Cycling UK Forum

howard peel wrote:lots and lots and lots - but all good stuff

nigel_s wrote:At least you've put into words the increasing shame, anger and frustration of being British and living in Britain being experienced by an ever increasing number of us.

Right, that does it. I've lived car-free for the last 10 years or so, but the politico-industrial complex has won. I'm going to use the almost obscene amount of money that I've saved to buy a great big sports car. And if that means that other road users think I'm compensating for something, so be it. That's less bad than being garrotted, assaulted with a deadly weapon or just forced off the road by other drivers' incompetence or negligence.

Sorry, everyone, for abandoning the cause. I'll give you the space you need when I overtake. If that space isn't there, I'll hang back, and let the other motorists fume behind me.

rower40 wrote: Right, that does it. I've lived car-free for the last 10 years or so, but the politico-industrial complex has won. I'm going to use the almost obscene amount of money that I've saved to buy a great big sports car.

You might appreciate the following quote, taken from the book 'Car wars' by Chris Mosey. This book looks at the influence of cars on modern society and those who have campaigned against the impact cars have on our everyday lives and the environment. He ends the book with a little fable which hits the true nature of the problem on the head:

'..let us imagine a scene from the second coming of Christ. Remember how he was tempted by the devil the first time around? A scenario for the second coming might read something like this;

And the devil pointed to a state of the art Italian sports car and said to him, "Worship me and you can have this baby. She accelerates from 0-100 MPH in 10 seconds, achieves 420 horsepower and 186 MPH. She'll cruise at 140 and you won't feel or hear a thing. She's got overhead cams, triple carbs, double wishbone suspension, anti-lock braking and electronic fuel injection. There's cruise and climate control and power steering. the upholstery is the softest calf skin, the dash rainforest teak and the trim gold plated. She comes in with a built in six-deck stereo compact disk player with graphic equaliser. There's and on-board computer, phone and fax machine. She'll take you all over the world and when you drive her you will feel incredibly powerful. She is your passport to a life of adventure and glamour. She will make you the envy of everyone you meet and win you any girl you fancy. All you have to do is wave two fingers to your fellow man and the planet in general."

Jesus said, "Get thee behind me Satan."

So the devil climbed into the back seat and Vroom!- they roared off, running like the very wind itself, the blood pouring in their veins, the adrenaline flowing though their bodies, smiles on their faces and stars in their eyes.

Heading down the road to nowhere.

Howard Peel wrote:Given that Britain is overwhelmingly right-wing, car-centric and status-orientated it is perhaps no surprise that cyclists should be so frequently portrayed as representing something 'alien' and potentially threatening.

IIRC correctly, one CTC survey showed that cyclists were more likely than the population in general to own cars. In other words, there may or may not be the perception that Howard describes, of cyclists as some kind of underclass, but regardless the reality is that cyclists are actually a sub-set of the "master race". In the early days also, cycling was a plaything of the rich.

I doubt whether there is much mileage in challenging the perception of difference, if it does exist as widely as Howard fears. However, I would argue that it is quite easy to feed it, or to avoid doing so.

I do try now to avoid talking about cyclists and motorists as though they were separate groups. They aren't, and it isn't helpful to pretend any differently. When someone, even JC, writes as though they are, I would simply ignore this approach in any response. For example, instead of saying that "cyclists would disagree with...", show how your driving and cycling experience both support your point, and mention Richard Hammond as someone likely to have the same experience.

It's interesting to note the different responses horse riders and cyclists get. Equestrians tend to be perceived as an in-group: land owning, wealthy, choice rich. Cyclists OTOH are seen as a labour enforced, impoverished out group. It will never be seen as an informed choice in this country but an act of necessity, except by those who undertake it.

Brits have a deep suspicion of the past and an unflinching belief in progress - more, newer, better, faster. Even bikes are sold on the same myths, compare our magazine's view of cycles and cyclists to the Dutch or German model.
Matthew Parris believes, with some reason, he can get away with his observations because the general audience will lap them up. Anything we say just confirms the general view of cyclists as whingers. With skin colour and sexual orientation barbs consigned to history we're one of the last scapegoats for the punters to vilify without reproach. Divide and conquer with a new spin.

The only remotely cogent point he makes is that cyclists have forsworn regular clothes for bright lycra and casual riding for speed. We need to reclaim cycling from being a wholly sporting activity to something anyone might do before we can fight Parris's nonsense.

drossall wrote:
I do try now to avoid talking about cyclists and motorists as though they were separate groups.

I agree with your principle, but one difference is that while most cyclists may also be motorists, most motorists are not also cyclists and therefore the majority of motorists one encounters on the road are unlikely to empathise with the cyclists' position. Although, I have found in my cycling that the majority of drivers give me adequate space, but then I don't cycle in the city.

I think we need a political lead to raise the general status of cycling in all it's forms and especially as a contributor to tackling the problems of congestion, pollution and health. That will include converting opinion formers to the joys and benefits of cycling.

No, that's true, but even for vast number of motorists who do not cycle, the kind of article cited by the OP is still peddling a lie. The cyclists you encounter are, by and large, not some separate group of lycra-clad weirdos. Rather, they are your neighbour, who heads off to work in his BMW but takes his kids cycling into town at weekends. They are the popular colleague at work who happens to commute by bike. They are the girl you sometimes see in the pub, who does MTB leisure riding with her boyfriend. In other words, even if you are not one of them, they are not some other race, but people you know and meet every day.

It's the lie of separateness that we need to avoid unwittingly reinforcing, if we are to see cycling continuing to grow in popularity with the kind of person above. You could even make a case that the article comes from a need to pretend that it isn't normal people who cycle, when everyone knows that it is.

drossall wrote: the article comes from a need to pretend that it isn't normal people who cycle, when everyone knows that it is.

Agreed. The corollary of that is that, from some cyclists point of view, motorists are the enemy, an alien, speed-obsessed, self-absorbed, cyclist-hating type of storm trooper determined only to wreak havoc on the public road.

I have remarked before that I am not sure that, as a motorist, I always and without fail live up to the standards that I expect, as a cyclist, of other motorists.

On the other hand, the symmetry does break down somewhat. Articles such as the one cited are mistaken in their unspoken assumption that cyclists are "not like us", i.e. not motorists. However, even the most benign and well-intentioned motorist quite possibly is "not like us", i.e. not a cyclist, and could potentially benefit in understanding from being so. It has been remarked previously that this simple lack of understanding based on experience is an issue in this country, owing to the abnormally low levels of cycling. Nonetheless, of course the vast majority of motorists are not "out to get us"!

drossall wrote: IIRC correctly, one CTC survey showed that cyclists were more likely than the population in general to own cars. In other words, there may or may not be the perception that Howard describes, of cyclists as some kind of underclass, but regardless the reality is that cyclists are actually a sub-set of the "master race".

I would shy away from you use of the term 'master race' as it suggests that membership of the dominant 'in-group' is based on purely economic grounds which simply isn't true. The 'Chav' in his £300 Nova is still likely to perceive themselves as being 'superior' to someone on a bicycle, even if that bike is a confection of carbon fibre and titanium which cost £4000.

Also, the perception that cyclist are 'poor' is widespread, even amongst those who should know better. For example the Transport Research Laboratory did a study of local authority highways officers and found such attitudes as "I think we have grown out of cycling. If you see pictures from the Depression when everyone cycled you think “Do we really want to go back to that?” to be common.(TRL report 468 ‘Institutional and organisational attitudes to cycling’). Similarly, we all know that most of the perceptions which underpin racism and so forth are false and yet racism persists. This is largely because hostility towards out-groups is an emotional rather than a rational response.

Also, it hardly matters how cyclists themselves challenge the perceptions that underpin anti-cyclist hostility, as long as those perceptions persist in the wider population and are propagated by the likes of Parris, Clarkson, Parsons, Thomas etc. etc. etc they will continue to be used to justify and rationalise peoples essentially irrational prejudices.

drossall wrote: You could even make a case that the article comes from a need to pretend that it isn't normal people who cycle, when everyone knows that it is.

I see little evidence for the validity of such a claim! In reality many people really do believe that anyone who rides a bike must be a bit of a freak, if not a closet 'Lycra lout', Lycra Nazi, 'Two-wheeled terrorist', poverty-stricken loser or whatever.

I think there is a role for cyclists in feeding perception, just by talking as though we were some separate group. However, it's true that this can have only so much influence.

By "everyone knows", I meant that people pass their neighbour as he sets off to town by bike with his kids, meet the colleague arriving by bike in the car park, and can see for themselves that the cyclist they are overtaking is a member of Joe Public without a stitch of lycra anywhere. Again, yes, it appears from the article that some are able to ignore the evidence of their own eyes, but it does no harm to ground our comments in reality, for example in letters columns.

quite witty parody on the article here http://quickrelease.tv/

Has anyone who made a complaint to the Met heard back from them yet?

The thing that gets to me is, this moron writes such tripe and prejudice and gets it published,the press has no excuse for this nonesense.

I've got to ask myself where are we going as a nation if a (so called) respected newspaper prints this article and it passes without being even commented upon(exept by cyclists)let alone its author being prosecuted.

I don't know much about the man but after checking some facts about him, I'm surprised to find he is a keen runner.
I wonder how he would react to someone jumping out from the undergrowth when he was out practicing his sport to whack him with a length of 3x2 then tell him they were only joking.

i haven't had any reply yet, but as he's "famous" i don't really expect to, though if i ever ride in Derbyshire i will go equipped with a length of 3x2 in case i come across him!