Why is there so much animosity towards cyclists in Sheffield?

[Cyclone]

I don't think anyone would object to cycle training for all 12 year olds, delivered free of charge as part of a government scheme.

 

That way it wouldn't act as a barrier to cycling, and, would likely encourage cycling.

 

It would also have the advantage of all future motorists having had some cycle training.

 

It's worth noting that on the wiki page you mention, straight after the section on cycle training, is this-

 

"Dutch motorists are also trained for interaction with cyclists as part of their driver training when going for their driving licence. For example, trainee motorists are trained to check and re-check their right-hand side for cyclists before making a turn to the right."

 

I'm not sure how you force someone to have training if they don't want it though, or how it's not a barrier if they can't cycle without having had it.

[mattleonard]

Adopting the same cycle training in this country as they have in the Netherlands would be totally stupid if you ask me ... they drive on the right hand side of the road for starters.

I realise of course that pedalissimos have their own special set of rules so far as roads are concerned, but surely even they would see problems with this idea?

(Unless of course the cychopaths decide to use any side of the road they fancy? )

 

Wow, it's a good job you thought of that before someone went ahead and implemented it. I'm sure it wouldn't have crossed anyone's mind to adapt it to fit with our road rules

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 17:35 ----------

 

I'm not sure how you force someone to have training if they don't want it though, or how it's not a barrier if they can't cycle without having had it.

 

Indeed, it's all very well saying "it's no problem, we'll make every 12 year old do it", but the current crop of people who are driving cars rather than riding bikes aren't under 12. So making it mandatory would require people who are already cycling (and most of them safely) to take a test, and discourage other responsible adults from impulsively deciding to cycle.

[onewheeldave]

I'm not sure how you force someone to have training if they don't want it though, or how it's not a barrier if they can't cycle without having had it.

 

I wouldn't bother trying to force everyone to have it, or necessarily prevent those who haven't had it from cycling (due to the beaurocracy, admin and costs that would be necessary).

 

Instead make it a looked-forward to part of school life with a certificate (possibly make it part of the curriculum) and some incentive, such as a free bike for those who excell in the exam.

 

Even if only 98% do the training, that's considerably better than the current situation where we have a high portion of motorists having passed their driving test with no real experience of cycling on roads and no cycling training whatsoever.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 17:43 ----------

 

Indeed, it's all very well saying "it's no problem, we'll make every 12 year old do it", but the current crop of people who are driving cars rather than riding bikes aren't under 12. So making it mandatory would require people who are already cycling (and most of them safely) to take a test, and discourage other responsible adults from impulsively deciding to cycle.

 

No- my suggestion is that it's part of school for all 12 year olds. It's not mandatory for adults, as, that would be a barrier to cycling.

[Alcoblog]

Wow, it's a good job you thought of that before someone went ahead and implemented it. I'm sure it wouldn't have crossed anyone's mind to adapt it to fit with our road rules

 

Think nothing of it ... logical thinking is a natural gift of mine! Anything to help, that's me!

[Cyclone]

Isn't cycling proficiency already available through schools for free and encouraged. Most of my class did it back in 1986 or something 1988 or something.

[mattleonard]

No- my suggestion is that it's part of school for all 12 year olds. It's not mandatory for adults, as, that would be a barrier to cycling.

 

That makes sense. I'd be all for it.

 

To be honest, I think the test element of the cycling proficiency was primarily about encouraging children that the skills they'd learnt on the course really were sufficient for them to ride safely on the big bad roads.

[Squiggs]

To answer the question posed, I think this is a good example. Ignorange mixed with entitlement and bloody-mindedness.

 

Cyclist making progress, not hogging the road, possibly even further left than Cyclecraft / Bikeability might recommend, but focal lengths are sometimes tricky...

 

Cyclist is keeping pace with / gaining on the van in front, signals to turn, waits until it is clear (couple of seconds!!) and turns

 

Not saying I thing chasing after and confronting people is ever a good thing but the response that "you didn't pull in to the left in order to turn right after I'd passed" is a prime example of the nonsense reasons for animosity.

 

I can quite picture the woman bringing this up in conversation with a pack of friends barking and nodding like performing seals about how out of order the cyclist was, wobbling in the middle of the road

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS1io0aAqTw

[Cyclone]

So much ignorance!

 

Re: Cycling proficiency, it's now bikeability and schools can ask them to run classes, but it's not compulsory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikeability

[ricoblade]

Just a s a genuine question - about riders in the country side riding in "packs" (apologies if this is the wrong term!

 

I lived in the countryside for many years and had many frustrations - tractors, slow lorries etc. My friends and i would often go out on our mopeds and whoever was leading would always check behind them, if their was a considerable amount of traffic building up behind us, maybe three or four cars, or someone seemed to be in a hurry - we'd pull over, let the traffic clear and then continue on our journey.

 

i just wandered if anyone had ever witnessed cyclists doing this? it would seem the sensible option and safer for all involved?

 

I did exactly this on a ride last night - once where a white BMer forced me off the road on a narrow lane - they didn't move an inch over to the left to allow room and then I was going up another narrow lane and pulled over to let a van past me.

 

---------- Post added 30-04-2015 at 08:46 ----------

 

So much ignorance!

 

Re: Cycling proficiency, it's now bikeability and schools can ask them to run classes, but it's not compulsory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikeability

 

Ahem:

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10991697&postcount=292

[mattleonard]

Basically, the issue is skewed norms.

 

It's socially acceptable to be a "slightly bad" driver (I'll clarify that further below). It's borderline socially unacceptable to be a cyclist, regardless of quality.

 

I pass a lot of cyclists each day who are riding in a way which would pass them their cycling proficiency test (and some who don't). Generally, if a car is being driven in a way which would pass their driving test you can pretty much guarantee it will have 'L' plates on.

 

So, my clarification of "slightly bad" driving. There's a few factors. Mainly, it's that driving a car is much harder than riding a bike - that's why the law requires drivers to be 17 but sets no minimum age on cycling. There's the fact that breaking the speed limit is pretty much a constant possibility in free-flowing traffic; hazards approach much quicker, and stopping distances are much greater; visibility is much poorer and the driver is insulated in an environment designed to be as close to feeling like a living room as possible. So driving is hard.

 

Secondly, generally the driving test, wrongly, seems to be considered to be about proving that the driver is capable of driving to a particular standard, rather than representing the standard that they should continue to drive at. The driving test, and the first few journeys driving alone are generally the most nervous that a driver will ever be. After a little while they relax, muscle memory takes over and they find that co-ordinating their limbs isn't the big struggle that it used to be; they realise that (hopefully) the mistakes they've made haven't resulted in much harm, become more concerned with getting from A to B on time, or enjoying the feeling of speed, and before you know it they're pushing the wrong side of speed limits and not bothering to indicate or check mirrors etc. exhaustively.

 

Cyclists on the other hand, are mostly not in danger of breaking the speed limit; they're not insulated from the driving environment by a metal cage with padded seats, straps, a good deal of rattle room and airbags. They are generally conscious that if a crash occurs it will be either a crash between a car and them or between the hard road and them. So often they will be careful. Those who aren't are idiots and are behaving considerably more irrationally than the "slightly bad" driver.

 

I initially said that slightly bad driving has social acceptance. Actually, I'd say good driving (particularly in relation to speed limits) verges on socially unacceptability (try driving at 30mph along Penistone Road if you don't believe me). Weaving around traffic, particularly with sudden accelerations and perhaps without indicating is considered "good driving". And, as has been demonstrated a few times in this thread, good cycling is considered by some drivers to be beyond the pale. I never receive any antagonism for going through red lights - because I don't do it - but I often get anger for taking primary position, particularly when approaching a pinch point such as a traffic island.

 

Interestingly, those "properly bad" (rather than the mostly well-intentioned and friendly "slightly bad" drivers, of which I include myself), generally seem to express their disapproval by using the situation to showcase the worst of their driving.