'Police the roads, not the pavements'.

[stoptherock]

Police the roads, not the pavements

Cyclists are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of irresponsible road behaviour, say Victoria Hazael and Roger Geffen from the CTC.






Pedestrians and cyclists are far more at risk from drivers than they are from one another.


Motorbikes typically kill around two pedestrians a year; motor vehicles on average kill about two pedestrians a day. Even on pavements, those on foot are far more at risk from motor vehicles than bicycles. Motor vehicles kill pedestrians on pavements or verges at a rate of about 40 a year. In contrast, this latest incident is only the third time a cyclist has killed a pedestrian on the pavement this decade.

Yet unlike Darren Hall's jail term, drivers who kill often get off lightly. In fact, some don't even get to go to court.

Last week, the family of 25-year-old Anthony Maynard who was killed when he was hit by a van as he cycled near Henley, felt they had been left no other option than to start civil proceedings against the driver who killed their son.

In this case the driver claimed he didn't see Anthony because the sun was in his eyes and the CPS decided not to prosecute.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/aug/18/bike-blog-pavement

 

[ComedyPilot]

Very crap title.

What have the police got to do with this?

The fact the CPS decided not to prosecute mean the police have arrested someone, interviewed them and gathered evidence, passed the file to the CPS who then decided not to go further. What more can the police do, if the CPS think the person who KILLED someone should not go to court.

I think the title should be - 'CPS - Do your fuggin job'.

 

[magnatom]

I don't like this tactic the CTC is using. The guy shouldn't have been cycling on the pavement, he killed someone, and he deserves his sentence. By linking this to incidents with cars and suggesting a disparity in sentencing, it comes across as a whinge (yes it is probably justified, but...), i.e. 'us poor cyclists' etc. It's negative and will only provide more fuel for the anti-cyclist brigade in my opinion.

I've not been too impressed recently with the CTCs campaigning. The stuff about cyclists red light jumping because it was safer was another example of poor PR, IMO.

 

[stoptherock]

That a driver can claim in mitigation that he 'didn't see' a cyclist in broad daylight, after it was assessed the cyclist would have been visible for thirty seconds, and the CPS don't even bother to press charges explains why some cyclists feel safer on the pavements.

 

[thomas]

The article has a point, even if it doesn't do us any favours.

I don't have a problem with considerate pavement cycling. Now, pavement cycling might not be suitable everywhere, but if someone wanted to cycle on the pavement along the route I take to work it wouldn't be an issue. Very few peds and very busy roads for a new cyclist. A few parts are shared paths, but they're all parts where it would be dangerous for me to use them.

There are obviously times when just getting off and pushing makes more sense...though to be honest. When I was in London, I was pushing my bike as I didn't need to go that far and I didn't really know where I was going. It was a pedestrianised area but me pushing my bike seemed to cause more issues than those who were just riding though.

 

[ed_o_brain]

I don't like this tactic the CTC is using. The guy shouldn't have been cycling on the pavement, he killed someone, and he deserves his sentence. By linking this to incidents with cars and suggesting a disparity in sentencing, it comes across as a whinge (yes it is probably justified, but...), i.e. 'us poor cyclists' etc. It's negative and will only provide more fuel for the anti-cyclist brigade in my opinion.

I've not been too impressed recently with the CTCs campaigning. The stuff about cyclists red light jumping because it was safer was another example of poor PR, IMO.

I don't interpret it as whinging. The disparity is that not enough drivers are brought to book. The CTC don't appear to be arguing against the sentence Darren Hall received.

And you know what? I don't condone red light jumping and I don't do it myself, but I'd imagine it's far less dangerous than hanging about in an ASL. I'm fortunate, I can accelerate very quickly away from the lights and I always gain enough space to assert myself before the motorised traffic catches up with me. But I have plenty of anecdotal experience of motorists ignoring ASLs and trying to force their way ahead of me even before the lights have changed.

The CTC are right on the money with the numbers campaign too. Even if it is obvious to those of us who have been cycling and catching cycling headlines for eons, it's still a message that needs to be delivered to politicians, civil servants and the general public at large.

 

[HLaB]

Yet unlike Darren Hall's jail term, drivers who kill often get off lightly. In fact, some don't even get to go to court.

I don't know the full in and outs of the DH case but it sounded like he got what he deserved perhaps even should have got more but there should be some equality here and driver should get a similar penalty.

 

[stoptherock]

It's a cyclical argument, I agree:

'Cyclists on pavements are annoying, very occasionally people get hurt!'

'Yebbut, drivers are worse!'


That's a truism we can all agree with, and also the fact that the nroads are largely unpoliced?

Speeding's rife, chatting on a mobile is something I see every day, the chances of an RLJer getting caught, in whatever vehicle, are slim.

If it's common ground we're after then let's clamour for trafpol.

 

[thomas]

the chances of an RLJer getting caught, in whatever vehicle, are slim.

The only real change of getting caught would be if there were red light cameras....not that they effect cyclists.

 

[stoptherock]

Cyclists, like pedestrians, are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of irresponsible road behaviour. This is why more priority should be given to road traffic policing.





All road users must know that that those who cause danger to others are likely to get caught and punished appropriately. More traffic police would make our streets safer for everyone and encourage those who choose to travel the healthy and environmentally friendly way.


I can't see anything to disagree with there.


Although then there's this:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8206463.stm

Plans to allow police to issue on-the-spot fines for careless driving would undermine justice, say magistrates.

Road conditions can make responsible driving seem careless, it is argued...

Blim. I would say that responsible driving would include some consideration of the conditions, shirley?

 

[Origamist]

Err... what stuff about red light jumping? CTC has never condoned RLJing, although it has said it understands why people may do it. Understanding the reasons for something and condoning it are two different things.

Quite. This is the quote I believe Magnatom is alluding to:


The CTC called for measures to encourage a "share the road" mentality including trials of "advance" traffic lights for cyclists. It said small, additional traffic lights could be placed a few feet ahead of standard lights to give cyclists a two to three-second head-start.

"Drivers are angered by cyclists going through red lights," said Roger Geffen, of the CTC.

"Cyclists do it because it feels safer than waiting for traffic to rush up from behind. If they could pull away sooner, legally, it would help."

 

[stoptherock]

Drivers are whining that sometimes, in strange, unreferenced circumstances, dangerous driving may be carried out accidently.

Can you imagine their response if cyclists protested that sometimes it's safer to RLJ?

5 or 6 deaths in London this year of cyclists could have been avoided had the cyclist RLJd.

That's not an excuse, RLJers make things harder for cyclists, but the double standards are interesting.

 

[magnatom]

I never suggested that the CTC condoned RLJ, I just suggested that their approach to it wasn't the best. It is a red herring to suggest that cyclists need to go to the front of the queue. Totally unecessary for safety, and can sometime compromise safety. Instead, slot in a few cars back. I do it all the time with no problems.

With regards to the pavement cycling issue, I am trying to look at it from a drivers perspective. How are we going to gain more respect from drivers. I don't think we will get it by comparing completely separate incidents with completely different circumstances etc and saying, look....no fair! Putting my driver cap on, it could IMO come across as whinging.

Don't get me wrong I think the CTC should be campaigning for stricter sentencing for drivers such as in the case highlighted, I just don't think linking it to pavement cycling helps.

 

[Origamist]

I never suggested that the CTC condoned RLJ, I just suggested that their approach to it wasn't the best. It is a red herring to suggest that cyclists need to go to the front of the queue. Totally unecessary for safety, and can sometime compromise safety. Instead, slot in a few cars back. I do it all the time with no problems.

That's because you misrepresented the CTC's position:

"The stuff about cyclists red light jumping because it was safer was another example of poor PR, IMO."

They have not said this.

 

[magnatom]

That's because you mischaracterized the CTC's position:

"The stuff about cyclists red light jumping because it was safer was another example of poor PR, IMO."

They have not said this.

Actually, in an interview Mr Geffen did suggest that cyclists RLJ'ed because they felt it was safer, so I don't think I have misinterpreted anything.