MP’s safer cycling call angers drivers

[Alien8]

There's only a finite resource available, so given the possible consequences of the actions, I think pavement cycling will always come second to driving in a manner that has a significant potential of killing someone.

But primarily I think it's about education and what is or isn't consider acceptable/sensible.

 

[pshore]

The FULL speech and response is here

The bikehub link has only pasted the first web page of two. The CEN article is a couple of quotes but actually quite factual and only a little inflammatory (I guess they need to do little to wind the locals up on this subject).

The CEN has of course descended into RLJ and no-lights. I have submitted a few comments in defence but the comments system is not threaded so is difficult to respond to all.

 

[John the Monkey]

There's only a finite resource available, so given the possible consequences of the actions, I think pavement cycling will always come second to driving in a manner that has a significant potential of killing someone.

But primarily I think it's about education and what is or isn't consider acceptable/sensible.

Undoubtedly there's an extent to which people have to police themselves, and education can certainly help bring that about, although enforcement is a key part of making it happen - imo, people have to believe that there will be consequences, and that those consequences will be non trivial.

 

[downfader]

I think local, law abiding cyclists need to send emails of support to the paper. They also must challenge the RAC by quoting the DFT 2009 stats of 93% of cyclists not being to blame for collisions involving cycle and motor vehicle. You must write that you fully support bad cyclists being dealt with by the Police and that you're sick of being lumped in with them when in fact you behave.

Its not about being "righteous", its about making the roads safe and even enjoyable to use. Nobody hates drivers, its the bad guys who need to be dealt with, whatever mode of transport they use.

letters@cambridge-news.co.uk

 

[Davidc]

Pavement cyclists are a nuisance and I'm all in favour of them being stopped and fined. So are cycle RLJs, and so on, but they really pose a bigger hazard to themselves than to anyone else. Again stop them and fine them.

Motor vehicle drivers behaving badly are different however. They can and do kill people. That's why they need more enforcement action taken against them.

 

[Woz!]

Pavement cyclists are a nuisance and I'm all in favour of them being stopped and fined.

I don't agree. If a council can just paint a line down a pavement and it's suddenly safe as a 'shared route' for bikes and peds, why should a cyclist be fined for riding on one they haven't gotten around to painting yet?

We have plenty of so-called cycle lanes around our area (particularly on the route from Wokingham to Reading) that are exactly as described above.

 

[Dan B]

Pavement cyclists are often a nuisance and I'm also all in favour of them being stopped and fined in these cases. But this has much more to do with their attitude to cycling in what should be a primarily pedestrian space than whether they're legally allowed to be there or not, so IMO the "zero-tolerance"-style rhetoric is misplaced. Reclassifying the pavement as a "shared use path" (or vice versa) will make illegal behaviour legal (or vice versa) but will make not one jot of difference to whether the cyclist is being antisocial or not



I wonder if Living Streets offer 3rd party cycling insurance to members? I'm reaching the point that I think they're probably more in tune with my beliefs than either the CTC or LCC ...

 

[Woz!]

Reclassifying the pavement as a "shared use path" (or vice versa) will make illegal behaviour legal (or vice versa) but will make not one jot of difference to whether the cyclist is being antisocial or not

Not sure about this, the example I'm thinking of is a line painted down a path that is alongside a main road and has a large number of private drives crossing it.
It creates a point at which a cyclist can easily come into contact with motorists.
On the particular path I'm thinking of, before the lines the cyclist would be illegally going down the path and when a motorist reversed from their drive they would easily cause a collision - the motorist would be expecting to encounter risk of collision as they reached the curb. At this point it's the cyclist's fault and they would have no right getting in a huff about it.
After the lines, the roles are reversed and the onus is on the motorist to check each way immediately they leave their own property and then again at the curb.

There is no difference to safety of the path between the before and after stages but the behaviour of the cyclist is antisocial before and not after.

If councils can decide a path is safe just to justify their allocation of 'cycle paths' then I think the law about pavement cycling should be thrown out.

 

[Jim_Noir]

Wither you cycle or in a car, if you act in a way that is reckless that may harm another then yeap you should be punished for that. Folks on bikes who RLJ have the potential of really hurting a pedestrian... thus they are the pedestrian version of a car in the way we want our space. Pavements, there are people who do need a kick in the erse for being an adult and speeding up and down pavements! However there are folks I see on the road that really are a hazard. I saw a woman about 9 months back getting fined from the police for being on the pavement. She was about 60, very overweight and had her shopping, she was barley cycling at walking pace... think it was a bit off she got done, and honestly she shouldn’t ever be allowed on the road for her own safety.

My big gripe at the moment is lights and no reflective clothing. More this winter I have noticed that not many people have lights or reflective clothing, don’t they know how quickly the can become invisible? Sure they don’t need expensive lights to see the way as it’s a city, but be nice if folks could see them... is it just me or is this winter seen more people without lights?

 

[downfader]

Not sure about this, the example I'm thinking of is a line painted down a path that is alongside a main road and has a large number of private drives crossing it.
It creates a point at which a cyclist can easily come into contact with motorists.
On the particular path I'm thinking of, before the lines the cyclist would be illegally going down the path and when a motorist reversed from their drive they would easily cause a collision - the motorist would be expecting to encounter risk of collision as they reached the curb. At this point it's the cyclist's fault and they would have no right getting in a huff about it.
After the lines, the roles are reversed and the onus is on the motorist to check each way immediately they leave their own property and then again at the curb.

There is no difference to safety of the path between the before and after stages but the behaviour of the cyclist is antisocial before and not after.

If councils can decide a path is safe just to justify their allocation of 'cycle paths' then I think the law about pavement cycling should be thrown out.

I think this thread is in danger of going wildly off-topic. The issue here is, as some of us have said before many times, the fact that law abiding cyclists, peds and even drivers in some circumstances, are being let down by the justice system.

 

[mark barker]

Pavement cyclists are a nuisance and I'm all in favour of them being stopped and fined. So are cycle RLJs, and so on, but they really pose a bigger hazard to themselves than to anyone else. Again stop them and fine them.

If you look at them in isolation then you're probably right, but I'd guess that many other road users view all cyclists as the same. If that is the case then the RLJ that just wound up the driver has a knock on effect when that driver pulls up along side you.

 

[stowie]

If you look at them in isolation then you're probably right, but I'd guess that many other road users view all cyclists as the same. If that is the case then the RLJ that just wound up the driver has a knock on effect when that driver pulls up along side you.

Why should it? If someone in control of 1 tonne of machinery cannot be trusted to not take out one perceived transgression on another vulnerable road user, maybe they shouldn't have a licence.

If I see a driver jump the lights, I don't then decide to exact revenge upon the next motorist I come across!

It is amazing that the MPs comments aren't exactly revolutionary, and the response from a "charity" like the RAC Foundation is so vehement.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I think this thread is in danger of going wildly off-topic. The issue here is, as some of us have said before many times, the fact that law abiding cyclists, peds and even drivers in some circumstances, are being let down by the justice system.

Indeed.

It's a sad state of affairs when a thread about this on a cycling forum degenerates into a discussion about the alleged misdemeanours of cyclists.

This is not the issue.

 

[thomas]

gotta say this is a fair comment.


but the change needs to be made on a much higher level. we need to stop the mind set that motorists own the road and all other users are just in their way, this is so not the case. a good strong TV campaign that makes things clear about so called "road tax" would be a start

No it wouldn't...it would be a complete and utter waste of time. It would go in one ear and straight out of the other. Any advert about road tax would be a load of boring drivel, and whether or not cyclists pay road tax is neither hear nor there. I'm willing to bet most run ins with cyclists are due to a lack of understanding about the needs of cyclists and impatience.

Any road tax message would only really be targeted towards a minority who may intentionally bully cyclists; but this is the same group which this message would not have any affect on.

Just because someone has told you to pay road tax, doesn't mean we need to waste money making television adverts about our taxation system.

 

[maat1976]

I think I've seen this guy around Cambridge...

Anyway, I have cycled and driven around Cambridge quite a lot. In most places (such as London where I live) I feel that motorists need to be more aware of their surroundings. However, in defense of Cambridge drivers, I find they are very patient and aware compared to their London brethren. I have never had a near miss in my time there, which is more than I can say for London!