'Police the roads, not the pavements'.

[thomas]

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.

Personally I think the safety argument is just an excuse. If I lived in London or a big city and was to jump red lights it would be because I'm inpatient, no other reason.

 

[Origamist]

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.

The CTC position does not condone RLJing - it's as simple as that. Peck, Geffen et al point out that safety concerns at junctions are cited by cyclists as a reason to RLJ.

The distinction is important.

 

[Crankarm]

I'm with Magna on this one. A few occasions the CTC have put some one up on the radio or TV to give an "official" comment on behalf of cyclists as a group, I have found their stand point odd if not bizarre and certainly one I am not comfortable with. The Highway Code is for the benefit and safety of all road users. Tacitly endorsing RLJing but not condoning it the CTC wants to sit on the fence appealing to the many cyclists who do RLJ and using it as a basis for a change in traffic signals at junctions as so many cyclists RLJ. To my mind this is not the best way to address the problem.

Their safety in numbers campaign is fundamentally flawed without actually improving facilities for cyclists, enforcement of current road traffic rules, increasing the detection of careless and dangerous drivers and making penalties and sentences more punative. Simply encouraging more cyclists to cycle without pushing hard for improving facilities and strenghtening the law and enforcement is just going to increase the numbers seriously injured or killed. Never once have I noticed anything on my rides that the CTC have had a hand in. Geffen himself IMHO doesn't come across very well.

 

[Origamist]

I'm with Magna on this one. A few occasions the CTC have put some one up on the radio or TV to give an "official" comment on behalf of cyclists as a group, I have found their stand point odd if not bizarre and certainly one I am not comfortable with. The Highway Code is for the benefit and safety of all road users. Tacitly endorsing RLJing but not condoning it the CTC wants to sit on the fence appealing to the many cyclists who do RLJ and using it as a basis for a change in traffic signals at junctions as so many cyclists RLJ. To my mind this is not the best way to address the problem.


Their safety in numbers campaign is fundamentally flawed without actually improving facilities for cyclists, enforcement of current road traffic rules, increasing the detection of careless and dangerous drivers and making penalties and sentences more punative. Simply encouraging more cyclists to cycle without pushing hard for improving facilities and strenghtening the law and enforcement is just going to increase the numbers seriously injured or killed. Never once have I noticed anything on my rides that the CTC have had a hand in. Geffen himself IMHO doesn't come across very well.

Geffen is on record:

"CTC - the UK’s national cyclists’ organisation, does not in any way condone law-breaking by cyclists, as we recognise the intimidation and, occasionally, the danger this can pose to pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities

The "safety in numbers" campaign is one of many. You seem fixated by this one campaign strand!

I'm sure Reg can highlight the multifarious nature of the CTC's campaigning better than I can.

 

[magnatom]

The CTC position does not condone RLJing - it's as simple as that. Peck, Geffen et al point out that safety concerns at junctions are cited by cyclists as a reason to RLJ.

The distinction is important.

Agreed, the CTc does not condone red light jumping, but by empathising publicly with those who do, weakens their position in my opinion. What the CTC should be saying is;

Don't red light jump. If safety is a concern, here is what you do....

A weak stance can be misinterpreted.

 

[Crankarm]

Given your comments on the CTC elsewhere, I'll accord your comments above the weight that they are due.

And given you are stalwart of the CTC hierachy your remark is entirely predictable .

 

[Crankarm]

Geffen is on record:

"CTC - the UK’s national cyclists’ organisation, does not in any way condone law-breaking by cyclists, as we recognise the intimidation and, occasionally, the danger this can pose to pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities

Well this is not the categorical stance I have heard him preach

The "safety in numbers" campaign is one of many. You seem fixated by this one campaign strand!

The CTC seem to have adopted the "safety on numbers" campaign as their main campaign. It is routinely mentioned when cycling features in the media, in the press both general and cycling specific. I don't have a problem with it except that cycling facilities in the UK are totally inadequate for this at this current time. It's akin to the mentality of the aristocratic generals and lordy politicians in the First World War who simply thought that by sending more men over the top the enemy lines could be breached and the Germans captured. Alas a huge slaughter ensued, huge loss of life on both sides and stalemate.

And this morning there appears to be yet another cycling fatality in London on London Bridge. And the CTC is trying to aggressively recruit newcomers to cycling whilst this daily carnage takes place??!! They have got their priortites *rse over tit.

I would contend it would do better to maintain it's revenue flows by keeping existing members and trying to re-recruit lapsed or experienced cyclists rather than side lining them and primarily concentrating on recruiting novice/newbie cyclists who may only cycle for a few weeks during the summer months.

 

[magnatom]

Sometimes through sloppy 'reporting' or deliberately...

Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the CTC, and a member. I just think because the subject of cyclist/motorist interaction is so emotive, the CTC needs to be as firm and clear as possible. Therefore, linking incidents which are unconnected, and suggesting that you understand why cyclists run red lights, just dilutes the message.

I take it you work in some capacity for the CTC User?

 

[Crankarm]

........ I just think because the subject of cyclist/motorist interaction is so emotive, the CTC needs to be as firm and clear as possible. Therefore, linking incidents which are unconnected, and suggesting that you understand why cyclists run red lights, just dilutes the message.

+1.

 

[magnatom]

I must admit I'm against facilities and I can understand where the CTC is coming from with regards to safety in numbers. Yes, the CTC has to attack these issues in a multi-pronged approach, I think in general that they are doing this. I just feel that the CTC needs to tighten the messages up, and make it clear what should be expected of cyclists i.e. be seen to keep our own house in order.

 

[theclaud]

It's akin to the mentality of the aristocratic generals and lordy politicians in the First World War who simply thought that by sending more men over the top the enemy lines could be breached and the Germans captured. Alas a huge slaughter ensued, huge loss of life on both sides and stalemate.

And this morning there appears to be yet another cycling fatality in London on London Bridge. And the CTC is trying to aggressively recruit newcomers to cycling whilst this daily carnage takes place??!! They have got their priortites *rse over tit.

This is truly barking, Crankarm! Some of us commute daily, a lot of us in London. It can be a bit hairy, but it's hardly Gallipoli. The CTC's entirely sensible point is that it's better for your life expectancy to cycle than not to cycle, and that not only does it get safer because people see more cyclists on the road, but because everyone who is on a bike instead of behind the wheel of a car is thereby rendered harmless. Your anti-CTC thing is beginning to sound like a grudge. Is there something you're not telling us?

 

[Origamist]

Well this is not the categorical stance I have heard him preach



It's akin to the mentality of the aristocratic generals and lordy politicians in the First World War who simply thought that by sending more men over the top the enemy lines could be breached and the Germans captured. Alas a huge slaughter ensued, huge loss of life on both sides and stalemate.

And this morning there appears to be yet another cycling fatality in London on London Bridge. And the CTC is trying to aggressively recruit newcomers to cycling whilst this daily carnage takes place??!! They have got their priortites *rse over tit.

That's a rather grandiose analogy and not one that is reflected in any cycling casualty statistics that I have come across. If you have links to relevant data sets, please post them.

Extrapolation from one data point - you can do better than that Crankarm.

 

[Crankarm]

So you believe that 'facilities' are needed in order to make cyclists safe? Is this why you keep hammering on about them?

So Holland that is a cycling nirvana has no facilities and is a death trap for cyclists.............

CTC and many other organisations (and many. many cyclists) disagree with you. Cyclists don't need 'facilities' - they need to be treated with the respect they are due on the road.

Do you speak in an official capacity for the CTC or any other organisation because if you do may I quote you?

Chasing after 'facilities' will only lead to greater segregation and the perpetuation of the belief of many motorists that cyclist have no right to be on the road. It is is a short-sighted and ill-thought out approach.

Eh??!!! Are you for real.............

Really maybe you should think Holland or Germany.........

Dedicated cycle paths separate from roads with their own traffic signals at junctions as in Germany, Holland and France.

If you are making these comments and views on behallf of the CTC as representative of their policy then you might like to check with your lords and masters whether they are altogether comfortable with you offering them and the manner in which you so so. If they are purely your personal views then I think the CTC or any other cycling organisation would still be concerned you representing them given the position you hold and the lobbying they have done in the past resulting in cycle paths or safety measures at accident black spots where cyclists have been killed.

 

[theclaud]

You might find Crankarm's rants here enlightening on that point

I note that Crankarm is local to me. Perhaps I should take him for a drink and let him vent, and then explain reality to him....

Yes I've been through that one! But I've had a bit of trouble with membership renewal, and it doesn't get me foaming and slavering all over the boards. So, yes - perhaps he just needs a large G&T. Good luck with that...

 

[magnatom]

But where do they say otherwise?

You complain that CTC says it understands why people say they RLJ. But you have to understand why people do something in order to address it.

CTC doesn't condone RLJing - indeed it actively campaigns to promote 'good behaviour' by cyclists, e.g. through Bikeability and the maintenance of the National Standards for Cycling.

I'm playing devils advocate here. I'm a motorist. I hate seeing cyclists jumping through red light. Lycra louts the lot of them. The CTC then suggests that it can understand why cyclists do this.... the motorists brain stops listening. He doesn't care for the reasoning and has now misinterpreted what the CTC is saying as, red light jumping is ok. He now hates cyclists a little more....

Hypothetical of course, but a reality IMO. Of course it is important for the CTC to understand the behaviour of cyclists, but this understanding shouldn't make it out into press releases, as it will inevitably be misinterpreted. All the CTC needed to say was that there is no need for cyclists to run red lights and here is the techniques that you can use to keep safe on approach to lights.

Now the motorist hears this...mmm, the CTC are keeping cyclists in check and teaching them methods to stay within the law. Maybe some cyclists are all right...

User, we are on the same side, I am just saying that in my opinion, recently, the CTC message has come across as a little confused. Now I am a cyclist who understands the issues etc. If I think it comes across as a bit confused, just imagine what Joe Driver thinks.