Cyclists V motorists Vpedestrians part 638

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

Guy's street wrote:

On the guide dog thing - I read a tweet last night that showed that despite the "25% of guide dogs have been hit by evil cyclists" headlines, this actually equated to 16 reported incidents out of 320 guide-dogs currently active in London, and that there was no specific timescale put on how long these 16 incidents took place over.

That's the thing though - no one says "guide dogs hit by EVIL cyclists". That's exactly the kind of self-victimisation that irks me so much: "It's just an anti-cyclist agenda, everyone's on our case, so we're just going to keep doing what we're doing". So, that tweet questions "the timescale on how long these 16 incidents took place over". Does that matter? Do these blind people have an anti-cyclist agenda as well, and therefore sod them? I can understand being confrontational with aggressive/careless/clueless drivers and stupid pedestrians, but blind people? Really? Not even the slightest consideration?

The point about timescale was more along the lines of 16 cyclists have collided with guide dogs. But 16 cyclists over 16 years, for example paints a very different picture to 16 in 1 year.

The headline uses '25% of guide dogs' as it's figure, but this is incorrect. It was 25% of the guide dog users who were asked, which was one fifth of the entire population, so actually 5% that they know about and they've just extrapolated to make a more sensational headline.

You're right I shouldn't have inserted the word 'evil', but doesn't the way they've portrayed the figures seem to show an agenda? It's hardly impartial reporting.

I'm not defending people on bikes who cycle on the pavement, or crash into anyone, blind, human, dog or otherwise, by the way. Regardless of whether the dog is pro/anti cycling.

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

That's the thing though - no one says "guide dogs hit by EVIL cyclists".

This guide dog story is very disturbing: I hope all cyclists who read the reports will stop riding their bikes on pavements.

I know people who are partially sighted, including with guide dogs and what is disturbing is the amount of disabled hate crime they suffer. This isn't from cyclists, this is from pedestrians who push them out of the way, deliberately bang into them or get in their way and are generally rude and nasty to them. The Guide Dogs stats showed that 14 people over a non defined period had been hit by cyclists. This is 14 too many, but it's actually a drop in the ocean compared to the level of abuse partially sighted people (along with anyone with a visible disability) suffer everyday, including from people who will be reading this post and tutting about cyclists. The anti-cyclist story was picked up by the press, disabled hate crime doesn't sell papers.

Zoe, you are very right.. still its a shame GDftB cooked up some dodgy stats in order to get some publicity.

I'm a pretty reasonable person, but I do feel quite militant when it comes to cycling. Yes I know that some idiots ride bikes. Try this...
1. I was passed at the cut/blackfriars rd junction by a lad in a baseball cap, no lights, speeding through the red lights this evening.
2. Last night a group of cyclists were stopped by a car in the Elephant, three lads got out, swung punches in an unprovoked attack and squirted (a weak) acid in one of the group's face. The car was uninsured and unregistered.
1. would be reported as 'cyclist's behaviour', 2 will be 'three thugs in an unregistered vehicle', not 'motorists'...

A disqualified, drunk (4x over the limit), high on cocaine driver, in a stolen car, uninsured, with 50!! previous convictions hits two men on bikes on a Sunday, whilst doing 70mph in a 30 zone. both killed outright, seven children lost their father. The sentence of 10 years is being appealed against as 'too harsh for a driving offence'. Whatever the result he will be free in 4 years max, after a double manslaughter...

I'm 51, I cycle to work and I've started doing longer rides at weekends training to ride my first 'long' trip, next year's Ride London-Surrey100, to raise money for Breast cancer (two friends have died of it). I obey the highway code, stop at crossings and red lights. I don't cause any pollution, or add to climate change, and my increased fitness will save the NHS money as I will be fitter and less likely to have a costly chronic disease when I'm older.

WHY should I be regularly vilified, labelled as a 'cyclist who doesn't obey the rules of the road', have my life threatened by dangerous practices of other road users, AND feel that the law does not properly value my life and safety? Any answers????

No... that's why I go on 'die-in's and will be riding in tomorrow's 'critical mass'. Militant? Yes, i want to live....

Good luck on the ride london. Given the weather this year it's impressive you are having a go (and 100 miles is a long way!). Put your fund raising page up when it's ready.

The sooner some of the members of the cycling community stop seeing themselves as victims, dragging out examples of other road users who misbehave in order to justify their own refusal to adjust their behaviour for the common good, maybe then they will encounter less hostility. I've seen rude, aggressive, dangerous drivers and pedestrians, but none seem as militant as this small core of cyclists. And if you feel that you're targeted, do you really think even more demonstrative jumping of red lights, cycling on pavements id going to help? I really try to be sympathetic, appeasing even, but I am now starting to think that if you offer a finger, they'll take the whole hand. I find the attitude frustrating and infuriating. It's really not helping.

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

The sooner some of the members of the cycling community stop seeing themselves as victims, dragging out examples of other road users who misbehave in order to justify their own refusal to adjust their behaviour for the common good, maybe then they will encounter less hostility. I've seen rude, aggressive, dangerous drivers and pedestrians, but none seem as militant as this small core of cyclists. And if you feel that you're targeted, do you really think even more demonstrative jumping of red lights, cycling on pavements id going to help? I really try to be sympathetic, appeasing even, but I am now starting to think that if you offer a finger, they'll take the whole hand. I find the attitude frustrating and infuriating. It's really not helping.

I feel that cyclists as a whole are targetted, but I don't think cyclists as a whole jump red lights etc, and cyclists as whole certainly don't jump lights to make a point. Personally I take extra care to stick to the rules because I don't want to give anyone an excuse to criticise me for cycling. Sometimes this infuriates motorists who find me stopping at a red light that they'd liked to have squeezed through.

The point is, headlines like '25% of guide dogs hit by cyclists' act to condemn everyone who cycles, whereas it is a minority who are irresponsible but the rest of us are dragged down with them.

Like Brendan D describes above - irresponsible motorists (again, a minority), are rarely described by the media as motorists.

Again, not condoning the actions of those that do cycle irresponsibly and/or try to make a point by doing so - if it weren't for this minority after all then there'd be nothing for anyone to complain about.

I haven't joined this debate before but I do believe EW makes some valid points, cyclists seem much like Shakespear's lady in that they do protest too much.
What has made me join this debate is the fact that I thought I was going to witness the death of another cyclist at the junction of Waterloo Road and The Cut.
The lights on WR were red I went to cross from Emma Cons Gardens and a cyclist nearly ran me down I turned to give him a mouthful of advice and was speechless but ready to scream as he swerved left into The Cut to avoid a skip lorry that was legitimately crossing on the green light from Baylis Road into The Cut. If he had gone under the lorry I am sure those cyclists who are most verbose in defending cyclists would have been quick to blame the innocent lorry driver. Luckily the cyclist's death wish came to nothing and I am spared having to give evidence at an inquest.

Please all cyclists take extra care you are the most vulnerable of road users and motorist's of every description please recognise that fact.
Stay safe.

Thebunhouse wrote:

I haven't joined this debate before but I do believe EW makes some valid points, cyclists seem much like Shakespear's lady in that they do protest too much.

But there you go again lumping them all in together, as if everyone who cycles behaves the same.

Without a doubt some play the victim card, and without a doubt some are irresponsible. Same goes for motorists.

My complaint is that we all get tarred with the same brush, whether that's about behaviour on (or off) the road, or our attitudes.

Guy's street wrote:

My complaint is that we all get tarred with the same brush, whether that's about behaviour on (or off) the road, or our attitudes.

I think that there's enough evidence on here that not everyone tars all cyclists with the same brush, however, although some cyclists agree that there a small minority of cyclists whose behaviour is wrong, in my opinion they don't really make any clear, visible, strong effort to distance/differentiate themselves from the bad eggs but instead isolate the community by indulging in some collective "poor cyclists against the rest of the world" self-victimisation. That creates the perception that instead of condemning rogue cycling, it is condoned across the cycling community. I totally agree that everybody, from BoJO to other road users, should work to make cycling safe, but cyclist can not just demand this, they have to do their bit as well. If, at the moment, people come down harder on cyclists than on others, then that may be harsh and unfair, but to large part it's up to cyclists to change that perception in order to create a level playing field. Otherwise, the pointless responding to accusations with counter accusations will never stop and the mutual hostility with all its lethal consequences will only escalate further.