So why do cyclists get a bad name?

Cyclists get a bad name because its socially acceptable. Most car drivers think they are the best drivers in the world. A lot of Cyclists think they are beyond reproach. A lot of really poor car drivers are now in the 'Pro-Peloton' at the weekends.

All I can say is that I ride everyday of the week, 48 weeks a year. Sometimes I ride way too quick for the conditions and I have to reign myself in. But I never run lights, I always thank drivers for waiting and I'm getting better at not chasing down poor drivers and threatening to beat them senseless - I prefer just to keep my head down now.

I think better training all round is the answer. Car drivers should be tested more regularly and Cyclists should do some kind of CBT and defensive riding instruction.

I'm a cyclist and your post here is giving me a bad name. In no way do I want to be associated with your judgemental twattery.

One point that is often ignored is that many traffic lights are for controlling traffic so that certain roads and junctions don't get blocked by motor vehicles.

So, in these cases, what difference does it make if bikes go through on red?

If there was a bike lane, how is that any different to someone walking down the pavement?

I think we should be a bit ballanced in our attitutes to unlit/low-viz cyclists.

On one hand, cycling on a 'proper' road at night without lights is maddness, no argument there.

On the other, I don't get upset when I see kids without lights in well-lit, built-up areas. I went out for a spin last night after dark and saw 4 or 5 of the usual suspects: young lads, no lights, on the pavement, one of them giving their mate a backie. I had no trouble spotting them and the same goes if I'm driving the car. I just don't think it's a big deal and I'd rather see these kids outside and being active than indoors locked onto games consoles, even if they don't play by all the rules.

THAT WAS ME! Not really - he sounds like a pillock.

There are loads of kids in South london who cycle around on black bikes, wearing black clothes and no lights at night time...quite often with more than one kid on the bike. Is there any kind of cycling education now? When I was a bairn it was all cycling proficiency tests and public service ads about safe cycling. It was boring as a kid - but at least it instilled a bit of common sense about safe riding.

Got to get this one off my chest. To the complete Darwinian f#ckwit who was cycling on the A368 in Somerset last night (opp direction to me) at 2115 in dark clothes, no helmet, no lights, reflectors, nothing!...barely visible. WTF do you think you were playing at! Like me, every motorist who saw you (at about 2 car lengths!) must have said WTF!! and non-cyclists would have had 'zero sympathy' for reports of cyclists who get 'totalled' on the roads. Highly likely he's never heard of this forum anyway.

Human beings are selfish c***s whether on four wheel, two wheels or two legs.

I know, it sucks.

The actions of the people mentioned would be bad regardless of what they were on but it's more polarised as unlike driving anyone can get on a bike and ride. This I feel leads to having more road users with little or no idea of how to act safely. We all have our horror stories of seeing what these inexperience riders do,

I know it's not popular or probably even remotely enforceable but I do feel if you are going to be on the road with a bike you need to prove you can be.

Also considering how small a % of road users are cyclists their actions are far more noticable and I feel because they are more likely to impact someones journey , slow them down , get past them in traffic etc they have a higher chance of been remembered over other more commonplace traffic. You could even argue that good roads users will remember them more as they will be cautious around them.

And as much we would like to think it's only inexperienced riders who contribute to the ire cycling can get we cannot discount the more experienced ones who seem to have an entitlement complex exhibit poor behaviour as well.

Quote:

I think we need to challenge the notion of the "bad name" whenever it is trotted out.

Absolutely.

Try this: next time someone says that xxx "gives cyclists a bad name" try asking them to replace the word "cyclist" with any other "group"
Black people, gay people, Jewish people. Anything you want really.

Then ask if they'd use the same kind of contextual argument. Of course they wouldn't - at best they'd be accused of putting forward a stupid argument, at worst they'd be up on charges of inciting racial/religious hatred or homophobia.

As mentioned above, if a "cyclist" jumps a red light and it doesn't affect you or anyone else, is it a problem? Now let's say a pedestrian crosses the road on a red man and it doesn't affect you or anyone else, does that give all pedestrians a bad name?

Pointless argument and one that's easy to refute.

That kind of attitude is what really gets up the decent drivers noses, especially the inference that it's only the drivers who should be judged.

I don't see anyone here suggesting that only drivers should be judged. Everyone is subject to the same rules of the road. What I am challenging is the popular assertion that cyclists have a bad name and have some collective responsibility to assume the moral high ground before they can be taken seriously.
Speaking personally, as a motorist, all the factual evidence I can see suggests that we are the problem, not cyclists, and the roads would be far safer if there were more people cycling and fewer driving.
I don't think it would actually transform attitudes if every cyclist behaved perfectly, and as Michael Hutchinson said "Why should my safety be dependent on the behaviour of other people?"
There's nothing tribal about this, and there are very few adult cyclists who are not also drivers. I think we need to challenge the notion of the "bad name" whenever it is trotted out. Not in a sensationalist or confrontational manner; simply by asking people to look at the facts and consider if they have really thought about what makes the roads dangerous, or if they are just repeating what everyone else said.

They have a bad name simply because car drivers generally don't want them on the road. It doesn't matter what we do as cyclists it doesn't seem to improve much. It will only happen when there are so many more cyclists and they will have to take note, and many of those drivers become cyclists.

I personally don't see what the fuss is about, but of course we come from one of the most 'tribal' countries in the world where everybody is labelled and scrutinised and judged on what they do. You can see the way people look at you sometimes...funny enough I do the same in that respect and say, Daily Mail reader. I simply don't care what others think of me but i remain polite as best as I can.

Van driver parked on yellow lines - van driver is an idiot

Car driver on mobile phone - car driver is an idiot. And a dangerous one.

Lorry driver speeding - Lorry driver is a dangerous idiot.

Cyclist goes through red - gives cyclists a bad name.

Cyclist filters legally - gives cyclists a bad name.

Cyclist doesn't wear helmet or high vis - gives cyclists a bad name.

What gives cyclists a bad name is the perpetual label that whatever any one of them does should be reflected on all of them. It has to stop.

Cyclists are human. Most humans are f**king stupid most of the time.

Eebijeebi, those people are going a-to-b in a manner that reflects them not having 2 tonnes of killing motorized machine along for the ride. Pedestrians are even more "without a care in the world", because they have even less weight of killing potential. In the car, you are bringing a lot of danger to everyone, mostly to other people than yourself. Stop judging these people who bring approximately 10,000 times less danger to the rest of us than you do. Nice that you asked the question though, fair play.

They're not cyclists. They're people on bikes. Cyclists know how to ride properly. I don't want to be treated as part of the same minority group as them.

For example, out on on Saturday I stopped with a couple of others to let the ride regroup. A driver stops, winds down the window and, pointing back down the road, says "They all jumped a red light!" There was no way to know we were together (and I don't even know if the people referred to were part of the group, they were that far back).

When I replied "What are you telling me for?" they looked disgusted and drove off. Clearly every person on a bike defines everyone who rides in the eyes of many non-cyclists.

9 out of 168 ATS accidents caused by cyclists. Put that into the proportion of cycles/vehicles and I doubt it will look good as a percentage of users.
So what is the significance of percentage of road users in this case? If the objective is harm reduction, I would argue that you concentrate on the cause of 95% of the absolute number of accidents. There was actually some analysis on this website which suggested that if you do adjust figures to reflect accidents per pedestrian miles walked, cyclists still present a much lower risk to pedestrians than motorists.

I do like statistics, or facts, rather than anecdotes. No one is suggesting that cyclists can do no wrong, but this is not a balanced problem. The overwhelming majority of harm is caused by motorists, and by any measure cycling presents a low risk to other road users. I am suggesting we should challenge the false popular perception instead of saying cyclists have some sort of collective responsibility to be whiter than white.

The title question is actually the really important one... why do cyclists have such a bad name?

We are all trotting out the usual; red light jumping, mobile use, blah, blah, blah, but these are all things that those calling cyclists out will witness daily from car drivers/pedestrians, without labeling or bad mouthing complete user groups...

What I am trying to say is that the obvious behavioral stuff is merely the justification for the label, but the label is already there... why is that?

Its important, as to me, doing as some people say and behaving impeccably on the road will make no difference, as its not addressing the root cause of the problem.

To have a stab at why, may I put forward;

1. The hierarchical nature of our society in action... car drivers are seen as richer and better than lowly bike riders... when cyclists are seen to be getting ahead in queues etc, this goes against the hierarchical system and only deepens animosity.

2. Dealing with cyclists in a car will highlight our own short comings as car drivers - many are not comfortable with how, when and what is appropriate overtaking procedures - which will generate resentment for the thing (cyclists) that is highlighting this shortcoming. Again this is compounded when cyclists are seen to be doing stuff that makes it harder to overtake.

3. Media coverage and the tribe mentality. Society can't help itself.. the media say its OK to hate cyclists, so everyone feels that they should, and its right to hate cyclists.

Any thoughts?