"Don't get into shouting matches with motorists"

monument

I know there was a discussion before on the RSA's "Cycling Safety" page before, but I can't get over this...

"Respect other road users – don’t get into shouting matches with motorists..."

First I have to admit I have shouted at motorists. I have shouted at them when they would have hit me if I did not react, or where they have come too close for comfort. I think I have also shouted when motorists have excessively beeped at me (for example, to try to get me to move in when it's unsafe to do so).*

How did the RSA come up with this line?

Maybe I'm thinking one sided (that's partly why I'm posting), but the only thing I can think of is that drivers who acted in the above described ways complained to the RSA that cyclists often shout at them. To make it worse, I can't find very little on the RSA about respecting other road users, and nothing else on the site about road rage other than in a PDF version of the Rules of the Road.

* Any shouting I have done in such case was limited to outbursts while shocked or in shock, and at least once or twice to try to stop drivers from running over me, and I have gone a long way to controlling any shouting and trying to take details instead.

Lumen

The RSA are a bunch of muppets, and Gay Byrne a contemptable idiot.

The ROTR site has sections on both respecting cyclists and motorcyclists and road rage

Jawgap

I think the RSA have done an excellent job along with the Guards in reducing road fatalities and injuries, but a bit a like council highway sections they don't acknowledge much beyond cars.

They see "road" "traffic" and "highway" as being almost exclusively inter-changeable with "car." In their hierarchy car is followed by other vehicles, then there's other users. I'm sure there are examples where this is not the case but they're exceptional.

Captain Havoc

Jawgap wrote: »

I think the RSA have done an excellent job along with the Guards in reducing road fatalities and injuries, but a bit a like council highway sections they don't acknowledge much beyond cars.

They see "road" "traffic" and "highway" as being almost exclusively inter-changeable with "car." In their hierarchy car is followed by other vehicles, then there's other users. I'm sure there are examples where this is not the case but they're exceptional.

You have no right to complain, you don't pay road tax :pac:

bbosco

monument wrote: »

* Any shouting I have done in such case was limited to outbursts while shocked or in shock, and at least once or twice to try to stop drivers from running over me, and I have gone a long way to controlling any shouting and trying to take details instead.

I'm not trying to defend the RSA in general, but they refer to "shouting matches" not to what you describe above.

-Chris-

Captain Havoc wrote: »

You have no right to complain, you don't pay road motor tax :pac:

FYP



:P:D

Captain Havoc

-Chris- wrote: »

FYP



:P:D

I used road deliberately.

kenmc

-Chris- wrote: »

FYP



:P:D

miss.

-Chris-

I used smilies deliberately...

ah, nevermind...

monument

bbosco wrote: »

I'm not trying to defend the RSA in general, but they refer to "shouting matches" not to what you describe above.

I'm not quite sure that's right, where else are they coming from here?

Lumen wrote: »

The ROTR site has sections on both respecting cyclists and motorcyclists and road rage

That would be fair enough, but the ROTR also has a section or sections on safe cycling. Why are they rewriting the section on cycling and posting it on their site but not doing the same for motorists? Why do they feel the need to label cyclists as crazy people who shout while there's no mention of crazy motorists who try to kill us or who are so bind that they may just end up doing so?

tomasrojo

I thought that section was weird all right.

That RSA page reeks of a car-centric world view. All the RSA seems to know of cycling is what anyone would see of cyclists from a car.

I presume they contributed to the last draft of the Rules of the Road? You should see what the advice for cycling on roundabouts was before the cycling groups objected. Hint: it involved putting yourself in what is statistically and demonstrably the most hazardous position while on the roundabout.

Anyone else read this as 'shooting' at first?

-Chris-

tomasrojo wrote: »

I presume they contributed to the last draft of the Rules of the Road? You should see what the advice for cycling on roundabouts was before the cycling groups objected. Hint: it involved putting yourself in what is statistically and demonstrably the most hazardous position while on the roundabout.

My guess was that the original draft recommended that you dismount your bike and cross the "feeding" roads like a pedestrian until you get to your exit at which point you may start cycling again.

Seems they decided to go one better and actively endanger cyclists.

Nice...