A Vicious Cycle: The Dangerous Dehumanisation of Cyclists

Everyone has right of way to on the public highway at all times. In England and Wales the public has right of way on byways, bridleways and footpaths too (although there are restrictions on what type of vehicle is allowed, if any). In Scotland the public has right of way everywhere by non-motorised means.

Your right of way never trumps someone else's right of way, nor does it trump someone else's right to live.

Priority is a completely different concept. When you give way, you are not losing your right of way. You are simply waiting for your turn. Priority is a simple rule to make sure everyone can exercise their right of way fairly and safely.

I really wish people would think about what they are saying. As a walker in England/Wales, you don't take right of way for granted.

The "rules" for cars (and cycles) have been clarified, not that most car drivers even know the highway code. Turning into a side road where a pedestrian is stepping out into the road is where a car must now give way. But then they always had to - the paint on the ground is the same that delineates lanes on a dual carriageway or motorway (single-dashed), and you don't have the right to just move into another lane when there's traffic already there.

He has a whole series on the Highway Code changes : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKmQyBNt99LSx7s2Q0p_J...

DailyMail type press / alt-righty YouTube channels / etc etc are all very good at telling their audience that someone is out to get them - that their way of life is being judged by powers beyond their control & that they should be angry about it. Keeping their audience in a permanant state of fight or flight due to vaguely defined external threats has been very profitable for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

I even get it from my own parents when they know I ride pretty much everywhere.

I often cycle near Paris and I never got this amount of crap, not from random people, and certainly not from my colleagues. This is surreal.

When you're "done" with infrastructure you tend to get spectacular collapses.

The calculation for car-saturated cities is that each drive takes as long as fastest alternative mode, and no faster. Which kinda makes sense to me - as you build more infra people chose to not drive, making driving a lot more fun for the die-hards and the ones where that's not an option.

And "infra" can be planter boxes and moving paint, for a start.

This thread was a reminder that even in the Netherlands, when you design roads for higher speeds and try to change that by plopping down a sign, it doesn't work.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Netherlands/comments/ss3t0u/whats_u...

I drive a 7,500 lb diesel pickup truck as my weekend “I’m going to the boonies to play with my man toys” vehicle. It’s a big and imposing vehicle that I operate responsibly. On longer highway trips I tend to lay in the speed limit into my cruise control and simply cruise (fitting eh?) in the middle lane of a 3-lane road or the right lane of a 2-lane road.

Guess what? I get honked at for driving too slowly even when I’m traveling at 70 mph that also happens to be the speed limit.

Just yesterday an especially irate specimen became upset when I was using the left lane to pass at 70 mph (otherwise known as the speed limit) to go past a very large truck that was using the right lane at 60 mph. Someone honked at me, flashed their headlights, then eventually passed me, got in front of me, and performed a brake check on me.

Imagine how upset this wheeled menace gets when they see a cyclist taking the entirety of a narrow road! Sigh.

(I'm in the UK where cycling on the pavement's not allowed, unless it's a marked cycle or shared lane, not sure if that's different in other countries).

I cycle a lot in inner London - zones 1 - 2 ish. There are a few cycle lanes, paths through parks, canal towpaths, etc, but mostly, i'm on the road. For me, that's fine; traffic is never very fast, and the next junction is never far away, so there's a mix of overtaking cars, being overtaken by cars, and each of us blocking the other for a little while where there's no room to overtake. Also, there are a lot of bus lanes, which are even better - fewer vehicles, and less likely to misbehave.

I occasionally cycle in outer London, and there, i'm glad of the network of long-distance cycle paths, sparse though it is. Speeds are higher, and drivers are more impatient.

I once cycled in Swindon, including across the White Hart roundabout. I won't be doing that again.

That's just not true. A car weighs well over a tonne, and can comfortably travel at twice the speed any random bike can in a city (15mph on a bike in a city center is snappy, 30mph in a car is achieveable by the time you've cleared a junction). The impact of being hit by a car at 20mph and being hit by a cyclist at 20mph are also completely different for a pedestrian. You are far more likely to sustain serious injuries by being hit by a ton and a half of metal than 100kg of metal and squish.

There's a fundamental difference between the danger posed by cyclists and the danger posed by motorists. Cyclists have significant 'skin in the game' and can easily be hurt more in a collision with pedestrians. Motorists, meanwhile are unlikely to be hurt when colliding with either pedestrians or cyclists and so they can often get complacent about the danger they are presenting.

The UK is currently re-wording some of the Highway Code and an important part of this is the concept of responsibility - the faster, heavier vehicles bear more responsibility to keep everyone safe. HGVs>cars>cyclists>pedestrians

Although I agree with your larger point, this is obviously not true.

Cyclists are neither pedestrians nor cars, and (I assume?) generally both groups would prefer the other had to deal with them. So, as a cyclist, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

> Sometimes I wonder, why cyclist complain about the dangers of cars, while on the other hand they are a thread to pedestrians.

Because, statistically speaking, cars are a way bigger threat to cyclists than cyclists are to pedestrians. Here's an article fearmongering against cyclists [1] (notice how even the link says "cyclist-killed...two-pedestrians-every-week", even though the true figure is "killed less than 10 pedestrians every year, compared with hundreds killed by cars"), compare it with the government's report for road casualties [2].

[1] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863550/cyclist-killed-bicy...

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...

Of the clutter can be insane, there is a new, 3 meter wide path, and some donkeyballs-brained perdon has installed a lamppost, a large metal 'internet box', and some other metal box duagonally across the path, so you can't cycle through it any more, and get through on a wheelchair!

This. 100% this. The county highways around where I live have a paved shoulder that is as wide as a full lane of traffic. I routinely cycle on that shoulder safely with cars zipping by me at 55-60 mph and no one gets angry about it.

But I do run into the bottom 1% of drivers occasionally (usually at intersections) who either simply do not see me, despite the fact I'm wearing fire-engine red kit and have flashing headlamp and taillight in broad daylight, or choose to ignore that I'm there and intentionally put me in danger.

There are a couple of longer-distance high-quality road cycling trails around here (one is ~50 miles long, the other is ~120 miles long) but they are an inconvenient distance away. The other park-style trails around here simply aren't meant for road cyclists, for reasons that you've noted already.

They don't always work well; in my area some sensors seem to trigger too late, resulting in unnecessary braking, and others trigger too early and might encourage you to speed up for the intersection to avoid getting a yellow or even red just before you enter. Sometimes they give a green for the go-straight lane just when you're switching to the turn lane, which stays red even though there's no traffic..

One of my favorite solutions is simply turning the lights off altogether when there's not much traffic. They do that at quite a few intersections here.

I disagree. I have witnessed a large number of pedestrian collisions because fellow cyclists didn't want to stop. In london the large majority of traffic lights that "make no sense" are normally pedestrian crossings. This is why I stop at red lights, even though its more tiring.

I had to administer first aid to someone who was knocked over on london bridge by a cyclist and was rendered unconscious. The sniveling little shit fucked off and left the man in the middle of the road.

Yes Cyclists are smaller and more nimble, to a point. But that does not mean they are less dangerous to pedestrians.

The rules are there for all road users, or not at all. In the UK at least they are there to protect the most vulnerable: pedestrians.

Where I am - there's pretty good bike infrastructure - and I can get to and from work and anywhere else I bike on good separated but not completely protected bike paths.

I'm assuming not wearing a helmet was proved to be good on an individual level? Does it mean you're less likely to get in an accident? When you get in an accident, are you also less likely to be severely injured?

Also - are there any stats on how likely you are to be injured on different types of bike paths? Like just sharing the road vs separated paths vs protected paths?

In the UK its not a legal requirement, but at least during my commute about 60-70% of people wear a helmet cycling. (I do)

I ride fast, too.i feel a bit naked without a helmet. But I ride mainly for fitness.

The Dutch ride for transportation. The bike racks at train stations are filled with thousands of bikes. Very few of them with drop bars. A totally different thing.

I commute in london by cycle. I am also a driver. I expect both driver and cyclist to respect the rules and each other. I do not jump red lights, because that is not what one does.

Over the last 5 years cycling has become much safer and less dangerous. The traffic is slower, and there is more segregation in central london. In the suburbs its not as rosy.

I have not, and did not seek to justify the viewpoint expressed in the article, only to add my observations, which were clearly marked as personal opinions.

IMO if you use public bicycle lanes for what is pretty much sport (as opposed to getting where you need to go), there should be a dedicated park or track you could use instead. Imagine if racing motorcycle owners got in groups and maxed out speedometers on city streets…

Bicycles here are much rarer, but when you see them, they are vastly more likely to be doing those things.

Just like some car drivers feel entitled to "own" the road and feel that if they hit a cyclist, it was the cyclist at fault, also some cyclists feel entitled to "own" the shared pedestrian and cycle paths, and occasionally hit pedestrians and then blame the pedestrians.

No sane person hates the random civilian cyclist who rides inner-city to his place of work, on bike lanes where available, and who acts in a predictable manner (give hand signs when making a turn, stopping when the traffic lights say so, ...). But those wannabe-Lance-Armstrongs on the country road, I can understand how they can make someone's blood boil. Even worse when they do everything to be as invisible as possible (for example, wearing mostly black).

https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/pdf/WR01108

Combine fast movement with a pair of legs flailing in front and Mister Ed is going to think "wolf" or "mountain lion" instead of "goofy human on wheels."

The trouble with that is that by not following the rules, it's harder for other road users (in particular pedestrians) to predict what they're going to do.

Even though bikes are much lighter than cars, I'd prefer not to be hot by either!

Whoa! That's a pretty big accusation! I think you might want to rethink.

I do see drivers running red lights, but it's almost always a close-run thing - maybe it's arguable that they couldn't have braked in time - it's hard to say (not a driver). There is a deliberate (short) pause between traffic lights going red and the green man pedestrian signal to show to allow for this. However it is, in my experience, common for cyclists to go through lights even after the green man is showing for pedestrians.

...and while I'm sure it's true that drivers often speed (and I definitely done condone that), I guess it's hard for me as a pedestrian to tell the difference between a car travelling at 30mph and say 40mph?

(As I say, I don't drive or cycle, so it's not a case of "doing something I can't".)

Fair enough. I only have my own experience to go on. Since writing my original comment and this one, I walked to the supermarket and back. I saw no cars run red lights but 4 cyclists do it (out of 5).

> There are also some who refuse to respect the traffic regulations.

This was the point I was making - specifically that the "some" cyclists who don't follow the rules (at least in ways that put me as a pedestrian at risk) is in my experience significantly more than the number of drivers.

> But at the end of the day I consider the failure to reflect upon the dangers posed by far more dangerous motor vehicles and a desire to focus upon bicycles as ignorant, arrogant, or deliberate acts of malice.

OK, so let's assume that my observation that cyclists break the rules more frequently is based on an "ignorant, arrogant or deliberate [act] of malice" on my part.

Why do you think I would feel that way? I neither drive nor cycle, so it's not like I'm in the drivers' camp, bashing cyclists.

If we want car drivers to be less angry, maybe it makes sense to stop doing what makes them angry.

Also, there is plenty of bicyclists who have a strong reaction towards car drivers, because they had bad experiences in the past. I think 10% asshole ratio is enough to train people to subconsciously expect the worst, even if it is still statistically unlikely.

We have regular events organized by people who like bicycling where they deliberately drive on the road and then stop to create huge traffic jams. The organizers proclaim that this is to demonstrate for their right of way on the road. But obviously the government disagrees and banned them, so people will post suggestions on Facebook and then people will "spontaneously" go on a bicycle trip together and block a main road on Friday evening.

If you don't believe in their cause, that's mainly a huge provocation to everyone else. Especially because these events regularly ignore traffic rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass_(cycling)

"Because Critical Mass takes place without an official route or sanction, participants in some cities have sometimes practiced a tactic known as "corking" in order to maintain the cohesion of the group. This tactic consists of a few riders blocking traffic from side roads so that the mass can freely proceed through red lights without interruption"

"criticized to be contrary to Critical Mass' claim that "we are traffic", since ordinary traffic does not have the right to go through intersections once the traffic signal has changed to red"

"an event known as "Critical Manners" was created as a response to Critical Mass. Critical Manners rides through the city on the second Friday of the month, with riders encouraged to obey all traffic laws such as stopping at red lights and signaling"

If you have a counter-event that encourages people to obey the law, that might be a hint as to how the majority views your event ;)

In all seriousness, every one of multiple such bikes I owned in London has subsequently been stolen. (Several cheap ones too, but that's an accepted cost of commuting given the Met does sweet f all about theft or burglary.)

Are you suggesting that people that because Hackney "isn't exactly the nicest part of London", that people have bad manners? Please clarify, honestly I don't understand this.

It's... huh... surprisingly weird to, for example, stop on the sidewalk waiting for someone to then notice all the cars stopping for no apparent reason and then only noticing you're in front of a pedestrian crossing. Oops.

They sometimes even go as far as to brake so hard when seeing a pedestrian that they cause an accident. I witnessed that one at least twice! Once three cars smashed into each other...

Some cyclists stop, many don't.