Why does the UK hate cyclists?

[rIcK]

I have been exclusively cycling to work for the past year, and there is nothing better. It costs nothing, takes much less time and is enjoyable vs the nonsense that is driving where you seem to hate everyone else.

Yet every thread on news websites, or video websites or typical websites where a cyclist is mentioned there seems to be a natural hate towards cycling in our country. There is usually some nonsensical need for people to say bikes should be insured, or about cycling on the pavement, how dare they filter or even they should all be paying road tax even though this doesn't actually exist.

Why do you guys feel this is ?

 

[shauncr91]

Uninsured, often lack of hi-vis or lights, no helmets, jumping red lights and crossings, refusal to use cycle paths where applicable.

All things that annoy me about a lot of cyclists, most are often OK but unfortunately the fact that anyone can buy a bike and jump onto the public highway and exhibit the above points is what infuriates me the most.

 

[robfosters]

I have been exclusively cycling to work for the past year, and there is nothing better. It costs nothing, takes much less time and is enjoyable vs the nonsense that is driving where you seem to hate everyone else.

Yet every thread on news websites, or video websites or typical websites where a cyclist is mentioned there seems to be a natural hate towards cycling in our country. There is usually some nonsensical need for people to say bikes should be insured, or about cycling on the pavement, how dare they filter or even they should all be paying road tax even though this doesn't actually exist.

Why do you guys feel this is ?

According to my Dad, its because "They pay no tax or insurance, they're dangerous and they think they ******* own the road"

Thats his words not mine.

 

[Vonhelmet]

This will be a well balanced discussion.

 

[NoobCannon]

Uninsured, often lack of hi-vis or lights, no helmets, jumping red lights and crossings, refusal to use cycle paths where applicable.

All things that annoy me about a lot of cyclists, most are often OK but unfortunately the fact that anyone can buy a bike and jump onto the public highway and exhibit the above points is what infuriates me the most.

This

According to my Dad, its because "They pay no tax or insurance, they're dangerous and they think they ******* own the road"

Thats his words not mine.

And this

 

[Baron C]

It does depend a lot on where you are in the UK.
London is manic with cyclists which in itself is fine and dandy. The issue here is that the roads and layout make the interaction between vehicles and cyclists dangerous.

 

[Mynight]

I think the only times I've been annoyed at a cyclist is no lights/black clothes on a country lane lacking lights and going 10mph on a 60mph road where there's a cycle path.

Other than the occasional moron I don't see any problems with them. Not as though car drivers don't have their fair share of idiots as well.

 

[hornetstinger]

[QUOTE="shauncr91, post: 31348173, member: 66146], refusal to use cycle paths where applicable.
.[/QUOTE]

Cycle paths are useless. Got rubbish, short, pedasteians on them, kerbs mean you have to slow down, turn off mean need to give way to cars, ribbed flagstones are wrong way round, on roundabouts need to cross several roads.
Useless.

 

[Malevolence]

Cyclists would get a far better rap if they started to take some responsibility for their actions. For example, guess who had to fork out a shedload of cash to repair my motor when some idiot decided he could fit in between me and and another car and proceeded to leave a gash the size of the grand canyon from rear quarter panel to front wing? Yes, that would be me since the **** just said 'tough ****', gave me the finger and rode off.

It's one of the main reason why I now practice the ancient art of bangernomics.

 

[robfosters]

This bit of cycle path near me always makes me laugh. Looks so two bob lol

 

[Vonhelmet]

Cycle paths are crap pretty much across the board in this country and thus are best ignored.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Uninsured,

a lot of cyclists are insured (i.e. through British Cycling, home insurance etc) but other than that, the DfT have repeatedly stated the cost - benefit ratio does not make compulsory insurance for cyclists worth it, mainly due to the fact that cyclists generally only cause a fraction of the damage an accident in a car would. There are still routes available to pursue cyclists is they are at fault anyhow (i.e. civil courts).

often lack of hi-vis

It's been demonstrated that high vis does not improve visibility of cyclists.

or lights,

I'll give you that one, however most responsible cyclists do have lights, or are you thinking of 'yobs on bikes'? That's before even commenting on the multitude of cars that have faulty lights.

no helmets

I don't know what wearing a helmet has got to do with car drivers given that a: It's not a legal requirement, b: It's arguable that helmets don't offer that much protection anyway and c: Wearing helmets actually place cyclists in more danger.

jumping red lights

Some do, some don't, much like car drivers.

and crossings,

See above.

refusal to use cycle paths where applicable.

Like the helmet statement above, cyclists do not have to use a cycle path and it's often safer to use the road if a: they are travelling at a decent speed (I believe DfT recomend >15mph) and b: cycle paths are generally in a worse state of repair than roads and c: a lot of cycle paths stop and start at junctions, putting the cyclist in danger and slowing thier journey down.


Remember, roads were not built for cars!. Cyclists (and pedestrians and horses) use the roads by right, motor vehicles use them by license.

 

[robfosters]

Remember, roads were not built for cars!. Cyclists (and pedestrians and horses) use the roads by right, motor vehicles use them by license.

That argument is rubbish. In the old days maybe, but in the last 80 years or so, every new road and road improvement has been built for motor vehicles, all paid for by the tax from owners of motor vehicles, not a penny from cyclists.

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

I dislike bad cyclists same as bad motorists.

 

[Vonhelmet]

That argument is rubbish. In the old days maybe, but in the last 80 years or so, every new road and road improvement has been built for motor vehicles, all paid for by the tax from owners of motor vehicles, not a penny from cyclists.

Erm, what? You think road tax pays for roads and that roads are paid for with road tax? You’re wrong.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

That argument is rubbish.

It's only nonsense if you don't understand how roads were/are funded.

In the old days maybe, but in the last 80 years or so, every new road and road improvement has been built for motor vehicles, all paid for by the tax from owners of motor vehicles, not a penny from cyclists.

So cyclists don't pay tax then?

Vehicle tax was introduced to help pay for the DAMAGE motor vehicles do to the roads. Road improvements were/are paid for from general taxation, which I think cyclists contribute to quite a lot! Even motorways, which are solely for the use of motor vehicles, were/are paid for from general taxation. So really, it's actually us cyclists that are paying for damn roads that we can't even use!

 

[robfosters]

Erm, what? You think road tax pays for roads and that roads are paid for with road tax? You’re wrong.

Ok, it doesn't, but it's still the motorists who have to cough up for using the roads and that money must go in some way to maintaining and improving our transport systems. Cyclists offer nothing of any financial value to the transport system.

 

[Vonhelmet]

@amigafan2003 I’ve heard 18mph referred to with regard to “shared use paths”, which is what pretty much all segregated “cycle” paths are. Not sure where that comes from.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Ok, it doesn't, but it's still the motorists who have to cough up for using the roads and that money must go in some way to maintaining and improving our transport systems. Cyclists offer nothing of any financial value to the transport system.

No, it’s motorists who cough up for causing the pollution that causes people to cough up, that being what “road tax” is charged on.

“Road tax” goes into the great big pot of tax that pays for everything, including roads, so that’s principally income tax, nic and vat. Last I checked, cyclists paid those taxes.

 

[Steeps]

This bit of cycle path near me always makes me laugh. Looks so two bob lol

Those are crossing points where the cycle path ends on the road to allow the cyclist a safer space to stop and wait for the road to be clear to then cross, rather than asking them to sit in the middle of the carriageway to wait for a gap.