...does what it says on the tin. Remember Rule 163 : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
||||
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
| 25 |
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I dispute this.
When sitting in a slow moving queue of traffic a cyclist that appears rapidly (in relation to the rest of the traffic) on ones inside where the wing / door mirror (when fitted) has a poorer field of view can be quite intimidating.
Also I have had my paintwork scratched by a cyclist undertaking me when I was stationary at traffic lights by scraping his peddles along the door of my car. He then jumped the red light and cycled away crossing the road between the vehicles whose right of way it was and cycled off into the distance.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I've witnessed much the same when the cyclist was overtaking as well, or to be completely accurate they were cycling down the middle of a two two lane carriage way, between the two lanes of stationary cars.
When one is sitting stationary paying attention to what's going on ahead to have something appear rapidly in ones peripheral vision can be very intimidating regardless of which side it appears on.
(no subject)
(no subject)
But my point remains that cyclists can and do intimidate car drivers when passing them, just not all the time, much as car drivers don't intimidate all cyclists every time they pass them.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I was merely citing evidence to contradict the statement that
So the observation that my point is unbalanced is irrelevant. I am not claiming that intimidation by either group is justified or good or whatever. It clearly isn't either justified or good, but denying that it happens doesn't help the situation.
(no subject)
I didn't say you claimed that car drivers never intimidate cyclists. Why are you trying to imply, through your rhetorical question, that I did?
As for relevance, in the wider question under discussion, yes it is an unbalanced contribution and this is relevant: your contribution to a discussion of life and death matters is a complaint about your precious paintwork.
(no subject)
What you seem not to understand is that I actually don't care a jot for my paintwork. What I do care about is somebody damaging something that isn't theirs, knowing that they did so and just pissing off into the sunset. I would have been just as cross had the paintwork not been mine, but been somebody else's. It's not the paintwork itself that matters it is the wider implications of the actions taken and decisions made.
The person who caused the damage would quite justly be just as upset if I or somebody else did similar to them. That sort of behaviour is bad. It teaches kids that breaking things is OK. It teaches them that running away from your responsibilities is OK. It could ultimately help to teach them that knocking somebody off their bike and sodding off is OK. All of those things are bad and wrong and people who do them need their ways correcting, whether that is through a good shouting at by their parents, or a fine or a custodial sentence, or whatever.
(no subject)
(no subject)
This is a joke, right ? You're sitting in a ton of glass and metal - practically in a tank - and you're "intimidated" by someone who "appears rapidly" ? What are you worried about ? They might collide with you and get blood and guts on your paintwork ?
Also I have had my paintwork scratched ...
If we're doing horror anecdotes:
I have been run into multiple times by drivers deliberately intending to intimidate me and who disregard my clear signals to keep away. I often have to overshoot my destination because the vehicle behind is tailgating me at 20mph and stopping would mean getting rammed.
I have been personally injured and only avoided more serious injuries or death through my own agility. I have had to sue drivers four or five times (I lose count!) to recover a total of thousands of pounds of damage to my vehicles; I've had a cycle completely destroyed by a red light jumping motorist. A driver who rammed me from behind then got out of his car and attacked me in person - in front of an independent witness - grabbing me by the neck hard enough to leave marks visible tens of minutes later. In none of these serious incidents have there been any prosecutions.
In the whole country, drivers kill 3000 people a year.
You're using the comparatively trivial actions of some arsehole as a stick with which to beat the victims of an epidemic of serious violent crime committed with almost complete impunity.
Under the circumstances I don't give a shit about your paintwork.
Ian Jackson
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
It is unfortunate that a small number of cyclists seem to think that all motorists are out to get them. Thankfully this mindset is mistaken. Yes, a few bad motorists may be out to get cyclists. Frequently they seem to be out to get other drivers as well.
Cars (and vans and lorries) who cut up cyclists are just as likely to cut up other larger motorised vehicles as well. They generally aren't out to just get a cyclist, they want the whole road to themselves.
To be clear on matters the reason I gave the response I did previously was because the poster seemed determined to be aggressive and obnoxious regardless of what was said. The I'm right whatever anybody else says mentality that incites aggression. It was my way of pointing out I was walking away from his aggressive behaviour. (I considered just not replying at all, but then it is far less obvious that one is not participating any longer and yes, I'm sure that I could have done it better.) His subsequent response just demonstrates that he is nothing more than a militant who appears to like to stir up trouble and hatred. Indeed the type of person who put behind the wheel of a car would probably end up knocking a cyclist off their bike. I hope that I'm wrong in that assessment, but at the moment that is how he comes over to me.
(no subject)
I don't think Matthew could be included in this small minority (and I certainly hope you'd agree there), and I don't think Ian is either. Given that *some* motorists behave that way, and you can't tell by looking which ones, it's often prudent to behave when cycling as if that were true though.
Cars (and vans and lorries) who cut up cyclists are just as likely to cut up other larger motorised vehicles as well. They generally aren't out to just get a cyclist, they want the whole road to themselves.
Cutting up other vehicles is always bad, and can leave to accidents. Most of the time it doesn't. When you're on a bike it's *fucking* scary though.
I was just coming into work this morning, and coming up to a junction with a left turn lane I followed the bike lane to go straight on up the middle. The bike lane runs out before the bike box at the lights, leaving you just to the left of the white line. As I was approaching the bike box the lights changed, so I pulled slightly over right into the middle of the bike box, because I know that the left-turn lane has an earlier phase in the traffic-light sequence and that cars might need to pass me on the left. And as I did so the car behind me (in the straight-on lane) who had hit the accelerator on amber came hurting past me with 6 inches to spare. I wasn't hurt, but if I'd been trying to pull any further into the straight-on lane I would have been, because he left *no* room for error. I swore in reaction, stood holding my chest as my heart raced, and attempted not to burst into tears and get myself back under control before the lights came round again. That driver probably didn't even realise he did that to me.
You say you don't drive like that, and actually I believe you. But Matthew's original post wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at making sure that drivers who *aren't* aware of how much space a cyclist needs become aware. And aware all the time when driving, not just aware in an abstract sense if asked about it. Aware even when they're in a hurry and trying to catch the lights. And Matthew made the post because of *several* incidents like the one I had this morning.
When this sort of thing is routine can you see why people coming along and complaining about the behaviour of cyclists and the fact they can cause minor scratches to cars might get someone's back up? The point someone else makes below that they hate to see bad cycling because they're scared of *hurting* the cyclists is much more compelling, even if it's equally irrelevant to Matthew's point.
Regardless of the behaviour of anyone and everyone else involved Rule #163 is still important, and it's still something that a lot more drivers need to be better aware of. And I think even driving *instructors* need to be better aware of it too, given how mine in the past have reacted to the amount of space I give bikes.
(no subject)
You're quite unbelievable! If someone you know gets burgled, do you go round saying "well I don't know why they're so angry, I bet if they had a crowbar they'd break into other people's houses all the time"?
(no subject)
You're quite unbelievable! If someone you know gets burgled, do you go round saying "well I don't know why they're so angry, I bet if they had a crowbar they'd break into other people's houses all the time"?
(no subject)
(no subject)
I have never heard of a driver being killed by a cyclists poor cycling but I am the sister of someone who was maimed and very nearly killed* by some idiot's dangerous driving. The idiot in question didn't even lose his license. His fine came to £5 per break in my brother's bones.
Can you see how responding to someone's complaint that their life is regularly endangered by people's dangerous aggressive behaviour with an anecdote about how your paintwork got scratch makes you you sound like a prick?
*and when I say "nearly killed" I mean that the doctors who operated upon my brother said that the majority of people in that kind of accident die.
(no subject)
(no subject)
You say you are sometimes intimidated by a cyclist appearing from an unexpected direction; I can see that might be alarming (although I have never found myself intimidated by a cyclist whilst driving). I suspect your perceived risk of personal harm is pretty small, though[1] - the most likely outcome is that the cyclist gets it wrong and damages your car. If they then cycle off you are lumbered with paying for your own repairs, with little prospect of getting your money back from the errant cyclist; that sucks. Don't for a moment think I don't disapprove of cyclists who behave like this.
The flip side is that when drivers intimidate cyclists, those cyclists are at real danger of physical injury or even death. In almost all car / cyclist collisions, the cyclist will come off much much worse. In the clear majority of intimidation incidents between motorists and cyclists, the motorist will be the aggressor, and the cyclist will be at the much much greater risk of harm. Incidents where the cyclist is the aggressor are a tiny minority, and the risk to the motorist are much smaller. The differential in power and protection in these incidents and collisions is overwhelming.
I think at this point I segue into the point I made to
[1] statistically your risk of personal harm in these situations must be almost zero
(no subject)
I have suffered from far more intimidation and risk to my life from car drivers, both when cycling and when driving.
This whole thread is stargely reminiscent of the LJ wank when someone says "Isn't it terrible that so many women are raped and sexually assaulted" and is met by a chorus of "Not all men are rapists" and "Some men men are raped too".
(no subject)