"We introduced him to rugby": Police boast of tackling cyclist who jumped red light; Tour de France stage 13: Bastille Day summit finish; Reaction to e-bike ban on popular path; Got a TT bike Uganda can use at World Champs? + more on the live blog

S13SFC wrote:

We may not like it but it's foolish to believe that we aren't collectively put in the same category just because we ride bikes.

It's a ridiculous thing to do though. A driver seeing another driver speeding or using their phone won't exclaim "they give us all a bad name". Similarly if I see a pedestrian dropping litter, it doesn't give all pedestrians a bad name.

We should call out this needless out-grouping of cyclists whenever it happens.

We should call out this needless out-grouping of cyclists whenever it happens

Agreed, but he's just yet another of the increasing band of Nutters and Sons of Nutter afflicting this site

Bless your little cotton socks cupcake. Does the nasty man scare you?

wtjs wrote:

We should call out this needless out-grouping of cyclists whenever it happens

Agreed, but he's just yet another of the increasing band of Nutters and Sons of Nutter afflicting this site

'Nutters and Sons of Nutter'.

.

AKA 'people who don't have the same opinion as me'.

.

You sound more like Rendy every day - and that's NOT a good image!

.

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

It's a ridiculous thing to do though. A driver seeing another driver speeding or using their phone won't exclaim "they give us all a bad name". Similarly if I see a pedestrian dropping litter, it doesn't give all pedestrians a bad name.

No, but a lot of them will absolutley see a cyclist do something and take it out on other cyclists.

I don't buy into the whole "collective responsibilty" thing myself, but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't annoy me if I'm sat at a red with ten cars behind me and a cyclist comes past and runs the light, because I know I'm then going to get ten punishment passes when the light goes green.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

No, but a lot of them will absolutley see a cyclist do something and take it out on other cyclists.

I don't buy into the whole "collective responsibilty" thing myself, but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't annoy me if I'm sat at a red with ten cars behind me and a cyclist comes past and runs the light, because I know I'm then going to get ten punishment passes when the light goes green.

It seems strange to blame the cyclist that has caused you no harm when you could be blaming the ten idiot motorists that do endanger you.

To some extent, I think that you're buying into the anti-cyclist narrative and excusing the absolutely appalling behaviour of some motorists. If someone close passes you, then it's because they're an idiot, they're not a good driver and they're both endangering you and breaking the law. It's not due to some cyclist spotting an opportunity to sneak through a red light.

hawkinspeter wrote:

It seems strange to blame the cyclist that has caused you no harm when you could be blaming the ten idiot motorists that do endanger you.

To some extent, I think that you're buying into the anti-cyclist narrative and excusing the absolutely appalling behaviour of some motorists. If someone close passes you, then it's because they're an idiot, they're not a good driver and they're both endangering you and breaking the law. It's not due to some cyclist spotting an opportunity to sneak through a red light.

You’re 100% correct, I do agree that the “aggressors” (and the problem) are the drivers, and I never said that I “blamed” the cyclist, just that they annoyed me, but that’s just semantics in that situation because that doesn’t have any affect on the outcome for me – if the RLJ cyclist doesn’t RLJ, I won’t get the punishment passes.

I do think that collective responsibility is nonsense because that cyclist isn’t in any way related to me, and there’s nothing that I can do that will in any way change their behaviour. But as Awavey said in a different post – it doesn’t really matter if I buy into collective responsibility or not, the problem is that drivers do buy into it. No driver is going to get cut up by someone in a SAAB, then spend the next two weeks harassing every SAAB driver they come across, but a lot of drivers absolutely will do that to cyclists.

So, until the whole host of causes of this phenomenon – such as media bullshit, political point-scoring, and coordinated misinformation campaigns – are resolved, I will continue to be annoyed when a cyclist does something really dumb right next to me and paints a target on my back. I don’t have anything to do with them, I didn’t do the dumb thing, I’m not responsible for their actions, and so their actions shouldn’t have any effect on me (and they wouldn’t if we were two members of any other type of road user), but unfortunately in the real word, they do.

Some drivers will get annoyed at you for not jumping the light, if it means you'll be holding them up when the light turns green.

Also, I think the grouping of people as 'cyclists' is lessening as the popularity of cycling increases.

I guess some of us don't feel it is a choice as to which laws of the road we obey. "Sneaking" through a red light is definitely illegal. If you feel that is ok to downplay that by calling it "sneaking" then I am not sure I see how you can have issue with a driver deciding to ignore the speed limit or the rules on passing a cyclist. Personally I strongly take issue with both behaviours and will often challenge them.

LeadenSkies wrote:

I guess some of us don't feel it is a choice as to which laws of the road we obey. "Sneaking" through a red light is definitely illegal. If you feel that is ok to downplay that by calling it "sneaking" then I am not sure I see how you can have issue with a driver deciding to ignore the speed limit or the rules on passing a cyclist. Personally I strongly take issue with both behaviours and will often challenge them.

I used "sneaking" to imply going through slowly and carefully. Whilst any kind of RLJ is illegal, there's a clear difference in danger presented to others.

I think both are true. If a driver 'collectivises' me, I'll tell them how ridiculous that is. But I'll also tell dickhead cyclists that, rightly or wrongly, their behaviour affects how drivers react to other cyclists.

Foolish to go along with the group responsibility notion.

Hirsute wrote:

Foolish to go along with the group responsibility notion.

So because you don't like it it means that it doesn't take place in the real world?

How odd.

S13SFC wrote:

Hirsute wrote:

Foolish to go along with the group responsibility notion.

So because you don't like it it means that it doesn't take place in the real world?

How odd.

Racism and sexism happen all the time "in the real world", and it's generally considered appropriate to call out people who use racist and sexist language and tropes. Obviously the victimisation of cyclists is nowhere near the scale of sexism and racism, but that doesn't mean that we should repeat the nonsense, does it?

Why are you going along with it?
How will cyclists behaving make a difference to those who still say no road tax, insurance, MOT?
If you blithely accept this collective responsibility, you make it worse.

S13SFC wrote:

 

I was fucking fuming as it's shit like that that gives us all a bad name.

why are you buying into this collective responsibility? Do you complain about men committing sexual harrassment giving us all a bad name?

What about drunk drivers? do they give you a bad name?

Or just other cyclists?

We may not like it but it's foolish to believe that we aren't collectively put in the same category just because we ride bikes.

wycombewheeler wrote:

S13SFC wrote:

 

I was fucking fuming as it's shit like that that gives us all a bad name.

why are you buying into this collective responsibility? Do you complain about men committing sexual harrassment giving us all a bad name?

What about drunk drivers? do they give you a bad name?

Or just other cyclists?

S13SFC wrote:

We may not like it but it's foolish to believe that we aren't collectively put in the same category just because we ride bikes.

Yes but a caveat.

Many people lump "cyclists" together / stereotype.

BUT I believe there's very little that any individual cyclist contributes to that.  As in - the stereotype is already "yoof / crim on bike" / "entitled MAMIL" / "aggressive pedant / vigilante".

I think underlying this is the feeling that cyclists are "cheating".  We're using the same roads* but we're in the way, we're sneaking through gaps, we don't pay "road tax" / have insurance etc. Oh, and "rights but no responsibilities" and yet some have the temerity to complain when cars pass "just like they would other cars" (e.g. too close).

Like any stereotype there is a grain of truth.  Apparently in some places (London) it's easy to find confirmation of some of these bad habits (ignoring red lights, riding inconsiderately).

I'd recommend cycling carefully and considerately - it will usually mean you have a better day.  However doing that isn't likely to change this stereotype soon, even if we all did so.  What will?  When most people are "cyclists" or their friends and relatives are.  In which case there won't really be "cyclists" (them over there), it'll just be people cycling.  Some of whom will be inconsiderate idiots, criminals etc.  Just like the case now with drivers, walkers ...

* Or sadly "pavements" where our councils have failed to provide / have stuck a sign on an existing footway and cried "shared use!"

Whether we individually buy into collective responsibility or not, I think the reality of the situation is alot of those sat behind steering wheels who see cyclists "breaking rules" absolutely buy into it.

it reinforces their prejudices that cyclists are a collective group,and one who don't share the same rules,responsibilities they do and will absolutely treat the next cyclist they meet on the road differently as a result, often to learn them a lesson about it even though that cyclist had no part to play in it.

I've lost count of examples where I've been admonished or called out for something another cyclist did, by a motorist, just because I happened to be the next cyclist they met.

So i'll always call out cyclists who jump red lights, I wouldn't go to the lengths of the GMP or S13SFC, life's too short to get that wound up about it.

But how other cyclists behave on roads has an impact on me as a cyclist whether I like or not, so I call them out when i see them rule breaking, too many people turn a blind eye to too many things thesedays imo.

Awavey wrote:

Whether we individually buy into collective responsibility or not, I think the reality of the situation is alot of those sat behind steering wheels who see cyclists "breaking rules" absolutely buy into it. it reinforces their prejudices that cyclists are a collective group,and one who don't share the same rules,responsibilities they do and will absolutely treat the next cyclist they meet on the road differently as a result, often to learn them a lesson about it even though that cyclist had no part to play in it. I've lost count of examples where I've been admonished or called out for something another cyclist did, by a motorist, just because I happened to be the next cyclist they met. So i'll always call out cyclists who jump red lights, I wouldn't go to the lengths of the GMP or S13SFC, life's too short to get that wound up about it. But how other cyclists behave on roads has an impact on me as a cyclist whether I like or not, so I call them out when i see them rule breaking, too many people turn a blind eye to too many things thesedays imo.

If you want to call out law breaking cyclists, then that's your perogative, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it will make any difference to the attitudes of some motorists. Even if you could persuade every single cyclist in the world to always obey every single traffic law, those motorists would just find something else to complain about (e.g. they'd just make up their own law such as it being mandatory to use any cycle lane).

Equally I'd say don't fool yourself that it has no impact on motorists attitudes towards cyclists individually or as an out group.

Of course the antis would always find another excuse to bolster their views, it doesn't mean we should tacitly accept the situation or just keep handing them free ammunition.

Awavey wrote:

Equally I'd say don't fool yourself that it has no impact on motorists attitudes towards cyclists individually or as an out group. Of course the antis would always find another excuse to bolster their views, it doesn't mean we should tacitly accept the situation or just keep handing them free ammunition.

First - sorry to hear you were injured.  I can readily see the link between an actual Bad Cyclist and people's disapproval.  We have all heard the stories - we may even have met the cyclists.

Like a poo in the swimming pool though it only takes one person* with a lack of control and everyone's unhappy - even if they never witnessed the offense themselves.

I also think people will be primed for getting irked by cyclists until a much larger fraction of people are cycling from A to B regularly.  Because cyclists are an "other" (not us, our family, our friends, role models) who are "cheating" (in the way, don't wait in the queue like everyone driving etc).

I think having separate infra is a) the only way to achieve "lots of people who are happy to cycle some trips" and b) also avoids or reduces the "using the same road but not playing by the same rules" trigger.

The Dutch / Danish example shows that people driving can and will accept people cycling have a right to be in the same space.  This happens a) where drivers are clearly in a minority (e.g. because that is not a through-route for them, by dictat etc.) and b) where they clearly understand this is a street (e.g. in residential area) not a road (e.g. a route between places).  The infrastructure should make that clear also - which is another issue with UK civil engineering.

* Where they are from an easily identifiable - and normally minority - "group".

its ok you dont have to do that Im just trying to get people to realise this is not a zero sum game, and it f**kin hurts when someone rides into you even if you manage to stay upright

Unless he actually nearly caused a collision doing this or it really was reckless, then it's not much different to cycling across a puffin crossing then joining the road.

Yeah, right, nothing at all wrong in going through red lights when you can't see who is crossing nowt wrong with that at all.

HoarseMann wrote:

Unless he actually nearly caused a collision doing this or it really was reckless, then it's not much different to cycling across a puffin crossing then joining the road.

S13SFC wrote:

Yeah, right, nothing at all wrong in going through red lights when you can't see who is crossing nowt wrong with that at all.

If it was unsighted and clearly reckless, then obviously that's very bad. But it is possible to cycle through a red light safely, particularly pedestrian crossings. In some circumstances it can be much safer than stopping for the red light and waiting for the green.

I used to think this but then I realised that nobody was going to be converted to cycling by us acting like angels and even the idea of us being out-grouped less than we are now is dubious.

Anything cyclists can do, safely, that makes cycling visibly more convenient is a good thing.
So if a cyclist wants to carefully ride on the pavement, cross at a pedestrian crossing, or ride through a red light after giving way to pedestrians and traffic then I have no problem.

Car Delenda Est wrote:

. Anything cyclists can do, safely, that makes cycling visibly more convenient is a good thing. So if a cyclist wants to carefully ride on the pavement, cross at a pedestrian crossing, or ride through a red light after giving way to pedestrians and traffic then I have no problem.

And if a motorist wants to do these things, safely, because it's more convenient?

We are all, more often than we realise, pretty bad at assessing what is safe. The other humans around us are also pretty bad at it. So, when you've given way before riding through a red light, you might not have noticed the person legging it to get across while the green man's showing and if they've noticed you they won't expect you to be moving. 

The solution is remarkably simple: if you're not in danger, stop at the fucking red light. You'll keep yourself and others safe, with the bonus of not being a selfish anti-social arsehole to boot. 

Brauchsel wrote:

And if a motorist wants to do these things, safely, because it's more convenient?

The U.S. allows motorists to turn right through red lights when it's safe to do so.

There's also various places that have relaxed rules for cyclists as they recognise that the stop-start nature of roads has been designed primarily for motorists and isn't particularly suited for cyclists (e.g. the Idaho Stop). I think there's a strong argument for changing the rules around red lights and cyclists - especially those junctions where there's clear sight-lines and that a cyclist can navigate through without having to cross streams of traffic.

However, I'm not saying that the particular cyclist in question was being at all careful or justified.

Brauchsel wrote:

And if a motorist wants to do these things, safely, because it's more convenient?

The difference is motorists are not allowed to use puffin crossings or shared use cycle tracks.

There is little difference cycling across a puffin crossing vs. a pelican crossing, nor is there much difference cycling on a pavement vs. a shared cycle track.