Comment & Analysis: When you see as many of them as I do, you start to think that anti-cycling rants are tedious, boring and often just daft in the way some people repeat something they picked up from somebody else with little or no thought. But these rants gain clicks from people unwilling or unable to think a bit harder, but sadly usually all too willing to get annoyed or even angry. Are you triggered by anti-cycling ragebate? Even forgetting cyclists, is that something thats healthy for you? Just to note: This article is about cyclists: People cycling pedal bikes and electric bicycles with motor assistance limited 25km/h; if youre mad with people flying along without much or any pedalling, they likely are not cyclists but moped users or motorcyclists. Take your anger somewhere else, or, if you want to be informed, you can find out the difference here.Anyway, here are ten common anti-cycling rants followed by reasons why most people who have thought about it for more than a few seconds might disagree with you:(1) Cyclists will never admit that they do anything wrongOf course, cyclists, and all road users, do silly, dangerous and sometimes reckless things. We are all humans (2) It should be illegal for cyclists not to use cycle lanes If a cyclist is not using a cycle lane or cycle path, theres a good reason for it theres been loads of articles covering the reasons (including this one or this one).If youre unwilling to do a quick search and a bit of reading to understand something, but you keep getting worked up over cyclists not using cycle paths, maybe you have a wider problem, including falling for the ragebate on social media and in the media generally? (3) But its a perfectly good cycle laneIs it good enough for you to take up cycling or using it with some kind of mobility device? You should write to the local authorities in the Netherlands and tell them that they have got it wrong our design is much better and they should be learning from us! (4) The bad cyclists give all cyclists a bad nameCould you imagine if anybody said, The bad motorists give all motorists a bad name? How silly would that be? Across the world, more than a million people die at the hands of motorists each year; many more are injured, and many billions of euro/pounds/dollars in property damage is caused by drivers. (5) Cyclists should have insuranceRead the second line in the above answer again. In the grand scale of things, the potential for cyclists to cause harm and damage is similar to the risk of pedestrians causing harm and damage. (6) But cyclists break the law moreAs covered in a recent article, researchers found: When it comes to rule-breaking bicyclists, one popular opinion is that if bicyclists want to be taken seriously as road users, they need to obey the rules of the road like everyone else. Our survey results and the literature review both suggest that drivers break the rules of the road just as much, if not more, than bicyclists.But you dont have to look at research. Motorists drive around giving out about other motorists more. Cyclists are just a pet peeve that too many cannot get over. (7) Bicycles should have registration platesThere are loads of logical reasons I can give why registration plates for bicycles are a silly idea, but you should only need this one: The only country with registration plates for bicycles is North Korea. Still not convinced? If you cannot see the problem yet that only North Korea has implemented the idea and youre still suggesting it, there may be no hope for you.(8) So, youre saying we should allow cyclists to be lawless/reckless?Nobody has said that. This one comes up nearly every time you say anything to counter anti-cycling nonsense so its not a gotcha or being original or anything like that. (9) But cyclists cannot be held responsible without being registered Just like pedestrians, if its a serious enough issue, most people can be tracked down. Even with number plates and training, etc, motorists still kill over 1 million deaths around the world, and are responsible(10) But motorists dont drive on footpaths/pavments/sidewalksYes, yes they do. And if you live someplace that doesnt drive, park and regularly kill people on what should be pedestrian spaces After engaging with people for years on this, Ive found that a large chunk of people ranting about cyclists on pedestrian paths are actually talking about children (including teenagers). They usually wont say it straight up that they are talking about children. But if youre talking about children cycling on footpaths/pavements/sidewalks in most places, society has agreed to allow children to use these spaces.PS/Just to note:As Ive mentioned before: I openly engage with people online using my real name. From this, I feel like Ive learned a lot, gained some hope and some despair too (Im still not sure where the balance is between those two things). I always try to be civil, but if people push, I will push back a bit.In this article, some people might think Ive been insensitive, but to anybody coming here offended: You clicked on an article with the headline your anti-cycling ranting, and you self-identified with that. You shouldnt be doing that unless you think that you do engage in anti-cycling ranting. So what were you expecting? And why are you doing it to yourself? And no, this is not clickbait or ragebate I do not gain from clicks. What it is trying to be is engaging, honest, and informative. Maybe it has failed from the start, but if it managed to even half-shock one person out of anti-cycling arguments. Not everything can work, but its worth trying different ways.