Bizarre Reaction

[User]

 

[endoman]

I do similar, I live on off a one way road, used to be two way, so wide, but to go all the way round the lump on the bike adds nearly a mile, so I cut the corner and do the 700 yds uphill against the very little traffic. Never had a problem. We do get the occasional car coming the wrong way, but it's no major event.

I never do it in the car, I suppose if I'm riding south then I also do 30 yds the wrong way in that direction as well. Very rural so rarely see a car. Last ride was 25 minutes until I saw a vehicle.

 

[HLaB]

A while back I was in a part of my local town for about the first time in 8 years (I'd been abroad for 5 years and then lived in another town for 3 years) and I got caught out with a street that had been two-way which had been converted to oneway I did the scoot thing going up between parked cars when I encountered any traffic, got all the way to almost the end no problem, done the exact same for the last car but they took offence to my minor indiscretion too I think the Goofy Motormania cartoon sums up best how some folk change when they get in a car.

 

[Poacher]

I had a similar experience a few years back when riding up Goosegate in Nottingham, against the flow of motorised traffic. One driver deliberately aimed his car at me and I had to bale out onto the footpath. What he didn't know was that i was riding on a recently created contraflow cycle lane. I still regret not getting his reg or checking for CCTV coverage of the incident.

 

[fossyant]

Rule one on a bike. You always go the long way round. No shortcuts. More training you see.

 

[Hitcher]

Glad that you are going to push along the pavement now.
Would you drive the wrong way in your car to save 5minutes?
Cyclists committing 'minor' traffic offences destroy any good impression that the 'well-behaved majority' have created and anger motorists putting bikes at greater future risk.

 

[enas]

Would you drive the wrong way in your car to save 5minutes?

The fact that there are more and more cycle-only contraflow lanes, and, in other cities in other countries a generalised exemption for cyclists from one-way streets (i.e. cyclists are allowed to cycle in either direction on any street, irrespective of signage, which applies only to motorised traffic), shows that what you can do in your car and on your bicycle are two quite distinct things. Therefore, that question is quite irrelevant.

Cyclists committing 'minor' traffic offences destroy any good impression that the 'well-behaved majority' have created and anger motorists putting bikes at greater future risk.

I'm more than sick of this argument. It has all the characteristics of victim blaming. How is any one else to be blamed for that motorist putting yourself at risk? This type of argument really sounds to me like an excuse to the "angry motorist". Whether I cycle or drive, I see a lot of motorist committing all sort of traffic offences (including jumping red lights, that I witness much more from cars than cyclists, believe it or not). As a cyclist or driver, I direct my anger specifically at the offending driver, and no one else. That would be bizarre, really.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Cyclists committing 'minor' traffic offences destroy any good impression that the 'well-behaved majority' have created and anger motorists putting bikes at greater future risk.

I'm more than sick of this argument. It has all the characteristics of victim blaming.

I don't think Hitcher was victim blaming. The point is that many motorists do stereotype, and do seem to believe it is their prerogative to use their cars to "teach all these bl**dy cyclists a lesson". You are talking about the World as it should be; Hitcher is talking about the World as it is.

 

[enas]

Hitcher is talking about the World as it is.

Well if you're to accept the "word as it is" and that's it, you might as well stop cycling altogether, as many motorists do think cyclists aren't/shouldn't be allowed to be on the streets. I can't accept that. My problem with the argument isn't that it isn't true. Of course it is, of course, drivers do stereotype based on their biased perception of cyclists (although I don't accept it's because of the "badly-behaving minority" - those drivers already formed their stereotype and seek to reinforce it looking at that badly-behaving cyclist, even if it's one in a thousand). My problem is that so many cyclists seem to have accepted and integrated this state of affairs, and use this (unconsciously obviously) as an excuse to the driver and shifting the blame to the "badly-behaving cyclist".

As an extreme caricature of this, I remember a cyclist who stopped at a red light, and got rear-ended by the following car. He was then telling me that this is all the fault of red-light jumpers, because then drivers learn not to expect cyclist to stop at all, so that's why this car didn't anticipate this cyclist stopping. The fact that the driver was actually jumping the red light himself didn't even get a mention in his story. That's, if you ask me, odd. And going back to Hitcher's comment, how can a "minor offence" committed by a cyclist (and I do claim it is a "minor offence", I gave some reasons for that) be enough reason for a driver to deliberately try to knock a cyclist down?

 

[col]

If you catch someone in a bad mood, they are going to have a go at the slightest excuse. Next time he might not even register your there. The weird and wonderful world of emotions.

 

[mickle]

Glad that you are going to push along the pavement now.
Would you drive the wrong way in your car to save 5minutes?
Cyclists committing 'minor' traffic offences destroy any good impression that the 'well-behaved majority' have created and anger motorists putting bikes at greater future risk.

Bollocks.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Well if you're to accept the "word as it is" and that's it, you might as well stop cycling altogether, as many motorists do think cyclists aren't/shouldn't be allowed to be on the streets. I can't accept that. My problem with the argument isn't that it isn't true. Of course it is, of course, drivers do stereotype based on their biased perception of cyclists (although I don't accept it's because of the "badly-behaving minority" - those drivers already formed their stereotype and seek to reinforce it looking at that badly-behaving cyclist, even if it's one in a thousand). My problem is that so many cyclists seem to have accepted and integrated this state of affairs, and use this (unconsciously obviously) as an excuse to the driver and shifting the blame to the "badly-behaving cyclist".

Complete strawman argument there. Nobody said anything about accepting the state of affairs. If we consider your argument in the context of the topic, and the argument that Hitcher made, which is what we were discussing, then you are arguing that the way to address the problem is to ride the wrong way down one-way streets, to jump red lights, to ride on pavements, and do all the other things the we get stereotyped for. How on earth do you expect that to help the situation?

 

[Hitcher]

The fact that there are more and more cycle-only contraflow lanes, and, in other cities in other countries a generalised exemption for cyclists from one-way streets (i.e. cyclists are allowed to cycle in either direction on any street, irrespective of signage, which applies only to motorised traffic), shows that what you can do in your car and on your bicycle are two quite distinct things. Therefore, that question is quite irrelevant.

Yours is the irrelevant point. It is not allowed in this country and this is the country whose laws/rules/highway code apply.
The actual reason why this should be the case are that the culture is not yet as cycle aware as other countries. eg Pedestrians may step out having only looked one way, cars are not aware that you may be there.
How about 'Would you not pay your tv license, as you can get it anyway, they won't catch you, and no one is harmed by it not being paid?'

I'm more than sick of this argument. It has all the characteristics of victim blaming. How is any one else to be blamed for that motorist putting yourself at risk? This type of argument really sounds to me like an excuse to the "angry motorist". Whether I cycle or drive, I see a lot of motorist committing all sort of traffic offences (including jumping red lights, that I witness much more from cars than cyclists, believe it or not). As a cyclist or driver, I direct my anger specifically at the offending driver, and no one else. That would be bizarre, really.

So actually all of my anger is directed at the offending road user. (Not DRIVER) In this case it is User9609 and a motorist. And while the motorists actions were more dangerous, I would be equally angry with User9609 if there had been no motorist, and it was just a post about cycling the wrong way down a one way street.

Of course we shouldn't accept the status quo, so write to your council, lobby your mp etc etc , and get a contraflow cycle lane put it. Don't just say, "Well it would be fine in Holland, so I'm doing it here."

Thanks for your input mickle.

 

[mickle]

Thanks for your input mickle.

Welcome.

 

[enas]

you are arguing that the way to address the problem is to ride the wrong way down one-way streets, to jump red lights, to ride on pavements, and do all the other things the we get stereotyped for.

Excuse me?

How about 'Would you not pay your tv license, as you can get it anyway, they won't catch you, and no one is harmed by it not being paid?'

I don't see how's that relevant? I, for one, didn't condone cycling the wrong way (I never do it myself, where I live, in Ireland, where the laws and the cycling culture are very similar to the UK). But the OP himself acknowledges he's doing something wrong, and even admits he would have been happy to receive a fine for it, had he been reporting the driver with video evidence.

Don't just say, "Well it would be fine in Holland, so I'm doing it here."

Again, you both imply that I condone cycling the wrong way and "all the other things the we get stereotyped for". I haven't said anything like that, and accept all my apologies if I said anything that you interpreted as such. My point was that I don't accept that the badly behaving cyclists are to be held responsible for the fact that bad drivers put yourself at risk. I always ride by the book, I've nothing to reproach myself. When a driver or cyclist puts me at risk, my anger is rightfully directed at them and only them. I won't blame the red-light jumping cyclist that the driver saw minutes ago for having put him in bad mood causing him to feel frustrated at me.