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.

[yamsareyammy]

where I live, cycling is done for fun.
And they have cars.

op, do you have a car?

I suggest that your subject heading is wrong. What you really mean, is that those who use their bikes for work ourposes, are indeed not clogging up the roads with a car.

[rottentomatoes]

I do have a car Yamsareyammy but I use it for holidays and heavy shopping trips. The rest of the time I cycle/walk for commuting and general errands. I could drive to work, run errands so when I am on my bike there is one less car on the road.
I think there are many people who do the same as me.

[bobbywash]

Lies, damned lies and statistics. What no survey ever mentions is defensive attitudes of cyclists. IIRC one of the biggest causes of cyclist death or injury is at left turns, where cyclists are on the inside, or undertake to a junction, and the vehicle turns left, either into or across the cyclist.

Statisticly driver to blame, practically hard to say. I don't sit in the blindspot of vehcies on a left or right hand junction to minimise the risk.

Whilst it's admirable to cycle, it's dangerous, some cyclists scare me when I'm driving some don't. Those that rail against car drivers as a generic group, should have better things to worry about.

This is the equivalent of a fox hunting, what's feminism or political thread. No right or wrong answer, just a view that is unlikely to change. So unless you want confontation why start it. So OP yes YABU for starting a never ending argument thread and no YANBU for wanting road users to behave courteously to each other.

[RoooneyMara]

'CloudsAndTrees Fri 12-Jul-13 13:51:05


But you wouldn't feel obliged to pull over if you weren't holding anyone else up!'

There's nowhere else to go. You can't ride on the path, you can't ride on the road.

[rottentomatoes]

www.bikeradar.com/news/article/drivers-at-fault-in-majority-of-cycling-accidents-28489/

Interesting

[Minicooper]

As I drove dc to school recently, I drove through a green light and had to do an emergency stop as a cyclist flew through the red light. He sped off as I recovered - then realised it was my ex-husband! Don't think anyone would have believed it was an accident if I hadn't been able to stop in time.

[Sallystyle]

I hate cyclists who think they can ride on a path. There are tons of them near me and they sound their little bell to get me out of the way.

There are no cycle paths on these roads so they just ride of the pavement instead and then get pissed off if I don't quickly move out of their way. It's a pavement! you are not meant to be on it.

That is a huge pet peeve on mine, especially when they bomb around the corners then tut when I am there.

[WMittens]

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.

Yes, because that's bullshit - one cyclist may mean one less bus passenger.

If I started cycling to work, my three passengers would then drive themselves, so in that situation there would be an extra cyclist and two extra cars on the road (worst case scenario).

[BoneyBackJefferson]

rottentomatoes
unless you can verify no bias on the part of the person doing the report then the results are rubbish.

You would also need to ratify where the data originated.

london has proved how easy it is to twist statistics.

[rottentomatoes]

WMitten
"Yes, because that's bullshit - one cyclist may mean one less bus passenger."

Did you read my OP in full? see below

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.

[VinegarDrinker]

Boney the Westminster stats are from the police

[rottentomatoes]

boneybackjefferson

So in that case we should never ever use statistics to prove anything.

[LustyBusty]

rottentomatoes yep. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" you've heard of this quote?

[BoneyBackJefferson]

vinegar

Police reports tend to be "cyclist hit by car" they rarely say that the cyclist ran a red light at a busy junction. The "fault" is often not only with the driver of the car.

rottentomatoes

Statistics are a very unreliable means of imparting information, the non existant international league tables for schools are a case in point.

[VinegarDrinker]

They analysed all the collisions. Then allocated them to,three groups - driver at fault/cyclist at fault/no fault, both at fault or unable to tell.

However if it suits you to believe that the Council and the Met are part of an anti-driver conspiracy you just carry on with that.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

I don't believe that there is an "anti-driver" conspiracy, that is a fallacy that you have chosen to try and undermine the arguement that statistics are often twisted and misread for the purpose of bias.

As you have mentioned it what is the criteria to fit in to the three groups?

[VinegarDrinker]

I'm not aware of that info being in the public domain, but if you google Westminster cycling strategy there is more detail of the accident analysis and results in the draft report.

[WMittens]

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.

Yes, and I've addressed that point: it's bullshit.

One cyclist does not equate to one less car.

One less person on the 'overcrowded'* train system - what has that got to do with driving a car? Maybe I'm being a bit cold-hearted, but when I drive to work I don't really care if it's crowded on the train.

*Which certainly doesn't apply to train routes I travel on regularly, to Leeds and London at peak times.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

VinegarDrinker

"Westminster cycling strategy" so nothing to gain from twisting stats there then?

lets also not forget that rottentomatoes initial stance was that the stats (even though they are from one part of the country) were representative of all incidents in the country.

anyway NotYoMomma's post early on the thread pretty much sums it up for me.

[VinegarDrinker]

Yes, as I said, the Council and Met clearly have a hidden agenda

[BoneyBackJefferson]

you are the one that keeps mentioning the local council and the Met, As far as I am aware they are a separate entity to the Westminster cycling strategy.

But as you are so sure that I believe in an anti-driver conspracy I will leave you to it.

[VivaLeBeaver]

An interesting statistic? If one third of all short car journeys were made by bike, national heart disease rates would fall by between 5 and 10 percent (Bikes not Fumes, CTC, 1992). Info from BikeBiz.

[VinegarDrinker]

It's Westminster Council's cycling strategy document,which references the Met's statistics.

Anyway I'm off to bed.

[WMittens]

An interesting statistic? If one third of all short car journeys were made by bike, national heart disease rates would fall by between 5 and 10 percent (Bikes not Fumes, CTC, 1992). Info from BikeBiz.

The interesting thing about statistics is that they conveniently ignore real life, especially predictive statistics from studies funded by a party who has a vested interest in said prediction being true.