Road rage against cyclists is it just me?

DirkVoodoo · 23-07-2013 01:18PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Kill this one now....

2 people in exactly the same circumstances, both earn the same and there fore pay the same income tax,
one of them cycles to work the other drives, the one who drives is paying more in taxation (motor tax/fuel tax etc. ) therefore he IS paying more tax towards the roads than the cyclist so there are road taxes

And what causes more wear on the roads? What vehicles require 4 lane carriageways, traffic lights, roundabouts? Certainly not bikes.

I'm sick of people who drive complaining about how expensive it is to drive around the city. There are plenty of other ways to get around. Paying more money because it costs more to support you does not entitle a motorist to special treatment any more than a morbidly obese person should be given special treatment when they power their motorised scooter down the footpath. Sure, he is paying more to VHI, but he is costing the state a lot more money to support his laziness.

I don't hold up traffic, and I've certainly never been held up by a cyclist when I drive, I've never felt the urge to squeeze past one or been "forced to dangerously overtake". These are symptoms of an underlying incompetence with regards your driving and also a dislike of people who can get around the city a little better than a car.

Tax fuel and just fuel. That way people can still own and drive a car when they need to and won't feel compelled to go on "Sunday drives" or drive 5 minutes down the road because they couldn't be arsed going for a 20 minute walk.

Mucco · 23-07-2013 01:36PM

I'm very reluctant to join in with internet 'debates' as no-one ever changes their mind, however, here's my view on the subject.

There are many factors going in to the road rage, a lot of them have nothing to do with other road users. Being stuck in traffic every day, day in day out is very frustrating. Cars are advertised as great liberating machines, but the reality is not so. There is a bit of literature on the negative effects of commuting on happiness, see Layard, Dolan, Thaler etc... People take their frustration out on others.

With reference to cyclists, I think it's simple ancient tribal behaviour. Cyclists are viewed as an inferior out-group, and therefore it is acceptable to treat them badly. However, it's not acceptable to say this overtly (or maybe it's a sub-conscious view), so it is rationalised by statements such as 'they never obey the law', 'they don't pay road tax' etc... Despite the fact that many motorists freely announce that they don't obey speed limits, park everywhere etc. In countries with high cyclist numbers, everyone is a cyclist, so there is no out-group anymore.

I also think there is an impression of unfairness. See the 'road tax' debate again. It logically makes no sense to charge cyclists, but people view it as unfair that cyclists don't pay (in their view). The same with red lights. It's unfair that cyclists break them. A sense of fairness is a very strong emotion, and is, perhaps, something that should be addressed.
My preferred method would be to normalise cycling as much as possible, so that there is no out-group anymore. Therefore, no high-viz, no helmets, no lycra. There are very strong arguments for investing significant funds in promoting cycling (health, congestion, community), the UK is beginning to do this: http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/news/WalkingAndCyclingShouldBecomeTheNormForShortJourneys.jsp

BTW, for those interested in road costs, TU Dresden published a report recently.
Here's a newspaper article on it: http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu

Quote: "it must be stated that car traffic in the EU is highly subsidised by other people and other regions and will be by future generations: residents along an arterial road, taxpayers, elderly people who do not own cars, neighbouring countries, and children, grandchildren and all future generations subsidise today's traffic."

Femme_Fatale · 23-07-2013 01:40PM

Never took much notice of cyclists... until twice in the recent good weather. Was driving on two different country roads (not the really narrow ones, the in-between-width ones, which would have been old main roads before dual carriageways) and thanks to just one cyclist, a long line of crawling cars formed, of which I was part. Overtaking wasn't an option due to the unbroken white line. It was frustrating indeed.
I'd be mortified to hijack the road like that - something very arrogant about it.

ThisRegard · 23-07-2013 01:49PM

Seriously, there was a long line of traffic because of an unbroken white line ?

DirkVoodoo · 23-07-2013 01:54PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Never took much notice of cyclists... until twice in the recent good weather. Was driving on two different country roads (not the really narrow ones, the in-between-width ones, which would have been old main roads before dual carriageways) and thanks to just one cyclist, a long line of crawling cars formed, of which I was part. Overtaking wasn't an option due to the unbroken white line. It was frustrating indeed.
I'd be mortified to hijack the road like that - something very arrogant about it.

Do you feel the same way about tractors? Was there a reason you couldn't take the NEW main road?

Hijack, mortified, arrogance...these are all pretty strong words for someone who was just out for a nice spin on their bike. What would you have him do? Pull in every 15 minutes when a queue forms behind him? Surely if the solid white line continues for as long as is implied in your post, you're a bigger fool for taking the "old main road" when you risk getting stuck behind slower moving traffic.

I don't drive much, but when I do, it's on motorways. /meme

EDIT: I find your arrogance at being "mortified" for this individual in question to be the only really shocking thing here.

Chips Lovell · 23-07-2013 02:08PM

I think the behaviour of cyclists in general is a contributing factor towards incidents of road rage directed at individual cyclists.

The level of law breaking and poor cycling, in Dublin at least, is so high that I think some motorists tar everyone with the same brush and take it out, wrongly, on often blameless cyclists.

In addition, it fuels the notion among some motorists that whenever a cyclist does something they dislike, it must be illegal since cyclists are always breaking the law anyway.

In short, as a road using group, we do ourselves no favours.

DirkVoodoo · 23-07-2013 02:13PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think the behaviour of cyclists in general is a contributing factor towards incidents of road rage directed at individual cyclists.

The level of law breaking and poor cycling, in Dublin at least, is so high that I think some motorists tar everyone with the same brush and take it out, wrongly, on often blameless cyclists.

In addition, it fuels the notion among some motorists that whenever a cyclist does something they dislike, it must be illegal since cyclists are always breaking the law anyway.

In short, as a road using group, we do ourselves no favours.

That could be applied to any other road group as well. Just look at the BMW hitting the Luas this morning, you will see plenty of "what a moron posts!", but very few "All people who drive cars break the law and should be off the roads!" ones. Bad behaviour should not be excused (although I would argue that turning left on red is less dangerous than plowing into the Luas!) but it certainly does not give license to people to come on here, or on broadsheet, or twitter and talk about what a scourge cyclists are, their arrogance and maybe how it is ok to knock them down because they don't pay tax.

Spook_ie · 23-07-2013 02:20PM

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

That could be applied to any other road group as well. Just look at the BMW hitting the Luas this morning, you will see plenty of "what a moron posts!", but very few "All people who drive cars break the law and should be off the roads!" ones. Bad behaviour should not be excused (although I would argue that turning left on red is less dangerous than plowing into the Luas!) but it certainly does not give license to people to come on here, or on broadsheet, or twitter and talk about what a scourge cyclists are, their arrogance and maybe how it is ok to knock them down because they don't pay tax.

Interesting concept, read this

WASHINGTON — I was nearly sideswiped by a BMW on my bike ride home from work this week, which was not surprising, because BMWs are always nearly sideswiping me. I ride in the right half of the right lane, and virtually every car behind me slides over to the left lane, passing with six comfortable feet of berth. But every month or so, a driver doesn't change lanes, rides up on my shoulder, and squeezes by with just a few inches to spare, prompting me to squeal in terror and rage.

After several years of close calls, I began keeping mental track of who, exactly, was threatening my safety. During the time I paid attention, fully half of my dangerous encounters — about 10 of 20, if I remember — were with BMWs. There were two or three Mercedes, and no other make was a repeat offender. In other words, the BMW, a car that has less than 2 percent market share in the United States, was responsible for 50 percent of the menacing. To put it another way: Terrifying research concludes that BMW owners are far more likely than typical drivers to endanger cyclists on the road.

Am I a jerk cyclist? I don't think so. I do bike on busy streets during rush hour and take my God- and law-given share of the road. But the issue here isn't whether I'm a road hog. The question is why non-BMW drivers find it so much easier to avoid cyclists than BMW drivers. Everyone is late. Everyone is stuck in traffic. Why is it that only those with BMWs do the bullying?

I'm sure most BMW drivers are kind souls, always stopping to put baby birds back in their nests. My beloved brother drives a BMW, safely and gently. And the overwhelming majority of BMW drivers on my commute pass me with a safe cushion. But of the small minority of motorists willing to endanger my cycling life, a shocking number bear that blue-and-white emblem.

I am not the first person to make a claim about the character of BMW drivers. The first Google result for "BMW drivers" is a Facebook page called "I HATE BMW DRIVERS." Any BMW driver research will direct you to the discussion board "Are BMW drivers a--holes?" Next stop: The listings on MyRoadRage.com, which suggest the BMW is the No. 1 source of other's road rage (at least in Britain). Finally, there's the epic tale of the Beverly Hills BMW driver recently caught on camera intentionally ramming a cyclist into a trash bin.

Why? What explains the fact that drivers of this particular kind of car are so dangerous to cyclists? I have four theories.

1. BMWs are luxury cars, and most BMW drivers are wealthy. There's widespread evidence that wealthy people feel entitled — to their good fortune, to their privilege, and probably to their speedy commute. (See this study suggesting that people who drive fancier cars break more traffic rules: http://bit.ly/w4VQV1.) My bike disrupts that entitlement by slowing the rich man's forward progress. In fact, he is not aggrieving me — I am aggrieving him.

2. "The Ultimate Driving Machine" is a car lover's car. BMW owners believe roads belong to cars and bikes shouldn't mess them up. Bikes destroy the joyful, fundamentally American right to drive fast everywhere, and deserve no quarter.

3. BMW drivers are better drivers. They bought a BMW because they care about driving well. They spend weekends at BMW Performance Driving School. They own a car that steers like champagne. They have close shaves because, superb drivers that they are, they know they can squeeze by me with 4 inches to spare. (Compelling evidence in favor of this theory: I've been hit on my bike three times, but never by a BMW.) This is the story that all BMW drivers tell themselves.

4. BMW drivers are jerks.

Now do cyclists have their own version of BMW drivers, the ones that behave as if they are owed something by other road users?

Granolite · 23-07-2013 02:20PM

I find the blame being laid at cyclists here very lamentable. The sun is shining..people like to get out on their bikes..isnt that a good thing??

But no, "inconvenienced" drivers need to vent about cyclists "blocking" them en route to same driver's critical destinations/rendevous'.. so next time you are held hostage by a queue of rolling traffic on the roads remember we are all just passengers, roll down the window, let one arm feel the air rushing by, admire the scenery..take time to observe what is around you, things you normally miss out on in your rush to wherever it is you are going...smell and breathe in the summer air..slow down..chill out

Femme_Fatale · 23-07-2013 02:22PM

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Do you feel the same way about tractors? Was there a reason you couldn't take the NEW main road?

Hijack, mortified, arrogance...these are all pretty strong words for someone who was just out for a nice spin on their bike. What would you have him do? Pull in every 15 minutes when a queue forms behind him? Surely if the solid white line continues for as long as is implied in your post, you're a bigger fool for taking the "old main road" when you risk getting stuck behind slower moving traffic.

I don't drive much, but when I do, it's on motorways. /meme

EDIT: I find your arrogance at being "mortified" for this individual in question to be the only really shocking thing here.

Should have known there'd be this type of reaction. Could you not even try to consider it from the point of view of myself and other drivers? Being a cyclist shouldn't preclude you from being able to do so.
Yes I do feel the same way about tractors, although at least they actually have to be out on the road for work purposes.
Yes there was a reason for me not taking the new road - the secondary road needed to be used to get to the location I needed to get to. But even if it didn't, and I just liked the secondary route, why the hell shouldn't I take it?
In each case, he and she shouldn't have been holding up traffic. Can't imagine it being very enjoyable for them either. Yes they should have pulled in when cars had to crawl just for them and a queue was forming.

Kav0777 · 23-07-2013 02:25PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Should have known there'd be this type of reaction. Could you not even try to consider it from the point of view of myself and other drivers? Being a cyclist shouldn't preclude you from being able to do so.
Yes I do feel the same way about tractors, although at least they actually have to be out on the road for work purposes.
Yes there was a reason for me not taking the new road - the secondary road needed to be used to get to the location I needed to get to. But even if it didn't, and I just liked the secondary route, why the hell shouldn't I take it?
In each case, he and she shouldn't have been holding up traffic. Can't imagine it being very enjoyable for them either. Yes they should have pulled in when cars had to crawl just for them and a queue was forming.

I'm sure there is something ironic in there somewhere....

DirkVoodoo · 23-07-2013 02:28PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Should have known there'd be this type of reaction.

Yes, it's the type of reaction you generally get when you say something so completely ridiculous, only Captain Picard could possibly articulate the collective feeling of the forum.

Try and see it? Sure, why not...I drove all around Ireland a few years ago with nothing but a couple of cyclists in front of me, crawling along and holding me up. Longest 73 hours of my life.

Where is this stretch of road?

kingoffifa · 23-07-2013 02:29PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think the behaviour of cyclists in general is a contributing factor towards incidents of road rage directed at individual cyclists.

The level of law breaking and poor cycling, in Dublin at least, is so high that I think some motorists tar everyone with the same brush and take it out, wrongly, on often blameless cyclists.

In addition, it fuels the notion among some motorists that whenever a cyclist does something they dislike, it must be illegal since cyclists are always breaking the law anyway.

In short, as a road using group, we do ourselves no favours.

with that amount of logic in one statement, as a mod you should ban yourself from the forum

Femme_Fatale · 23-07-2013 02:30PM

Kav0777 wrote: »

I'm sure there is something ironic in there somewhere....

There would be if I and other motorists held up cyclists.

Only an inflated sense of self-entitlement would cause you guys to defend one person holding up a line of cars for no reason other than... because they can.

droidus · 23-07-2013 02:33PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

There would be if I and other motorists held up cyclists.

Only an inflated sense of self-entitlement would cause you guys to defend one person holding up a line of cars for no reason other than... because they can.

Every day on my commute Im held up by hundreds of cars clogging up lanes, parking inconsiderately, blocking bus lanes. Its endemic.

Chips Lovell · 23-07-2013 02:35PM

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

That could be applied to any other road group as well. Just look at the BMW hitting the Luas this morning, you will see plenty of "what a moron posts!", but very few "All people who drive cars break the law and should be off the roads!" ones. Bad behaviour should not be excused (although I would argue that turning left on red is less dangerous than plowing into the Luas!) but it certainly does not give license to people to come on here, or on broadsheet, or twitter and talk about what a scourge cyclists are, their arrogance and maybe how it is ok to knock them down because they don't pay tax.

I'm not saying that other road users don't break the law or drive poorly. I'm saying that the level of law breaking among cyclists is so high that it marks them out somewhat.

ericzeking · 23-07-2013 02:36PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Interesting concept, read this

Now do cyclists have their own version of BMW drivers, the ones that behave as if they are owed something by other road users?

BMW drivers!!!!

A BMW driver will always chance his arm with an iffy overtaking manouvre!

I have a particular dislike for them and always find their number on the roads to be quite baffling in a country which we so often hear is bust.

DirkVoodoo · 23-07-2013 02:37PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

There would be if I and other motorists held up cyclists.

Only an inflated sense of self-entitlement would cause you guys to defend one person holding up a line of cars for no reason other than... because they can.

No, no...you are missing the irony. The cyclist was not going out to hold people up. You were being held up either because of poor road design, people not using the more suitable "Main Road" or one driver not being able to pass safely because they lacked confidence to move slightly over a solid white line.

The inflated sense of self-entitlement you speak of is that you perceive your right to the road as somehow being more important than the guy on the bike's. That he should pull over, bow down and kiss the tyres of any passing car.

That's the irony.

So, no word on what road it was?

And yes, I get held up plenty by cars, but I don't mind too much, it doesn't add that much to my journey and I'm not a sanctimonious commuter.

magicbastarder · 23-07-2013 02:39PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yes I do feel the same way about tractors, although at least they actually have to be out on the road for work purposes.

maybe the cyclist was commuting?

actually, i do know one cyclist who blocks the road. he's a mad old coot living on a road i have to use from time to time, which is a country lane. if he's cycling on it, and he recognises your car, he'll pull over. but he won't budge an inch if he doesn't know you. i don't use the road enough for him to recognise me, so i've been stuck behind him for several minutes on several occasions.

Chips Lovell · 23-07-2013 02:40PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

There would be if I and other motorists held up cyclists.

Only an inflated sense of self-entitlement would cause you guys to defend one person holding up a line of cars for no reason other than... because they can.

I'm regularly held up by motorists too. You've got to share the road and wait for a safe opportunity to go by them.

magicbastarder · 23-07-2013 02:41PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm not saying that other road users don't break the law or drive poorly. I'm saying that the level of law breaking among cyclists is so high that it marks them out somewhat.

the thing is, that when my colleagues drive home this evening, they will not consider the 10 times they break 50kph speed limits or the one time they run an orange light as violating the law. but as soon as a cyclist does a 'turn left on red', the ROTR come out.

Chips Lovell · 23-07-2013 02:45PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

the thing is, that when my colleagues drive home this evening, they will not consider the 10 times they break 50kph speed limits or the one time they run an orange light as violating the law. but as soon as a cyclist does a 'turn left on red', the ROTR come out.

I've regularly cycled across the city and not come across a single other cyclist who's stopped at the lights. Would you ever see similar levels of law breaking for motorists? I'd usually spot two or three going three after the lights turn red.

Just this morning on my commute I encountered a.) a cyclist coming head on towards me on the wrong side of the road and b.) a cyclist causing some emergency breaking at a junction because he sailed through the lights. It wasn't that unusual a morning in terms of cyclists doing dumb stuff. If people encountered motorists regularly pulling stunts like that, you'd see the same level of anger directed towards them as a group.

DirkVoodoo · 23-07-2013 02:52PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If people encountered motorists regularly pulling stunts like that, you'd see the same level of anger directed towards them as a group.

Really? You cycle the canal in the mornings, how many times do you see people go through the light after it's gone red, sit in yellow boxes and obstruct the flow of traffic, encroach on the cycle lane, speed down the canal when there is a clear stretch, turn left without indicating.

Granolite · 23-07-2013 02:53PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I've regularly cycled across the city and not come across a single other cyclist who's stopped at the lights. Would you ever see similar levels of law breaking for motorists? I'd usually spot two or three going three after the lights turn red.

Just this morning on my commute I encountered a.) a cyclist coming head on towards me on the wrong side of the road and b.) a cyclist causing some emergency breaking at a junction because he sailed through the lights. It wasn't that unusual a morning in terms of cyclists doing dumb stuff. If people encountered motorists regularly pulling stunts like that, you'd see the same level of anger directed towards them as a group.

Its true what you say VK. I observe these very same "renegade" bikers on my commute too and its frustrating to see. We all know their behaviour detracts from the road craft and common courtesy exhibited by a great many cyclists out there be it on commute, solo or club cycle.

No Pants · 23-07-2013 02:57PM

Mucco wrote: »

no high-viz, no helmets, no lycra.

I'd agree to all of the above, but unfortunately lycra seems to be the least uncomfortable clothing option.

anncoates · 23-07-2013 03:00PM

These threads are gas and always wiorth a read.

What is highly ironic though, is that the only other forum on boards that macthes this one for hysterical whataboutery and a righteous sense of persecution is actually the Motors forum.

:pac:

ford2600 · 23-07-2013 03:03PM

"whataboutery" ffs

Tombo2001 · 23-07-2013 03:03PM

anncoates wrote: »

These threads are gas and always wiorth a read.

What is highly ironic though, is that the only forum on boards that macthes this one for hysterical whataboutery and a righteous sense of persecution is actually the Motors forum.

:pac:

A heated discussion maybe.....

Hysterical whataboutery it is not.....

But then again, if you had just described it for what it is without resorting to gross exaggeration then there would have been absolutely no point to your post.

No Pants · 23-07-2013 03:03PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

...hijack...

hi·jack also high·jack (h

j

k

) Informal tr.v. hi·jacked also high·jacked, hi·jack·ing also high·jack·ing, hi·jacks also high·jacks 1. a. To stop and rob (a vehicle in transit).
b. To steal (goods) from a vehicle in transit.
c. To seize control of (a moving vehicle) by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate destination.

2. a. To steal from as if by hijacking.
b. To swindle or subject to extortion.

n. The act or an instance of hijacking.

magicbastarder · 23-07-2013 03:04PM

i used to commute from blanchardstown to leopardstown on the bike, was about 14 miles each way. i think there were two occasions on each leg where i would turn left on red - e.g. turning left onto the canal coming down from ranelagh.
however, i did once witness a cyclist sail through red lights i was waiting at (junction of sandford road and marlborough road, i think it's called) who was promptly badly clipped by a car, with a reasonable amount of damage to the bike - and the cyclist began getting aggressive with me because i refused to take his side, presumably because he saw me as an ally, being a fellow cyclist. i dealt with the situation by cycling off on him.

Road rage against cyclists is it just me?

Comments