Target pavement cyclists, say MPs

[jezhiggins]

Having now read the report and the minutes of a meeting that wa submitted as oral evidence to it, I have to point out that this is pretty much exactly what they did. It's the Daily Wail spin which has transformed it into "targetting pavement cyclists"

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubacc/665/665.pdf

It does use the word "target" when talking about cyclists, even though those cyclists are merely thought, because of the actions of some, to be a hazard merely by their presence. The recommendation is to devise education, training and publicity measures to target such anti-social behaviour, particularly when it breaks traffic laws. Speeding motorists who are, by definition, a hazard and breaking the law are, however, only to be subject to "influence" - promote measures to reduce speed, including the use of speed cameras, 20 miles per hour zones and road humps, to encourage local highway authorities to adopt them and to influence the attitudes of all road users.


Of the 7 conclusions and recommendation, six make reasonable sense, but number 4, about cyclists doesn't. I wonder if it was insisted on by Curry, and whether other members attempted to water him down a bit. The conclusion that "it is surprising that the Department was unaware of a strongly held perception that, through the irresponsible behaviour of some cyclists, they are a hazard to themselves and other road users" isn't especially damning about cyclists as a whole. The actions of "some" create a "strongly held preception" that they're a hazard, implying that the perception doesn't reflect reality. The conclusion, that cyclists should therefore be targeted, doesn't logically follow. The more logical conclusion should be something like promoting cycling as safe, in order to break down that perception.

 

[WeeE]

This is something that does need to be at least tried.

As far as I remember, when I was a small child (about 4 decades ago!) this was tried: I remember how we all got given reflective armbands because we would have to go to school as well as come home in the dark.

If I remember rightly, pedestrian casualties rose out of all proportion compared with the numbers being knocked down on dark evenings.

It was also extremely bad for morale - so many adults were not seeing daylight at all for most of the week.

Of course, that may not have happened in the south of England: for the rest of us it was an unmitigated load of cr@p.

 

[WeeE]

Just to clarify that:
At the moment, in October, Scotland's central belt, where about half the population live - sunrise & sunset today 8:01am & 5.59pm.

Put the clock forward an hour permanently - we'd all be commuting in the dark by now, until...I dunno - March?

 

[WeeE]

Cheltenham BC. We have some converted railway lines with a decent surface which goes through the St Pauls area (dodgy council estate I used to live next to), and the main drag along Princess Elizabeth way has a shared path which has been painted (PE way cuts through the Hesters way area and there is no shortage of social depravation there)

The east end of the town (Charlton Kings) is by comparison well posh.

Thanks - I never knew Cheltenham had whole areas of depraved people! I suppose I imagined it full of posh schoolgirls and spying civil servants (at least while GCHQ was there.) I was using "west end" in a metaphorical, Pet Shop Boys kinda way. Anyway, even if it was fortuitous to some extent (the chance of where the railway track runs) it'll still be interesting to find out what the council's perception was of what they were doing. Cheers!

 

[Dan B]

I'm sure that depravity is no respecter of social class: de Sade was a Marquis ...

 

[HJ]

Well, I won't argue that they do - you're probably right - but it's not at all odd that they do.

Q. What do non-cyclists say stops them cycling? A. Fear of traffic

I agree, did you follow the link which I put in, the major problem which most politicians fail to face up to....

Q. What demographic group is more likely than not to be traffic virgins? (ie highest proportion of non-drivers?) A The poor.

Well actually it is children under 16...

One of the things that tends to be forgotten in these arguments about pavement cycling is the fact that many of them are just children...

 

[HJ]

Agreed, it's not about those not being bothered to learn though, it's about increasing in confidence for those that are.

No-one is going to be encouraged to take up cycling with this method, there becomes no purpose to the ride. I've learn't what I have by commuting and going wherever, over that period my skills and confidence have increased. I quickly found that going by road is much faster than on pavement - and that was more of an incentive to try it than anything else. Tootling around side streets avoiding everything makes it seem pointless. Use the path when you feel like it on your way somewhere, so long as it is SAFE to do so, and use the road when you feel confident to do so, the rest comes naturally IMO.

I do think we are making a mistake comparing cars to bikes though, whilst they supposedly share the same traffic lanes, cars have millions of pounds worth (R&D wise) of safety for the driver, cutting edge technology. A cyclist is essentially on a design that hasn't changed any over 100 years - except maybe a helmet and hi-viz

Which rather misses the point, cycling, per se, it not dangerous, the problem is drivers. Restrict where they can go and how fast they can go, make them take responsibility for their actions, then we will get safer roads...

 

[HJ]

I am more cynical than you I'm afraid: I think the majority of pavement riders will stay on the pavement forever. After all, on the pavement a bike is big and fast and people get out of the way - that's exactly NOT the skills you want to develop for the road ...

No, the majority of pavement riders don't stay on the pavement forever, once they get over 17 years of age they the take to the roads, but sadly that is the way that that they drive...

 

[HJ]

5. There is substantial evidence that fewer people would be killed and seriously injured on Great Britain's roads if this country were to put the clocks forward by one hour throughout the year. The Department should take the lead in re-examining the practice of changing clocks at the end of British Summer Time with other central Government departments.

This is something that does need to be at least tried. That said I always get the feeling that this won't improve things just spread the associated problem about a little more.

It has been tried, it failed miserable...

As I have just found WeeE has stated above...

 

[brokenbetty]

You'd do well to read the post I linked for you twice.

Read it the first time but it didn't say anything you hadn't already said in the thread. Also appeared you were talking about shared facilities, not riding on the pedestrian area.

Incidentally, I don't mind clearly marked shared facilities and if you want to lobby for more of them, go for your life. I don't think cyclists should unilaterally create them beside busy roads just because they are scared of traffic. It's selfish. And it marginalises pedestrians for the convenience of cyclists just as bad drivers marginalise cyclists for their convenience.

And in reply to your other post, yes, if you find your urban route is 90% unrideable, you shouldn't be trying to ride it.

But frankly I find it very hard to believe many urban journeys long enough to prefer bike to foot can't be achieved using side roads and the occasional push. That's not my experience and I've lived in cities all my life.

 

[WeeE]

My tuppenceworth - the best way to improve

safety
the perception of safety
street conviviality/mobility (specially for young & elderly)
air quality
noise pollution
traffic congestion
​

make 20mph the default urban speed limit.

It is in any case a bit higher than average urban speeds, but it would stop the speed-and-brake mentality that gives rise to so much frustration and aggro - it might actually improve average urban speed.

(Most of our children under 12 don't get to do such a simple thing as make their own way to school: parents give fear of traffic as by far their biggest reason for this. They can't play in their own streets! What hell - a generation of kids live under a form of house-arrest. How did it get to this?)

Designated roads - i.e. selected major routes - could of course have higher limits.

 

[ComedyPilot]

My tuppenceworth - the best way to improve

safety
the perception of safety
street conviviality/mobility (specially for young & elderly)
air quality
noise pollution
traffic congestion
​

make 20mph the default urban speed limit.

It is in any case a bit higher than average urban speeds, but it would stop the speed-and-brake mentality that gives rise to so much frustration and aggro - it might actually improve average urban speed.

(Most of our children under 12 don't get to do such a simple thing as make their own way to school: parents give fear of traffic as by far their biggest reason for this. They can't play in their own streets! What hell - a generation of kids live under a form of house-arrest. How did it get to this?)

Designated roads - i.e. selected major routes - could of course have higher limits.

Then happily get in their own cars creating yet more traffic to be fearful of.

 

[wafflycat]

As far as I remember, when I was a small child (about 4 decades ago!) this was tried: I remember how we all got given reflective armbands because we would have to go to school as well as come home in the dark.

If I remember rightly, pedestrian casualties rose out of all proportion compared with the numbers being knocked down on dark evenings.

It was also extremely bad for morale - so many adults were not seeing daylight at all for most of the week.

Of course, that may not have happened in the south of England: for the rest of us it was an unmitigated load of cr@p.

It happened in the NE of England - yes, we were travelling to & from school/work in darkness. Yes, if I also unforget correctly, casualties rose and that was one reason for ending the experiment. I too remember the armbands!

 

[WeeE]

Then happily get in their own cars creating yet more traffic to be fearful of.

Yeah - I don't get that bit (+ same goes for the childhood-asthma epidemic) but, then - I'm not a parent.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Yeah - I don't get that bit (+ same goes for the childhood-asthma epidemic) but, then - I'm not a parent.

I am, and I fully intend to shame the parents dropping their kids off in cars after 200m, when we have cycled almost 3 miles.