h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why does every article ever on cycling have to have a section on 'obey the rules of the road' and 'treat other people with respect' etc?

Pedestrians are not told this in articles about nice walks and drivers are not told to not jump red lights (plenty do!) or not speed in articles on nice places to drive to.

There seems to be an underlying and unspoken assumption that cyclists are aggressive and disobey the rules of the road en-masse. Which is not not true in my experience... at least no more true than it is for pedestrians and car drivers.
In the end a lot of people are all three. (pedestrians, cyclists, car drivers, I know I am)

It seems a bit sad to me that there cannot be an article on cycling that does not go off on this all too predictable tangent.

Tell you what - if I ever write an article about lorries, I promise I'll include an awful lot of advice about what lorry drivers should and should not do when driving...

Did you read that other thing I've written recently about bicycles that can be found over here: A87793564 ?

<BB<

Sorry, probably bit sensitive as I see prejudice against cyclists all the time since I took it up. Cyclists always have to be told what to do - but noone else does - it really is there I'm afraid.

If you want to kill someone, make sure they're cycling and you're driving - you will almost certainly get off with a slap on the wrist as all cyclists run lights, ride on the pavement and weave in and out of traffic and hence it's probably their fault. Do it any other way and you'll be in prison for years. And it's this sort of complicit implication that cyclists are all reckless and need to be told how to ride their bikes that is the thinnest end of the wedge. See a recent court case in Scotland where a guy who'd killed two cyclists in separate incidents got a community sentence and not a small part of that was the judge/magistrate (not sure in Scotland) commenting that the fact that she wasn't wearing a helmet was a contributory factor to her death. Ummm, surely the speeding tonne of metal hurling her into the air had rather *more* to do with it.

Aside from that nice article by the way. I should maybe point that out.
I hate sustrans routes though - nice as they are they're full of pedestrians, dog-walkers and others making it impossible to cycle pleasurably on there. Give me the road any day.

(And they shouldn't really need to worry about cyclists mowing them down either BTW - share paths are just hateful for everyone).

*goes off to read A87793564*

Ah I see you've covered many of those points there.

So do you think that cycle path for the toddlers will be maintained or will it end up glass and leaf strewn so that it's much safer to ride on the road anyway?

Cynic, moi?

I used to cycle in Southampton when I was a student BTW - probably the most dangerous place I've cycled sadly. Although getting deliberately run off the road by a transit van on Portswood road probably jades my opinions somewhat.

Oh and the other problem with cycle paths of course is that they lead to an even greater sense of entitlement to motorists. What are those damn cyclists doing on *My* road when they've a perfectly good cycle path to use?
To which of course the answer is - (a) it's probably not convenient to cycle on as it will be short and require you to rejoin the main carriageway at a pinchpoint like a roundabout or pedestrian crossing (b) It's not maintained so it's pothole, glass and leaf strewn and therefore dangerous and (c) full of pedestrians even though they've got a perfectly good pavement to walk on just next to it.

I've thought about what you have to say overnight, and you do make a good point.
Articles on cycling should not automatically have a section lecturing cyclists to obey the rules of the road, and to include this implies that cyclists don't. In my experience, the only people who give cyclists a bad name are teenage cyclists, which is a lot more to do with them being teenagers than being cyclists. (If teenagers walk down the road, people would complain about how they walk with their trousers hanging down, in large groups and possibly in an aggressive manner, and people complain about teenagers. If they do the same sort of behaviour but on a bike, people complain about cyclists as a whole.)

If it is any consolation, I do tell pedestrians how to walk in my article: A87726955 - Walking Hadrian's Wall

I cycle 8 miles to and from Southampton, so 16 miles a day, and stick to the cycle route purely because it is much safer than way than the roads in the area. And I signed a petition about that Scottish court case...

Would you be able to do me a favour and bring your 'rant' on 'articles on cycling should not automatically have a section telling cyclists to obey the rules of the road' to F48874?thread=8295005 ? I've written an article about the South Coast Cycle Challenge which is in Peer Review at the moment. As I think that as you've made a good point, I'd like to see if your convincing argument can promote a debate there.

<BB<

OK, will do

Ooh, you might be interested in this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22730808

I saw that - I got an e-mail from the CTC saying that following their petition, the Crown Council has appealed the sentence.

Thanks for going over to the South Coast Cycle Challenge article.

<BB<

Interesting, I'm wondering why I have no such email from the CTC - did you sign the petition through them? I just went and did it off my own tod.

No probs and sorry, I probably am overreacting on the safety issue, must have touched a nerve yesterday or something.

The e-mail reads 'Your email to the Lord Advocate was one of 6010 that were sent in support of an appeal'. I signed the petition (one of those ones where you put in your name and address etc on a website and it does the rest) by following a link from a CTC e-mail a couple of weeks ago, I think. The CycleDigest they send out on Fridays.

<BB<