Something needs to be done about the British mentality towards us cyclists!

[gbb]

But isn't that precisely the problem? Under the current laws you must prove the other party was negligent - the fact you got seriously injured or killed is not proof the other party was negligent, just that you somehow ended up under the wheel or something - and failing to provide solid proof and witnesses the courts will err on not guilty. As both parties suffer roughly equally it's all still rather fair; you're hospitalised for months, they have a scratch on paint job.

But you could argue the law would then be weighted toward one party, be he a cyclist, driver, pedestrian, mugging victim, whatever. If you can't factually prove the other party was definately at fault, how can you convict them ? This country's jails would be full of people with dubious convictions. Personally, i'll take the law as it is and be thankful for it.

FWIW, drivers do sometimes get the full wrath of the law, and local papers thrown at them when a cyclist gets killed. We had one some years ago in Peterborough. A driver showing no regard for other road users, let alone a cyclist, killed said cyclist...and had the book thrown at him, and then some. He went down for several years. He was absolutely villified by the local press, the same press that occasionally rants about cyclists for various (and often correct) reasons.

 

[gbb]

You've never in a conversation mentioned that you cycle and then have to listen to the I hate cyclists tirade, gbb ?

In group face to face conversations, most people will only say what they think is acceptable with that audience, and one of those things is cyclist bashing in my experience.

The only group of people who receive such venom in my local area are travellers.

Accepting we can only bring to the table our own experiences...but no, i never have. I get light hearted micky taking at work on rare occasions...i've had discussions with people who (for instance) think its wrong for you to cycle on a dual carriageway, had discussions with people who think you're just plain nuts for cycling..period, but still never had anything like vitriol aimed at me...never.

Perhaps i bring out the best in people over the table ...and that's good, its educating them

If i think carefully about the last 10 years cycling, i have what i call a bad incident maybe once a year. If i think about them, they're usually a bad decision made by a driver, not a deliberate act.
The only one i can think of is the bus driver incident i posted a few months ago...and he's due in court

Bugger me, some of you must have it really bad from drivers, or i've got it really good.

 

[400bhp]

You've never in a conversation mentioned that you cycle and then have to listen to the I hate cyclists tirade, gbb ?

I take it you have then, and it sounds like a regular topic of conversation. I'm very surprised by this - I've never had anyone talk negatively (in the way you mean) about cyclists.

 

[John the Monkey]

But you could argue the law would then be weighted toward one party, be he a cyclist, driver, pedestrian, mugging victim, whatever. If you can't factually prove the other party was definately at fault, how can you convict them ? This country's jails would be full of people with dubious convictions. Personally, i'll take the law as it is and be thankful for it.

ISTR what's usually proposed relates to insurance settlements, rather than criminal law.

It acknowledges that motor vehicles pose a greater risk, and places a heavier burden of responsibility upon the people who choose to use them. similarly, as a cyclist, you'd be expected to exercise more care around pedestrians, and the presumption of liability acknowledges that. Also, generally, it's rebuttable, so the ludicrous scenario the Mail et al often propose (that everyone will throw themselves under the wheels of cars for the compensation) doesn;t arise; if it can be proven that the favoured party is at fault, they remain liable.

 

[John the Monkey]

I take it you have then, and it sounds like a regular topic of conversation. I'm very surprised by this - I've never had anyone talk negatively (in the way you mean) about cyclists.

I must move in the wrong circles

It's a bit like racism used to be in the '70s/'80s - people will trot the stereotypes out, I'll rebut them, and they'll say something like "Well yeah, but you're one of the good ones."

 

[wiggydiggy]

Is there a 'british mentality', is there a huge epidemic problem of a negative attitude towards cyclists?

Youtube may be be littered with 'bad driving' videos, but how many people would be interested in watching endless hours of nothing happening whasoever?

What I will agree with is that there is a perception that driving offenses are treated lightly in court, thats all offences BTW not just those involving cyclists.

 

[pshore]

I take it you have then, and it sounds like a regular topic of conversation. I'm very surprised by this - I've never had anyone talk negatively (in the way you mean) about cyclists.

It is certainly not a daily conversation but it does happen.

I do work in central Cambridge where 21% of the population ride bikes for transport. The trouble is, a lot of that population is young, of student age, and inexperienced at bike riding in traffic. Some do RLJ, cycle without lights and on the pavement.

Perhaps the cyclist hating is more a function of the level of cycling here. Thinking about it further, many growing minorities have suffered this kind of tension (eg immigrant populations, Gay/Lesbians, Travellers, Students) but we certainly are not subject to violence and same levels of hate in the ways that they were.

John the Monkey's comment is spot on in my experience. All we can do is keep rebutting their poor arguments and one day our growing voice will drown out theirs and make it unacceptable.

The growth and decline of the use of "You don't pay Road Tax" is very telling.

 

[pshore]

Bugger me, some of you must have it really bad from drivers, or i've got it really good.

I think you've got it good, or have a different riding style.

A couple of recent incidents on my commute are:

A L plated scooter rider who shouted 'get on the cycle path' at me when I cycle on the road next to a footpath. They did it to me 9 months ago when I last saw them. It comes across very aggressive. The Police will only have a word if I have evidence.

Close passed on purpose because I wasn't on the shared use path. It was closed because they were widening and resurfacing it.

I guess some cyclists brush off those kind of incidents. I am more sensitive to the vigilantes.

 

[gbb]

I think you've got it good, or have a different riding style.

A couple of recent incidents on my commute are:

A L plated scooter rider who shouted 'get on the cycle path' at me when I cycle on the road next to a footpath. They did it to me 9 months ago when I last saw them. It comes across very aggressive. The Police will only have a word if I have evidence.

Close passed on purpose because I wasn't on the shared use path. It was closed because they were widening and resurfacing it.

I guess some cyclists brush off those kind of incidents. I am more sensitive to the vigilantes.

TBF, I think this is true, i know i do. Not because i think 'fkit, what's the point, i'm wasting my time', but because my experience is that on narrowish roads with innapropriate cycle lanes either side (such as Oundle Road in P'boro), cars do pass quite close, but the traffic's invariably moving slowly as it passes. I find i can cope well with that and have got used to it. It it right to think that way...no, but i'd be hollering at one in five drivers. There just isn't the room for everyone to have good room.

Maybe it comes down to attitude. I'm not saying my attitude is right for the good of cyclists in general, but i really do enjoy my cycling/commuting and won't let mildly innapropraite driving spoil it. Close passes at any reasonable speed, the drivers get a word from me if i get the chance. That'll usually be a pull up alongside the drivers window and use my thumb and forefinger to indicate 'space please'. I often get a nod or a hand up in apology. Sometimes you get the stony look ahead, i havn't seen you so you're not there kind of thing, but even thats in the minority.

I still feel (IME) that drivers are not 'out to get us', rather just not really aware of how vulnerable we are, or make bad judgements.

I certainly don't know what the answer is ? better driver education re cyclists when learning to drive ? maybe, but i suspect it'd all go out the window anyway once they passed.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

But you could argue the law would then be weighted toward one party, be he a cyclist, driver, pedestrian, mugging victim, whatever. If you can't factually prove the other party was definately at fault, how can you convict them ? This country's jails would be full of people with dubious convictions. Personally, i'll take the law as it is and be thankful for it.

It's nothing to do with conviction. Presumed liability is about civil law, not criminal law. It is about who should be assumed to bear the responsibility when things go wrong, and is based on who is bringing the greatest risk to the public space that is the highway. Civil law is not based on the idea of proving beyond reasonable doubt; it is about allocating liability based on the balance of probabilities.

If the space is empty, there is no risk to anyone. If the space contains only pedestrians, there is still virtually no risk. If you add cyclists, then the risk is increased only slightly (as reflected the STATS19 reports). If you add motorists, then the risk is increased dramatically (as again reflected the STATS19 reports). So, as the person who brings the motor vehicle to the space is bringing nearly all of the risk, then they should be expected to accept virtually all of the responsibility.

That translates into the motorist's being presumed to be liable unless they can prove that the other party was negligent in a way that made the incident unavoidable by the motorist.

This is important because, as things currently stand, the cyclist (or pedestrian) has an awful lot to lose through their own negligence and is therefore likely to be careful, whilst the motorist, in practice, has very little to lose from being careless, which is a very skewed picture.

In theory, presumed liability has the potential to balance things up a little, which may influence the attitudes of the motorists. In particular it may lessen the attitude that many motorists either explicitly or tacitly adopt, that they rule the roads and everyone else is just a guest, to be merely tolerated provided they squeeze into the remaining gaps and don't cause too much inconvenience, and certainly not to be encouraged.

 

[Mugshot]

I still feel (IME) that drivers are not 'out to get us', rather just not really aware of how vulnerable we are, or make bad judgements.

I do agree with this, I've read on the forum somewhere that one of the members had a confrontation with a motorist following a close pass who claimed that the fact that he hadn't hit the cyclist proved he was a good driver. Whilst this certainly is not a commendable attitude I think that rightly or wrongly it's how many motorist feel. Providing they are able to pass us without hitting us that's sufficient. It can be particularly uncomfortable for us if not down right dangerous, but it doesn't automatically point to a vendetta.

 

[gbb]

It's nothing to do with conviction. Presumed liability is about civil law, not criminal law. It is about who should be assumed to bear the responsibility when things go wrong, and is based on who is bringing the greatest risk to the public space that is the highway. Civil law is not based on the idea of proving beyond reasonable doubt; it is about allocating liability based on the balance of probabilities.

If the space is empty, there is no risk to anyone. If the space contains only pedestrians, there is still virtually no risk. If you add cyclists, then the risk is increased only slightly (as reflected the STATS19 reports). If you add motorists, then the risk is increased dramatically (as again reflected the STATS19 reports). So, as the person who brings the motor vehicle to the space is bringing nearly all of the risk, then they should be expected to accept virtually all of the responsibility.

That translates into the motorist's being presumed to be liable unless they can prove that the other party was negligent in a way that made the incident unavoidable by the motorist.

This is important because, as things currently stand, the cyclist (or pedestrian) has an awful lot to lose through their own negligence and is therefore likely to be careful, whilst the motorist, in practice, has very little to lose from being careless, which is a very skewed picture.

In theory, presumed liability has the potential to balance things up a little, which may influence the attitudes of the motorists. In particular it may lessen the attitude that many motorists either explicitly or tacitly adopt, that they rule the roads and everyone else is just a guest, to be merely tolerated provided they squeeze into the remaining gaps and don't cause too much inconvenience, and certainly not to be encouraged.

There you go you see, i was talking about criminal liability (in incidents where the cyclist has been injured or killed), you're talking about civil liability, they're two different things.
Neither of us is right, neither wrong...just talking about different things within the same topic.

There's no doubting the common sense in whats written above, re laibility...but it's not reality is it, or we wouldnt be here discussing the matter.

 

[Nearly there]

Those are statements we see a lot on non cycling internet forums. Some people really do get angry when cyclists get in their way.

With the A66 cycle lane. I don't know this road, but it could be that the cycle path makes their journey more dangerous and/or inconvenient. Post a Streetview link if you would like further diagnosis. You could be right though.

Two abreast. I have never seen this inconvenience a motorist more than one cyclist would, yet, this action more than anything is guaranteed to get you hooted as a cyclist.

I am convinced that those drivers who hoot in this situation do it because they have been told by other motorists that its a bad thing to do rather than come to their own conclusion. It is a minority bashing thing and is one of the worst traits of our society.

http://3.bp.blogspot...00/PICT0234.JPG The guy was in the middle of this 60mph road traffic had to slow down to less than 30 what im saying is why didnt he move across to the white line like i would of done or where i would be on this type of road.

 

[Nearly there]

How dare they cycle on the roads. Do they not know they are reserved for important people in cars? I bet they wear lycra too!

And an Helmets

 

[gambatte]

In recent weeks ive seen some bad examples of cycling,recently on the A66 i had to overtake a cyclist hogging the middle of the road when theres a perfectly good cycle lane all the way along it and cyclists riding two abreast on a 50 road and they showed no intention of pulling in gggrrrr it wound me up no end.

Thats no cycle lane, it delineates the edge of the road!!

http://3.bp.blogspot...00/PICT0234.JPG The guy was in the middle of this 60mph road traffic had to slow down to less than 30 what im saying is why didnt he move across to the white line like i would of done or where i would be on this type of road.

At 60, you'd have to be partly in the next lane anyway, whats the problem with being completely in there? Traffic slowed to under 30mph... guess he was consistantly over 20mph? Nice one!