open topic, for anything cycling related.
Very interesting article - and I think has deep implications for how cyclists should behave on the road. One prime example I can think of is riders going to the front of a queue of cars.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2013021 ... cyclists/1
The poms always have been sticklers for queuing. They seem to want to extend such social mores to the roads. Mind you, such mores are not extended to drivers (look at the use of multiple lane roads, do drivers all stick to their lane to queue in?). Then there is the simple fact that such a need for queuing on narrower roads really only exists because of the rapacious 'land-grabbing' of the modern motor vehicle - narrower vehicles do not need to follow queue principles to the same extent.
Drivers need to suck it up, or else come outside and smell the roses
Ha true about the Poms and queueing!
But I think there is a grain of truth in the article. Even if the cause of motorists' rage is irrational it is rage nonetheless.
I remember before I started cycling it used to annoy me no end when a rider would push to the front of a queue. And now 95% of the time I just take my place in the queue just like any other vehicle.
Same here. The only time I overtake is if they are turning or something. It is probably more dangerous to be in the traffic lineup, but it paints a better picture of cyclist collectively. Doesn't stop motorist from trying to punish me though (although most of the time subtly, so they don't get in trouble with the law).
Last edited by Nobody on Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Its a pointless argument it assumes all cyclist go against "the rules" We don't all run red lights, jump footpaths etc etc this is a minority of us just like people who break other rules in society. I thought the article lacked depth and any real information other than a lesson in autheristic punishment which really sounds like we need to get a life of our own and mind our own business.
If only a few more people could take careful note of this
Orderly queuing is needed when there is a clear scarcity. There is a clear scarcity of transportation flow space for large vehicles, particularly at peak times. In most situations there does not exist a similar scarcity for smaller vehicles such bicycles or even pedestrians.
The clear problem in our transportation system is single occupancy cars. They are massive vehicles to transport a single person. If instead every sedan had 2-3 people in it our traffic problems would melt away.
Bikes are a solution they are not a problem!
Most would agree here, but it only matters what the motorists think, rather than the reality. That is the point I get from the article anyway.
You got it. You were being punished for your identity as a law breaker. Or as much of a punishment as motorists can get away with without getting into trouble themselves.
This is why I spend more time on bike paths. Just in case I get hurt by one of these punishments one day. Without these punishments from the minority of motorists, I'm sure the roads would be a much safer place to ride.
Funny how this is such a 'problem' in certain societies and not in others. Mainly seems to be in Anglo-societies (Australia, UK, NZ, USA) but so much less of an issue in most European societies and many Asian societies. Certainly according to every report I hear from friends who travel there and cycle about the cities, towns and rural roads. I'd love to know what the aspect of socio-cultural education it is that Anglo-societies are missing out on.
I don't think it's going to the front of the lane that was cited as enraging behaviour, and I wouldn't have thought of that either.
From the article:
That stuff does annoy me. (Except the hopping to the pavement, which is allowed here in Canberra - so a lot of this is cultural, as Il Padrone alludes to above).
It annoys me not only because it's "breaking the rules", also because it costs us all as cyclists. Run a red light, and forty overweight gasbags start dialling their favourite closet-case shock jocks, whipping up the political charge against cycling.
Pure unadulterated piffle...
Every minute of every day, there is a motorist breaking road rules anywhere you care to
look, and almost every day someone is killed by a motorist as a result.
That's about as unmoral as you can get.
While the author seeks to invoke the free-rider problem, he is totally blinkered
to the free-ride that motorists enjoy at the expense of all the non-motorists.
Whilever motorists don't pay all their costs without taxpayer support, motorists
are bludgers that can never claim any moral high ground ( see Petrol Tax myth. Cyclists do not free-ride on motorists, quite the opposite.
When it comes to overtaking unsafely to get to a set of lights ahead of a cyclist, most
of your moral motorists won't bat an eyelid. They then have absolutely no right
to get peeved that you go to the front of the queue to overtake them in turn.
Those who do are further demonstrating the lack of morals of way too many motorists.
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
From just before the part you quoted in the article:
That is where I believe we are reading it from.
Thread about same article on SC:
http://www.sydneycyclist.com/forum/topi ... om-the-bbc
Here we ago again.
Someone, somewhere has the temerity to mention that some cyclists seem to be [insert unpleasant adjective] because some of them [insert activity].
Next, someone on BNA has the temerity to suggest that perhaps if fewer cyclists engaged in [insert activity], fewer people would see them as [insert unpleasant adjective], which might lead to a fractional improvement in civility.
BNA thread is flooded with "But cyclists are wonderful, so they are ENTITLED to [insert activity]".
Rinse and repeat daily.
The only thing unusual about this thread is that it took nearly an hour for the first "We're right, motorists are wrong".
Last edited by ausrandoman on Wed Feb 13, 2013 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
well maybe I shouldn't have posted then - sorry I'm new!
Anyway I just thought it was interesting since it gave a different perspective than I have seen to the motorists view of riders.
I have been thinking a lot lately about how to improve motorists perceptions of riders. All riders expect to be treated with respect but many do not show others the same respect.
I don't think the article is 'piffle'. I think it just boils down to - behave in a way that motorists can see that you are following the same rules that they are.
Same rules, yes. These are some that may concern drivers.
The rules are all there and I know them pretty well. I do not, however believe most drivers are prepared to acknowledge that they apply to bicycles equally.
You can't; it's purely cultural. "They all run red lights" etc is just an excuse for road raging drivers taking out their frustration on the nearest available target.
There are four phases of bicycle commuting; first there's fear, then rage, then self-righteousness and finally, fun.
Post away! I sympathise with your intentions. Lots of cyclists seem to think it is OK to lane split, get to the front of a queue, congratulate themselves on how fast they are (until the traffic gets up to and exceeds bicycle speed), then get all hurt and offended when the motorists they are now delaying become resentful.
I used to do it. One day I decided to slot in behind the last car, sprint to stay in the flow between lights and get out of the way at the end of the congested section. Haven't had a single instance of aggression on that road since. Do unto others ...
Nobody younger than <del>27</del> 28 has experienced a month cooler than the 20th century average.
It doesn't stop aggression, but it certainly does stop you training the motorists around you to believe both they and you fit at the same time in the same lane.
Also each car further back takes about 2 seconds longer to get to 60 (as they have to leave a safety gap, and they do take off less than the safety gap apart, so subsequent cars get slower and slower, and there is a point in a traffic queue where the motorist has no need to pass the bicycle.
+1. Earlier I said going to the front of the lane was not something I would have though would be annoying; I was thinking of when I'm in an on-road cycle lane, rather than lane-splitting in general traffic on smaller roads.
I will do this where there are less than about 3-6 cars in-line at the lights. Any more and, if I stay in line:
- I'm left inhaling the worst of their noxious exhaust fumes;
- On a hot day the air is even more heated by said exhausts;
- When the traffic begins to move the drivers behind are facing my lag from the cars ahead and, in their urge not to miss the lights, they pull even worse overtaking and tail-gating stunts;
- On approach to the intersection I am even more likely to face impatient, edgy right-turn crossers.
I overtake (a legal act) to the front of the queue when the traffic is heavy, to ensure:
1. I am visible to all right from the start;
2. I get past left-turners on their right side, when they are stationary;
3. I breathe slightly cleaner air while stopped.
It is perfectly legal, it ensures I can maintain a safe and predictable course beyond the intersection, I have had no collisions as a result and I get next to nothing in motorist aggression from doing this. I really don't care if drivers are cursing me under their breath, as long as they behave in a safe and legal manner.
This is a prolix example of my first comment.
Who is online