What is a "cyclist"

A question which seems to be getting asked a lot lately, so I thought I would have a go at answering the question. So lets give it a go...

cy·clist

/ˈsīkləst/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1. a person who rides a bicycle.

There you go, debate over. If someone who rides a bike is referred to as a cyclist, regardless of what they are doing, or what context the statement was made in... A cyclist is a person who ride a bicycle.

OK, I know it isn't really that clear cut, certainly not for some.

Recently a lot of offence seems to have been taken by the masses about the generic term "cyclist". A favourite of the media, with headlines such as "cyclist headbutts pedestrian", "cyclists causing mayhem on the roads" etc. As generalisations go, I don't personally see "cyclist" as a negative term, and am happy to be called one, even while the idiots wheelieing into oncoming traffic are also referred to as cyclists. After all, we both ride bicycles.

The term motorist of course is acceptable to many, especially when using it in a derogatory fashion. "Selfish motorists", "entitled motorists" etc. Terms batted about daily by the hardcore on social media.

The terms I have more issue with are "pro-cycling". I tend to read this as those in support of cycling, however the status of the term appears to have been elevated to one meaning more fanatical, than supportive of. Over the past few years, mainly due to the anonymity of social media, and the safety blanket of screens and keyboards, there are those who have sprung out of the woodwork to let the world know what is right, and what is wrong.
The general breakdown of this is, cyclist is right, motorist is wrong. What they say is right, what you say (even if you say the same thing in different words), is wrong.

Now to be clear here, before the bitching starts, and the frantic spreading and misquoting / mis-representation of what I am saying begins, I am a cyclist. I am someone who regularly uses a bicycle on London's roads, commuting and for leisure. In rush-hour and in the early hours of the morning. In the enclosed spaces of Richmond Park, or the closed roads of Ride London.. I think you get the picture, I am a cyclist.

There have been a few examples of these new extremes people go to, all in order to make their point, and be right.
A year or so ago I posted a picture of a jacket I use for commuting in the winter, made by Proviz. Nice reflective panels for standing out clearly with the smallest source of light shining on it. I posted a comparison picture of it next to a black jersey I have, using the flash to create a light source to demonstrate its reflective qualities.
The internet lost its shit!

I was empowering arrogant motorists, suggesting cyclists are solely responsible for their own safety, and somehow freeing motorists of their responsibility to look out for cyclists and other road users. I was demanding that cyclists spend their hard earned money, dress like the tin man or a robot, to save the entitled motorists from having to watch out for vulnerable road uses.
In fact my point was, (and still is) there is no harm in wearing a sensible choice of clothing in the darker months, to make yourself visible to motorists, with the view of the sooner they see you, the sooner they can start to give you space.

One of the examples I was given was, when you see a cyclist at the last minute, and question what they are wearing and why they were so hard to pick out, "you saw them didn't you"! Yup simple as that, seeing someone at the last moment is good enough, and if you actually make the effort, and look hard enough, you WILL see them, eventually.
A secondary argument offered was, if cyclists should wear hi-vis, all cars be painted in hi-vis colours. Well, I suppose if you want to be stupid about it, having the roads filled with reflective cars would indeed make them more visible. But that isn't the point that we are trying to get to here. The idea is to make the cyclist visible to the motorist. After all, the cyclist is the vulnerable one in this story, and on a free moving road, is also generally the slower moving vehicle, so more likely to be approached at speed.

After a while the animosity towards me grew to such a point, I did something I rarely do, and muted the topic. The post was being retweeted with all sorts of stupid headlines about what I was demanding cyclists did. Lots of tweets from complete strangers questioning my mental capacity, my ability to use the roads on a bike or in a car, and my attitude towards cyclists. Somehow I was anti-cycling, while riding 5-7,000 miles on the roads a year. Go figure! A danger to other road users, sending the wrong message, blah, blah, blah. All this from people who claim to be "pro-cycling" and standing up for the rights of the cyclist. Well if that is how you speak to strangers, with such anger and vitriol, then please do not claim to speak for me.

Going back to the whole title of this blog for a minute, the term "cyclist". It is strange how the title is OK to use when it is by someone speaking about cycling to a motorist, or someone else who is being berated by a "pro-cyclist" on social media. "Cyclists are vulnerable", "give cyclists space"... etc. But if a motorist makes a comment about a cyclist jumping a red light, pulling into their path or something similar, it is a sweeping generalisation, and should not be used that way. How dare a motorist make such a statement about a person riding a bike. It is all very confusing to me, especially as both a cyclist and motorist. More the former than the latter these days, but quite experienced at both.

Which brings me to another example of how cyclists can turn on one another (a bit like you could say I am doing here actually) about something that is of mutual benefit. Especially when simply asking a question about something you saw on the road. Cycling home the other night I saw a cyclist come into conflict with a motorist. From what I can tell, the cyclist, who had been riding behind me, decided to pass me, moving out wide of me, at the same time as a car was beginning to pass him. For me, the suggestion to avoid this would be the cyclist checking his shoulder before moving out.
However finding himself along side the car, and about 4-6 ft from the kerb, the cyclist decided to express his disapproval at the motorist, by remaining along side, gesturing to the motorist, before banging on the front wing of the car.
Personally, finding myself this close to a car, my first reaction would be to move away, followed by making my feelings known. If the opportunity arose to speak to the driver, I would do so.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2mmRq6HevB/

So I posted a clip from my Cycliq on Instagram, and asked "Close pass or taking the piss? Was the car too close? Was the cyclist right to hit the car?"

Simple question, no statement or assumptions, just asking other peoples opinions of what I had seen.
Of course, someone always comes along and takes things out of context. I was asking a question, so getting replies like these irritates me somewhat.
"You're showing a serious and dangerous driving offence and asking if it's ok. I seriously hope you don't drive a car."
"You just saw the driver of a ton of metal threaten flesh and blood and you're asking if hitting the car was appropriate? Driving like that is an offence for a reason."

No, actually Judge frickin Judy, I am just throwing it out there. But for some reason, for asking opinions of others, I am a danger on the roads, don't know the law, and should be ashamed of myself.
Like the Proviz jacket tweet, sometimes a general comment seems to set off a reaction in the brains of some people, who's instant response is to openly and viciously attack the person making the comment. This certainly seems to be the trend at the moment.

Take a moment scan through social media, and you will find posts and tweets from people who almost seem to have nothing better to do that trawl through Twitter, searching "cyclist" and getting offended about how the term is too much of a generalisation, and suggests all cyclists are the same. When in most cases, if you take a second to digest what has been written, that is not the case at all.
In a lot of cases the tweets which receive the attention of these people has never mentioned the person, or anyone they follow. Instead it has been selected after some careful trawling, and singled out for a multi pronged attack. Re-tweeting the post, with an alarmist comment, it is open season for the "pro-cycling" people out there. A simple "grrr cyclists, one rode straight out in front of me" is turned into "all cyclists should be banned from the road with immediate effect".

Now I have to say, this is very two sided and a very broad scope. There are plenty of anti-cycling motorists out there too. Those who want to see cyclists off their roads, stating all sorts of rubbish about road tax, etc. We know they are out there, they pop up all the time, and are full of negativity. Many pro-cyclists will tell you that these people have no right to be on the road, should be banned, and are a danger. The latter I am inclined to agree with. Bad attitudes towards a collective group of people, regardless of how similar or dissimilar is a bad thing. Both ways! Negative Nancy's like these are the biggest issue within the whole conversation between road users.

It is all a bloody nightmare. Those with the loudest voices also seem to be those with the most extreme views. Such is the feeling on social media these days, those with the voices of reason are quickly shouted down ( I mean people like you and I Paul !!! lol). Once you have been set upon by these cretins once or twice, you actually become reluctant to have your say. And so the voice of reason fades away, and only the shouty angry ones get a say anymore.
From an outside perspective, with no knowledge of how these things wear away at the more reasonable people out there, it appears that all cyclists have a bad attitude towards motorists, make unreasonable demands such as "ban cars", and are aggressive towards anyone who tries to question them.

While writing this I have popped onto Twitter, seen quite an amusing post about a pedestrian thanking a cyclist for stopping at a crossing, started to type a jovial reply, then deleted it, as it would no doubt have caused controversy for some unknown reason. Silenced by my own people, beaten down by "cyclists". It's a shame really, I like a positive discussion, but when the conversation is guaranteed to turn nasty within a few replies, I am not even going to both.

A few more weeks ago, I posted a video of a lovely lady cycling across a crossing, into the stationary traffic, between vehicles, and pop straight out in my path. Only to throw me a dirty look.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B1Lq8TXHAzH/

Posting it on Instagram, saying that riding like this, and attitudes like this are what give cyclists a bad name, I was once again set upon on Twitter. Promoting hatred towards cyclists, generalising etc.
The thing I was generalising about was how people who do not particularly like cyclists react to one bad experience. Almost in a single move, explaining why some feel the generalisation of the term "cyclist" is so hated by some. Used only as a description of the mode of transport the person in the incident was using, much like pedestrian, motorist, motorcyclist etc, it is somehow taken as a derogatory term, rather than a descriptive term. Not wishing in this instance to be associated with people who ride bicycles in a stupid and dangerous manner, offence is expressed at daring to use the term. They are simply a person using a bicycle. Huh! so a cyclist then?

So to recap... Cyclist - a person who rides a bicycle (like a pro, or like a twat)
Not a derogatory term, just a description of how that person was travelling at the time of your interaction or observation.

To all you brave little keyboard warriors out there who have taken it upon yourselves to speak on other cyclists (or what ever you identify as), if your first response is to call names, rally the troops, and stir up hatred towards a complete stranger on the internet, you are an idiot, and you do not represent me in any way whatsoever.
If you want to be constructive, listen, give balanced and polite responses, don't feel you have the right to judge someone because you disagree with their opinions. If you really don't like their opinions, say your bit, and leave it.

As things stand, road infrastructure is poor, but slowly improving in some places. Cars are not about to be banned from the roads any time soon, and we have certain areas where we will be in close proximity with other road users. Don't try and be a hero.

Like anything in life, the summary of this entry is simple, a small number of people ruin it for the masses. That small number of people also have the loudest voices, and create a negative attitude towards the rest of the group. It seems that it is human nature to be caught up in this destructive cycle, and appears that is not about to change any time soon.

PS
Quick footnote to add...
If you think that someone pulling a wheelie on a busy road, into oncoming traffic isn't stupid or dangerous, our opinions differ vastly. If you think having someone like this pull into your path, and cause you to take action, is OK, again, we have a different view of OK.

Reading a tweet the other day, someone suggested that a pushbike doing a wheelie into the path of an oncoming car causing it to swerve or brake hard was no big deal, and the "poor motorist" would "just have to brake".. Yet I am sure if a car turned into the path of  such a person, causing them to brake on their bicycle, the situation would be very different. Dangerous driving, aggressive motorist etc.

How does that work? You can't have one set of rules in one direction and them be polar opposites for situations in the other direction. There are small exceptions to this of course, but in general, any road user causing any other road user to take sudden action, be it change of speed or direction is in the wrong, period.

Using the excuses that "they are only kids, its better than then being stuck indoors on an X-Box, or out on a street corner" is just plain stupid. If they were playing chicken, running across busy roads, would that be OK too? After all, its physical activity, even if it does cause accidents.

Right I have rambled enough, and totally lost my way, I'm done here.

Ban roads!

After recently reading debates over Road safety for a number of reasons,  I have come to the conclusion that the best course of action would be,  BAN ROADS!
It has become quite clear to me that pedestrians are put at more and more risk on a daily basis by the drivers of these motorised monsters which tear up and down the strips of tarmac which were only ever intended for milk floats,  horse and cart,  and of course Sinclair C5's.

To combat this growing danger,  I am today launching a campaign to quite simply,  ban roads! There is no need for them,  they serve no purpose,  and society could get along fine without them.

Instead I propose that motorised vehicles are banned with immediate effect,  and all the land currently selfishly used by them be designated as stroller parking for selfish fuckin mums who want to stand three abreast while they bitch about the new mum in the group,  fucktards who wish to spend their time running around chasing imaginary friends Pikeymums or whatever they are called. And not forgetting those poor disabled folk hell bent on creating more disabled people by running people over at stupid speeds on their mobility scooters,  or in some cases "too lazy to fuckin walk"  scooters.

The time for the road is over. Who needs huge lorries delivering supplies to almost every street corner to Sainsburys,  Tescos,  Waitrose locals etc. The shops that were opened due to mankind's unwillingness to travel more than 200 metres to get their weekly shopping,  because it's their basic human rights to have a fully stocked grocery shop on the block they live on. Only to drive there anyway and park like a fuck knuckle,  because unlike the people who use the roads daily to commute and carry out their jobs,  these arseholes don't have a clue how to drive or park,  so just muddle their way through,  blaming everyone else.

Roads,  leading to other towns are no longer needed. There is a perfectly good transport system in London,  unless they are on strike,  the wrong kind of weather occurs,  or a sewer breaks! I am sure the system cheating,  address lying parents out there who do their 5 mile school run to another borough each day can just settle their kids into a local school instead,  who needs standards when you can have local and convenient. Eliminating the need for those pesky roads.

Roads are pointless now however you look at it. However I realise this cannot happen over night,  so would recommend the following measures until all roads can be resurfaced as pavements or green spaces.
1/ Traffic currently drives too close to the kerb,  which is dangerously close to the idiotic parents walking their kids along the kerb "for fun"  and are further hindered by earlier mentioned selfish arseholes parking strollers across them while they chant their spells.  A buffer zone should be drawn up with immediate effect,  placing at least 5ft between humans and cars. This is not to be confused with a generous pavement, as it would seem even with all this perfectly adequate space,  some cock wombles still manage to fall off this into the path of cars.
2/ vehicle lanes to be no more than 6ft wide. Most practical vehicles fit through a 6ft width restriction including vans.  Any vehicle bigger than this has no business being on the roads and should be banned immediately.
3/ All crossing points should be made alternate direction flow traffic, and no wider than 7ft. This will ensure that pedestrians can cross with almost complete safety,  while the remaining permitted traffic on the road they are crossing is guaranteed to be gridlocked.

I think that just about covers everything.

OK seriously now....
What I am trying to say by mocking these stereotypes is quite simple. People are getting far too self self-righteous,  and quite frankly selfish about what they feel they are entitled to.
Traffic shouldn't be allowed on MY road,  send it down theirs instead.
There should be more crossings,  because I am too fuckin lazy to walk 50ft from the station exit to the existing crossing point.
I want a pedestrian crossing with stop lights installed because I am too stupid to cross a road without one. (and even when you do put one in,  I won't use it)
School zones are dangerous.... Yes,  because parents park like that's,  put their kids safety in front of all others by parking on zig zags,  block pavements while chatting to people they haven't seen since the walk to school that day,  and generally behave like poor examples to the kids.

At the end of the day most road users use the roads because it is the best option for them. Commuting,  working,  serving the community. Delivering things we are too lazy to go to the shops and get ourselves etc. During the week there are very few people using the roads for fun. Because it's not fun.
That's not to say that some could avoid using them at peak times. School runs from 3 streets away,  lazy fucks that won't walk to the shops etc. Some journeys can be avoided of course.

The thing is,  pedestrian,  cyclist,  motorist etc,  we all have to share these spaces every single day. So instead of ranting on about you entitlement,  rights,  and how others should behave and treat you,  take a look at how YOU are behaving first,  take your OWN actions and safety seriously, then comment on others.

I walk,  run,  ride,  drive on Londons roads every day,  sure I get wound up by people's actions at times,  but my #1 concern and focus is always myself and my actions.

So cut the bullshit,  enough with the demands,  grow up,  accept the world we live in and make the most of it. And if roads and traffic REALLY worry you that much,  minimise your demands on the road network.