a typical example of the poor attitude towards cyclists

[channa]

My last 2p

I know the road where this happened. It is a dual carriageway with plenty of space on the inside lane. The riders have always been well apart when we've been driving past and there are marshals on the roundabouts and fluorescent signs up warning drivers.

The highway code states you should give plenty of room when overtaking cyclists and slower vehicles. It doesnt matter if they are 'racing' or not, they have the right to be on that road until legislation states otherwise. Given the fact that traffic is very quiet on this section of road and that there are two wide lanes, they cannot be described as a 'complete and utter menace' I take issue with that.

'Near misses' are the drivers responsibility, she had visibility, brakes, steering and an accelerator to use to avoid these 'near misses' - blaming a cyclist is no excuse for inattentive driving.

I have never seen any 'groups of 4 or 5' riding along the A1 and even if they were, 2 abreast is within the law and they should be treated as if they were a large slow moving vehicle.

If she travelled regularly on the A1 during these events, then experience would have taught her what to expect when encountering future races/ events. Yes, a rider was killed on the A1, but that was on the A1 service road which runs parallel to the A1M between Alconbury and Peterborough, not on a dual carriageway.

My job means that I encounter young female drivers on a regular basis out on the road and the majority exhibit very poor road awareness, pulling out in front of vehicles, running red lights and so-on. Reading the description of the actual accident, there was negligence which has been delt with.

Hence my comments of attitude, and ability to cope with others actions and their ability to cope with ours.

It is a two way street.

Channa

 

[Neil]

'Near misses' are the drivers responsibility, she had visibility, brakes, steering and an accelerator to use to avoid these 'near misses'

Near misses aren't just the drivers responsibility.

blaming a cyclist is no excuse for inattentive driving.

And likewise, blaming drivers is no excuse for inattentive cycling.

If she travelled regularly on the A1 during these events, then experience would have taught her what to expect when encountering future races/ events.

As it did for me when I regularly drove through time trials - that's not the point, though - I coped, but it's no way to either wake up inattentive drivers, or convince unsympathetic drivers.

 

[Neil]

My last 2p

I know the road where this happened. It is a dual carriageway with plenty of space on the inside lane. The riders have always been well apart when we've been driving past and there are marshals on the roundabouts and fluorescent signs up warning drivers.

The highway code states you should give plenty of room when overtaking cyclists and slower vehicles. It doesnt matter if they are 'racing' or not, they have the right to be on that road until legislation states otherwise. Given the fact that traffic is very quiet on this section of road and that there are two wide lanes, they cannot be described as a 'complete and utter menace' I take issue with that.

'Near misses' are the drivers responsibility, she had visibility, brakes, steering and an accelerator to use to avoid these 'near misses' - blaming a cyclist is no excuse for inattentive driving.

I have never seen any 'groups of 4 or 5' riding along the A1 and even if they were, 2 abreast is within the law and they should be treated as if they were a large slow moving vehicle.

If she travelled regularly on the A1 during these events, then experience would have taught her what to expect when encountering future races/ events. Yes, a rider was killed on the A1, but that was on the A1 service road which runs parallel to the A1M between Alconbury and Peterborough, not on a dual carriageway.

My job means that I encounter young female drivers on a regular basis out on the road and the majority exhibit very poor road awareness, pulling out in front of vehicles, running red lights and so-on. Reading the description of the actual accident, there was negligence which has been delt with.

Hence my comments of attitude, and ability to cope with others actions and their ability to cope with ours.

It is a two way street.

Channa

Exxxaacctly.

We're quick to judge on poor driving - and true enough, drivers have a responsibililty given that they're driving a big hunk of metal. But so do all road users.

As cyclists, we significantly weaken our argument against the haters, and the inattentive, if we say that cyclists don't bear any responsibility when cycling around traffic. Some time triallers deserve criticism - as do likewise some drivers - to pretend that it's just the responsibility of drivers / motorists to deal with is simply blind bias.

 

[retrojon]

The way I read it is that she calls anyone in a TT a menace.

Well that's not the way it's written.

I do not think her comments were ever written in the knowledge that someone would analyse every word.
The word "some" is not in there, so I think it is pretty safe to say she means all TT participants.

If you personally have a problem with a particular rider then I suggest you make a note of the number and contact the organiser. At the least he would get a warning, disqualification or ban.

 

[Neil]

The way I read it is that she calls anyone in a TT a menace.

Well that's not the way it's written.

I do not think her comments were ever written in the knowledge that someone would analyse every word.
The word "some" is not in there, so I think it is pretty safe to say she means all TT participants.

Again, that's just bias.

She mentions some specific issues she has with they way some cyclists participate. And to be fair, other people - presumably cyclists, as they're members here - have commented on similar experiences.

Feel free to mount an argument about what she's written. Just looks highly bogus when you're actually foisting a strawman and arguing against your interpretation of what's there.

If you personally have a problem with a particular rider then I suggest you make a note of the number and contact the organiser. At the least he would get a warning, disqualification or ban.

I no longer drive the same route, so I don't personally encounter them, any more.

 

[retrojon]

Why do you keep using the word some? It isn't there. Stop changing her arguement.

The word "most" is, followed by what they are doing wrong.
Then you have the rest, that are not competitive, and what they are doing wrong.

 

[shovelon]

Sounds like the road laws are pretty close in the UK as US.

In the US, we don't have to gain a driver's liscence to operate a bicycle, animal, or even a farm implement on the roads. So by default, the bikers, horse riders, camel jockeys, oxen and mule enthusiasts are given special privilage and given right of way. Sort of no fault in a sense to calamity.

Yet as a registered motor vehicle operator, I had to take special training, pass a tough exam, and that holds me to a MUCH higher standard.

Sounds like the chic that wrote the letter wants cyclist banned from your highways. As Rodney King said "Cant we all just get along?".

 

[Neil]

Why do you keep using the word some? It isn't there. Stop changing her arguement.

I'm not changing anything...

The word "most" is, followed by what they are doing wrong. Then you have the rest, that are not competitive, and what they are doing wrong.

She doesn't ever use the word "rest" - read that paragraph carefully (see "seen groups").

And the reason I used the word "some" is because that's what my experience of cyclists in time trials was. Certainly not all the riders, but certainly sufficient of them, that it would certainly colour the event for those who may not be invovled in cycling to view it as maybe something that's incongruous with other traffic.

If people are so motivated to put (metaphoric) pen to paper, with some reasoned points, do you really think it's such a great approach to dismiss it as extreme nonsense? Or do you think - just for a fleeting second - that there may be some points worth consideration? That perhaps some of the cyclists invovled could behave in such a way as may not to alienate people who aren't just extremists saying that cyclist should get off the road and cycle on paths?

 

[pigman]

Ive just had another read at her letter. She makes some very valid points that would apply to SOME (maybe even the majority, I dunno) cyclists. Where she faults is that the tone of her letter infers that ALL cyclists ride irresponsibly, be they full-on racers or the less competitive (social cyclists). I also feel the reference to cyclists using the highway as a racetrack is a bit of sensationalism to overstress a point and canvass sympathy. A layman reading this thinks race track = high speed & reckless actions. If one were in a car on a racetrack, you would be thinking innappropriate and therefore dangerously high speeds. A cyclist in a timetrial is a bit different. Even under race conditions, the speed will still be nore more than 30mph. A non-racing cyclist could well be doing that speed and is therefore no different, but he wouldnt formally be racing (which incidentally means he'd be all over the road, by default )

There are several on here i reckon (me for one) who, had she written in a less alienating manner might, be more on her side. The problem is, even tho' she has some valid points, the wording only serves to piss us off.

 

[Neil]

Ive just had another read at her letter. She makes some very valid points that would apply to SOME (maybe even the majority, I dunno) cyclists. Where she faults is that the tone of her letter infers that ALL cyclists ride irresponsibly, be they full-on racers or the less competitive (social cyclists). I also feel the reference to cyclists using the highway as a racetrack is a bit of sensationalism to overstress a point and canvass sympathy. A layman reading this thinks race track = high speed & reckless actions. If one were in a car on a racetrack, you would be thinking innappropriate and therefore dangerously high speeds. A cyclist in a timetrial is a bit different. Even under race conditions, the speed will still be nore more than 30mph. A non-racing cyclist could well be doing that speed and is therefore no different, but he wouldnt formally be racing (which incidentally means he'd be all over the road, by default )

There are several on here i reckon (me for one) who, had she written in a less alienating manner might, be more on her side. The problem is, even tho' she has some valid points, the wording only serves to piss us off.

And no doubt that sentiment would be similar were she to read our comments.

Yet it's not a letter in a newspaper written from a cyclists perspective, and plenty in society (and it seems to be on the increase) are more than happy to marginalise cyclists.

So what to do we do? Fight the fight of the occluded middle? Or perhaps accept that just as cyclists have many arguments against the behaviour of drivers, perhaps some cyclists could do to address their behaviour, too?

'cos if we just act in a reactionary manner to every word of criticism, then we'll just get more and more marginalised.