Cyclicts need to accept crap car driving.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

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?
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
GrumpyGreg said:
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.

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.

The paras above seem to be at odds with each other - unless I have misunderstood.
 

Sh4rkyBloke

Jaffa Cake monster
Location
Manchester, UK
GrumpyGreg said:
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.
Yes, the intent to inflict damage was there. Just because he missed doesn't make it completely ignorable, IMO.
 

mattybain

New Member
Sh4rkyBloke said:
Yes, the intent to inflict damage was there. Just because he missed doesn't make it completely ignorable, IMO.

That is so true and I agree completely, if you shot at someone with the intent to kill and missed that would attempted murder. I don't see where the distinction is with the rugby analogy? If you intend to inflict damage then it's still wrong whether you connect or not!
 

swee'pea99

Legendary Member
mattybain said:
That is so true and I agree completely, if you shot at someone with the intent to kill and missed that would attempted murder. I don't see where the distinction is with the rugby analogy? If you intend to inflict damage then it's still wrong whether you connect or not!
To go even further OT, I'm often baffled by hearing that people are to be charged with attempted murder, in situations like that recent one where some teacher lost it with a pupil and whacked him with something heavy. I mean, the kid was seriously injured and no-one would suggest that's Good Teaching Practice, but 'attempted murder'? Does that not mean that the guy acted with a premeditated intention to kill? Surely no-one supposes that to be the case - so why the charge?
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
Origamist said:
The paras above seem to be at odds with each other - unless I have misunderstood.

nurture (upbringing & culture) is often in conflict and tension with nature. Good job too as if we went 100% with nature we'd behave like beasts.

In situations of stress nature tends to impose itself on nurture. I contend driving is a stressful experience and one where natural and subconscious 'fight or flight' responses, and so-called reflex actions, kick in tend to impose themselves on cultural mores like courtesy and consideration.

Nature programmes people to be selfish, imo, and thus they revert to type when nature takes over. Nuture, well good nurture anyway, teaches people to behave considerately to each other. Regrettably this consideration is often only extended to members of the same tribe - we are tribal/clan/pack creatures after all as good old nature chips away at the nurture stuff. Am I in your tribe? Are you in mine? If the answer is no you can expect your needs to carry a lower level of consideration, as a general rule, when compared with my need to get to the office seven seconds faster by cutting you up for example. and where is the harm as no actual damage has been done?
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
Sh4rkyBloke said:
Yes, the intent to inflict damage was there. Just because he missed doesn't make it completely ignorable, IMO.

Not completely ignorable; likely a ref would have a 'quiet word' (I saw what you did and if you had made contact blah blah blah......)

But, honestly, how on earth do you judge intent? Hence it is easier to make judgements on the basis of outcomes.

As cyclists, if the posts in CC are anything to go by, we often ascribe intent to other road users "He tried to cut me up because he is in too much of a hurry", or make judgements about their state of mind "she just wasn't concentrating" or attitude "He drives a beemer so he is a tosser" which are just opinions based on very little actual evidence.

If no (real) harm is done why kick off at some crap driver? You aren't going to persuade them to driver better....
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
mattybain said:
That is so true and I agree completely, if you shot at someone with the intent to kill and missed that would attempted murder. I don't see where the distinction is with the rugby analogy? If you intend to inflict damage then it's still wrong whether you connect or not!

If you shot at someone with the intent to wound but not kill, or indeed fired a warning shot, and missed and killed them does your intent allow you to escape the outcome of your actions?

Extreme examples involving deliberate attempts to injure maim or kill others are, I feel, not good parallels for the behaviour of car drivers vs cyclists on a commute. No (well I'm sure very few) driver sets off for work in the morning thinking "I'm going to try to kill someone today"
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
GrumpyGreg said:
nurture (upbringing & culture) is often in conflict and tension with nature. Good job too as if we went 100% with nature we'd behave like beasts.

In situations of stress nature tends to impose itself on nurture. I contend driving is a stressful experience and one where natural and subconscious 'fight or flight' responses, and so-called reflex actions, kick in tend to impose themselves on cultural mores like courtesy and consideration.

Nature programmes people to be selfish, imo, and thus they revert to type when nature takes over. Nuture, well good nurture anyway, teaches people to behave considerately to each other. Regrettably this consideration is often only extended to members of the same tribe - we are tribal/clan/pack creatures after all as good old nature chips away at the nurture stuff. Am I in your tribe? Are you in mine? If the answer is no you can expect your needs to carry a lower level of consideration, as a general rule, when compared with my need to get to the office seven seconds faster by cutting you up for example. and where is the harm as no actual damage has been done?

I'm not going to get enmeshed in a nature/nurture debate as I'd never leave this thread. However, I would recommend reading "Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) as you may well alter some of your views about "programmed" driver behaviour and the ways in which it can be modified.
 

trsleigh

Well-Known Member
Location
Ealing
GrumpyGreg said:
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

I cannot understand why a 20mph limit isn't already mandatory on all residential roads.
As a father of four, now just about adult children, our worries were always about their safety on the roads. Yet, compared to the hysteria about the threat from pederasts, the real threat is virtually shrugged off as just one of those things.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
Origamist said:
I'm not going to get enmeshed in a nature/nurture debate as I'd never leave this thread. However, I would recommend reading "Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) as you may well alter some of your views about "programmed" driver behaviour and the ways in which it can be modified.

Have done. Have also read much literature which supports the opposing view.
 

summerdays

Cycling in the sun
Location
Bristol
GrumpyGreg said:
As cyclists, if the posts in CC are anything to go by, we often ascribe intent to other road users "He tried to cut me up because he is in too much of a hurry", or make judgements about their state of mind "she just wasn't concentrating" or attitude "He drives a beemer so he is a tosser" which are just opinions based on very little actual evidence.

If no (real) harm is done why kick off at some crap driver? You aren't going to persuade them to driver better....

Why should they think its ok behaviour to cut us up - why else did some idiot decide that he needed to overtake and pull in immediately in front of me. Yes I did shout at him - just asked for more space. If unchallenged it just becomes acceptable behaviour - "the norm". Also a close encounter seen by other road users may put them off ever getting out on a bike. I frequently meet people who are too scared to cycle with traffic. And I have had moments when I have been really scared by close calls myself.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
User said:
Except such countries don't exist in Europe.

I presume you are referring to presumption of liability - that is very different to being judged guilty until proven innocent.

correct badly phrased on my part; although doesn't the Napoleonic legal system assume guilt
 
Top Bottom