'Cyclists are cooler than the average person', says Mindlab study for the British Heart Foundation

Bucks Free Press: 'Cyclists are cooler than the average person', says study 'Cyclists are cooler than the average person', says study

People consider cyclists to be 13 per cent more intelligent, 13 per cent cooler and 10 per cent more charitable than the average person, according to research commissioned by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) on the launch of its 39th London to Brighton Bike Ride.

With British cyclists taking centre stage at the Tour de France and Olympics and the splendidly side-burned Bradley Wiggins bringing a cool nonchalance to the sport, it appears that many of us now think cyclists are made of special stuff.

In a psychological study conducted by scientists at Mindlab, an implicit association test examined people’s subconscious attitudes towards different sports.

The test revealed that people think cyclists have a unique blend of intelligence, generosity and 'the cool factor'.

Neuropsychologist Dr David Lewis said: “Because Implicit Association Tests measure unconscious responses, they are able to reveal what people truly believe. They provide insights into people’s beliefs unbiased by any desire to conform to the opinions of others. These results indicate we view cyclists as possessing attributes of which they can be proud."

For details of this year’s London to Brighton Bike Ride visit bhf.org.uk/l2b.

 

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:27am Fri 10 Jan 14

tigeran says...

And there's me thinking all they did was go through red lights and flaunt all the other rules of the road! How wrong could you get!..........
And there's me thinking all they did was go through red lights and flaunt all the other rules of the road! How wrong could you get!.......... tigeran
  • Score: 1

7:27am Fri 10 Jan 14

demoness the second says...

Who did they ask?
Other cyclists?
Who did they ask? Other cyclists? demoness the second
  • Score: 16

8:00am Fri 10 Jan 14

Bobstan says...

A walk along the Alban Way from St Albans to the Galleria at Hatfield would soon change that perception!
A walk along the Alban Way from St Albans to the Galleria at Hatfield would soon change that perception! Bobstan
  • Score: -1

8:41am Fri 10 Jan 14

motco says...

I suspect that they are cooler. I used to cycle to school when I was a boy, and at this time of the year I was very cool - bloody freezing actually!
I suspect that they are cooler. I used to cycle to school when I was a boy, and at this time of the year I was very cool - bloody freezing actually! motco
  • Score: 18

9:35am Fri 10 Jan 14

big don g the 1st says...

Yeah right. Not when they are on an A or B road with limited passing opportunities and they cause tailbacks or dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

Get some wing mirrors fitted and get up on the verge to let cars pass then they might be a bit cooler.
Yeah right. Not when they are on an A or B road with limited passing opportunities and they cause tailbacks or dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Get some wing mirrors fitted and get up on the verge to let cars pass then they might be a bit cooler. big don g the 1st
  • Score: 9

11:57am Fri 10 Jan 14

Boosey says...

Cool as riding on pavements and stealing peoples possessions from outside cafe seating and the little chavs who ride around the estates all day instead of earning a living and as cool as the Michelin man in lycra yeah whatever!
Cool as riding on pavements and stealing peoples possessions from outside cafe seating and the little chavs who ride around the estates all day instead of earning a living and as cool as the Michelin man in lycra yeah whatever! Boosey
  • Score: 5

12:02pm Fri 10 Jan 14

thethe says...

what a non story!
what a non story! thethe
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Cyclist100 says...

You lot are hilarious, aren't you?
http://www.stalbansr
eview.co.uk/news/109
28621.Cyclist_killed
_after_being_hit_by_
car_in_St_Albans/?re
f=mr
You lot are hilarious, aren't you? http://www.stalbansr eview.co.uk/news/109 28621.Cyclist_killed _after_being_hit_by_ car_in_St_Albans/?re f=mr Cyclist100
  • Score: -10

12:42pm Fri 10 Jan 14

mikex says...

Given the death of a cyclist cause by a driver who was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving last night most of the above comments are pretty distateful and show that some people's perceptions are far too sterotyped.

Most cyclist don't jump red lights or ride on pavements, nor do they steal.

Cyclists have just as much right to be on the road as any other road user. Drivers should give at least half a car's width on overtaking to ensure safety. Generally this doesn't add more than a few seconds to your journey.
Given the death of a cyclist cause by a driver who was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving last night most of the above comments are pretty distateful and show that some people's perceptions are far too sterotyped. Most cyclist don't jump red lights or ride on pavements, nor do they steal. Cyclists have just as much right to be on the road as any other road user. Drivers should give at least half a car's width on overtaking to ensure safety. Generally this doesn't add more than a few seconds to your journey. mikex
  • Score: -11

12:49pm Fri 10 Jan 14

1982WFC says...

Is this hilarious too?

http://www.bristolpo
st.co.uk/Woman-pedes
trian-hit-cyclist-St
-George-dies/story-2
0094831-detail/story
.html

Not all, but from what i witness daily a vast majority of cyclists are dangerous. They think the rules of the road do not apply to them. Even without taking the highway code into consideration that most cyclists do not, it is common sense not to pass high vehicles such as HGVs and buses on the inside etc, they cannot see a cyclist in their mirrors.
I do love the usual justification when asked about lack of road tax, insurance etc. "I have a car too so I do pay those" just doesn't cut it. Can I use more than one car but because I tax and insure one of them I can drive them all? No, every mode of transport on the road should carry liability, because they can ALL be the cause of an accident.
Is this hilarious too? http://www.bristolpo st.co.uk/Woman-pedes trian-hit-cyclist-St -George-dies/story-2 0094831-detail/story .html Not all, but from what i witness daily a vast majority of cyclists are dangerous. They think the rules of the road do not apply to them. Even without taking the highway code into consideration that most cyclists do not, it is common sense not to pass high vehicles such as HGVs and buses on the inside etc, they cannot see a cyclist in their mirrors. I do love the usual justification when asked about lack of road tax, insurance etc. "I have a car too so I do pay those" just doesn't cut it. Can I use more than one car but because I tax and insure one of them I can drive them all? No, every mode of transport on the road should carry liability, because they can ALL be the cause of an accident. 1982WFC
  • Score: 10

12:55pm Fri 10 Jan 14

big don g the 1st says...

mikex wrote:
Given the death of a cyclist cause by a driver who was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving last night most of the above comments are pretty distateful and show that some people's perceptions are far too sterotyped.

Most cyclist don't jump red lights or ride on pavements, nor do they steal.

Cyclists have just as much right to be on the road as any other road user. Drivers should give at least half a car's width on overtaking to ensure safety. Generally this doesn't add more than a few seconds to your journey.
An idiot cyclist rode in to me as I came out of my front gate. Going at speed on the pavement. Gladly he ended up on the pavement with ripped jeans and a twisted saddle.
[quote][p][bold]mikex[/bold] wrote: Given the death of a cyclist cause by a driver who was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving last night most of the above comments are pretty distateful and show that some people's perceptions are far too sterotyped. Most cyclist don't jump red lights or ride on pavements, nor do they steal. Cyclists have just as much right to be on the road as any other road user. Drivers should give at least half a car's width on overtaking to ensure safety. Generally this doesn't add more than a few seconds to your journey.[/p][/quote]An idiot cyclist rode in to me as I came out of my front gate. Going at speed on the pavement. Gladly he ended up on the pavement with ripped jeans and a twisted saddle. big don g the 1st
  • Score: 28

1:09pm Fri 10 Jan 14

mikex says...

@1982RFC Show us some proof of your assertions. I think most of what you are saying is swayed by the actions of a small group of cyclists- people tend to remember the bad examples and use these to tar the rest of the population with them. You could eaily apply exactly the same type of argument by calling all drivers speed-crazed demons since a few of them driver deangerously around pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or other drivers.

The incidence of pedestrians killed or injured is *tiny* compared to those killed or injured by other modes of road transport. Deaths amount to something less than one per year.

Passing large vehicles on the inside is crazy- but don't forget that cyclists in a cycle lane who arrive at a junction before large vehicles are often flanked by them and junction design is often a large cause.

Road Tax doesn't exist, by the way- and hasn't done since Winston Churchill abolished it in the 1930s. (see www.ipayroadtax.com for details)The real name is Vehicle Exise Duty and it's based on vehicle emissions. Ignoring the name (just like you do when you Hoover as opposed to vacuum the floor) paying a tax on emissions gives drivers no more right to the road than any other road user. Roads aren't paid for from this tax anyway- they come from the council tax and general taxation so people who don't drive but do pay tax (and that's pretty much everyone) pay for the roads.

Many bike riders do have insurance- any member of the Cyclists Touring Club, British cycling or many local clubs already do, and many people are covered by their household insurance.

Regardless, what is required is for the good of erveyone is for all road users to be careful and look out for each other.
@1982RFC Show us some proof of your assertions. I think most of what you are saying is swayed by the actions of a small group of cyclists- people tend to remember the bad examples and use these to tar the rest of the population with them. You could eaily apply exactly the same type of argument by calling all drivers speed-crazed demons since a few of them driver deangerously around pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or other drivers. The incidence of pedestrians killed or injured is *tiny* compared to those killed or injured by other modes of road transport. Deaths amount to something less than one per year. Passing large vehicles on the inside is crazy- but don't forget that cyclists in a cycle lane who arrive at a junction before large vehicles are often flanked by them and junction design is often a large cause. Road Tax doesn't exist, by the way- and hasn't done since Winston Churchill abolished it in the 1930s. (see www.ipayroadtax.com for details)The real name is Vehicle Exise Duty and it's based on vehicle emissions. Ignoring the name (just like you do when you Hoover as opposed to vacuum the floor) paying a tax on emissions gives drivers no more right to the road than any other road user. Roads aren't paid for from this tax anyway- they come from the council tax and general taxation so people who don't drive but do pay tax (and that's pretty much everyone) pay for the roads. Many bike riders do have insurance- any member of the Cyclists Touring Club, British cycling or many local clubs already do, and many people are covered by their household insurance. Regardless, what is required is for the good of erveyone is for all road users to be careful and look out for each other. mikex
  • Score: -6

1:16pm Fri 10 Jan 14

mikex says...

"An idiot cyclist rode in to me as I came out of my front gate. Going at speed on the pavement. Gladly he ended up on the pavement with ripped jeans and a twisted saddle."

I'm sorry to hear that. I don't condone pavement cycling for exactly that reason.

However, for me a couple of years ago:

An idiot van driver hit me as he overtook me because he didn't give me enough room, wrecking my bike and landing me off work for three days. Sadly he ended up having no action taken against him at all.

I know that if I was hit I'd prefer to be hit by a bike than a car.
"An idiot cyclist rode in to me as I came out of my front gate. Going at speed on the pavement. Gladly he ended up on the pavement with ripped jeans and a twisted saddle." I'm sorry to hear that. I don't condone pavement cycling for exactly that reason. However, for me a couple of years ago: An idiot van driver hit me as he overtook me because he didn't give me enough room, wrecking my bike and landing me off work for three days. Sadly he ended up having no action taken against him at all. I know that if I was hit I'd prefer to be hit by a bike than a car. mikex
  • Score: -10

1:40pm Fri 10 Jan 14

1982WFC says...

mikex wrote:
@1982RFC Show us some proof of your assertions. I think most of what you are saying is swayed by the actions of a small group of cyclists- people tend to remember the bad examples and use these to tar the rest of the population with them. You could eaily apply exactly the same type of argument by calling all drivers speed-crazed demons since a few of them driver deangerously around pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or other drivers.

The incidence of pedestrians killed or injured is *tiny* compared to those killed or injured by other modes of road transport. Deaths amount to something less than one per year.

Passing large vehicles on the inside is crazy- but don't forget that cyclists in a cycle lane who arrive at a junction before large vehicles are often flanked by them and junction design is often a large cause.

Road Tax doesn't exist, by the way- and hasn't done since Winston Churchill abolished it in the 1930s. (see www.ipayroadtax.com for details)The real name is Vehicle Exise Duty and it's based on vehicle emissions. Ignoring the name (just like you do when you Hoover as opposed to vacuum the floor) paying a tax on emissions gives drivers no more right to the road than any other road user. Roads aren't paid for from this tax anyway- they come from the council tax and general taxation so people who don't drive but do pay tax (and that's pretty much everyone) pay for the roads.

Many bike riders do have insurance- any member of the Cyclists Touring Club, British cycling or many local clubs already do, and many people are covered by their household insurance.

Regardless, what is required is for the good of erveyone is for all road users to be careful and look out for each other.
Obtaining proof may prove to be difficult as either filming or taking pictures whilst driving would be idiotic and **** right dangerous. I take the safety of every road user seriously. However I can guarantee that I see at least 2-3 instances every day of a cyclist putting either themselves or other members of the public in danger by not obeying the highway code. Not for one minute am I saying there are no car drivers who do not drive dangerously because some do.
Thank you for being pedantic on your explaination of Vehicle Exise Duty, and what this money is used for but it does not change the fact that for the time being at least (apart from ultra co2 efficient models) vehicles must pay it to use the roads.
Without knowing the exact figures I very much doubt "many" cyclists have insurance. I would put it at a tiny minority. For cars, lorries, buses and just about every other vehicle it is compulsory, why not for cyclists?
Who foots the bill when a cyclist squeezes down the side of a car and knocks off the mirror? Not the cyclist that is for sure.
[quote][p][bold]mikex[/bold] wrote: @1982RFC Show us some proof of your assertions. I think most of what you are saying is swayed by the actions of a small group of cyclists- people tend to remember the bad examples and use these to tar the rest of the population with them. You could eaily apply exactly the same type of argument by calling all drivers speed-crazed demons since a few of them driver deangerously around pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or other drivers. The incidence of pedestrians killed or injured is *tiny* compared to those killed or injured by other modes of road transport. Deaths amount to something less than one per year. Passing large vehicles on the inside is crazy- but don't forget that cyclists in a cycle lane who arrive at a junction before large vehicles are often flanked by them and junction design is often a large cause. Road Tax doesn't exist, by the way- and hasn't done since Winston Churchill abolished it in the 1930s. (see www.ipayroadtax.com for details)The real name is Vehicle Exise Duty and it's based on vehicle emissions. Ignoring the name (just like you do when you Hoover as opposed to vacuum the floor) paying a tax on emissions gives drivers no more right to the road than any other road user. Roads aren't paid for from this tax anyway- they come from the council tax and general taxation so people who don't drive but do pay tax (and that's pretty much everyone) pay for the roads. Many bike riders do have insurance- any member of the Cyclists Touring Club, British cycling or many local clubs already do, and many people are covered by their household insurance. Regardless, what is required is for the good of erveyone is for all road users to be careful and look out for each other.[/p][/quote]Obtaining proof may prove to be difficult as either filming or taking pictures whilst driving would be idiotic and **** right dangerous. I take the safety of every road user seriously. However I can guarantee that I see at least 2-3 instances every day of a cyclist putting either themselves or other members of the public in danger by not obeying the highway code. Not for one minute am I saying there are no car drivers who do not drive dangerously because some do. Thank you for being pedantic on your explaination of Vehicle Exise Duty, and what this money is used for but it does not change the fact that for the time being at least (apart from ultra co2 efficient models) vehicles must pay it to use the roads. Without knowing the exact figures I very much doubt "many" cyclists have insurance. I would put it at a tiny minority. For cars, lorries, buses and just about every other vehicle it is compulsory, why not for cyclists? Who foots the bill when a cyclist squeezes down the side of a car and knocks off the mirror? Not the cyclist that is for sure. 1982WFC
  • Score: 12

2:21pm Fri 10 Jan 14

mikex says...

An increasing number of cyclists and drivers already use video cameras when they're on the roads and the results on youtube are pretty horiffic. Having said that I'm not for a moment ignoring the actions of a few stupid cyclists who seem to leave their road sense at home when they get on their bike, it's just that many people use their actions to describe all cyclists, and this simply isn't true.

My point on VED is that although most vehicles require it, it's just a tax like any other tax and it doesn't give those who pay it (like you and me) any more rights to the road than anyone else. I'd prefer to see VED abolished or if not have its costs transferred to fuel duty where they are more proportional to road use.

Defining 'many' is difficult ;+) CTC and British Cycling have around 150,000 members, other cycling organisations who provide insurance as part of membership have around 50,000- 75,000 members. According to the 2011 Census 762,334 people use a bicycle as the main form of transport for getting to work in England and Wales so the proportion probably lies between our two definitions. Let's not forget the 1.2 million uninsured cars on the road either.
An increasing number of cyclists and drivers already use video cameras when they're on the roads and the results on youtube are pretty horiffic. Having said that I'm not for a moment ignoring the actions of a few stupid cyclists who seem to leave their road sense at home when they get on their bike, it's just that many people use their actions to describe all cyclists, and this simply isn't true. My point on VED is that although most vehicles require it, it's just a tax like any other tax and it doesn't give those who pay it (like you and me) any more rights to the road than anyone else. I'd prefer to see VED abolished or if not have its costs transferred to fuel duty where they are more proportional to road use. Defining 'many' is difficult ;+) CTC and British Cycling have around 150,000 members, other cycling organisations who provide insurance as part of membership have around 50,000- 75,000 members. According to the 2011 Census 762,334 people use a bicycle as the main form of transport for getting to work in England and Wales so the proportion probably lies between our two definitions. Let's not forget the 1.2 million uninsured cars on the road either. mikex
  • Score: -10

3:12pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Ivor'sbestfriend says...

1982WFC wrote:
Is this hilarious too?

http://www.bristolpo

st.co.uk/Woman-pedes

trian-hit-cyclist-St

-George-dies/story-2

0094831-detail/story

.html

Not all, but from what i witness daily a vast majority of cyclists are dangerous. They think the rules of the road do not apply to them. Even without taking the highway code into consideration that most cyclists do not, it is common sense not to pass high vehicles such as HGVs and buses on the inside etc, they cannot see a cyclist in their mirrors.
I do love the usual justification when asked about lack of road tax, insurance etc. "I have a car too so I do pay those" just doesn't cut it. Can I use more than one car but because I tax and insure one of them I can drive them all? No, every mode of transport on the road should carry liability, because they can ALL be the cause of an accident.
What's this 'road tax' you speak of? You meant the emissions based tax that owners of polluting vehicles have to pay in order to use the roads?
[quote][p][bold]1982WFC[/bold] wrote: Is this hilarious too? http://www.bristolpo st.co.uk/Woman-pedes trian-hit-cyclist-St -George-dies/story-2 0094831-detail/story .html Not all, but from what i witness daily a vast majority of cyclists are dangerous. They think the rules of the road do not apply to them. Even without taking the highway code into consideration that most cyclists do not, it is common sense not to pass high vehicles such as HGVs and buses on the inside etc, they cannot see a cyclist in their mirrors. I do love the usual justification when asked about lack of road tax, insurance etc. "I have a car too so I do pay those" just doesn't cut it. Can I use more than one car but because I tax and insure one of them I can drive them all? No, every mode of transport on the road should carry liability, because they can ALL be the cause of an accident.[/p][/quote]What's this 'road tax' you speak of? You meant the emissions based tax that owners of polluting vehicles have to pay in order to use the roads? Ivor'sbestfriend
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Cyclist100 says...

1982WFC wrote:
Is this hilarious too?

http://www.bristolpo

st.co.uk/Woman-pedes

trian-hit-cyclist-St

-George-dies/story-2

0094831-detail/story

.html

Not all, but from what i witness daily a vast majority of cyclists are dangerous. They think the rules of the road do not apply to them. Even without taking the highway code into consideration that most cyclists do not, it is common sense not to pass high vehicles such as HGVs and buses on the inside etc, they cannot see a cyclist in their mirrors.
I do love the usual justification when asked about lack of road tax, insurance etc. "I have a car too so I do pay those" just doesn't cut it. Can I use more than one car but because I tax and insure one of them I can drive them all? No, every mode of transport on the road should carry liability, because they can ALL be the cause of an accident.
So your argument has two parts.
1. "The vast majority of cyclists are dangerous" (based on what you see) - therefore they deserve what they get (death, injury, and hatred from drivers like you)
2. The fact that most of them pay road tax because they own a car is irrelevant because they don't pay it for the bicycle (and therefore bicycles should be banned?)
No point in arguing with you is there?
[quote][p][bold]1982WFC[/bold] wrote: Is this hilarious too? http://www.bristolpo st.co.uk/Woman-pedes trian-hit-cyclist-St -George-dies/story-2 0094831-detail/story .html Not all, but from what i witness daily a vast majority of cyclists are dangerous. They think the rules of the road do not apply to them. Even without taking the highway code into consideration that most cyclists do not, it is common sense not to pass high vehicles such as HGVs and buses on the inside etc, they cannot see a cyclist in their mirrors. I do love the usual justification when asked about lack of road tax, insurance etc. "I have a car too so I do pay those" just doesn't cut it. Can I use more than one car but because I tax and insure one of them I can drive them all? No, every mode of transport on the road should carry liability, because they can ALL be the cause of an accident.[/p][/quote]So your argument has two parts. 1. "The vast majority of cyclists are dangerous" (based on what you see) - therefore they deserve what they get (death, injury, and hatred from drivers like you) 2. The fact that most of them pay road tax because they own a car is irrelevant because they don't pay it for the bicycle (and therefore bicycles should be banned?) No point in arguing with you is there? Cyclist100
  • Score: -10

3:41pm Fri 10 Jan 14

tigeran says...

Cyclist100 wrote:
You lot are hilarious, aren't you?
http://www.stalbansr

eview.co.uk/news/109

28621.Cyclist_killed

_after_being_hit_by_

car_in_St_Albans/?re

f=mr
I have never seen a cyclist on the road that wasn't either causing congestion by selfishly cycling too far in the road or breaking the law by going through red lights etc. I don't think there is a decent one out there!
[quote][p][bold]Cyclist100[/bold] wrote: You lot are hilarious, aren't you? http://www.stalbansr eview.co.uk/news/109 28621.Cyclist_killed _after_being_hit_by_ car_in_St_Albans/?re f=mr[/p][/quote]I have never seen a cyclist on the road that wasn't either causing congestion by selfishly cycling too far in the road or breaking the law by going through red lights etc. I don't think there is a decent one out there! tigeran
  • Score: 7

3:53pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Cyclist100 says...

tigeran
Cyclists cause congestion!
You really hit the nail on the head!
All those times I've not been able to get down the High Street for all those cyclists. They are especially bad during the school run, with their kids on the handlebars. And all those cycle delivery drivers, you know, with their white bikes.
They should be banned and forced to buy cars, that would sort things out, like it has on the M25.
I'm really glad there's someone here in St Albans with as much sense as you.
I bet your friends and relatives hang on your every word, don't the?
I just hope there's a story on this website about immigration so we can hear what you have to say about that.
tigeran Cyclists cause congestion! You really hit the nail on the head! All those times I've not been able to get down the High Street for all those cyclists. They are especially bad during the school run, with their kids on the handlebars. And all those cycle delivery drivers, you know, with their white bikes. They should be banned and forced to buy cars, that would sort things out, like it has on the M25. I'm really glad there's someone here in St Albans with as much sense as you. I bet your friends and relatives hang on your every word, don't the? I just hope there's a story on this website about immigration so we can hear what you have to say about that. Cyclist100
  • Score: -13

4:00pm Fri 10 Jan 14

mikex says...

I don't think sweeping generalisations or ad homing attacks from either side help the debate at all. Be respectful to the man who was killed yesterday.
I don't think sweeping generalisations or ad homing attacks from either side help the debate at all. Be respectful to the man who was killed yesterday. mikex
  • Score: -10

4:02pm Fri 10 Jan 14

mikex says...

Ad hominem, even. Autocorrect doesn't always work...
Ad hominem, even. Autocorrect doesn't always work... mikex
  • Score: -4

4:14pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Boosey says...

I find most cyclists are very sensitive!!!
I find most cyclists are very sensitive!!! Boosey
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Cyclist100 says...

I agree - but to be fair, that's why this "debate" is going on at the bottom of this piece rather than the one about the poor man being killed.

What's interesting is that no matter how many are killed (and a father-of-three was killed on the A68 yesterday - same day - on his bike) - it doesn't make seem to make any difference to some of those posting here. Their response is:

1. cyclists don;t pay road tax, so they have no say / rights
2. they all break the law, and therefore can't be surprised when they are maimed and killed
3.they get in my way, and have no right to because.... (fill in reason why car / van / lorry driver is more important).

Which provides the answer as to why cyclists will continue to be killed. Because of attitudes like that.

So you need a change in the law - presumably they would respect that - such as you have elsewhere - if a vehicle hits a cyclist, the burden of proof is on the vehicle driver to show he acted reasonably to avoid the cyclist......
I agree - but to be fair, that's why this "debate" is going on at the bottom of this piece rather than the one about the poor man being killed. What's interesting is that no matter how many are killed (and a father-of-three was killed on the A68 yesterday - same day - on his bike) - it doesn't make seem to make any difference to some of those posting here. Their response is: 1. cyclists don;t pay road tax, so they have no say / rights 2. they all break the law, and therefore can't be surprised when they are maimed and killed 3.they get in my way, and have no right to because.... (fill in reason why car / van / lorry driver is more important). Which provides the answer as to why cyclists will continue to be killed. Because of attitudes like that. So you need a change in the law - presumably they would respect that - such as you have elsewhere - if a vehicle hits a cyclist, the burden of proof is on the vehicle driver to show he acted reasonably to avoid the cyclist...... Cyclist100
  • Score: -11

5:38pm Fri 10 Jan 14

RobFleming says...

Find this very dispiriting. I cycle every day and yes, I see one or two who jump reds. But I also see hundreds who don't. I also see cars, vans and trucks jumping reds.

The point is that cyclists have as much right to use the roads as do drivers. By law (I cannot emphasise that enough). It is up to everyone to look out for everyone else and to treat them with respect. That means not jumping reds or riding on pavements on our side. But for motorists it means staying clear of cycle boxes and lanes, giving room when overtaking and driving in a sensible manner.

On the road tax thing it is quite simple. If you pay tax, you pay road tax. If you have a car, then you pay an emissions tax. It is a quite different beast and that little disc on your car window is NOT payment to use the road. So if you people who want those who don't pay road tax off the roads then that would in fact mean barring access to roads to anyone who doesn't pay tax, motorist, cyclist or otherwise. So students, the elderly, the unemployed and tax evaders. All banned.

Think about what you are saying before you say it.

Then there's congestion. This again comes down to the idea that cars have an increased right to road usage. They don't. And does it not seem entirely stupid to suggest that a bike, measuring say 1.5 metres by 0.5 causes more congestion than a car? Being as we all have an equal right to the road I could say that cars cause congestion. But I don't, because I recognise that you have as much right to be there in your vehicle as I do on my bike.

Finally, insurance. Would you really suggest that forcing every cyclist to get insurance is a good idea? For instance the 75 year-old who uses her bike to nip to the shops to buy a loaf of bread. Or the kid learning cycling proficiency.

The thing with cycling is that it is cheap, easy, accessible and healthy for both yourself and your environment. Perhaps the best course of action would be to drop the misguided opinions, lose the anger and get yourself a bike. You'd feel the benefit as would the area in which you live.
Find this very dispiriting. I cycle every day and yes, I see one or two who jump reds. But I also see hundreds who don't. I also see cars, vans and trucks jumping reds. The point is that cyclists have as much right to use the roads as do drivers. By law (I cannot emphasise that enough). It is up to everyone to look out for everyone else and to treat them with respect. That means not jumping reds or riding on pavements on our side. But for motorists it means staying clear of cycle boxes and lanes, giving room when overtaking and driving in a sensible manner. On the road tax thing it is quite simple. If you pay tax, you pay road tax. If you have a car, then you pay an emissions tax. It is a quite different beast and that little disc on your car window is NOT payment to use the road. So if you people who want those who don't pay road tax off the roads then that would in fact mean barring access to roads to anyone who doesn't pay tax, motorist, cyclist or otherwise. So students, the elderly, the unemployed and tax evaders. All banned. Think about what you are saying before you say it. Then there's congestion. This again comes down to the idea that cars have an increased right to road usage. They don't. And does it not seem entirely stupid to suggest that a bike, measuring say 1.5 metres by 0.5 causes more congestion than a car? Being as we all have an equal right to the road I could say that cars cause congestion. But I don't, because I recognise that you have as much right to be there in your vehicle as I do on my bike. Finally, insurance. Would you really suggest that forcing every cyclist to get insurance is a good idea? For instance the 75 year-old who uses her bike to nip to the shops to buy a loaf of bread. Or the kid learning cycling proficiency. The thing with cycling is that it is cheap, easy, accessible and healthy for both yourself and your environment. Perhaps the best course of action would be to drop the misguided opinions, lose the anger and get yourself a bike. You'd feel the benefit as would the area in which you live. RobFleming
  • Score: -6

6:00pm Fri 10 Jan 14

demoness the second says...

A little light hearted remark first re the "coolness of cyclists". No one, wearing yellow lycra, ever looked cool ;)

Now seriously. What we really need is more investment in cycle lanes throughout our towns. Oxford is a great role model - where cyclists and vehicles co exist quite happily,
We need mutual respect from both sides. Riding 2 abreast down a country lane when people are trying to get to work is hardly fair. But then overtaking a bike on a narrow part of the road causing them to swerve or fall is not fair either.
I am a car driver - I will admit I have sworn at cyclists but I always give them a wide space and do try and be mindful of them. Believe me , I do not want to hit them just as they do not want to hit me. I have also sworn at buses, lorry drivers and anything that is bigger than my little corsa and who drives without due care and attention.
As for the assertion that cyclists are more intelligent - well I am not sure how they work that one out ;)
A little light hearted remark first re the "coolness of cyclists". No one, wearing yellow lycra, ever looked cool ;) Now seriously. What we really need is more investment in cycle lanes throughout our towns. Oxford is a great role model - where cyclists and vehicles co exist quite happily, We need mutual respect from both sides. Riding 2 abreast down a country lane when people are trying to get to work is hardly fair. But then overtaking a bike on a narrow part of the road causing them to swerve or fall is not fair either. I am a car driver - I will admit I have sworn at cyclists but I always give them a wide space and do try and be mindful of them. Believe me , I do not want to hit them just as they do not want to hit me. I have also sworn at buses, lorry drivers and anything that is bigger than my little corsa and who drives without due care and attention. As for the assertion that cyclists are more intelligent - well I am not sure how they work that one out ;) demoness the second
  • Score: 17

6:17pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Emma179 says...

Cyclists go in the middle of the road for two reasons
1) to avoid the mounting number of pot holes at the side (try hitting one of them at 30)
2) So that cars overtake when they have a proper amount of space to do so.
I've advised my cycling husband to do this as I want him back in one piece every evening (he cycles as we can only afford one car)

I was coming down a hill (60 limit) in Wycombe the other day behind a cyclist doing 40 (safely I hasten to add). The car behind me obviously saw the cyclist and saw red as he overtook me and the cyclist with an oncoming car. It's a wonder no-ne was hurt. In my experience, it is the impatient drivers far too prone to road rage that are most at fault on our roads. Adding a few seconds to your journey to overtake safely is really not much hassle is it? Our country is just plain rude these days and has lost a common respect for each other. Cycling is a healthy non-polluting option and should be encouraged imho.
Cyclists go in the middle of the road for two reasons 1) to avoid the mounting number of pot holes at the side (try hitting one of them at 30) 2) So that cars overtake when they have a proper amount of space to do so. I've advised my cycling husband to do this as I want him back in one piece every evening (he cycles as we can only afford one car) I was coming down a hill (60 limit) in Wycombe the other day behind a cyclist doing 40 (safely I hasten to add). The car behind me obviously saw the cyclist and saw red as he overtook me and the cyclist with an oncoming car. It's a wonder no-ne was hurt. In my experience, it is the impatient drivers far too prone to road rage that are most at fault on our roads. Adding a few seconds to your journey to overtake safely is really not much hassle is it? Our country is just plain rude these days and has lost a common respect for each other. Cycling is a healthy non-polluting option and should be encouraged imho. Emma179
  • Score: -17

8:16pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MakeThisWorldABetterPlace says...

In Britain, many people still have this idea that 'cyclists' are somehow a distinct sub group of people who are different from the 'normal' people, who drive. This is a pity.

People who choose to cycle are just ordinary people, who own cars, have families and good jobs, and decide to sometimes ride a bike because they want to keep fit or do not want to pollute the environment. Cycling is also fast and more convenient for short journeys, cheaper, and fun!

The bright clothes and the crash helmet that some cyclists wear are simply a symptom of the hostile road environment - cycling is inherently very safe.

Let's remember that cycling is a means of transport for everyone, and not for a subset of our population.

However, we need a safe space for cycling for cycling to become accessible to all and a mainstream way of getting from A to B.
We will need to redesign our roads for this to occur. For the past 50 years roads have entirely designed to facilitate driving, and this has caused huge congestion, air pollution and health issues linked to inactivity.

Cycling has many, many benefits for our society, so let's encourage it.
In Britain, many people still have this idea that 'cyclists' are somehow a distinct sub group of people who are different from the 'normal' people, who drive. This is a pity. People who choose to cycle are just ordinary people, who own cars, have families and good jobs, and decide to sometimes ride a bike because they want to keep fit or do not want to pollute the environment. Cycling is also fast and more convenient for short journeys, cheaper, and fun! The bright clothes and the crash helmet that some cyclists wear are simply a symptom of the hostile road environment - cycling is inherently very safe. Let's remember that cycling is a means of transport for everyone, and not for a subset of our population. However, we need a safe space for cycling for cycling to become accessible to all and a mainstream way of getting from A to B. We will need to redesign our roads for this to occur. For the past 50 years roads have entirely designed to facilitate driving, and this has caused huge congestion, air pollution and health issues linked to inactivity. Cycling has many, many benefits for our society, so let's encourage it. MakeThisWorldABetterPlace
  • Score: -10

2:13am Sat 11 Jan 14

tigeran says...

Cyclist100 wrote:
tigeran
Cyclists cause congestion!
You really hit the nail on the head!
All those times I've not been able to get down the High Street for all those cyclists. They are especially bad during the school run, with their kids on the handlebars. And all those cycle delivery drivers, you know, with their white bikes.
They should be banned and forced to buy cars, that would sort things out, like it has on the M25.
I'm really glad there's someone here in St Albans with as much sense as you.
I bet your friends and relatives hang on your every word, don't the?
I just hope there's a story on this website about immigration so we can hear what you have to say about that.
Cyclists are awful, they flaunt the law all the time, I feel sorry for the motorist, they have to look out for morons who have a death wish then blame the the motorist. Total menace on the road, there should be a law against the two wheel criminals.
[quote][p][bold]Cyclist100[/bold] wrote: tigeran Cyclists cause congestion! You really hit the nail on the head! All those times I've not been able to get down the High Street for all those cyclists. They are especially bad during the school run, with their kids on the handlebars. And all those cycle delivery drivers, you know, with their white bikes. They should be banned and forced to buy cars, that would sort things out, like it has on the M25. I'm really glad there's someone here in St Albans with as much sense as you. I bet your friends and relatives hang on your every word, don't the? I just hope there's a story on this website about immigration so we can hear what you have to say about that.[/p][/quote]Cyclists are awful, they flaunt the law all the time, I feel sorry for the motorist, they have to look out for morons who have a death wish then blame the the motorist. Total menace on the road, there should be a law against the two wheel criminals. tigeran
  • Score: 11

2:17am Sat 11 Jan 14

tigeran says...

Cyclist100 wrote:
tigeran
Cyclists cause congestion!
You really hit the nail on the head!
All those times I've not been able to get down the High Street for all those cyclists. They are especially bad during the school run, with their kids on the handlebars. And all those cycle delivery drivers, you know, with their white bikes.
They should be banned and forced to buy cars, that would sort things out, like it has on the M25.
I'm really glad there's someone here in St Albans with as much sense as you.
I bet your friends and relatives hang on your every word, don't the?
I just hope there's a story on this website about immigration so we can hear what you have to say about that.
Cyclists are awful, they flaunt the law all the time, I feel sorry for the motorist, they have to look out for morons who have a death wish then blame the the motorist. Total menace on the road, there should be a law against the two wheel criminals.
[quote][p][bold]Cyclist100[/bold] wrote: tigeran Cyclists cause congestion! You really hit the nail on the head! All those times I've not been able to get down the High Street for all those cyclists. They are especially bad during the school run, with their kids on the handlebars. And all those cycle delivery drivers, you know, with their white bikes. They should be banned and forced to buy cars, that would sort things out, like it has on the M25. I'm really glad there's someone here in St Albans with as much sense as you. I bet your friends and relatives hang on your every word, don't the? I just hope there's a story on this website about immigration so we can hear what you have to say about that.[/p][/quote]Cyclists are awful, they flaunt the law all the time, I feel sorry for the motorist, they have to look out for morons who have a death wish then blame the the motorist. Total menace on the road, there should be a law against the two wheel criminals. tigeran
  • Score: 9

4:13am Sat 11 Jan 14

Dickitdo says...

Neuropsychologist Dr David Lewis said: “Because Implicit Association Tests measure unconscious responses, they are able to reveal what people truly believe. They provide insights into people’s beliefs unbiased by any desire to conform to the opinions of others. These results indicate we view cyclists as possessing attributes of which they can be proud."
If you only choose cyclists for your test this is the result that you would probably expect .By choosing your sample people, by what result you require you would be able to come to the conclusion that you require to satisfy the people that are paying you . You Can Fool Some Of The People Some Of The Time But Not All Of The People All Of The Time !.And Oh Yes you have spelt Neuropyscologist wrong , its spelt Trickcyclist !
Neuropsychologist Dr David Lewis said: “Because Implicit Association Tests measure unconscious responses, they are able to reveal what people truly believe. They provide insights into people’s beliefs unbiased by any desire to conform to the opinions of others. These results indicate we view cyclists as possessing attributes of which they can be proud." If you only choose cyclists for your test this is the result that you would probably expect .By choosing your sample people, by what result you require you would be able to come to the conclusion that you require to satisfy the people that are paying you . You Can Fool Some Of The People Some Of The Time But Not All Of The People All Of The Time !.And Oh Yes you have spelt Neuropyscologist wrong , its spelt Trickcyclist ! Dickitdo
  • Score: 23

2:58am Mon 13 Jan 14

Dickitdo says...

mikex wrote:
Given the death of a cyclist cause by a driver who was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving last night most of the above comments are pretty distateful and show that some people's perceptions are far too sterotyped.

Most cyclist don't jump red lights or ride on pavements, nor do they steal.

Cyclists have just as much right to be on the road as any other road user. Drivers should give at least half a car's width on overtaking to ensure safety. Generally this doesn't add more than a few seconds to your journey.
How do you know that this accident was" caused" by a driver of a motor vehicle. because a person is arrested , it does not mean that they are guilty of an offence of causing death by dangerous driving .It would be up to a Court to decide. The person arrested would most probably be helping the Police with their enquires. Or do your comments show that some peoples perceptions are far too stereotyped. Most motor vehicles don't drive on the pavements etc. May be it was not the fault of the motorist ,do you know ? My Deepest Condolences go to this Persons Family and Friends.
[quote][p][bold]mikex[/bold] wrote: Given the death of a cyclist cause by a driver who was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving last night most of the above comments are pretty distateful and show that some people's perceptions are far too sterotyped. Most cyclist don't jump red lights or ride on pavements, nor do they steal. Cyclists have just as much right to be on the road as any other road user. Drivers should give at least half a car's width on overtaking to ensure safety. Generally this doesn't add more than a few seconds to your journey.[/p][/quote]How do you know that this accident was" caused" by a driver of a motor vehicle. because a person is arrested , it does not mean that they are guilty of an offence of causing death by dangerous driving .It would be up to a Court to decide. The person arrested would most probably be helping the Police with their enquires. Or do your comments show that some peoples perceptions are far too stereotyped. Most motor vehicles don't drive on the pavements etc. May be it was not the fault of the motorist ,do you know ? My Deepest Condolences go to this Persons Family and Friends. Dickitdo
  • Score: 18

9:20am Mon 13 Jan 14

mikex says...

Maybe it wasn't caused by the driver,investigation by the police will hopefully determine what happened. However the police don't usually arrest without good reason.
Maybe it wasn't caused by the driver,investigation by the police will hopefully determine what happened. However the police don't usually arrest without good reason. mikex
  • Score: -12

3:07pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Dickitdo says...

mikex wrote:
Maybe it wasn't caused by the driver,investigation by the police will hopefully determine what happened. However the police don't usually arrest without good reason.
If you are involved in an accident involving a fatality , you will be arrested . But this does not mean that you will be charged with an offence. You would be taken too a Police Station and Interviewed and statements taken from the arrested person and other witnesses.These persons would include Police Accident Experts , You would either be charged with an offence or released on bail pending further inquiries . This is standard procedure. The person arrested would only be charged with an offence if the evidence supported that an offence had occurred . The person concerned would be given a date to appear at a Police Station too be charged or not. in all of your comments you appear to make sweeping generalizations.plea
se go back to the article as printed, it does not make any reference to any person being tragically killed in a accident . just people using this accident to bash people with a different view to yours!.
[quote][p][bold]mikex[/bold] wrote: Maybe it wasn't caused by the driver,investigation by the police will hopefully determine what happened. However the police don't usually arrest without good reason.[/p][/quote]If you are involved in an accident involving a fatality , you will be arrested . But this does not mean that you will be charged with an offence. You would be taken too a Police Station and Interviewed and statements taken from the arrested person and other witnesses.These persons would include Police Accident Experts , You would either be charged with an offence or released on bail pending further inquiries . This is standard procedure. The person arrested would only be charged with an offence if the evidence supported that an offence had occurred . The person concerned would be given a date to appear at a Police Station too be charged or not. in all of your comments you appear to make sweeping generalizations.plea se go back to the article as printed, it does not make any reference to any person being tragically killed in a accident . just people using this accident to bash people with a different view to yours!. Dickitdo
  • Score: 19

7:11pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Dickitdo says...

Cyclist100 wrote:
I agree - but to be fair, that's why this "debate" is going on at the bottom of this piece rather than the one about the poor man being killed.

What's interesting is that no matter how many are killed (and a father-of-three was killed on the A68 yesterday - same day - on his bike) - it doesn't make seem to make any difference to some of those posting here. Their response is:

1. cyclists don;t pay road tax, so they have no say / rights
2. they all break the law, and therefore can't be surprised when they are maimed and killed
3.they get in my way, and have no right to because.... (fill in reason why car / van / lorry driver is more important).

Which provides the answer as to why cyclists will continue to be killed. Because of attitudes like that.

So you need a change in the law - presumably they would respect that - such as you have elsewhere - if a vehicle hits a cyclist, the burden of proof is on the vehicle driver to show he acted reasonably to avoid the cyclist......
JUSTICE WOULD NOT BE SERVED IF THE LAW WAS CHANGED, SO AS TO PLACE PROOF OF INNOCENCE ONTO THE ACCUSED. IT IS FOR THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE GUILT. THIS IS A CORNERSTONE OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY, AND HAS BEEN FOR CENTURIES Do not meddle in something that that you very obviously do not have the slightest idea of the implications that a change in the law would bring. We have Prosecution not Persecution in this Country !.
[quote][p][bold]Cyclist100[/bold] wrote: I agree - but to be fair, that's why this "debate" is going on at the bottom of this piece rather than the one about the poor man being killed. What's interesting is that no matter how many are killed (and a father-of-three was killed on the A68 yesterday - same day - on his bike) - it doesn't make seem to make any difference to some of those posting here. Their response is: 1. cyclists don;t pay road tax, so they have no say / rights 2. they all break the law, and therefore can't be surprised when they are maimed and killed 3.they get in my way, and have no right to because.... (fill in reason why car / van / lorry driver is more important). Which provides the answer as to why cyclists will continue to be killed. Because of attitudes like that. So you need a change in the law - presumably they would respect that - such as you have elsewhere - if a vehicle hits a cyclist, the burden of proof is on the vehicle driver to show he acted reasonably to avoid the cyclist......[/p][/quote]JUSTICE WOULD NOT BE SERVED IF THE LAW WAS CHANGED, SO AS TO PLACE PROOF OF INNOCENCE ONTO THE ACCUSED. IT IS FOR THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE GUILT. THIS IS A CORNERSTONE OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY, AND HAS BEEN FOR CENTURIES Do not meddle in something that that you very obviously do not have the slightest idea of the implications that a change in the law would bring. We have Prosecution not Persecution in this Country !. Dickitdo
  • Score: 19

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree