You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • There are two separate stereotypes at play here. In urban areas, we don't so much hear the complaints about the roadies, as that's more a countryside issue.

    In the inner city, the stereotype is changing from 'eccentric, probably poor old bloke with a flapping hi-viz vest, weird hair, and knotty legs riding at 2mph one inch away from the kerbline' to 'selfish middle-class people who only care about getting to their well-paid jobs in the City of London or the City of Westminster'. The aggression is felt mostly in constrained environments like canal towpaths--as campaigners, we hear that one all the time.

    Needless to say, both kinds of stereotypes are nonsense, but they are convenient for people to distance themselves from cycling. The favourite excuse for not cycling is still 'it's too dangerous', but if and/or as the 'selfish' accusation gains ground, we'll probably hear that one more.

    The real reason why people perceive 'aggression' is because they come into closer contact with cyclists than they do with car drivers. The closer contact is actually a good thing. It will still require a good deal of shifting their thinking, though. There's a great reluctance to change for those who see London as predominantly a walking and cycling city. A lot of people feel threatened by the recent increase in cycling in London.

About