Why is there so much animosity towards cyclists in Sheffield?

[stressconsul]

Here is an interesting article on the psychology behind a driver's anger at cyclists - the free rider syndrome: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate-cyclists

[boldforester]

I'm all in favour of cycling. But as a regular pedestrian, the most common thing is to have a cyclist zoom past you from behind, inches away. This happens in the park, but also on busy pavements. They don't seem to have bells any more, and don't make themselves known, so there is in 99/100 cases, no warning. I've often reflected that, if I had suddenly decided to turn to the right (or even left) for any reason (including crossing a road) there are many occasions on which I would have been involved in a potentially nasty collision with a cyclist.

[birobasher]

Here is an interesting article on the psychology behind a driver's anger at cyclists - the free rider syndrome: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate-cyclists

 

That's an interesting article, but it ignores some physical factors about the 'rules' followed by people in cars etc. The main one is of course, that bikes are thinner than cars and don't have to sit behind a queue when there's room to overtake (on the outside, at the crown of the road, naturally). That's characterised by the article as not playing fair, but if there was a very thin car, a driver could do that too. There's no natural reason or point to a cyclist tamely waiting in a stationary queue when they can keep riding the outside up to the traffic lights (where they will of course, stop and wait for them to change). To put it another way, the cyclist hasn't deliberately taken anything from the car driver by exploiting the size of their vehicle to their advantage. People in cars gain things that cyclists don't, e.g. faster acceleration and general speed. I personally don't hold that against them, and do my best to stay out of the way so they can zoom past me.

[JFKvsNixon]

That's an interesting article, but it ignores some physical factors about the 'rules' followed by people in cars etc. The main one is of course, that bikes are thinner than cars and don't have to sit behind a queue when there's room to overtake (on the outside, at the crown of the road, naturally). That's characterised by the article as not playing fair, but if there was a very thin car, a driver could do that too. There's no natural reason or point to a cyclist tamely waiting in a stationary queue when they can keep riding the outside up to the traffic lights (where they will of course, stop and wait for them to change). To put it another way, the cyclist hasn't deliberately taken anything from the car driver by exploiting the size of their vehicle to their advantage. People in cars gain things that cyclists don't, e.g. faster acceleration and general speed. I personally don't hold that against them, and do my best to stay out of the way so they can zoom past me.

 

I posted this in another thread so it's slightly out of context, which was the odd cyclist going through red lights, but I think it adds something to this thread:

 

 

On every journey where I go through a decent amount of traffic lights, at least one car will overtake me racing the traffic lights as I stop for a amber/red, this is more accepted by society, so it's tolerated. I'd say it's tolerated because people understand the frustrations of driving to work during the rush hour.

 

Unfortunately, it's also these frustrations that cause people to become more intolerent towards cyclists when they see them moving freely through rush hour traffic.

 

Then the age-old adage applies - you'll forgive your friend for eating with their hands whist criticising your enemy for using the wrong knife and fork.

[birobasher]

I'm all in favour of cycling. But as a regular pedestrian, the most common thing is to have a cyclist zoom past you from behind, inches away. This happens in the park, but also on busy pavements. They don't seem to have bells any more, and don't make themselves known, so there is in 99/100 cases, no warning. I've often reflected that, if I had suddenly decided to turn to the right (or even left) for any reason (including crossing a road) there are many occasions on which I would have been involved in a potentially nasty collision with a cyclist.

 

As one who cycles, whenever I see somebody cycling on the pavement I think 'amateur'. Unless it's a dedicated/shared path, vehicles should stay on the road.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2015 at 16:21 ----------

 

There is something of a 'drivers' privilege' at work in the attitude of motor vehicle drivers to the traffic light turning amber as they approach. It feels to me like some underlying mathematical equation being worked out, balancing speed of approach, distance to the traffic light, time elapsed after the light turns red, how late the driver is to reaching their destination and the number of cars which have already run through the red light in front of a driver.

 

There's a distinct window of opportunity where the assumption seems to be made 'it's not really red', i.e. 'red' as a state of being is dependent on all the physical and temporal factors mentioned above. If the driver sees other drivers running the light, that gives them a kind of permission to also break the rules of the road, and of course to conveniently forget this when cursing anyone on a bike who does the same!

Edited May 23, 2015 by birobasher

[Timeh]

If most drivers respected cyclist and drove with due care and attention cyclist would be more inclined to use roads and not have to resort to pavements for their own safety.

Complete and utter tosh lol

[stressconsul]

That's an interesting article, but it ignores some physical factors about the 'rules' followed by people in cars etc. The main one is of course, that bikes are thinner than cars and don't have to sit behind a queue when there's room to overtake (on the outside, at the crown of the road, naturally). That's characterised by the article as not playing fair, but if there was a very thin car, a driver could do that too. There's no natural reason or point to a cyclist tamely waiting in a stationary queue when they can keep riding the outside up to the traffic lights (where they will of course, stop and wait for them to change). To put it another way, the cyclist hasn't deliberately taken anything from the car driver by exploiting the size of their vehicle to their advantage. People in cars gain things that cyclists don't, e.g. faster acceleration and general speed. I personally don't hold that against them, and do my best to stay out of the way so they can zoom past me.

 

Very much agree with you. The article is slanted to the motorist perspective, but if you are looking at the 'moral point of view' psychologically, the motorist 'moral point of view' is in the ascendent in society whereas the very logical cyclist 'moral point of view' based on being not so threatening, skinny and speedy is still discounted in the 'who is allowed on the road - I pay my road tax' discourse'. No matter how many times you tell them road tax no longer exists. The article is biased in favour of the motorist but throws up a very interesting psychological analysis of the car/bike divide.

[tigsthecat]

Complete and utter tosh lol

 

Explain to me why that's tosh.

I cycle and drive and have 1st experience of this. Do you cycle.

[Squiggs]

I don't think that the question in the thread title can be answered, until we have worked out why people who wouldn't normally say "boo" to each other, let alone a goose, turn into ranting maniacs towards each other from within the confines of a car

[Timeh]

Explain to me why that's tosh.

 

You dont need me to explain why its complete and utter tosh. Its self evident, Read it back a few times till the penny drops.