Do people like me give cyclists a bad name? If so, sorry

[BentMikey]

Do cyclists or motorcyclists who are also motorists refer to other motorists as cagers?

The term seems too negative in tone to be used on oneself. Even when used in jest, as above, it seems to betray a slightly sour aftertaste in the mouth of the user.

So, here's the question: Is there a motorist out there who also cycles and refers to other motorists generically as cagers?

The question you could ask yourself is whether or not I was referring to motorists generally.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

It's odd how many drivers fail to see the elephant in the street.

What's really taking up road space and increasing journey times is the number of cars on the roads. If cars weren't blocking the road, there wouldn't have been an issue. But the cyclist (the smallest thing on the road...) here is simply the scapegoat.

I often feel that there's little point worrying about how cyclists appear to drivers (RLJing, haring along pavements, etc) when the blame is automatically transferred onto them anyway.

 

[Old Plodder]

As you were on your side of the road; you are in the right, & Mr Merc was just being 'gobby', for whatever reason.
To maintain 'peace & harmony', if you can, just smile at them & carry on cycling.
It used to be that drivers coming downhill would give way to those going uphill; but then that was back when I took my driving test.

 

[Linford]

It's odd how many drivers fail to see the elephant in the street.

What's really taking up road space and increasing journey times is the number of cars on the roads. If cars weren't blocking the road, there wouldn't have been an issue. But the cyclist (the smallest thing on the road...) here is simply the scapegoat.

I often feel that there's little point worrying about how cyclists appear to drivers (RLJing, haring along pavements, etc) when the blame is automatically transferred onto them anyway.

The problem with this siege mentality is that it does no favours at all to any side. The roads are there for all to use, and if the rules of the road are correctly applied (giving way), then irrespective of what you ride or drive, all are shown a fair hand.
There could be any number of obstacles in the road which you have to give way to oncoming vehicles which aren't cars parked on the side of the road - Skips, chokes forcing priority, Buses at bus stops etc etc.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

The problem with this siege mentality is that it does no favours at all to any side. The roads are there for all to use, and if the rules of the road are correctly applied (giving way), then irrespective of what you ride or drive, all are shown a fair hand.
There could be any number of obstacles in the road which you have to give way to oncoming vehicles which aren't cars parked on the side of the road - Skips, chokes forcing priority, Buses at bus stops etc etc.

But when did you last have to give way to an oncoming cyclist at one of these road obstacles?

 

[cd365]

Devils advocate.... so you were overtaking stationary traffic (i.e. not parked but with motorists in them?) and must have been close to the white line on your side of the road, a wide 4x4 comes down the other side of the road and is concerned for your safety in that he doesn't think there was much room for him to come down his road safely with you so close to him. If he had tried to overtake you that close it would have been a problem!

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Admittedly it's badly written, but the meaning is clear: give way to oncoming vehicles if passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road would necessitate you moving onto the other side of the road.

To interpret it in the way you imply is ridiculous.

"would necessitate you moving onto the other side of the road." I missed that bit of the rule, could you point it out to me please?

I like the way you have decided it's badly written , so that you can decide it's incorrect? Are there any others you might think are written incorrectly, perhaps where it says 30MPH it's really meant to say 45MPH? Of course there is another, simpler, explanation that it's not badly written and means exactly what it says?

 

[Linford]

But when did you last have to give way to an oncoming cyclist at one of these road obstacles?

Any time I consider that there might be a danger that I might come into contact with them.

If you pass a stationary vehicle or object, you automatically move out to stay away from the door zone, or that somebody or something could emerge from the blind side of the obstruction like a ssmall child or dog (etc), so you need more space than your physical width to pass safely.

You don't just demand right of way over traffic in the oncoming lane just because you are physically narrower (do you ?). That is their space and you have to respect that irrespective of what you ride or drive. If they choose to then give that up that right and let you though, that is their right to give, and not your's to demand.

This is how I see it, and what I expect others which I share the road with to do, whether I ride a cycle, motorcycle or drive a car (4x4 or otherwise)

The OP does state that they stayed on their side of the road so I take that as the Merc driver having a bit of an inconsiderate 'I own the road' moment

 

[siadwell]

OK LyB, what would you do here?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en-GB&geocode=&q=Madeira Drive, Brighton&aq=1&oq=madeira drive&sll=50.817432,-0.124626&sspn=0.108237,0.300751&vpsrc=0&gl=uk&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Madeira Dr, Brighton BN2 1EN, United Kingdom&t=m&layer=c&cbll=50.824453,-0.170353&panoid=HFzWZd0kxvuErjHVgkaQPg&cbp=12,291.79,,0,4.52&ll=50.824441,-0.170159&spn=0.000027,0.018797&z=16

There's a red car parked on your side and two vehicles oncoming, so would you "give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road"?

Of course not, the road is wide enough for all and there is no need for anyone to "give way". As the OP stated that he was on his side of the road and the other driver was on his, why should the OP need to give way? My addition to the HC rule was intended to clarify "give way".

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The opinions, in respect of other road users, of those who drive wankpanzers are automatically to be disregarded on the grounds of Class I /Grade A 'sense of irony failure.'

 

[Linford]

The opinions, in respect of other road users, of those who drive wankpanzers are automatically to be disregarded on the grounds of Class I /Grade A 'sense of irony failure.'

The people who drive like cocks in a 4x4 are likely to do so in any vehicle they get into, but then that can be said for any and all irrespective of how they move about. Big Merc, Audi or BMW 4x4 definitely fit the 4x4 description (apart from the G-Wagon)

 

[Bicycle]

The question you could ask yourself is whether or not I was referring to motorists generally.

Yes I could, but I'd be guessing if I tried to answer.

As a former motorcyclist I'm familiar with the term (I heard it first from bikers, not cyclists). Among motorcyclists, the use was always as a generic and negative description of drivers.

It's clear at once that your use of it is lighthearted, both through the context and the smiley-winky face. I still think it has a slight aroma of disapproval and general application - even when the latter is unintended, as I'm sure it was in your case.

The question really was whether drivers use the term when they're in 'cycling mode'. I suspect not, but I am quite used to being wrong. It has just a little too much sneer in it for someone to use it on a group of which they may be thought part.

It's not a very grown-up question, but I was curious.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Any time I consider that there might be a danger that I might come into contact with them.

If you pass a stationary vehicle or object, you automatically move out to stay away from the door zone, or that somebody or something could emerge from the blind side of the obstruction like a ssmall child or dog (etc), so you need more space than your physical width to pass safely.

You don't just demand right of way over traffic in the oncoming lane just because you are physically narrower (do you ?). That is their space and you have to respect that irrespective of what you ride or drive. If they choose to then give that up that right and let you though, that is their right to give, and not your's to demand.

This is how I see it, and what I expect others which I share the road with to do, whether I ride a cycle, motorcycle or drive a car (4x4 or otherwise)

''Any time'' sounds pretty abstract to me.

I was responding to the OP's scenario, who didn't move over the line, so I'm not sure that there is a question of demanding right of way over traffic in the oncoming lane.

Don't get me wrong, I do most of my riding in London and if I rode dangerously or aggressively I wouldn't be alive today. I only fight my case when the driving turns to bullying or that kind of scapegoating, caused by frustrated drivers with a sense of automatic car entitlement being constantly held up by other vehicles, when they try to take it out on cyclists. And I believe that cyclists ease road congestion more than they cause it.

 

[Linford]

I did edit that post to acknowledge this latter point. I think we can agree on this one DMST

The OP does state that they stayed on their side of the road so I take that as the Merc driver having a bit of an inconsiderate 'I own the road' moment

 

[dawesome]

Land Rover drivers really are the worst speeders as one in four has points on their licence (but at least they're paying for it)​

​

​

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097984/Car-insurance-speeding-points-Land-Rover-drivers-really-worst-paying-it.html#ixzz1lnnmKAez​