Sir Chris Hoy calls for end to 'them v us' attitudes to cycling and driving

burtthebike wrote:

madcarew wrote:

The KSI risk is not solely on the cyclist. Ask any normal, reasonable human being who has actually run over another human being. In nearly every single case it is a life altering occurrence for them, whether at fault or not. If you're a cyclist riding like a dick and cause your own KSI you have altered the other party's life almost as much as you have altered your own in the majority of cases. If you don't understand that you are one of 'them'. Train drivers who get the 'body on the tracks' often suffer from PTSD, in spite of being almost entirely devoid of blame. 'Most' drivers are our friends, family, and colleagues and are caring, feeling human beings with a deep sense of responsibility. How many of your friends and family would "not give a shit" if they ran over a cyclist who was riding like a dick? It would inevitably affect them deeply. The risk the inconsiderate  cyclist is taking is not solely theirs.

Treat all other road users with respect.

I don't think anyone would deny that most drivers feel remorse and sadness after they have been involved in the death of someone, but I'd swap all the remorse in the universe for a moment's forethought.  The majority of cyclist/driver collisions are the fault of the driver, and while it is clearly true that there are collisions where the driver is not at fault, those are relatively few, and like train drivers who suffer through no fault of their own, I feel sympathy for them.  There will always be innocent victims, and sometimes, but not frequently, it will be the driver.  That's no reason to excuse the rest, the vast majority who drive without consideration for others and put them at risk.

Most of the time the driver is to blame and you can't avoid responsibility because you feel sorry afterwards.

Absolutely agreed, but that wasn't the point I was addressing. The point I was addressing was the oft repeated lie that a cyclist is only putting themselves at risk by foolish or risky behaviour on the road, not the 2 ton box of metal. My point is that that simply isn't true. 

madcarew wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

madcarew wrote:

The KSI risk is not solely on the cyclist. Ask any normal, reasonable human being who has actually run over another human being. In nearly every single case it is a life altering occurrence for them, whether at fault or not. If you're a cyclist riding like a dick and cause your own KSI you have altered the other party's life almost as much as you have altered your own in the majority of cases. If you don't understand that you are one of 'them'. Train drivers who get the 'body on the tracks' often suffer from PTSD, in spite of being almost entirely devoid of blame. 'Most' drivers are our friends, family, and colleagues and are caring, feeling human beings with a deep sense of responsibility. How many of your friends and family would "not give a shit" if they ran over a cyclist who was riding like a dick? It would inevitably affect them deeply. The risk the inconsiderate  cyclist is taking is not solely theirs.

Treat all other road users with respect.

I don't think anyone would deny that most drivers feel remorse and sadness after they have been involved in the death of someone, but I'd swap all the remorse in the universe for a moment's forethought.  The majority of cyclist/driver collisions are the fault of the driver, and while it is clearly true that there are collisions where the driver is not at fault, those are relatively few, and like train drivers who suffer through no fault of their own, I feel sympathy for them.  There will always be innocent victims, and sometimes, but not frequently, it will be the driver.  That's no reason to excuse the rest, the vast majority who drive without consideration for others and put them at risk.

Most of the time the driver is to blame and you can't avoid responsibility because you feel sorry afterwards.

Absolutely agreed, but that wasn't the point I was addressing. The point I was addressing was the oft repeated lie that a cyclist is only putting themselves at risk by foolish or risky behaviour on the road, not the 2 ton box of metal. My point is that that simply isn't true. 

I'm sorry, but I'm really not convinced that "squashed/broken limbs/death" are entirely equivalent to "feeling serious remorse/PTSD"... 

madcarew wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

madcarew wrote:

The KSI risk is not solely on the cyclist. Ask any normal, reasonable human being who has actually run over another human being. In nearly every single case it is a life altering occurrence for them, whether at fault or not. If you're a cyclist riding like a dick and cause your own KSI you have altered the other party's life almost as much as you have altered your own in the majority of cases. If you don't understand that you are one of 'them'. Train drivers who get the 'body on the tracks' often suffer from PTSD, in spite of being almost entirely devoid of blame. 'Most' drivers are our friends, family, and colleagues and are caring, feeling human beings with a deep sense of responsibility. How many of your friends and family would "not give a shit" if they ran over a cyclist who was riding like a dick? It would inevitably affect them deeply. The risk the inconsiderate  cyclist is taking is not solely theirs.

Treat all other road users with respect.

I don't think anyone would deny that most drivers feel remorse and sadness after they have been involved in the death of someone, but I'd swap all the remorse in the universe for a moment's forethought.  The majority of cyclist/driver collisions are the fault of the driver, and while it is clearly true that there are collisions where the driver is not at fault, those are relatively few, and like train drivers who suffer through no fault of their own, I feel sympathy for them.  There will always be innocent victims, and sometimes, but not frequently, it will be the driver.  That's no reason to excuse the rest, the vast majority who drive without consideration for others and put them at risk.

Most of the time the driver is to blame and you can't avoid responsibility because you feel sorry afterwards.

Absolutely agreed, but that wasn't the point I was addressing. The point I was addressing was the oft repeated lie that a cyclist is only putting themselves at risk by foolish or risky behaviour on the road, not the 2 ton box of metal. My point is that that simply isn't true. 

That wasn't what I said. The point I made is about KSIs being skewed extremely heavily towards cyclists - so heavily, virtually all of the KSI risk is on the cyclist. I think that you understand that point. 

But then you argued a different point about other consequences including PTSD and the like. I agree that there are other consequences, exactly as you're describing, but they're not in any definition of KSIs that I've seen. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

You never get the same level of interference/busy-bodiness as you do when riding a bike.

Vehicle drivers winge about each other's abilities all the time as evidenced in-extremis by horn honking. Unfortunately for us cyclists we can actually hear their interfering/busy-body/know-it-all rantings and are easy targets because we don't take up much road space while they pull alongside and rant. The other drivers which the same motorist might be whinging about are usually blissfully unaware unless someone leans on their horn and then of course they've usually no idea what the horn is all about anyway.

Mark.

daccordimark wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

You never get the same level of interference/busy-bodiness as you do when riding a bike.

Vehicle drivers winge about each other's abilities all the time as evidenced in-extremis by horn honking. Unfortunately for us cyclists we can actually hear their interfering/busy-body/know-it-all rantings and are easy targets because we don't take up much road space while they pull alongside and rant. The other drivers which the same motorist might be whinging about are usually blissfully unaware unless someone leans on their horn and then of course they've usually no idea what the horn is all about anyway.

Mark.

I think there's a qualitative difference though as most drivers will complain about other drivers without resorting to horn honking or verbal jousting.

hawkinspeter wrote:

daccordimark wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

You never get the same level of interference/busy-bodiness as you do when riding a bike.

Vehicle drivers winge about each other's abilities all the time as evidenced in-extremis by horn honking. Unfortunately for us cyclists we can actually hear their interfering/busy-body/know-it-all rantings and are easy targets because we don't take up much road space while they pull alongside and rant. The other drivers which the same motorist might be whinging about are usually blissfully unaware unless someone leans on their horn and then of course they've usually no idea what the horn is all about anyway.

Mark.

I think there's a qualitative difference though as most drivers will complain about other drivers without resorting to horn honking or verbal jousting.

Dream on...

fukawitribe wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

daccordimark wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

You never get the same level of interference/busy-bodiness as you do when riding a bike.

Vehicle drivers winge about each other's abilities all the time as evidenced in-extremis by horn honking. Unfortunately for us cyclists we can actually hear their interfering/busy-body/know-it-all rantings and are easy targets because we don't take up much road space while they pull alongside and rant. The other drivers which the same motorist might be whinging about are usually blissfully unaware unless someone leans on their horn and then of course they've usually no idea what the horn is all about anyway.

Mark.

I think there's a qualitative difference though as most drivers will complain about other drivers without resorting to horn honking or verbal jousting.

Dream on...

I personally have never seen a car driver pull up alongside another car driver to inform them that there's a motorway that they could be using ("Oi mate, there's the M5 over there you know"). However, as a non-driver I'm most definitely biased, so  there's that.

From what I can see, the main problems that drivers have with cyclists are going through red lights (which motorists also do), not cycling on a cycle lane or cycling two abreast. Seeing that the last two are actually down to the motorist not understanding the law correctly, it makes it seem incredibly asymmetric when the cyclists main problems with drivers tend to be based around physical intimidation.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I personally have never seen a car driver pull up alongside another car driver to inform them that there's a motorway that they could be using ("Oi mate, there's the M5 over there you know").

Ha, brilliant. Next time someone moans at me for riding into Manchester on anything but the high quality* cycle paths** I’ll ask why they’re not on the m602.

*quality may not be high

**cycle paths may not exist

vonhelmet wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I personally have never seen a car driver pull up alongside another car driver to inform them that there's a motorway that they could be using ("Oi mate, there's the M5 over there you know").

Ha, brilliant. Next time someone moans at me for riding into Manchester on anything but the high quality* cycle paths** I’ll ask why they’re not on the m602.

*quality may not be high

**cycle paths may not exist

Exactly. "Why are you crossing the Suspension Bridge and using the (relatively small) A369 to get from Bristol to Portishead, when They built motorways especially for cars to travel at high speed on, which would also get you there? ... What's that? You say that the motorway is a longer journey and it takes you out of your way (M32, M4, M5) (6 miles vs c.25 miles)? Well I'm sorry but they spent all that money building those motorways for you, so you'll have to use them!"

hawkinspeter wrote:

I personally have never seen a car driver pull up alongside another car driver to inform them that there's a motorway that they could be using ("Oi mate, there's the M5 over there you know").

Swap 'motorway' for 'lane' and i've seen that plenty of times. It's more usually the silent rant, waved fist and so on though.

hawkinspeter wrote:

However, as a non-driver I'm most definitely biased, so  there's that.

I honestly couldn't comment on any bias you may have, but as a non-driver you're probably not really that well qualified to comment on what drivers do to each other in many circumstances - your view certainly doesn't match up with what I see on the roads from the car, hence my reply. The motorways and dual-carriageways are home to some of the most potentially lethal buffoonery you can hope not to see, and plenty of swapping of opinions about each others driving capabilities. This is nothing to do with any cyclist vs driver, just what happens in addition to that.