choice of course - just that you were wrong to tell everyone who made a different choice that they were wrong!

I'm only making my point so strongly because I felt your statement was unjustified, wrong and dangerous. If others read it and thought there was some reason they should undertake rather than overtake, and put themselves in unnecessary danger as a result, that needs to be challenged.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/apr/04/cyclists-pa...
http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/how-to/filtering
http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling

As well as myself, my girlfriend, my kids, many of my friends all cycle on the roads, and safety is a big issue for me When I see statements like yours my hackles raise. I apologise if you think my point was just to be a git - that's the farthest thing from my mind, but the safety of cyclists is very important to me.

I don't expect you to change your mind (you are free to ride however you wish) but I don't want you to persuade anyone to change to a riskier behaviour in the mistaken belief that overtaking is "wrong" and undertaking is "right". Read the links, or don't, but if anyone here is unsure what to do, please read the links I included here before you decide how you will ride.

Really interesting articles and I've learnt something today. I believe I do make safe decisions on my bike and they've kept me safe for a long time, I also agree with some of the comments on the Guardian article about assuming drivers haven't seen you - It's generally what I do. You're right in that I shouldn't have said that you 'shouldn't' do it because you clearly can if the situation presents itself so it's about doing what's best at the time (mainly filtering by the looks of it). To be honest, I'd still stick to the inside in general unless completely blocked but I guess the wider point is to do whatever is safe, like you said. Please accept my apologies and safe riding!

MarcMyWords wrote:

Please accept my apologies and safe riding!

No worries
Hopefully, between us, we might even have ended up doing a little good?

PurpleDog wrote:

MarcMyWords wrote:

Please accept my apologies and safe riding!

No worries
Hopefully, between us, we might even have ended up doing a little good?

I think that's problem solved as far as I'm concerned!

In all seriousness, if even just a hand full of people read those articles, it's been a worthwhile conversation.

MarcMyWords wrote:

Wow - You're a really difficult customer aren't you. Sounds like you just like an online argument. I said road bike because I ride a road bike, is that OK? You said in your first statement that I was just plain wrong and now you're telling me there's no law so it's actually just a matter of opinion and preference? So am I plain wrong or is it just my opinion? You're debating with me about riding in CL (Central London to be completely clear for you) and what is or isn't safe and you don't even ride there? That's end of conversation for me, someone just arguing for the sake of it. All the best.

You said it was alway wrong to pass on the right. Not sometimes wrong, or only wrong in Central London (which would be weird), just wrong. He said that you were wrong to say it is always wrong, and that the correct way to pass is situation dependant. Later you added the clause about CL (seriously, why abbreviate that and expect people to guess it correctly?), though why you would feel CL is any different to other city centres across the country is a little beyond me.

He was right and you were wrong. And with this post it is you that comes across as a tool, not him. I rather expect he just wanted to actually talk to you, to let you know you had it wrong and to help you become a better and safer cyclist.

pikeamus wrote:

MarcMyWords wrote:

Wow - You're a really difficult customer aren't you. Sounds like you just like an online argument. I said road bike because I ride a road bike, is that OK? You said in your first statement that I was just plain wrong and now you're telling me there's no law so it's actually just a matter of opinion and preference? So am I plain wrong or is it just my opinion? You're debating with me about riding in CL (Central London to be completely clear for you) and what is or isn't safe and you don't even ride there? That's end of conversation for me, someone just arguing for the sake of it. All the best.

You said it was alway wrong to pass on the right. Not sometimes wrong, or only wrong in Central London (which would be weird), just wrong. He said that you were wrong to say it is always wrong, and that the correct way to pass is situation dependant. Later you added the clause about CL (seriously, why abbreviate that and expect people to guess it correctly?), though why you would feel CL is any different to other city centres across the country is a little beyond me.

He was right and you were wrong. And with this post it is you that comes across as a tool, not him. I rather expect he just wanted to actually talk to you, to let you know you had it wrong and to help you become a better and safer cyclist.

I did say that because that's my view, it was a very small part of a much wider statement that was picked up on but still a view I stand by. I already agreed with another comment that filtering is a different story but I don't agree with cyclists generally riding along the outside of vehicles. I think it's dangerous and my reasoning to back that up is that cars often swerve in to the left when a cyclist goes up the outside. This is dangerous for cyclist on the inside which is where you're always told to ride even from a very young age. If you're struggling to get up the inside at any point, maybe just wait a second. I abbreviated to CL as I'd already said Central London a couple of times so thought it would make sense. I've ridden through CL for 5 years now, up to 18 miles commute a day for some jobs and never had an accident which leads me to believe my riding is safe or I've been very, very lucky. However, no one is too good at anything to learn. I've seen PurpleDogs very reasonable reply as have you now so hope this clears up any misunderstanding, thanks for getting involved.

Shades wrote:

The 'occasional' summer cyclists; kind of entertaining in a scary sort of way . Only a few more weeks and they'll be hibernating again.

So, so true. Not long until it's just us hardcore cyclists left.

Shades wrote:

The 'occasional' summer cyclists; kind of entertaining in a scary sort of way . Only a few more weeks and they'll be hibernating again.

In addition, I also notice a lot of 'hardcore' cyclists on my commuter route that seem to disappear once the darkness sets in. Perhaps they 'retreat' to indoor training and fair weather weekend riding.

Shades wrote:

Shades wrote:

The 'occasional' summer cyclists; kind of entertaining in a scary sort of way . Only a few more weeks and they'll be hibernating again.

In addition, I also notice a lot of 'hardcore' cyclists on my commuter route that seem to disappear once the darkness sets in. Perhaps they 'retreat' to indoor training and fair weather weekend riding.

It all depends what their motivation for cycling is. I suspect a lot of the 'hardcore' don't really have any great interest in utility cycling but use their commute for extra training miles rather than considering the bike as a primary form of transport. When it comes to lights and mudguards these guys aren't interested. It's a shame but really no different to runners who turn to the treadmill in the winter.

zanf wrote:

When it comes down to it, its not 'cyclists', or 'drivers' but people. A lot of people are arseholes and act exactly the same no matter what form of transport they use. Constantly framing it in tribalist terms is non-constructive and provides no solutions.

Yeah, that...

Eebijeebi wrote:

anti car/driver jihadists

Eebijeebi wrote:

I for one won't be beaten down by zealotry.

When language like this is used, it makes me think you are the one with the chip on your shoulder.

Eebijeebi wrote:

It is a sad fact

These usually aren't facts.

Eebijeebi wrote:

Stats - don't you just love 'em.

9 out of 168 ATS accidents caused by cyclists. Put that into the proportion of cycles/vehicles and I doubt it will look good as a percentage of users.

I like this site but it does seem to have a disproportionate number of anti car/driver jihadists (at least that post), and I for one won't be beaten down by zealotry.

It is a sad fact, as both a cyclist and a driver, that I witness more and more inappropriate behavior by cyclists every day. I also witness more and more bad driving every day.

Imagine what they'd be saying on a pedestrians site?

I actually think there's a lot more realism here than on some cycling-specific sites. As with the roads however, there are some people with strongly-held opinions who have not yet learned that repeating something loudly and often doesn't make it true.

mrmo wrote:

Something else I have noticed is London is full of ***** be they on bikes or in cars, I get the impression that no one actually bothers with any traffic regulations, and it does seem far worse than other places I have been to in the UK?

Virtually the only time I see metropolitan police they're either parked by the side of the road or blue lights hurrying away somewhere.

OK, so see the occasional other vehicles, but they're never ANPR marked, so not traffic police.

It's been months since I saw anyone pulled over.