One thing that is clear though, is that the feeling is prevalent not only online, but in the real world too. I might not be told that I am hated, but the yells of 'F**K OFF', 'GET OFF THE ROAD', or 'GET A CAR' make it clear that people do hold these views and aren't ashamed of them. But why? There are several theories and it makes sense that the reasons are different for each person. Some of the key ones are as follows:
'Cyclists don't pay road tax'
This is indisputably true, since road tax was abolished in 1937. However, the gist of the argument is that cyclists aren't paying their fair share, that motorists have to shoulder the burden unfairly, and that to then be held up by cyclists on the road is an insult. I can sort of sympathise with this. Nobody likes a free rider. However, the 'road tax' itself, VED is an emissions payment. There are cars out there which pay £0 due to their emissions. Were bicycles to have a tax disc, they too would be paying £0. In fact, someone else would have to pay for their tax disc because of this. Drivers also have to pay insurance, and a hefty sum of tax on their fuel, which adds to the feeling that they have paid, so they should get their way. However, mandatory insurance merely reflects the potential to cause massive, expensive accidents. Cyclists cannot do this, so they don't have to have insurance. The fact that many do is ignored by people who subscribe to this view. The high taxes on fuel reflect the cost to the environment of using petrol and diesel. Ok, they might be higher in the UK than other countries, but drivers know this every time they fill up. They choose to pay this. Just because cyclists are avoiding this cost, doesn't mean they aren't paying their way. The final part of this argument is about the costs of maintaining the road. Some would have you believe that cyclists don't contribute at all to the costs of maintenance or road building. Since this is paid by both council tax and central government funds, everyone pays based on their income and the size of their house, not based on how much they use the roads. Any additional income from fuel tax doesn't go directly to the roads (indeed, it probably doesn't even cover the cost to the taxpayer of accidents caused by cars), but if it did, it would only be fair, since a 1.5 tonne, 4 wheeled car causes a damn sight more wear and tear than a 15 stone bloke on a bike.Jealousy
This may be the underlying cause behind a lot of anti-cyclist sentiment. It can outwardly look like hatred, but boils down to an envy of what cyclists are able to do. It encompasses a lot of other reasons too.Drivers may be jealous of cyclists, because they feel the cyclists are paying nothing for their journey, whereas they are paying lots of money for their own. They may be jealous that they have to sit in traffic while a cyclist can whizz past with no such problems. They may be jealous of cyclists getting their exercise in, while they're stuck in a car. They may be jealous that cyclists so easily are able to get away with bending the rules they have to follow (avoiding red lights by hopping onto the pavement, skipping to the front of a traffic jam). Whatever the reason for jealousy, it can often be expressed through trying to belittle cyclists, claiming that somehow they are in the wrong, because how can they possibly have an advantage. It's only human nature, but perhaps these people should try cycling. They'll either benefit from the advantages themselves, or they'll find out the disadvantages (getting wet, cold, or abused by drivers) and go back to the hollow comfort of their cars, slightly less resentful.
'They all break the law'
This view is incredibly common. Obviously it's absurd to suggest that all cyclists break the law, but it's understandable that pavement-cycling and red-light jumping by cyclists gets noticed more than a cyclist simply cycling along peacefully. This view is used to argue against cyclist infrastructure, and it seems to hold sway with some of our elected officials. Everyone gets punished because some break the rules. You don't see all drivers getting refused road maintenance because people speed, or car parking not approved because some drivers park illegally. In fact, HGVs are set to get their speed limit on single carriageways increased precisely because so many of them speed. This does provide a clue as to a simple way of reducing the number of cyclists breaking the law: change the law. If cycling on pavements were legal, it would reduce the amount of law-breaking by cyclists. If they were allowed a head-start at traffic lights, the number of red-light jumpers would drop. This may seem a strange solution, but it just might work. Of course, if safe, segregated cycle infrastructure were created, the number of cyclists on pavements and roads would drastically fall and the issue of unsafe interactions between different methods of getting about would be relatively minor.A bad personal experience
It's common to hold a grudge. If you went to a restaurant & ended up with food poisoning, you'd never go back. You'd even tell people to avoid that restaurant. In the same way, if people get knocked over, or nearly hit a cyclist due to the cyclist's poor behaviour, they will be annoyed with them & perhaps shout at them. However, some people will apply the same treatment to all cyclists because of one bad experience. This is grossly unfair - you wouldn't tell people not to go to any restaurants just because one had given you food poisoning.'They never use the cycle lanes'
This is a tiresome argument, but again it is understandable when you consider the lack of knowledge it is based on. Drivers will often assume a cycle lane is adequate, when it might not be for myriad reasons (which I won't go into here). Think about the number of drivers who pass exactly on the other side of the line for the cycle lane. They assume they are leaving a safe distance because they are doing what the lane tells them too, so this must be right. The same applies to off road cycle path. It is assumed a cycle path must be suitable if it's there. There's no thought it might be unsafe, inconvenient, or just go the wrong way. These drivers seem to put their faith in the very town planners they probably curse for replacing that roundabout with traffic lights, or who put in that infuriating one-way system. If they can't get it right for cars, it's a fair assumption they can't get it right for bikes either!'They're all arrogant / selfish / rude'
This view is one all too often perpetuated by the media, who give cyclists the 'lycra lout' tag. It's as illogical as thinking that all cyclists break the law because a few have been seen doing so. I'm not denying that there are arrogant, selfish and rude cyclists, but there are no more than there are drivers, it's just they're the ones who get noticed. A bold cyclist, who wishes to point out to drivers when they have put them at risk is not necessarily an arrogant person, but simply someone who has been angered, or who wishes to inform what is safe in the absence of such information being provided to drivers by the government.I'm sure there are many more reasons that cyclists are hated, or seen as an annoyance, but the above are the most common which I have encountered. I've tried as best I can to explain why people feel the way they do about cyclists, but I've hopefully highlighted that the reasons are mainly due to misunderstandings and generalisations. I'm sure that some of the people who proclaim their hate for cyclists are generally nice people, but the culture in the UK allows them to vent their feelings at having been wronged (or perceived to have been wronged) at all cyclists indiscriminately, rather than the individuals who annoyed them so. Some parts of the UK media encourage anti-cyclist sentiments, perhaps as a means of being controversial, to up readership, perhaps because they genuinely feel that cyclists are all bad people. This irresponsible journalism is dangerous & dehumanises cyclists, feeding the hatred and ill-treatment of them on our roads.
The truth though, is that cyclists are just people who happen to be on bikes.
No comments:
Post a Comment