Changing the behaviour of cyclists

[sheddy]

For the same reason there are no Cycling pull out supplemements in the weekend papers with test reports of the latest commuter bikes and reviews of new fangled dog baskets to fit your bicycle handlebars.
There just is not the interest in the UK.

Point taken, but does anyone know if cycling regularly features on Danish, Dutch, German or French TV ?

 

[HJ]

I always wonder why there isn't a regular magazine style TV prog on cycling ?

Try the Adventure Show, although if you are south of the border you have to rely on the iPlayer, but that is just recreational cycling. What we really need is more utility cyclist, we already have too many poncy Lycra club roadies...

 

[bauldbairn]

What we really need is more utility cyclist, we already have too many poncy Lycra club roadies...

As a utility cyclist I have to agree!

 

[Cab]

I hear just as many complaints about cyclists doing things that are legal (claiming the lane, riding two aside, not using the cycle lane, filtering) as I do about them doing things that are illegal (RLJ, no lights, etc.) The only conclusion I can draw is that its cyclists that get peoples goats, not any associated law breaking. I think that concentrating on perceived bad behaviour by cyclists is therefore a red herring.

 

[John the Monkey]

What we really need is more utility cyclist, we already have too many poncy Lycra club roadies...

What we really need is less of people deciding which cyclists are "utility" cyclists or not, and looking down their noses at those they consider poncy.

Largely because it's bullsh*t, 'scuse my French. Back when I had one bike on the road, it was a "racing" bike, a Giant SCR2.0 I stuck a courier bag or rucksack on my back when I needed to pick things up from the shops, and hey presto, it was a utility bike, and I was a utility cyclist. Just because I didn't wear tweed and rock a steel framed bike with a porteur rack, didn't mean I wasn't out there doing my errands and commuting on a bike, year 'round.

 

[GrasB]

What we really need is more utility cyclist, we already have too many poncy Lycra club roadies...

As a utility cyclist, my bikes are used for most of my local transport (driving is almost exclusively for pleasure, going long distances, carrying things way to heavy for a bike, being taxi for my partner + friends or a combination of), I have to say this doesn't make sense! I wear cycling specific clothing, mainly lycra but some baggies thrown in as well, & have done for a long time because it's more comfortable & much better suited to cycling than normal clothes.

 

[John the Monkey]

I wear cycling specific clothing, mainly lycra but some baggies thrown in as well, & have done for a long time because it's more comfortable & much better suited to cycling than normal clothes.

Splitter!

 

[Amanda P]

I hear just as many complaints about cyclists doing things that are legal (claiming the lane, riding two aside, not using the cycle lane, filtering) as I do about them doing things that are illegal (RLJ, no lights, etc.) The only conclusion I can draw is that its cyclists that get peoples goats, not any associated law breaking. I think that concentrating on perceived bad behaviour by cyclists is therefore a red herring.

Not necessarily. I think there's a widespread belief that those legal acts are not in fact legal.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that the Highway Code forbids riding two abreast. The fact that most cyclists tend to hug the gutter and subserviently dive out of the way of drivers leads drivers to believe that this is the correct, and indeed the only legal way to behave.

(It'd be too much to expect them to actually read the Highway Code, wouldn't it?)

 

[Amanda P]

As a utility cyclist, my bikes are used for most of my local transport (driving is almost exclusively for pleasure, going long distances, carrying things way to heavy for a bike, being taxi for my partner + friends or a combination of), I have to say this doesn't make sense! I wear cycling specific clothing, mainly lycra but some baggies thrown in as well, & have done for a long time because it's more comfortable & much better suited to cycling than normal clothes.

I'm in with this. If I lived in town, I'd probably cycle around town in regular clothes, and use a three-speed town bike; indeed, when I lived in the centre of Cardiff, that's exactly what I did.

Now I live ten miles from the nearest town. I cycle into town a lot, but it's far enough to warrant clothes comfy for cycling in, and a bike that'll get me there in reasonable time and comfort. But it's still utility cycling.

It may not look like it, but there's not much I can do about that!

 

[marinyork]

Not necessarily. I think there's a widespread belief that those legal acts are not in fact legal.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that the Highway Code forbids riding two abreast. The fact that most cyclists tend to hug the gutter and subserviently dive out of the way of drivers leads drivers to believe that this is the correct, and indeed the only legal way to behave.

(It'd be too much to expect them to actually read the Highway Code, wouldn't it?)

I think that drivers make up rules especially when conflict arises. If we moved away from things that commonly get shouted I'm sure you'd get for example that is was illegal
-to cycle in the dooring zone (illegal to door someone)
-over a toucan crossing
-for a cyclist to overtake on the RHS
-cycle in a bus lane/gate (ironically being told off by someone not allowed to and doing multiple illegal moves)
-cycle in a contraflow cycle lane (probably the most understandable)
-use an ASL
-wear sunglasses (because there are restrictions on driving)
-not to give way to a car (when they break two give way signs)

 

[Cab]

Not necessarily. I think there's a widespread belief that those legal acts are not in fact legal.

Naah, that would require utterly staggering stupidity. They don't think these things are illegal, they're just using an assumed position of moral superiority to bully people who they perceive to be social outliers.

 

[Amanda P]

Naah, that would require utterly staggering stupidity. They don't think these things are illegal, they're just using an assumed position of moral superiority to bully people who they perceive to be social outliers.

I can assure you that I've spoken with otherwise apparently rational people who sincerely believe it's illegal to cycle two abreast.

I never fail to be amazed at how staggeringly stupid people can be (including me, sometimes!).

It doesn't contradict yoru theory, Cab: there's no reason why people can't be staggeringly stupid and assume moral superiority at the same time.

(In fact I'd say the two things go rather well together - it's probably easier to assume moral superiority if you're ignorant and stupid).

 

[threebikesmcginty]

I can recall a public information film from when I was a lad which advised against cycling two abreast. I think it ended with a squeal of brakes and a shot of a bicycle wheel spinning on it's side.

Although it advised against it - the legal aspect, either way, was never mentioned IIRC.

 

[GrasB]

Splitter!

Er, why would I want a splitter on a bike? Sure both the Lotus & 159 have them but they go a lot quicker & require a lot more grip to go round corners quickly

... oh, sorry did I miss understand that

 

[John the Monkey]

Er, why would I want a splitter on a bike? Sure both the Lotus & 159 have them but they go a lot quicker & require a lot more grip to go round corners quickly

... oh, sorry did I miss understand that

I dunno, I was with you right up to "Why".