An anonymous article in the Guardian on antisocial cyclists is contradictory, over-hyped and over-simplistic

Other cyclists are the scariest thing when you're on a bike? That's nonsense

I’ve taken to the Bike Blog before to disagree with pieces about cycling in other papers, but today we have something of a first: I’m penning a response to a Guardian article arguing that other cyclists are the worst thing about cycling.



There’s two curiosities to this piece, which has been pretty widely-read.

Firstly, it’s written anonymously, the author explaining they’re worried about being “intimidated” with angry responses. I find that an unconvincing argument, but it’s not one for now (though if Anonymous is the editor or someone else with a direct influence on my career path, ignore what's about to follow).



The other oddity is that there are some good elements here. There is a discussion to be had about antisocial riding among some cyclists, and it’s worth talking about how it can be countered and who is affected.

Similarly, the writer is at pains to offer some balance, noting that cyclists very, very rarely cause serious injuries to others, and quoting the generally sensible cycling charity CTC.

Sadly, however, that’s where it ends. Overall I thought the piece contradictory, over-hyped and over-simplistic.

Here are my objections:

1) The idea that car drivers are, partly through regulation, notably more law-abiding than cyclists

Of course, as the writer points out, you rarely get drivers weaving between traffic to run reds in mid-cycle. But what he/she fails to notice – and it’s a common error – is that other driver infractions are still endemic in many places. They’re just less noticed, even normalised.

To take light jumping, at most London junctions you’ll see cars, vans or lorries nip across or turn right a good few seconds after their light is red. And then there’s speeding. Near my home is a 20mph zone with one of those LED speed indicators. I’d say about 75% of vehicles go at a higher speed.

As for the notion that registration and number plates means drivers are less likely to break laws, well, that doesn’t explain the estimated 1.4m uninsured drivers on the roads, or the calculation that 1.3m car crashes a year happen due to mobile phone use.

And throughout all this you’ve got to remember how much more potentially catastrophic speeding or phone use in a car is than law-breaking on a bike. It’s not to excuse bad cycling – I’ll get to that later – just to provide context. It’s simple physics.

Also, even when drivers are upholding the law there's arguably a prevailing culture on British roads of taking too many risks with cyclists' safety. Almost every day someone will pass me too close, or drive just off my back wheel, something like that. It's not illegal but it puts my safety far more at risk than, say, a cyclist jumping a red.

My personal opinion is that the worldview which shapes such driving is unconsciously but noticeably reinforced by articles which take a slightly hysterical view of cyclists' infractions. Like the one written by Anonymous. That's why I think it's important to counter them.

All this is not to say that “drivers”, as an arbitrary group, are especially reckless. They’re just people using a form of transport. Which takes me to…

2) The “cyclists need to get their house in order” argument

Apparently, there is a new kind of reckless cyclist “who is giving cyclists a bad name”, Anonymous says. This is something we hear often. Curiously, the man with a large suitcase who pushed me out of the way to get onto a rush-hour train isn’t going to be accused of “giving train passengers a bad name”. Similarly, kids who play tinny music at ear-bleeding volume on the number 12 are never told they’re “giving bus passengers a bad name”.

There’s no such thing as cyclists. Just people who used bikes, and who for the most part also walk, drive, and take public transport. The ones who shove through crowds of pedestrians on a bike are most like rude idiots elsewhere.

Now there is an argument for saying that bad cyclists tarnish the “cycling brand”, as Anonymous puts it. Many people will, given half a chance, happily explain their distaste for cyclists on the basis of almost being taken out on a zebra crossing.

The trouble is – and we’re getting into nuanced argument territory here – is that this extrapolation to all cyclists still isn’t really fair. Yes, some people might adopt a better view of cyclists if from tomorrow none ever jumped a light. But plenty of others would still dislike the two wheeled: they don’t pay “road tax”; they wear funny Lycra clothes; they get in my way on the road. I hear all these almost weekly.

As argued several times before on this blog, cyclists are viewed in Britain as a social outgroup. That’s why they get lumped together as an amorphous mass and blamed, collectively, for a small minority’s ills. Drivers, who are seen as normal, as everyone, generally don’t.

So with all respect to Chris Hoy, quoted by Anonymous, not just a great rider but possibly one of Britain’s nicest people, his advice to those riding bikes – “if you want respect, you have to earn it” – is to miss the point.

3) The exaggeration of cyclist misbehaviour

I’ll begin by stressing that I don’t have any truck with the argument that cyclists not obeying road rules is permissible as it’s somehow safer for them.

The statistics are very clear: cyclists are very rarely an actual danger to others, even for example when they weave across red lights. But that's not the issue. The issue is being antisocial and intimidating to others.

Pedestrians, especially older people or those escorting young children, have a right to cross at a green pedestrian light and not have to look out for some dimwit on a bike weaving past, however careful they’re being. Even if you’ve never struck a pedestrian, as a light-jumping cyclist you will be intimidating and annoying some.

But… when Anonymous talks of “the breathtakingly bad behaviour of a significant minority of cyclists”, I think that’s a vast exaggeration.

This is even the case in London, which seems to be what he/she is talking about while presenting the article as a national picture (a failing common to much of the British media, me included).

Even if you disagree with that assessment, take Anonymous’s first paragraph:

After 12 years riding a bike in London, I recently came to a shocking conclusion: what scares me the most as a cyclist is not the cars, not the lorries and not even the taxi passengers who unexpectedly wrench their door open in front of you – but other cyclists.

Cyclists scare them most? That’s an odd sentiment, especially as four paragraphs down they note that cyclists very, very rarely kill anyone.



It’s the sort of wording that set me against the article straight away. It’s dramatic, and probably helped get the article printed. But it’s nonsense on a stick.