Safe Speed Forums

I'm sorry about the dumb question, but I've read so many keyboard wars between cycling & motoring enthusiasts on this forum (and others) that I really need to know the answer.

Is it just a result of contention for space on overcrowded roads and the resulting "pecking order", or is there more to it?

I enjoy riding my mountain bike and also enjoy driving my R32. One is best for short range journeys, the other for medium to long range. I certainly don't see them as mutually exclusive.

Really, guys, what's all this hatin' about?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

i think you're using slightly emotive language there and generalising rather alot.

like you most people who cycle will also own or drive or have driven a car at some point.

so to say they hate motorists is probably a little unfair.

as a driver i dislike the way alot of motorists conduct themselves.
as a driver i dislike the way alot of cyclists conduct themselves.
as a driver i dislike the way alot of pedestrians conduct themselves.
as a cyclist i dislike the way alot of motorists conduct themselves.
as a cyclist i dislike the way alot of cyclists conduct themselves.
as a cyclist i dislike the way alot of pedestrians conduct themselves.

there's a problem with people in general which manifests itself in all road user groups.

I would say "a high proportion of those who hate cars are people who identify themselves as 'cyclists'" rather than "a high proportion of cyclists hate cars".

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Agreed. And I think the car-hating is the main reason behind the crazed anti-Safe Speed sentiment: we dare to campaign to make things easier for the motorist, through the removal of speed cameras, which are of course very effective at systematically persecuting (or threatening to persecute) every single driver bar none (even those who supposedly "never speed"). What really winds the trolls up is that we're right about the cameras not working, and don't they know it. They so desperately wanted cameras to succeed, so that the motorists would just have to put up with being persecuted, and we've come along and burst their bubble. They're shooting the messenger of course, like all the best irrational people, since all we're doing is reporting the facts.

The thing that I find most irritating about their motorist-hating is the complete denial. Even Spindrift denies that he's anti-motorist. When asked whether there are any anti-motorist measures which they oppose, he and his ilk claim that there isn't a single anti-motorist measure anywhere in the UK. (Quite how they can know that without having been at every single council meeting everywhere in the last decade, to confirm their given reasons for implementing trafffic calming etc, is beyond me.)

I can only guess that this ridiculous denial is because the motorist-haters know that their dislike of cars is illogical and indefensible, since you need cars for a significant number of journeys (just ask Monbigot). Which poses the question, why be so rabidly anti-motorist at all? Wouldn't it be better if they found a cause which they felt they could admit to supporting?

I find it all rather perverse and puzzling. The really strange thing is that many of them drive themselves, making them somewhat hypocritical to say the least (although Spindrift doesn't seem to drive, and he quite possibly doesn't cycle either; I guess he uses public transport to get between Internet cafes). If only all drivers would stop feeling "guilty" about their need to drive and start sticking up for themselves and their fellow motorists. There's 32 million of us (I think) so all the nonsense would surely have to stop then. It really is about time the cycling trolls and the authorities were made to stop spitefully picking on us just for trying to get around.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Yes, I don't like tags either, which is why I put "cyclist" in quotes and avoided the word "motorist" altogether. It's just that "people who sometimes need to use a car" and "people who choose to use a bicycle whenever possible" are a bit long-winded!

I would say that the drivers that give bicycle riders the most stick on the road are not motoring enthusiasts and certainly not the kind of people who take an interest in road safety issues and seek out websites like SafeSpeed. The worst drivers are generally those that drive through necessity only and have no interest in cars, motoring or road safety whatsoever. People who are in a rush to get from A to B and that's all that matters. They're the ones you have to look out for when riding your bike.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

And that statement probably applies to the majority of other people who ride bikes and drive cars.
Do people who come along to argue against SS actually hate cars, or are they simply against the SS campaign, because the two are not the same. We've had plenty of motorists come along to argue in favour of speed cameras and that muddies the picture even more, how representative of motorists views is SS? Lets not be fooled by 'the folks we know at work' who say they hate speed cameras; I know of only two or three (and work with over a hundred) who are vociferous in their dislike of the devices, the rest simply don't give a damn, and no poll yet conducted has actually ascertained whether the UK public, overall, supports the use of speed cameras on our roads or not.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

The latter for me:

• The name of the campaign (I don't believe that any speed is safe, as demonstrated by people crushing their kids on driveways at 2.5mph)
  
• The call for ALL speed cameras to be switched off
  
• Its opposition to 20mph zone in residential areas
  
• much more
  

Still, about five times since I started posting on this site I've been accused on here of being a car hater, which is strange, because I own one, a rather smart one. I've also been accused of lying that I own a car.

I think some people who are against speed cameras are so single minded in their hatred of them they simply can't believe anybody who owns a car wouldn't be on their side.

I drive a car, and I support the use of speed cameras. I wish we didn't need them, but there you go.

And vice versa - not cyclists (as in those on decent bikes ,who show a high percentage of COAST skills ), but the oinks - the sort who cannot make their minds up as to whether they're pedestrians (and ride on the pavement ) or road users ( and use the road ), being both a menace to pedestrians on the pavement (with their behaviour ) and suicidal on the road with their lack of safety awareness. Or perhaps it's this little town that produces amoebas on bikes, travelling between the town centre and home on a regular basis, with little thought to the safety of themselves, pedestrians or other road users.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I welcome balanced debate and thank you for your reply weepej. In case his post gets deleted, the poster indicated that his concerns as a cyclist are with SafeSpeed's agenda, not with car use in general. Specifically, the name of the campaign (since no speed is 100% safe), SafeSpeed's call for ALL speed cameras to be switched off and our opposition to 20mph limits in residential areas.

Not being a learned expert on road safety, all I can do is put across my own point of view gleaned from personal experience and from talking to others. All views expressed are purely my own.

As far as I can see, the SafeSpeed agenda is actually aligned with the interests of cycling enthusiasts in most, if not all, of the key areas.

Safespeed promotes observation of one's surroundings and selection of a safe speed (hence the name!) for the conditions, rather than blindly driving to a speed limit. It's basically the de-skilling argument. While cycling, would you rather come into contention with an observant driver doing 38mph or an oblivious and careless one doing 29? The observant driver will see you from distance and will have worked out exactly how to pass you safely long before you have even heard him coming. The de-skilled, careless driver will just barrel along saying to himself "I am within the speed limit which therefore means I am driving safely. Whatever I come across won't be a problem, so keen observation isn't necessary. Right, let me just check that speedo again..". Next thing you know, he's right on top of you.

Safespeed promotes the removal of speed humps, concrete width restrictions, chicanes and unnecessary traffic islands. These measures are implemented to make travel by car slower and more unpleasant, as well as (in some cases) providing a false sense of security to local residents. But all of them are a significant hazard to cyclists too - speed humps often make drivers veer to one side unpredictably, hoping to catch the least jarring part of the hump. Width restrictions, chicanes and traffic islands... ...well, need I say more?

Safespeed promotes the re-engineering of dangerous sections of road to address the true causes of accidents that occur there, rather than the "quick & dirty" fix of lowering the limit and installing a camera. Such re-engineering could take into account the needs of cyclists. The camera won't.

Do I think that ALL speed cameras should be switched off? If you had asked me (and I'm sure most other people) that question 15 years ago, I would have said no. But they have been so misused by local councils and the SCPs that they have lost their credibility as a road safety tool and, for many, have been brought into complete disrepute.

I personally believe that speed cameras still have their use as a measure of last resort when excessive speed is KNOWN to cause accidents at a particular site and other methods (such as road re-engineering, better warning signs etc) have been tried without success. I believe that if local councils used this MO for the siting of cameras, we wouldn't see very many of them.

The problem is that the vested interest that the easily collectable fines produce have made cameras a method of "first resort". How many, much more effective road safety measures have been proposed and rejected because a speed camera was a more cost-effective option for the cash-strapped local council? The figure will probably never be known...


OK, on to 20mph limits. The problem is implied in the name - "20mph limit". There is nothing to say that one cannot drive at 20 or below in an existing 30 limit if circumstances dictate. A considerate driver will understand this. He will understand that a speed limit is indeed a limit and not a target speed or a speed that is universally "safe".

One thing that 20mph limits WILL do is make the robotic, de-skilled drivers (see my 4th paragraph) think that it is universally safe to do 30mph on any road that doesn't have a 20mph limit. So your targeted 20mph limits would end up having to go "blanket". This could, in turn, bring the 20mph limit into disrepute because on some of the roads it IS safe to do 30 for much of the time. If the limit falls into disrepute, it will not be observed and we are back to square 1.

I've strayed a bit from the point of my thread, so I'll leave it there for now!

I hope I've made my points clear. If you still choose to think that SafeSpeed are trying to make the roads more a more dangerous place for cycle users, then that's your opinion, I will respect you for it and we'll leave it at that.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Weepej, perhaps if you didn't:

- systematically refuse to answer certain perfectly reasonable questions, even where you've answered other parts of the posts containing the questions
- disappear from the thread when you are proved wrong about something, only to repeat what you were proved wrong about elsewhere
- use other trolling tactics, e.g. maliciously misrepresenting what people have said

then the moderators and others wouldn't be suspicious of your motives. If you really believed that cameras worked and were defensible then you wouldn't feel the need to conduct such chicanery. People here do not get branded as trolls just because they support cameras. They get branded as trolls because (guess what) they're trolls. No-one has ever accused the likes of handy, ed_m or camera operator of being trolls AFAIK.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

To be fair, weepej did answer my original question by saying he has nothing against car use. I don't expect him to contibute further to this thread, unless he wants to. I hope he reads my reply, though.

I say "he", but weepej could be a woman for all I know! LOL

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Rigpig et al: I certainly don't think that all or even most camera supporters (or SS opposers) hate motorists. However I do think that most camera supporters who don't hate motorists support cameras for one of the following reasons:

- they don't know enough of the facts, either because they don't care about the camera debate in general (fair enough), or because they do care about the debate but they're stupid/ignorant/opinionated and/or think it really is as simple as "slower is safer" (not so fair enough)
- they believe that controlling, restricting and punishing people is the best way to deal with problems, even when logic says otherwise
- they have a vested interest in the use of cameras (e.g. manufacturers, scameraship staff, idiot politicians etc)

Yes, I am being rather uncharitable towards camera supporters. But that's because they insist on unquestioningly supporting something which has been shown quite clearly not to work. There are many political debates where no-one really knows the right answer, but this is not one of them.

There are a few intelligent and genuine supporters of cameras who can put together a decent argument, but they're very much in the minority, and pretty much without exception their support of cameras has some major caveats. On the other hand, thick people seem to be enormously overrepresented in the ranks of camera supporters. How many GF-like numbskulls have come on here and just said "Speed kills, slower is safer, stick to the speed limit" over and over again? I can't think of a single anti-camera poster who has been anywhere near as idiotic. This is I think at least partly because it requires a bit of intelligence to understand RTTM etc. It requires a lot less intelligence to "understand" that if you go "slower" (how much slower exactly?), you're less likely to hit things as hard, and therefore speed cameras "obviously" work.

So I'm afraid I do think through bitter experience that most out-and-out camera supporters are either car-haters, not particularly interested in the debate, fairly stupid/unreasonable at best, crazed control freaks, or possessors of vested interests.

And I think that the cycling trolls in particular do hate cars, and that that's what drives (excuse the pun) their hatred of SS. They seem to be automatically against measures which make things easier for motorists or motorcyclists, even when they've been shown to make things safer for cyclists. It's pure spite. The TfL trials showing that allowing motorcyclists into bus lanes made things safer for cyclists is a classic example. The trolls would still rather that motorcyclists were kept out of the lanes. They appear to put their hatred of powered private transport before even their own safety. Anyone who read one of the forums or newsgroups where the trolls hang out for any length of time would be left in no doubt as to these people's wishes to restrict and punish drivers just for the sheer hell of it. Bonkers but true.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Fair enough. I'm not saying he never answers questions, although there are certain difficult ones that he has ducked more than once (and why would someone do that unless they knew their position was untenable? Why would they have assumed such a position at all?) I was just trying to explain why people don't necessarily take it at face value when he says he doesn't hate cars (or when he says other things for that matter). Like in any aspect of life, if you want people to trust and believe you, you have to earn it.

And "I drive so I can't be a car-hater" is what you hear from many of the cycling forum trolls (not that I'm implying a connection between them and Weepej on this occasion; it's just an example). Saying that doesn't mean that they're not anti-motorist, it just makes them hypocrites. They must be, since there is no room for doubt from the rest of what they post that they are indeed blatant and rabid motorist-haters (e.g. supporting every anti-motorist measure, supporting every instance of a driver being fined, always taking the cyclist's side in a collision between a driver and a cyclist, etc). Perhaps they feel guilty about their car usage, perhaps they want to be the only car drivers left on the roads, or perhaps they're just nuts. Who knows, but it's there in black and white that a driver does not a non-motorist-hater make.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

They leave off handbrakes..

They set off without looking around.


Little children.. they get excited at seeing Mama.. Papa.. big brother und sister.. they will dart quite astonishingly quickly. You really have to be careful. I tend to carry our youngest when Ted drive into driveway. She look forward to her Papa swinging her up over his head und when she leap at him in the hallway - then down to biggest hugs und kisses.




They don't work. We need police out there to nail the twazaks.





20 mph ist not actually working that well. I have a few foreign links which suggest Swiss/German/French motorways are safest in Europe.... that lower booze level has not stopped the accidents in Austria/Germany/Switzerland.

The stats for all these countries show the bulk of incidents occur on their 20 mph zones. This perhaps due to dense volumes of closely moving traffic .. with trams und buses as well.

Apart from that .. cyclists ride a lot faster than 20 mph in these urbans und residentials und it would seem from a googly that all foreign newspapers would be "anti-cycling" as they all condemn this stupidity on their part

I will post up the links for you over weekend.

I was originally intend to put in Members so members could discuss amongst selves as I think folk get all tetchy at "foreign" on a UK site.



Most are not in agreement und those who claim never to speed are generally rather complacent und don't COAST either

You see. you will fluctuate in speed on bicycle.. und in car too. Because each movement made ist unique to that ephemeal second und we all have some slight move which will cause small fluctuations .. some gradual to 4 mph above .. reducing to below .. to give average compliant speed.. but speed cams do not recognise if you happen to pass at wrong blip


We also had one woman tell my sister-in-law that she set cruise control on the cam fest road. But any brake or foot on pedal switch this off. It complacency on her part und I wonder if she actually observes as result of this reliance.

We are then NOT teaching people to be safe by this policy. It why the KIS has stayed static und even worsened per the hospital stats

This campaign ist about a return to common sense enforcement und promotion of safe driving/road user skills.


Now more later.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Bloody hell mate, have you got a brush for all those sweeping statements.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

That argument can be re-inforced or shot down with the answer to one simple question:

Does Ken "I hate them - I want to ban the lot" Livingstone have a driving licence? Does he ever travel anywhere by car?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

I think there's a difference between someone who uses a form of transport, and someone who is a fully-paid-up exponent of that form of transport. Sadly the distinction is hard to make in the English Language.

i.e. I own and ride a bike but don't really class myself as a "cyclist", as I don't use it enough. However I own & use cars a lot, and given my Safespeed membership am happy to be called a "motorist" (or whatever) and accept whatever connotations go with the name.

I imagine the same would apply to those of our our detractors who consider themselves "cyclists", namely I imagine many own and drive cars but wouldn't necessarily call themselves "motorists".

Which ones were you referring to? By "cycling forum trolls" I wasn't referring to everyone from cycling forums, just the mililtant trolls, and it really is obvious that hatred of motorists is their top priority. It's not just me who thinks that. If you want to know what I mean then I suggest that you register for Cycle Chat and/or Another Cycling Forum and read a few weeks' worth of posts from the registration-only forums.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

And that is the whole purpose of this thread, to find out how deeply that hatred runs and more importantly, why?

The current Government clearly demonstrates a true hatred of cars and especially those that derive enjoyment from driving them. Every single change they have made to transport policy since coming into power has obviously been aimed primarily at inconveniencing and financially exploiting car users. I say this becase thy have offered no incentive for people NOT to use their cars, they just beat you to death with the stick of legislation if you do. Their policies are not an attempt to change behaviours or promote modal shift. They are not a carefully-considered plan to improve road safety or reduce polution. They don't even do it because they need the money. It is pure irrational hatred. Of course, Labour Ministers do not admit to hating cars and the individual freedom that cars bring, but the've never denied it either.

Some of those closest to the Government, such as Ken Livingstone and Transport 2000 have dropped the pretence altogether and just outright admitted that they hate cars. The benefit to society vs drawbacks argument is not even entertained by these people. They want cars gone, for good, no matter what the cost.


So, the Government hate cars. Therefore, is someone who completely agrees with the Government's current transport and environmental policies, by extension, a car hater themselvs?

Do most people who consider themselves cycling enthusiasts completely agree with the Governments current transport & environmental policies?

Therefore, by extension, are most people who consider themselves cycling enthusiasts car haters?

I hope you can understand my argument.


And are the Government pro-cycling anyway? As far as I can see, the only measures that they have taken to encourage cycling are those which also inconvenience motorists in some way, bashing motorists once again being the primary objective and any benefit to cyclists merely being a "bonus".

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

I don't have a problem with cyclists hating car users. I don't have a problem with car drivers hating cyclists. That's just people's prejudices.

What I object to is the blindly prejudicial postings on this site from car haters. Why do they bother? Why do they think we are interested or will take any notice?

I certainly can't be bothered posting bile on cycling websites about my views on bikes. These "haters" need to learn a bit of tolerance of others' points of view. It reminds me of religious fervour and the desperation to convert the non-believer (or, more sinisterly, enforce their views by law).

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.