
Why cyclists enrage car drivers - gnosis
http://mindhacks.com/2013/02/18/bbc-column-why-cyclists-enrage-car-drivers/
======
mullingitover
This seems to be overthinking things. I'm both a driver _and_ a cyclist, and I
still find myself enraged at cyclists when I drive. There's a simple reason:
_cyclists slow you down_.

Drivers loathe anything that slows them down. Cyclists, pedestrians, horse
carriages, even other cars. It's nothing to do with the moral order, it's "Get
the hell out of my way!"

~~~
pnathan
Well, the problem for me is this: the cyclist is in my lane. I have to swerve
dangerously into the other lane to avoid hitting them. I do not want to hit
them.

Either I slow down to 15 mph or I commit dangerous driving. Neither option is
really good. If there is a bike lane and they are using it, yay. I am happy.
If there is a bike lane and they aren't using it (instead being in my lane), I
am pretty torqued.

~~~
mullingitover
The problem for the cyclist is that s/he's often in an equal bind--ride in the
bike lane next to a string of parked cars, and you never know which of those
cars is going to open their door at the exact wrong time. I have friends who
have ended up in the emergency room with broken collarbones after getting
'doored.' Avoid the bike lane and ride in traffic, and you never know which
sociopath behind the wheel is going to clip you.

~~~
zecho
Dooring is a huge fear of mine as a cyclist, as is getting sideswiped by a
right-turning vehicle while I'm crossing an intersection. Also, sometimes I
need to turn left, and that means merging into the auto lanes.

Personally, I prefer most auto lanes to the bike lanes. I'm easily seen, I can
see others and I can make maneuvers without being wedged between parked cars
and moving traffic.

That said, I plan routes that avoid as much traffic as possible. I hate
getting stuck behind a cyclist when I'm driving, too.

------
orthecreedence
When I'm driving, I'm more than fine with cyclists who stop at stop signs, use
hand signals to show their intentions, don't swerve around wildly in and out
of my lane, etc. The conscientious ones will, if they have to go into your
lane (for instance if the bike lane is blocked), signal and merge, speed up as
fast as they can so as not to slow down traffic more than needed, then get out
of the lane as soon as they're done passing. I think this is more than fair if
you're sharing the road with cars.

However, a lot of cyclist _do_ do infuriating, selfish things. From what I've
generalized over time, they are either the inexperienced ones who don't really
think about what's going on around them, are too fearful of the others on the
road to make logical/informed decisions, or they are dipsticks on fixies who
break all the rules because it's just too hard to stop or because they are
just so hip the rules don't apply.

I don't think there's some deeper meaning behind it all, I think that some
cyclists are courteous and skillful when sharing the road, but many of them
don't really know what they're doing or think that the world owes them
something because what kind of asshole drives a car anyway?!?! It's the latter
ones that ruin it for everyone.

~~~
awakeasleep
Would you be angry at a cyclist who rode in front of your car, taking the full
lane, at a speed significantly below the speed limit, on a busy two lane road?

~~~
orthecreedence
No, I wouldn't. I'd wait for a chance to pass then pass. The situation has
happened to me many times, and you know what? I just don't care. I never have
to be somewhere so ridiculously fucking fast that anyone who dares slowing me
down needs to be screamed at. I think most people forget: your life is not so
important that you need to rush everywhere. If someone's about to have a baby
or something, a friendly honk to get someone slow out of the way can be
useful. The problem is that too many people think what they are doing is
_soooo_ important that they need to honk and scream at anything that gets in
their way.

Too many people are in a rush to get somewhere they don't want to be. What's
the point?

------
owenjones
As a cyclist who prides himself on being calm and restrained, I'm always upset
whenever I read (literally) any article about cyclists and drivers on the
internet. In Philadelphia there has been a lot of tension between the groups
and several local news websites have a serious anti-bike bias both in their
articles and in their comments.

Wishes to ram bicyclists off the road are commonly expressed, and every
sweeping generalization is backed up by some anecdotal evidence. MOST of my
friends have been hit-and-run by cars at this point (injuries up to a broken
arm) and we're not bike punks or teenagers or activists just adults trying to
get to work.

Look at the comments in this article too:

"a lot of cyclist do do infuriating, selfish things", "I still find myself
enraged at cyclists when I drive", "Get the hell out of my way!", "It becomes
enraging when they break traffic laws"

It seems most people behind the wheel of a car, or even bike, become ENRAGED
the second they have to tap the breaks a little. People need to relax and see
the injurable PEOPLE operating the vehicles around them. Sadly I don't think
this article gets to the deeper issue.

~~~
steveklabnik
Over on the other side of the state, we actually had a situation where a
motorist stabbed a cyclist repeatedly and slit their throat: [http://www.post-
gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city...](http://www.post-
gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/pittsburgh-police-search-for-
south-side-bicyclists-attacker-652179/)

------
iyulaev
Weak article. I expected a statement about cyclists being dangerous to
themselves and others, but instead it's about how cyclists can do things cars
can't and car drivers are upset about it. Boo hoo.

The reason bikes often take the lane (or at least should) is ___safety_ __.
Rear endings are very uncommon amongst bicycle accidents. Much more common are
cars turning across a bicyclist's right-of-way, either a left turn from the
opposite direction or a right hook. Taking the lane increases visibility and
makes these accidents less likely. We're weighing inconvenience (or maybe, as
the article points out, moral insult) against safety and it should be obvious
which is more important.

------
rvkennedy
Actually it's because so many cyclists break the rules that _do_ apply to
them: running red lights, cycling on the pavement (sidewalk), and so on. And
this is why pedestrians often feel the same animosity towards cyclists that
drivers do.

~~~
cryptoz
I disagree. It's much more complicated than that. Virtually every single car
on the road breaks a giant number of laws every day. I walk/metro/bus to work,
and I see an average of 20-50 law-breaking drivers every day.

Drivers aren't hating cyclists because one group breaks the rules, as if the
other doesn't.

------
steveklabnik
As an experienced cyclist, cars don't follow the rules of the road either. The
last time I got hit by a car on my bicycle, it was because they didn't use a
turn signal and made a quick right-hand turn without looking.

------
malbs
Australian Cyclist here.

Firstly, if I could ride to/from work without riding on roads, I would. I
don't feel safe riding on the road. I don't like riding on the road, but I do
it because where I live there is no other option. I have travelled to Canberra
and I'm incredibly jealous of their cycling infrastructure.

Secondly, roads are paid for by fuel tax, so yes, I'm getting a free ride
because my bike doesn't consume fossil fuels, only weetbix. I do own a car
however, and do spend over $100aud per week on fuel (kids taxi service). So I
do contribute to the infrastructure costs.

I guess I mostly agree with what the article suggests, hell, when I'm riding
and another bloke on a bike rides through a red light, I think "you shouldn't
be on the roads if you're unwilling to follow the road rules", it even makes
me irritated. There are a vast number of cyclists who don't know the actual
road rules when it comes to cycling. I thought I did until I sat down with the
rule handbook and read the cycling section from start to finish, and realised
I commonly broke a number of rules.

Riders who insist on cycling in the middle of the lane - irritating. I realise
a cyclist needs to keep enough space for themselves, and riding right next to
parked cars is scary as hell due to the fear of someone opening a car door on
you (it's not pretty), but if I'm ever holding up traffic, I just pull over
and wait for the cars to clear. The worst thing you could experience is having
someone in a car sitting on your shoulder, so close you can feel the heat from
the engine.

I've been attacked while on my bike a number of times. The most common reason
that I seem to get attacked for is filtering. That is, moving up between lanes
at a red light, to the front of the queue, so to the folks in cars I guess I'm
a queue jumper. I've had people drive past me in their car and have a
passenger open their door into me (yes while we were both moving) - the police
planned to charge that guy with attempted murder, but he was driving a car
with stolen license plate. However, the more I get attacked, the more I want
to break the rules, how ironic!

The worst are pedestrians though, they just walk out in front of you.

------
chris-allnutt
People allowed to themselves to be annoyed, and I often find that rage towards
cyclist is based on impatience. People get enraged in the same way behind a
slow driver. It's hard to both pass a cyclist safely and be 100% sure you will
be safe as well. Its the same anxiety people get when passing on a broken
yellow line, only with the cyclist you're usually forced into that zone of
discomfort rather than choosing it.

------
chrismealy
Oh this is bullshit. Anybody who gets mad because they have to move their foot
two inches off the pedal while sitting on a padded chair inside of 4000 pounds
of metal is just an asshole.

~~~
huhtenberg
Well, there you go.

The bloated sense of self-entitlement and inbred animosity towards car
drivers, who are all assholes - if that's not a start of a beautiful
friendship, what else is.

~~~
yannk
animosity toward drivers getting mad, maybe? @chrismealy never said all
drivers were assholes. troll.

------
splitrocket
How the Dutch got their bike paths:

[http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/09/how-the-
du...](http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/09/how-the-dutch-got-
their-bike-paths)

------
CapitalistCartr
The author is generalizing about people in general without any basis to do so.
As usual, the plural of anecdote isn't data.

I find driving is the most revealing activity. It is a window into the
driver's personality like no other. This article says much about the author.
And that's all it says.

" . . . my theory is that motorists hate cyclists because they offend the
moral order. Driving is a very moral activity – there are rules of the road,
both legal and informal, and there are good and bad drivers."

------
macey
I'd say that no small part of the rage comes from fear. If I'm driving next to
a cyclist that breaks the rules, I have to immediately become hypervigilant
and pay a disproprortionate amount of attention to this cyclist and their
behavior. It's my responsibility to pay that attention, though, because if I
don't, I'm risking seriously injuring or even killing that person.

Humans on wheels are extremely vulnerable. Frankly, a lot of cyclist behavior
I see when I'm driving involves a pretty low level of vigilance - it certainly
doesn't scale with the amount of danger they're facing. I don't mean to sound
overdramatic here, but if I break a driving rule like forgetting to signal,
and I get rear-ended, that sucks balls for me, but there was virtually no
chance of me being killed (or killing somebody), assuming a city environment.
Regardless of legal implications, nobody wants that on their hands, and it's
easy to see how worrying about it would get anybody heated.

------
xradionut
The article mentions "free riders". As a motorist who's auto and gasoline
taxes pay for the roads, has an annual auto inspection, it's mildly annoying
to be trapped behind a slower cyclist who's not subject to those requirements.
It becomes enraging when they break traffic laws and stage mass rides just to
fuck with drivers.

~~~
iyulaev
If you think that that auto registration and gas tax covers all of the costs
of road ways, you're sadly mistaken.

~~~
xradionut
I forgot that I had a toll tag too! :)

------
alexkus
Nothing incites vitriol from opposing camps than a good 'Cyclists vs Cars'
debate.

"The only winning move is not to play."

------
null_ptr
I don't understand why bicycles are allowed to drive on roads alongside cars.
It is such an obvious hazard for the bikers. Fender benders happen all the
time, but what happens when one person is behind the wheel of a mamoth SUV and
the other is on a bicycle? It's horrific to think about. Joggers aren't
allowed to run on roads, why are bikers?

~~~
steveklabnik
First of all, because it's the law.

It's the law because, as dangerous as roads usually are, it's better for
everyone if cyclists are on the road.

If cyclists are on the sidewalk, it's similar to the way that cars are to
bikes: much faster, larger, and more dangerous. And pedestrians don't have
anywhere else to go, so putting bikes there doesn't make a ton of sense.

If cyclists are on the road, there's already an entire set of rules for how
vehicles are supposed to operate and interact. And cyclists aren't allowed on
roads where it's _truly_ dangerous for them, like expressways.

------
jplur
Once I saw a cyclist with the NYC city cycling laws silk screened onto her
backpack, I was surprised to find out some of the rights I had, but am not
going to start riding like a full sized vehicle just to exercise them.

------
knowaveragejoe
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem for me. I'd love to bike, but I don't
because there isn't enough adoption of biking, and therefore widespread
respect of bikers(as difficult as they can make that sometimes). Even in DC
where I live it's like this, which says a lot considering DC is one of the
more bike-friendly cities in the country.

------
davekinkead
I'd argue that the author got the description right while getting the reason
wrong.

First up a confession. I'm a cycling tragic who'd like nothing more to see the
vast majority of urban transportation space allocated to walking, cycling and
PT.

But cyclists do upset the 'moral order of the road'. The speed differential
between car & bike is significant which causes cyclists to disrupt traffic
flow. Many cyclists don't conform to road rules (I treat stop signs as give
way/yields all the time). Cyclists can easily navigate through gridlock that
leaves motorists fuming in rage, and they do so with a smile on their face
because lets face it, its very hard to arrive anywhere bummed if you got there
via a relaxing ride.

The moral order of the road, like most things in life, is reciprocity. If I'm
stuck in traffic, then everyone should be. If I have to follow these rules,
then everyone should. When people don't do these things, we get angry because
it just isn't fair.

But what the author misses completely is why the order exists in the first
place and why cyclists (often) think they can be excused from this order.

The moral order on the footpath/sidewalk/mall is completely different to the
road. Watching people walk through a crowd is like looking at ants. Chaos. But
ordered chaos. There are no formal rules (until one steps on the road that is)
but people manage just fine thanks to common sense, social convention and lack
of speed differential. Before the car, this is exactly what our roads used to
be like.

Cyclists (mostly) realise that road rules were created with little regard for
them. Hence they don't feel the same degree of reciprocity that motorists do
(who typically don't realise road rules have little regard for the needs of
cyclists). Hence animosity between two groups who have very different
conceptions of fairness. If cyclists had dedicated space however, or if road
rules gave equal concern to all users, then I think the animosity would be
much less.

Just look at the animosity (or lack of) between motorists and PT users.
Motorists can see a trade off (crowded buses, no door-to-door service) for any
dedicated road space/transit lanes they may receive, hence exceptions to the
'moral order' of the road are deemed fair. Cyclist typically don't experience
that trade off because cycling as a form of transport is, well, simply the
efficient and awesome to get around urban environments.

The animosity then, stems from a faulty sense of reciprocity or fairness.
Cyclists think they have exemptions to some motoring rules but don't seem to
pay any extra costs. What motorists typically fail to realise however, is that
those costs are a function of their transport choice - they get stuck in
traffic simply because they are the traffic.

------
chrismealy
BTW, Ernst Fehr is a terrific researcher, so please nobody hold this dumb
article against him.

------
munin
when I'm a pedestrian, I get angry at cyclists because the zip past me on the
sidewalk going 10-20 miles an hour. what happens when you run into someone at
that speed? why don't you think about other people?

when I'm a motorist, I get angry at cyclists when they put me in danger.
driving at night on country roads can be tricky, and sitting behind a cyclist
who is going 8-10mph on a 45mph road puts me in danger to other cars who could
rear-end me. why do I have to put myself in this danger for your hobby?

~~~
zecho
I doubt that you're the one in danger when you're driving.

------
rheide
Interesting Twitter example. Let's put it in reverse: if 90% of the population
was riding bicycles there'd be a lot of angry tweets about cars.

~~~
gensym
If 90% of the population was riding bicycles, several of my friends would
still be alive.

Also, poor kids would do better in school due to lower asthma rates.

Also, our municipalities would be far more solvent.

The real puzzle is why there aren't currently more angry tweets about cars.

