Aibu to think it's high time some cyclist haters realised that for every cyclist on the road it means there is one less car.

[rottentomatoes]

On my bike this morning and as is so common a motorist shouted some abuse at me. Why? Because I held the driver up for about 20 secs until they could over take me when the road widened even though I was cycling absolutely legally.

AIBU to think it's high time motorists stopped this and thought about the fact that for every cyclist there is one less car or person squeezed on the overcrowded train system.

[VivaLeBeaver]

I have two vehicles, so as I pay two lots of "road tax" does that give me twice as much right to be on the road as everyone else? No, thought not. So thenot paying tax argument is very silly.

I'm insured, I don't run red lights, I admit on my morning commute there is a 5m section of pavement between cycle lane and road that I cycle on. It's 6:30 am and no pedestrians about, if there were I'd get off and push.

I give way to pedestrians on shared use paths, even the ones weaving about all over the place with no idea I'm there and dogs running about out of control.

I give way to horses and will happily wait behind them until safe to pass.

On single track, narrow roads if there's a car behind me I will pull in when safe to do so. However I couldn't be expected to keep doing that every minute if there were a lot of cars, I'd never get anywhere.....never been on a narrow road that busy though.

In town though the cars hold me up more than I hold the cars up. I'm always stuck in a queue of traffic, struggling to legally filter as they block me. So car drivers aren't courteous enough to pull over to let me through even though in heavy traffic I'm faster.

[whatsthatcomingoverthehill]

"Yes but those cheery waves can come across as quite aggressive. I am not saying you are, but it is the same to me as any other sarcastic/rude gesture."

Good. It was meant to be. She was driving dangerously for no reason putting me at risk, yet you consider a sarcastic wave to be a problem? What I really wanted to do was knock her wing mirror off, so I thought I'd done quite well to restrain myself.

[VinegarDrinker]

Good point, Viva - if cyclists should pull over for motorists on country roads, motorists should definitely pull over/make room for cyclists in town!

[edwinamerckx]

overthehill If the intent is sarcasm, then that's a problem. It's in the same category as abusive gestures, verbal abuse and aggressive use of the horn. At best it achieves nothing, at worst it might provoke potentially violent retaliation.

Most likely, it will perpetuate ill-feeling against cyclists in the recipient.

The reaction to any road incident should always be 'what could I do better in future to avoid an incident like that?'

[BlessedDespair]

It's easier to report a dangerous driver than a dangerous cyclist. I think bikes should have reg plates and be insured before being allowed on the road

[whatsthatcomingoverthehill]

"It's easier to report a dangerous driver than a dangerous cyclist. I think bikes should have reg plates and be insured before being allowed on the road"

And how many incidents do you know of where cyclists have needed insurance due to damage to someone else that was their own fault?

[VivaLeBeaver]

I think setting up and running a scheme of cycle registration and even insurance would cost more money than would make sense. You'd need a whole other dvla size organisation.

Plus a cycle isn't big enough to carry a registration plate that would be big enough to be visible.

[rottentomatoes]

mavissnapdragon
"The Westminster research, if road users in that area are broken down into say 3% cyclists and 97% drivers, for 20% of the accidents to be caused by cyclists would show that cyclists are more dangerous. Without those figures, the 68% vs 20% is pretty meaningless."

That's the most ridiculous logic I have ever heard. It's not meaningless at all. It shows that accidents involving cyclists are far more often the fault of the driver. It's irrelevant how many cars cyclists pedestrians or pigeons are on the road FFS!

[BlessedDespair]

It might be more expensive and time consuming but it would be so much easier if they were....

• Same cyclist runs red lights every week, would finally be able to report him >_<
  
• Cyclists who never have lights on or wear hiviz when its dark. If they were driving a car the police would pull them over
  
• The cyclist who hit the side of my friends car (causing a nice big dent), completely cyclists fault
  

I have insurance for my horse and rider insurance for me. His bum is probably big enough for a reg plate ;)

[lustybusty]

edwina (and any other bicycle&motorbike&car users)
In the area I live, in summer especially, there are a lot of push bikes and motorbikes, along with a huuuuuge amount of cars. Where am I best locating myself in the road, when in traffic jam/waiting at roundabout/waiting at lights? Obviously, ideally, I'd be far enough from the kerb (3-4ft) to allow a cyclist easy passage, with a similar or more gap to the right for motorbikes. But, this is not possible. If I'm too far left (allowing the motorbikes past on the right) I get cyclists banging on the boot (happened 3 times in the last 4 weeks). If I'm too far right (allowing push bikes through on the left) I get motorbikers giving me the "wanker" as they scream past me (twice in 4 weeks).
I am trying to be considerate (I will give a cyclist the same room as I give a car, whether following or overtaking, and if I see a motorbike approaching in my mirror I pull way left to give them more room to pass safely), but this issue I'm struggling with. Or do I just say "fuck the lot of you", be an inconsiderate driver and leave not enough room both sides?

[VivaLeBeaver]

Would you really ring up and report a car running a red light? I don't think the police would prosecute even if you did, it would be their word against yours and they'd just deny it. T be honest I'd think it was a waste of police time. Fair enough if the police catch them at it, whether cyclist or car and do them for it.....but then a reg plate would make no difference.

[whatsthatcomingoverthehill]

BlessedDespair

Do you report drivers who've run red lights, and do you really think the police could/would do anything about it if you did?

[whatsthatcomingoverthehill]

lustybusty

You don't have to be in any position on the road, as long as you're not in a cycle lane etc, so I wouldn't think about it and ignore them/tell them to fuck off (whichever is your preference).

[BlessedDespair]

If it was the same car almost causing an accident on an almost daily basis then yes. Safer to report it and hope for the best than watch him hit by a car I'd like to think

If the police do nothing then I won't feel like I did nothing if I do see him get hit. Regardless of the fact that it will be his fault and really is only a matter of time...

[BlessedDespair]

Also wonder why cyclists are the only road users allowed to do time trials cough, cough, race

[LondonMan]

And Mavis - The relative numbers of cycles and cars in the Westminster study is irrelevant to the argument - 100% of the accidents studies involved 1 bike and 1 motor vehicle. In 68% of these accidents, the motorist was found to be at fault.

If you can somehow interpret this as showing that cyclists are more dangerous than cars, then I suggest you apply for the Fields Medal as you have clearly invented a whole new branch of statistics, previously unknown to the mathematical world.

So in 68% of accidents, the car driver is at fault. If the ratio of cars to bicycles is exactly 68%, then an individual car driver is as likely to be at fault in an accident as an individual cyclist. (Number of "at fault" accidents divided by number of "vehicles.") If the ratio is much higher, then each individual car driver is much less likely to be involved in an accident than each individual cyclist.

To illustrate, assume 68000 drivers, 32000 cyclists, 100 accidents, car driver at fault 68 times and cyclist 32 times. 68/68000 = 1/1000 car drivers at fault, 32/32000 = 1/1000 cyclists at fault. If in fact there are (say) 84,000 drivers and 16,000 cyclists, the 68/84000 car drivers at fault = 0.08% compared to 32/16000 = 0.20% cyclists, so each cyclist more than twice as likely to be at fault.

(I don't really care about this issue - but I want that medal.)

[lustybusty]

whatsthat thanks, I know I don't have to be in a certain position, I was just sorta scouting for opinion, iyswim. Think I'll put the roof down, take up a massively inconvenient (but legal) road position and tell the haters to do one.

[NoComet]

No there sodding isn't, round here 90% of them are recreational cyclists, being smug about keeping fit.

[rottentomatoes]

pobblewhohasnotoes
"However cyclists who ignore pedestrian crossings and the green man drive me nuts! Bloody rude."

The research also revealed that there were 133 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians in the past three years. Of these, 60 per cent were caused by the pedestrian, while 40 per cent were caused by the cyclist.

[rottentomatoes]

and to add

"About 28 per cent of these incidents were caused by pedestrians failing to look properly, and only 8 per cent were caused by cyclists ignoring traffic lights."

[Pennyacrossthehall]

@ LondonMan
The critical factor is 68 per cent of crashes between drivers and cyclists are the fault of the motorist

So the survey is of the small subset of the large population of drivers and cyclists that have already collided. The numbers of each in total are no longer relevant.

[cumfy]

Surely car drivers are the people who have chosen a mode of transport which inconveniences others.

There simply wouldn't be any traffic jams if everyone rode bikes! QED.

[rottentomatoes]

Londonman

You're totally missing the point. You can't take the total number of cars and cyclists into account. The stats are not trying to show who is overall safest on the road the figures of car to car and bike to bike van to car etc etc crashes are not taken into account.
It is simply showing that contrary to belief the vast majority of accidents involving a bike and a car are the car drivers fault.

[rottentomatoes]

@londonman

your argument is like someone saying which is bigger y or z and the stats show z but you argue actually x is the biggest with no stats to back it up.

It's not up for question.