Cyclists have to take drivers on Trust

[gar]

One of our correspondents made the above comment about the relationship between Cyclist
and the driver coming up on him.

Extracting that to philosophy and wisdom, one wonders how two people, one in a car and one on a bike, who have never met before can possibly have the same understanding of how the road should be used at any given time!

Ancient philosophy talked about the "rational", "appetitive", and "spirited" types of men; if the latter comes up on you from the back then you don't have much chance, but if a reasoning person does then your chances are much better!

Perhap headlights could be adjusted to warn of what type of driver is coming up!

In modern times these ancient theories have been changed to "conscious", "sub-conscious"
and "unconscious" . If some body is coming up on you who is using his reason then you are ok.
He is entirely conscious of what he is doing.

The "spirited" individual of the ancient analysis, say a common soldier, would be entirely unaware of what he is doing when he comes up on you.

You can't possibly tell whether somebody is reasoning or reckless,or would make unconscionable mistakes in his driving,
just by the noise of an engine.

That is why I stick to the back roads and take care even then!

The other thing of course is that the cyclist himself is subject to these defintions.
If both the cyclist and the vehicle driver
are fully in control of their faculties and reason....then everything is fine
If both are reckless or "unconscious" or merely
"high spirited" in what they do, then the likelihood of trouble or accident is fairly high.

Looking at the adjoining CM topic, there must be a common factor in the participants attitude to cycling and vehicles.. to chattels... which I would not be able to comment on without going to a meeting! They sound like rather emotional occasions.
It is certain that cyclists come from absolutely all walks of life, Critical Mass cyclists may not.

[Tony Smith]

If you use a mirror (careful now, don't want to clip any recumbent riders round the ear!) You can tell a lot from road positioning, speed and sometimes even indicators. You can't guard against the psycho but at least you can tell the ones who've seen you and intend going around you.

[gar]

My broken leg was cause by a psycho woman
driver, totally distracted by myth about the danger of Motorcycles and wanting to protect the Mcyclists from danger by getting so close as to knocking him off completely....ME.

Because they are safe inside a car they think that getting close to the cyclist/Mcyclists will make them safe too. PSYCHO, hit and run; three words..

In terms of the classic defintions a Psycho has no reason, does not understand his/her own appetites/ and is merely high spirited , totally irrational.

There are many on the road like that, and one CAN keep out of their way.

The mangerial types in very fast cars are generally not REASONING people, but motivated by the need to meet deadlines
and mortgage payments. Round here that is better than the unthinking private soldiers who have old but powerful cars too.

Here is to my 90 year old Neighbour's sound reason.....20mph on a road which has two blind corners in two miles. Others go 50 round those corners.

[GreenArrow]

Not sure "TRUST" comes into it. I'd say it's more about concentration. Like concentration on task in hand, i.e. safely controlling a vehicle of 1 ton plus within the law. Trouble is, most drivers don't see it that way- they're concentrating on the radio, on the meeting they've just been to, the kids screaming in the back etc. etc.

Also speed and feeling safe. Why is it that speed is so socially acceptable? is it 'cos car drivers can speed without consequence (either actual or legal) on their activities? Or is it being insulated from it all? You do 30mph on a cycle, you KNOW you're doing 30mph. In a car- maybe not.

Also no motive for slowing down, and maybe a culture that admires agression/speed? I'm sick of being tailgated for actually doing 30 (or less if I feel the conditions dictate) in a 30 limit zone. If car drivers (try to) intimidate vans, what chance cycles? BTW, a van driver with a rear bulkhead can't see the tailgater except on the inside of bends, so it's both pointless & dangerous.

Only when speeding is seen as socially unacceptable and with no excuse will it stop- similarly not treating other road users with courtesy.

Ironical, if any of those "managerial" or other types who are inconsiderate on the road was accused of being a "bully" in the office, they'd be horrified, why can they not understand that a less vulnerable vehicle turning left across the path of a cyclist and causing them to swerve/stop is the same deal?

[gar]

maybe a culture that admires agression/speed? I'm sick of being tailgated for actually doing 30 (or less if I feel the conditions dictate) in a 30 limit zone.

I am sure you are right about the kind of culture.
I s'pose that it must be a theme of quite a few sci-fi books ... that we have cracked the code for all programmes and that everything IS a programme of one sort or another.

My new old car only does about 40 without going into a higher gear and it isn't run in yet so
I don't like to go in to overdrive.

That means a good many tailbacks when I go on to the main road. If a car gets so close that I have an uneasy feeling... then I indicate, pull in and wait for him to pass; it is extraordinary how many people pull in too, although I have used my indicator. They tailgate and don't want to overtake.

Sorry that is cars, but road psychology nonetheless

[gar]

As an afterthought it is unrestrained Capitaliism,
which is the cause of the aggression; ie the "competitive spirit" which becomes a total obssession for some people, and in many ways perverse.