Why drivers hate cyclists

So emissions tax seems more fitting if you're going down that route. Just moved to N Devon and on the rural roads drivers seem quite nice, perhaps a bit better than NE Hants. Less money, slower pace of life. Just wish the hills weren't so steep and frequent If someone is getting frantic about waving you through, it probably means they're afraid of the tin box behind them - which is somewhat understandable given the behaviour of some of the arseholes on the road - so rather than get miffed, give them a friendly wave after you do go past.

I think the fundamental reason is that cities and road systems have been redesigned since around the mid-twentieth century with driving as the dominant form of transport. Cycling and walking are made to be subservient to the needs of cars. But, a cyclist on the road challenges that dominance, forcing a car to change how it flows. There's a power struggle there - who has the right to the road, whose needs are predominant.

There's also a lot of anxiety surrounding this struggle: cyclists feel the need to cycle defensively, to avoid careless overtaking; car drivers feel they need to overtake, even when it's not safe, in case they appear incompetent.

Add to this traffic problems, longer commuting times, and the increasing mediation of driving by technology, and all this means that drivers are often "in the flow", tuned out and don't respond properly to other road users as they are only focused on the tail-lights in front of them. They then compensate for their failures in a defensive way, by blaming the pedestrian they almost ran over, or the cyclist they almost clipped.

There's no doubt in my mind that car drivers need to stop blaming cyclists - even though there are obviously incompetent or foolish cyclists - and take responsibility, recognising that they are the ones who are most likely to hurt or kill other road users simply by merit of driving an enormous, motorised hunk of metal through spaces occupied by unprotected flesh.

Just been chatting to one of my neighbours who has come home from a few days in London. Cyclist collided with the back of his almost new van causing denting and several hundred pounds of paint damage.

When he got out to see if the cyclist was ok and to exchange names and addresses the latter told him to "sod off", jumped on his still ride able but clearly damaged bike, and cycled off down a pedestrian alleyway. PS Meant to say he was stationary at the time last in a queue of traffic waiting for traffic lights. It applies to all motorised vehicles. Some vehicles are zero rated at the moment but they still have to be registered on the system. None of the above would be so common if there was a bloody great spike sticking out of the middle of the steering wheel on cars.

So people moaning about cyclists who tend not to harm others is fine, while cyclists moaning about drivers who kill hundreds a year is smug? Where are you getting that? I don't have anything against cyclists but, like many people, I dislike inconsiderate and incompetent road users. VED is based currently on emissions and is not a tax to pay for the roads you use.

If you drive a zero emissions vehicle it is free. Not really. A tax that you must pay to use the road? I think the thing that irks is people thinking that paying 'road tax' gives them an exclusive right to the roads whereas in reality its used currently as a disincentive to drive a high polluting vehicle.

The reason you can drive it on private land is only because laws have to be enforceable. No police are going to visit farms, building sites and private estates to see what vehicles are in regular use. It would be an expensive and pointless task. I am a cyclist, a motorcyclist, a car driver, a camper van driver and a thoroughbred white van man.

I hate myself. Total nonsense. If the state wanted to tax off-road vehicles as per on-road ones, why on earth would they allow the sale of excise free diesel oil? That totally undermines your point. They can stop a vehicle on the road and test the diesel easily enough.

People who drive cars need to be trained first and their vehicles have to be in a roadworthy condition. Anyone can jump on a bike which may be in a dangerous state of repair.

I don't see many cars driving through the city with no lights after dark but I do see that very frequently with bikes, especially at the start of the winter. Also, for example, I've never seen anyone having a conversation on the phone while holding a carrier bag containing what looked like a bundle of sticks while driving a car. I did see a someone cycling through the centre of Embra doing that. You seem to misunderstand. If the state want to tax off road vehicles use, why would they give me tax free diesel for off road use?

Do you understand where I am coming from? Perhaps you have some evidence you can give me that backs your view that the state wants to charge VED for off road vehicle use but chose not to due to enforceability issues. Good way to loose the farming vote The diesel used for commercial purposes is not subject to VAT.

Very typical of discussions around VED. Business use and where VAT is charged is largely unrelated to fuel duty. I had been talking about fuel duty, not VAT. I could have been clearer but I had hoped it was obvious.

Red diesel is largely cheaper because of the lack of fuel duty. On road commercial use of diesel is still subject to fuel duty. Perhaps go back to my first post you replied to. Fuel and vehicles used for commercial use are taxed differently. VED is used to discourage people from using large polluting vehicles. When I'm zooming down the pavement I normally ding my bell in enough time to give pedestrians a chance to dive out of my way.

Yes, although that lower rate of VAT is not that significant compared to the difference in fuel duty. Funny - that was my original point. My point was that VED is a tax one must pay to drive on the roads, hence it not being surprising that many call it a road tax. As it is, VED is paid not to permit driving and generation of pollution, but to permit doing so on the roads.

VED is used to raise tax funds. Currently it is used to incentivise less polluting vehicles. Watch that change dramatically as ZEVs become the norm. They certainly do. Another favourite is the exhibitors entrance to agricultural shows like the Royal Welsh. My neighbour, a farmer showing horses has had his Landy checked twice for red diesel this way but they do call on farms etc too.

Changing the name is not going to change the underlying fact or peoples opinions about those who don't pay. Wittering on about it does irritate a lot of people who don't necessarily believe that cyclists should pay road tax and do their best to safely share the road with all other users.

Seriously - but then I don't ride in the Peak and having driven in the Peak enough times I can see that the dynamic would be different there. I also don't tend to ride in groups of more than half a dozen and then rarely , which will probably make the experience different as well.

So when you arrive around the blind corner at high speed and a car is turning, or a horse is in the way, or kids are on their bikes by the green, or old folks are crossing the road - what will you do?

I expect when you are confronted by any of those, you will just get irate as normal, yell and curse and stick two fingers up at the victims. Because they're irrational, and either haven't thought about it at all, or have thought about it and are just as stupid and nasty as they appear.

Judging from the state of the nation's driving the training seems quickly forgotten. And I see muppets driving cars txting and holding a phone to their head while weaving around erratically every day.

I'll reiterate the point: the cyclist with a bag of sticks is mostly likely to endangering themselves, the driver, head down, texting on the move, is endangering everyone. While some drivers behave badly, most don't. There are a larger percentage of cyclists who behave recklessly.

How many cars do you see driving round with no lights or defective lights. How many cyclists do you see driving round with no lights or defective lights? Cyclists who behave like dicks irritate people, I think that was the question originally asked. Yes, a crap cyclist who ends up under a bus comes off worse but also damages the person that hit them.

How would you feel if the vehicle you had been driving killed someone? Because cycists often flaunt the rules of the road, and because some are self rightious, and some are pretty aggressive or angry. And because drivers aren't properly educated about cylists and how they use the road. Also, "road tax" might not be called road tax, and the money might not be ring fenced for road works, and the money might depend on how poulluting your car is, but you do need to pay it if you want to drive on the roads.

Whereas you don't have to pay to cycle on them. So replying "road tax doesn't exist" is a bit silly, and not engaing with the otherside of the debate.

I'm a cyclist, I don't think cyclists should pay 'road tax', the world would be a better place if more cycled and less drove. But, as a group, we including me could be a lot nicer. I think it's mainly because of the small number of cyclists who don't respect other road users or their own safety. Undertaking is fine if done sensibly. I prefer to overtake if possible because it makes you more visible, but even then you still have to watch out for people taking right turns.

If the queue is short I often wait in the centre of the lane a few cars back so that I can set off in full view rather than setting off from a blind spot especially if someone is occupying the red box. I do cringe when I see a cyclist who is absolutely desperate to filter, filtering too fast to possibly be seen, undertaking cars that are signalling left and squeezing through the smallest of gaps to get by.

Does anybody here think that making cyclists pay tax, insurance, duty- whatever you want to call it- would alter peoples' perceptions and behaviour one jot? If someone hates cyclists for whatever reason, they more or less have to hate every road user by extension since those reasons apply to everybody.

If they only focus on cyclists, that shows they either haven't given it any thought, or are stupid and nasty. I am supercilious towards those people. I made the point bluntly because I don't feel I owe any sort of understanding or empathy to the sort of people who puts my life at risk and then follows it up with verbal abuse.

If they responded with an apology and a promise not to do it again, I'd wish them a pleasant day and cede them the right of way. I should also point out that road and junction design has a lot to answer for. One of my regular routes has a five lane approach to an island with lanes L-R being: left only, and left and straight, straight and right and the RHS being various versions of right.

Filtering to the head of the queue and sitting smack bang in front of the car at the head of the queue is the safest option. Sticking the traffic and not filtering is suicide. Erm, shitloads? One light out, one light perma-full beam, both lights perma-full beam, fog lights on full in the city to show off, running lights only at night, lights not turned on after dark. All the damn time. People always don't like somebody who behave in another way than they do.

Even among motorists there will be tons of groups which hate each other truck drivers, electric cars, women, bikers Each group has tons of reasons to be hated. I haven't read all of this, but flicking through I saw some discussion about how many drivers have a sense of entitlement to the roads which I think is one of the key points. I also think that many drivers who don't cycle themselves don't understand cyclists' behaviour. They see someone obnoxiously hogging more road than they need, not realising that tarmac is often much rougher in the gutter than it is further in or that it is wise to keep out of range of opening car doors.

They see someone refusing to signal out of stubbornness, not someone who can't physically signal and brake at the same time. Consequently a cyclist's actions aren't always in keeping with what might be expected of another driver and are therefore interpreted erratic, stubborn, rude or dangerous.

On my cycle home, there is a junction where I turn right but I am going steeply down hill and it is not easy to signal and control my speed. It is a quiet road so usually not a problem, and if I can't get over safely I'll pull up on the left and cross the road on foot instead of forcing my way out.

It came up in a discussion at work and it hadn't even occurred to people that this might be an issue. I try to mitigate this by telegraphing everything I do as far in advance as possible, through body language and road position as well as signalling - although of course this does rely on drivers paying attention to you too.

I still can't get my head around the British resistance to turn on headlights. Not quite sure why we don't just copy Scandinavia and have them come on with the ignition.

How many cyclists do you see steering a 2 ton lump of metal at 50 mph whilst; on their phone, smoking, talking to kids in back, drinking or eating their drive thru meal, trying to read something, applying make up, fiddling with the radio You only have to read the comments under news stories about cyclists to see that or go on Twitter. Even where a law-abiding cyclist has been killed by a driver someone will comment on it along with hi-viz, helmet use and jumping red lights.

Re "keeping ourselves fit" - you see so many overweight cyclists that are carrying a lot of fat around their stomachs. I would question how fit they really are!

That says more about social media than the relative frequency of bad drivers and bad cyclists. At their most up their own arses cyclists and motorists are as much of a pain as each other. I like to think I'm bike-aware, but I find driving near bikes can be fairly stressful. I'm trying to find an opportunity to get past whilst not crowding them. At the same time I'm feeling the hate from the driver behind me for not trying to overtake more aggressively.

If I do see half a chance to overtake I then have to watch for said dickhead behind me trying to blast past both of us. That's without worrying about the cyclist suddenly doing something unpredictable. Being stuck behind a tractor or a bus is annoying but is very different.

There's obviously no chance of getting past so you might as well not worry, however they're likely to turn off or stop fairly soon.

They also tend to be going faster than most cyclists, and I'm less worried about killing someone when I'm around them. There's plenty of inconsiderate behaviour from all types of road user. In most cases it seems to be thoughtlessness rather than deliberate, however there does seem to be a certain type of cyclist who revels in it..

I think this and Kathrync's post above sum things up pretty well. I'd add cyclists trying to back seat drive by waving drivers past just adds more tension to the whole situation.

Motorised and non-motorised traffic should be separated, in the same way pedestrians are separated from motorised traffic as far as possible. Doesn't equate with dangerous driving though. Unlike cycling the wrong way down a one way street, in the dark, with no lights and wearing dark clothes for example. The only person who would get hurt would be the cyclist. When a motorist drives like tnuc innocent people get hurt; cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders and other motorists.

I just want to pick up on a few points here, although please don't think I'm pointing fingers, you sound like a safe and considerate driver.

As you say, it's the driver behind that is the potential danger, not the cyclist. Would you feel the same pressure if it was just you and the cyclist? Cyclists regularly need to do "unpredictable" things because bike tyres respond to the road in much higher resolution than car tyres.

That's why drivers should hang back and give a car's width when overtaking as it sounds like you do. Tractors faster than cyclists? If we're comparing against the type of cyclist you're likely to meet on the same roads where you'd meet a tractor, I'd seriously question that assumption. I'm also not convinced that the average speed of cyclists in a city, especially at busy times, will be significantly slower than buses, or indeed cars.

There are also certain types of driver who revel indeliberately bad behaviour, and they're far more dangerous. So why focus on the cyclist? The favourite example of the anti-cyclist ranter I can't say I've ever encountered one in real life, yet there appears to be an epidemic of them, according to some. It's possible to cycle the wrong way, in the dark, with no lights and in dark clothing, perfectly safely.

Much like its possible to skip a light perfectly safely. And that sort of moronic statement is a good example of why cyclists are held in such contempt. The closest I have come to an accident in a car was exactly this situation - unlit cyclist in black against trees.

Fortunately he hadn't changed his pedals so I just saw the reflector on one of them. It is simply not possible to see an unlit cyclist in some situations. I was a bit annoyed with my two friends whilst out cycling yesterday, there was a long set of roadworks so I suggested we got off and walked along the pavement rather than standing in fumes for 5 minutes. They agreed but cycled down the pavement! I walked and they both had to wait for me at the other end of the lights, stupid. I do wish more people would realise that money from taxes is non specific and all goes in to one pot.

No sensible cyclist would do what is suggested above, for the record. Car drivers: rejoice when you see a bike! Treat the cyclist nicely and you my just get home without killing someone. You just need a teeny, tiny bit of transitory patience, it's not too much to ask is it? So rather than agree cyclists should be lit, you attack those pointing it out. You are adding to the problem. The aggression towards cyclists in your post gives you away.

Yes it is. Just the same as a pedestrian might safely walk up a one way street in the dark. You move if you see a car coming the right way and, if cycling, stay away from parked car doors. I'm not sure if I agree. Cars not hitting you, probably shouldn't be equated with drivers not happening to only just see you at the last minute.

But you can drive reasonsably safely without lights if you're sensible and competent cyclist. To be clear, when I say "safely", it doesn't mean cars only missing you because the driver saw you at the last moment. It involves not being on parts of the road that a moving cars are likely to go, when there's a moving car in the vicinity, and being aware of cars, and escape routes if they do someting unexpected.

Also, having an idea when you've been seen and when you've not. I'm not encouraging doing this, but sometimes I do if I don't have lights and I need to get somewhere and the route is reasonably safe. I knew that was coming. Put yourself down as another number 3. Sorry, but why should a motorist be criticised for highlighting the fact that cyclists should use lights in poor light conditions?

Ive ridden many hundreds of miles, thanks. Can you really not bring yourself to criticise cycling without lights? Read the thread, maybe do some research, have a think about it and then you might understand why cyclists most of whom are also drivers who regularly have their lives put at risk by inconsiderate, incompetent and sometimes wilfully dangerous drivers get pissed off with motorists on social media wittering on about bollocks in an attempt to justify their own intolerance and impatience.

What I'm saying is, one can't tell while cycling without lights where one has been fairly easily seen, or only just seen. How many cyclists get themselves killed by riding without lights versus those killed by people driving like arseholes? Read the OP. One reason cyclists are disliked people will naturally generalise , is some ride without lights leading to accidents and near misses. Which makes having enough lights to draw their attention seem like a sensible thing.

I've also been almost hit with lights and high viz, in the day light with high viz etc. Actually I've been actually hit gently by a reversing car in day so not really relevant. And yet, it's still possible to cycle reasonably safely at night without lights.

You don't go where you they might hit you if you haven't seen them, or be extra sure that they have seen you and be ready to move if you're wrong. Put another way, in any light with or without lights, I've never had a close call while cycling defensively. Apologies if you weren't, but I don't think I was the only person who thought that was what you meant.

It's pretty high on the list of offences that can be committed by a road user and that does include cyclists. Using the excuse that a cyclist will come off worse in any subsequent accident is pretty weak, as causing an accident is still causing an accident no matter what the outcome.

Additionally, comparing it to other offences that can be committed by motorists is again poor, as it sort of assumes that all motorists are committing those offences and no doubt, the further assumption, is that the 'real' cause of any accident would be the motorist driving without due care and attention, etc.

I don't like the actions of many cyclists, but in the grand scheme of things on the roads, they are easy to shrug your shoulders and pass off with a little bit of muttered swearing. For balance, I also wish more motorists were prosecuted for using phones and not using indicators, etc.

I now always have a backup led light front and rear that stay on the bike all year round. Theyre also very useful as 'daytime running lights' just like cars have, good for dull rainy period.

I don't think anyone's expressed hatred of cyclists. You also have some pretty skewed ideas if you think that killing someone in an accident even if not your fault , is inconsequential.

It's a horrible idea and partly why I find attitudes such as yours to any criticism of cyclists so annoying. So, Mr Potato, I think the UKC collective have answered your question and you should be much clearer about why all road users seem to hate each other. Right, someone else doing something stupid, excuses you doing something that you believe is less stupid? I've got absolutely no problems with dangerous motorists being prosecuted in higher numbers than they are now and in that respect, cyclists and other road users that want a safer road environment are totally correct in wanting that.

Surely though, part of that process has to be that everyone has to do their bit for that safer environment? In the case of cyclists, is it really too much to expect them to use lights? It's not that cyclists are particularly hated, but the combination of bikes, cars, lorries,and sometimes very fast motorbikes increases the background stress of the driver and sometimes the cyclist , so that irrational stressed behavior ensues.

I suspect not. How about a loose dog, deer, sheep cow? For your own safety let alone anyone elses. Seeing black on black out of headlight zone is not compatible with moving at more than walking speed. There is a good cycling double standard in that example. One thing that is often sited by cyclists on here is that cars need to give extra room just incase the cyclist needs to swerve round a pothole. If the cyclist was paying attention and riding at speeds applicable to the conditions they would see the pot hole well in advance and be able to react in a safe manner.

Just give them as much space as you would a car, at the bare minimum 1. As a cyclist you spend a lot of time spotting potholes and working out if it is safest to pass inside or outside, slow down or speed up depending on what cars are doing around you.

Laws of physics, innit? Bikes don't roll in straight lines, that's how they stay upright. A swerve from a motorists point of view is a cyclist's careful change of direction - it's a speed differential thing. Leave more room or drive a narrower car. The Goods Deals Subscribe Account. Vehicles March 19, pm. Cyclists cross a bridge via an unprotected bike lane in Portland, Oregon. By Tanner Garrity tannergarrity. More Like This. Recommended Suggested for you. The InsideHook Newsletter.

News, advice and insights for the most interesting man in the room. Email Please enter a valid email address. But so are drivers. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. A University of Adelaide study found that in 80 per cent of crashes between cars and bicycles, the driver of the car is at fault.

Cycling is not part of Australian culture. Cyclists don't know how to behave in traffic. The hatred is driven by ignorance and misinformation driven by the media. They encourage it. I own a bike shop and many fear riding. Cycling is relatively unpopular in Australia. In some western European countries, per cent of journeys are made by bicycle compared to Australia with less than 2 per cent.

We're also cycling less than we were six years ago, according to last month's National Cycling Participation Survey. One reason for the decline may be the perception of an increase in cyclist-related accidents and the campaign of anti-cyclist hatred. The good news is that cycling fatalities declined by about 2 per cent in the 22 years to The bad news is that cyclists remain the the most vulnerable road users, with studies indicating 10 times the risk of death compared to car occupants.

A study from Portland State University looked at the idea there are four kinds of cyclists: people who thought it was too unsafe, the "interested but concerned", the "enthused and confident" and the "strong and fearless".

If we apply those figures to Australia, where about 15 per cent of people ride a bike in an average week, it suggests millions of people aren't riding because of safety concerns. The absolute disregard for cyclists by both drivers and police is deplorable. No surprise then that our big cities are as constipated as that time I—you know what?

Basically to drive in the city is to pilot a plug into a sea of other plugs. Cyclists lessen that congestion by being considerably less plug-like. So next time you get angry that some dude on his way to band practice who just cruised across a pedestrian crossing at 8kmph without stopping, think at least I can get where I need to be a little faster because of them. Bikes are good for the environment. Well duh. Cars are not. Unless each cyclist is keeping a tire fire smouldering in their back yard for the equivalent amount of time as you are driving they are probably doing more for the environment than you right now.

Cars beat the absolute living crap out of our roads. Bikes do not. Maintaining roads costs the government heaps of money — like millions and millions each day.

Each bike is really saving you money. What assholes.