highlandsflyer":399wf42m said:
Everyone has an opinion indeed. You are merely a bigger opinion than most.
I base my opinion on my personal experience, I don't base it on news reports or websites that were few and far between back then.
Hardly the basis for a comparison.
Au contraire - my opinion isn't just based on news reports or websites - but from my own experiences, those of friends / acquaintances, opinions expressed here, and news reports and comments on these reports on the relevant websites.
And from what I can remember, you're the only person I've encountered who seems to believe that drivers' attitudes haven't changed over the last few decades - personally, I'm not buying that for a second. Maybe if you're so confident, put it to a poll...
highlandsflyer":399wf42m said:
Back then cycling was a risk you took, and if you copped it it was all part of the dangers of being on the road.
Nowadays if you cop it, the driver will be scrutinised from the perspective of having injured or killed a more vulnerable road user.
That was always the case.
Sure, the scrutiny and the analysing and details may be more, um, forensic in approach - and in general, more scientific - but a road death, was always a road death.
highlandsflyer":399wf42m said:
We now have many more cycle ways and road markings, etc. promoting the rights of cyclists as protected road users.
Eh?
These are promoting the rights of cyclists as protected road users. They're encouraging the segmenting of cyclists out of normal traffic, and fostering an underlying, but ever-increasing mindset in some drivers that cyclists have no place on the road, should be on the cycle path, and as such don't deserve much (if anything) in the way of consideration.
BITD when cyclists only really could use the road, traffic and drivers had to (by and large) cohabit with cyclists.
highlandsflyer":399wf42m said:
The people changing all these things are not just cyclists, they are drivers too.
Most of the people seemingly instigating the changes appear not to be cyclists, nor actually listening to much of the cyclists opinions.
highlandsflyer":399wf42m said:
I would say attitudes are much the same, averaged out.
Drivers are definitely more hostile to each other, and the attitude of many of the motoring public, who care to comment, has surprised me, in recent times, of just how negatively they perceive cyclists as part of traffic.
highlandsflyer":399wf42m said:
For every casually regardless motorist there is another who is bike aware.
It's not the awareness I think is lacking as much as the care, and the consideration that cyclists have a valid place - and of paramount significance - an actual right to be traffic on the road.
highlandsflyer":399wf42m said:
Only problem is there are ten times as many passing you, so five times more of the ones who could not care less about you.
I think that is overly glib and simplistic.
Drivers are more hostile to each other, never mind cyclists.
Roads have become a more hostile place, with a bigger proportion of drivers than in past decades. Costs (fuel, VED, insurance), "safety cameras", the significant reduction in presence of actual traffic pol, an increased aggressiveness, seemingly born out of a sense of (I suspect largely misplaced) urgency, greater contention, roads made more hostile - in terms of "traffic calming", have seemingly increased the frustration in an increasing proportion of drivers, which spills over to other road users like cyclists, easily, but unthinkingly targeted on the basis that as they're not paying VED, and in some cases have a dedicated path, then
in general, have no place being in traffic merely slowing down an increasingly angry proportion of drivers.
highlandsflyer":399wf42m said:
Misquote as much of that as you will.
Well believe what you like, but any quotes I made of you were verbatim, and hardly grabbed out of context.
highlandsflyer":399wf42m said:
An empty road is still an empty road.
And a cigar is still a cigar.