GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Bollo said:*chases after you*
I call this argument the "force of nature" argument - the behaviour of people on the roads is like earthquakes, hurricanes and a dislike of Anthony Worral Thompson, a natural and immutable fact of life. There's no real reason why the UK can't be like the Netherlands or Denmark. People's attitudes to driving can be changed, but its slow and hard work.
Try the "I didn't hit you" argument while waving a gun or a machete around. I guarantee most people, including the resulting armed response unit, will be light on sympathy. Daft though it is, this illustrates the problem - the driver judges and controls an interaction but the cyclist bears the consequences when that judgement or control fails.
Like you, I've developed a pretty thick skin and most of the time other people on the roads are fine. I don't even lose my temper at bad driving. When I have reacted, its because people have either deliberately put me in danger or, more commonly, have behaved selfishly or inconsiderately and then blamed me for essentially being "on a bike" or "in the way".
*out of breath from chasing*
You make some interesting counter points whilst chasing.
For whatever historic reasons the cultures of other countries where cyclists happen to get treated well are different to ours. As a result the legislative environment is different, e.g. cyclist/driver negative interactions = driver judged guilty until proven innocent. I commute today not in some future world where UK is like Holland. Peoples attitudes can change but who exactly is going to counter the car culture on such a large scale and in such a powerful way. If this car culture is typified say, by Clarkson and Top Gear how do you or I counterbalance that. 7.75million viewers or 25% of the TV viewing audience....
The "I didn't hit you" argument is not undone, in law, or in common sense, by specious comparison of cars to knives and guns. You and I may recognise a car as something which could be described as a lethal weapon (though so could a bike). Joe Public and his magistrates generally do not. Cars are socially accpetable whereas knives and guns are not. Fact is if you cause me no actual harm with your car (bike) then I have no real grounds to complain. Say you scalp me on the road and pass by closer than I would like; you scare the bejaysus out of me. Am I entitled to catch you, if I can, and tell you your fortune? Might many not regard a fellow cyclist who responded thus in this situation as someone who needed to MTFU?
An example. My other hobby is rugby reffing. If player A takes a swing at player B and connects then A is liable to be penalised (the exact penalty from a Red Card (sending off) down depends on the circumstances) If player A misses completely, can I penalise him? and if so what for? for what actual damage was done? An eminently sensible solution.
Your point about being blamed is an excellent one. Blaming the victim is a classic response when confronted with one's idiocy. It happens in lots of contexts some far more serious than a spot of bad driving.
The behaviour of people on the roads is a force of nature; a consequence of our evolution and upbringing. Fight or flight and all that. It serves no purpose, it seems to me to wish is twas another way for that is the stuff people are made of.
As a motorist as well as a cyclist I would like to propose the following:-
Mandatory 20mph speed limits on all residential roads
Mandatory 40mph speed limits on all rural single carriagways
A speed camera on every signpost and lamppost in the nation
Camera's at every traffic light controlled junction, zebra or other pedestrian crossing.
VED increased to £500 for cars with engines larger than 999cc
Traffic lane toll cameras on trunk routes charging all vehicles with more than two seats containing a single occupant
50p per litre duty, at the very least, on petrol and diesel with the taxes raise going to subsidise public transport and a new national traffic police force
Penal enough?