I don't really understand the "cyclists are bad, cars are good" debate or vice versa.

Thing is some cyclists are good and some are bad. Some car drivers are good and some are bad. Some white van drivers are good and some are bad. Some taxi drivers are good and some are bad. Some motorcycle drivers are good and some motorcycle drivers are bad. Some BMW drivers are good and some are bad. Etc. Further , there is a yin and yang element to that in that sometimes the good do bad and sometimes the bad do good.

My commute in London isn't very far - only about 15km each direction per day and in that time, I overtake X cars per week and X cars overtake me and on top of that, I managed another 5,000 to 10,000km per year. Normally, the car and I coexist without me bothering them and they bothering me. Still, it only takes on aggressive ****, person not paying attention or someone who overtakes too closely to make it all go horribly wrong.

Presumably, the roads aren't owned by the driver. I'm not sure about this, but aren't the roads simply a public convenience put in place to facilitate transportation, and despite being specifically suited to the driver, are still a public rightaway to be used by anyone - car and bike alike.

In any event, I don't really have a point. This is nothing but a stream of thought. I just can't stand the pigeonholing that seems to occur on this topic.

I'm sick of the debate, to be honest. Just leave us alone!! Besides, the word "menace" in the title does not help at all.

Cyclists are huggable, loveable critters. Discuss.

I guess we can be a "menace" to pedestrians but to a car? Give me a break! Cars are a bigger menace to bikes!

easy is right - some cyclists are a menace (iPod users, yes you), some drivers are a menace (mothers in huge 4x4s concentrating on what's going on inside their tanks rather outside it, and especially the non-signalling-but-still-left-turning brigade which is growing daily, and includes, I might add, the rozzers) and some pedestrians are a menace. Good manners don't cost nuthin', however, and I find a bit of consideration, a smile and occasional gesture (with more than two fingers) for all of the above go a long way to (i) not being run over, (ii) making quick progress and (iii) making new friends...

BTW, tickets for the debate are 25 quid! That's a new pair of cleats, mate.

I was in London on Wednesday, attending a conference, and had to walk along the Embankment between Temple tube and Blackfriars mainline stations (Blackfriars tube is closed at the moment)

Initially, I was encouraged by the number of cyclists - thinking how good it was to see so many people saving money and keeping fit at the same time.

This soon passed when I crossed the road and had to dodge the red-light-jumping cyclists (Which seemed to be most of them, to be honest).

No wonder we cyclists have such a bad PR, when so many of us choose to act in such a dangerous/inconsiderate/illegal manner.

As stated by @easy, there are good and bad in all categories of road users, so it's a shame that it boils down to car vs bike vs van, when it should be bad vs good.

My commiserations go to those people who are sensible - it's a shame that other people's opinions of you are distorted by the behaviour of reckless individuals.

Easy is right. There are good and bad cyclists, and good and bad drivers. We can do our bit by obeying the rules of the road, traffic lights, etc. We should wear helmets, and makre sure we use lights in the dark. But the most careful driver is far more likley to harm others than the most reckless cyclist.

I'm coming to the belief that too many of these 'cycists are bad because of the way they ride' reports are too London-centric and so much of the mass-media have their heads stuffed up london's collective arse that they daren't look outside of the capital to see how the rest of the country (in behaves (in general) on a bike.

Anyway "Good Cylist Give Way for Pedestrian Crossing User" doesn't make a very good headline, does it.

When was the last time any of us remembered a good act of riding/driving/wwalking on a public highway? I know I don't that's certain. It's only the bad episodes we remember and repeat to others because thay're the only ones that make any real impact.

The other day i was riding home along the usual A roads and a car had broken down at the lights at a roundabout and was causing a bit a a jam. I got off my bike and pushed the(her) car to the edge of the road and checked whether the driver had a phone to get help - it took me all of about 1 minute to do then i carried on home.

The person couldn't have done it on their own and was probably feeling a bit awkward to say the least, so i just thought i'd help.

It still didn't stop some people shouting **** at me from their cars whilst i was helping. Some people are just idiots. The car or bike or horse & cart that they're in/on doesn't make any difference what so ever. A title like this is stereotyping thousands and is from the same mindset as racism sexism and so on. (Sorry to rant on! :-))

I like cars, their panels give me something to draw on with my cleats while I wait in traffic.

tomj113 wrote:

'A title like this is stereotyping thousands and is from the same mindset as racism sexism and so on. '

Quite so. In fact the Transport Research Laboratory conducted a major study a few years back, entitled 'Drivers' perceptions of cyclists' which found that cyclists in Britain are treated as being members of an 'out-group' by most motorists. This is exactly the same psychology as underpins hostility towards all out-groups, whether it takes the form of 'queer bashing', racism or rounding people up and herding them in to gas chambers...

Will Storr, writing in The Observer of 4 June 2006, accurately summarised the findings of the report as follows as follows:

'A recent report for the government commissioned by the Transport Research Foundation found that drivers treat cyclists as 'out-group'. According to social-identity theory, this means that there is a multi-forked bias against us, which takes the form of that pernicious trident of hate - discrimination, stereotyping and prejudice.

So, in the head of a typical driver, subconsciously and automatically, things like these happen: the behaviour of the worst cyclist is used to judge them all; any cash the council visibly spends on them seems maddeningly unfair; any accident is the cyclist's fault; when making a decision, the motorist puts the needs of other motorists first; any behaviour at all that is 'different' to the driver's own is wrong. And so on. These are precisely the same primeval mental sparks that lead to football hooliganism, gang warfare and racism. Provocative and hateful newspaper reports about 'two-wheeled terrorists' merely stir up tribalism - basic, brutal and bad. It's the most dangerous and atrocious human impulse there is.'

Excellent, BikingBernie. We should DEMAND that the name of the debate is changed and REMOVE the word MENACE. And if they don't do that, then BOYCOTT THE DEBATE!!

we could have a debate in the north and discuss

"london cyclists are w@n*&rs"!

But seriously ...... well partially, the word "cyclist" is the problem! I am a cyclist as I am addicted to bikes, I can speak 24/7 about the things, bikes are beings! Bike riders simply ride bikes!

i agree with MrRex ... bicycles are beings that just happen to have things sitting on them.

Replace the word cyclists with "blacks" ... see what I mean? disgusting discrimination. pigs.

What a completely stupid title.

There is a major difference between a car and a bike.

When a person gets on a bike, they're still the same person, but riding a bike. Whether good or bad, they're the same person.

Motor vehicles have a tendency to turn a normally mild-mannered individual into a power-crazed moron. I've even seen it happen to women.

Let's face it even the biggest cyclist isn't a match for a power-crazed wimp in a Citroen 2CV! [9 horsepower output]

They now must overtake all cyclists in their path, no matter if there's only a car's length of empty road in-front of the cyclist, or they are going to turn left immediately [left-hook].

Is this a London "problem"? With a visibly higher number of cyclists on it's roads and with the congestion charge supposedly reducing the central motorised vehicle numbers. Wouldn't this give an artificially higher cyclist to driver ratio than in most cities, possibly leaving the drivers feeling more vulnerable with less of there own kind to support their beliefs?

The point of the title is to encourage debate. It's meant to be provocative. I know plenty of posters could very sensibly argue against it - that's that point. If you swapped "cyclist" with "blacks" it would still be valid as a point to debate and thoroughly thrash... however, that debate would be equally tired and irrelevant.

I too am sick of the argument.

Boring argument, the fact is there are too many people on the roads, end of story.

The main difference is that bikes weigh c. 10kgs and other vehicles somewhere upwards of 125kgs (scooters) through 1,000kgs+ cars and so on...

Therefore, even the proportion of cyclists that are irresponsible generally don't kill pedestrians or other road users (except in very unusual and thankfully rare circumstances). Sadly, drivers of other vehicles all too often do kill people - about 3,000 times a year in the UK.

This is an old chestnut, it is the person who is the problem, not the bicycle.

Take the bike away from a serial offender and he will be a problem on a quad bike, scooter car or skateboard.

Certainly the issue needs dealing with, but understand the problem first.