This Wiggins incident has brought the numpties out...

[Alun]

You've not seen this junction. I saw the one collar and I didn't actually stop. During the course of a rush hour, I'd expect them to get around 100 if they managed to stop every RLJ. That's £8000 for a couple of hours work.

It's not "a couple of hours work" though is it?
There are arrests, interviews, charges, CPS, solicitors, court appearances and all the rest, all multiplied by 100.

 

[mickle]

Plenty of numpties in the cycling community too I hate to say.

The argument for cycle registration was lost long ago. Why the fark are we still debating it? And why, when the subject of the danger posed to cyclists by drivers rears it's ugly head, does the conversation turn to cyclists on pavements, cyclist RLJing and cycle registration? None of it is relevant to the discussion in hand.

We must make every effort to avoid falling into this trap and remind people that cyclists, on the whole, and when compared to the mayhem wreaked by the automobile, simply do not pose any danger.

 

[Alun]

... and not having lights

Only during the hours of darkness, though!

 

[Davidsw8]

Plenty of numpties in the cycling community too I hate to say.

The argument for cycle registration was lost long ago. Why the f*** are we still debating it? And why, when the subject of the danger posed to cyclists by drivers rears it's ugly head, does the conversation turn to cyclists on pavements, cyclist RLJing and cycle registration? None of it is relevant to the discussion in hand.

We must make every effort to avoid falling into this trap and remind people that cyclists, on the whole, and when compared to the mayhem wreaked by the automobile, simply do not pose any danger.

Sorry, twas my fault. The age-old accusation of not paying road tax was raised and I just felt that cyclist registration would go some way to counter that argument (if a moot argument requires countering).

 

[benb]

You've not seen this junction. I saw the one collar and I didn't actually stop. During the course of a rush hour, I'd expect them to get around 100 if they managed to stop every RLJ. That's £8000 for a couple of hours work.

Not sure I follow your maths there. I think it's a £30 fine for RLJ.

 

[Davidsw8]

Maybe the discussion should ignore the mode of transport (foot, cycle, car etc.) and focus on people just being more aware and considerate of others?

Zero-tolerance on selfish behaviour!

 

[400bhp]

It's quite ironic that we seem to be talking about what to do with cyclists rather than how to potentially make the roads safer for cyclists after what we should be able to assume was a (famous) cyclist involved in a collision riding perfectly legally.

Just an observation - not intended to be opinionated.

 

[martint235]

It's not "a couple of hours work" though is it?
There are arrests, interviews, charges, CPS, solicitors, court appearances and all the rest, all multiplied by 100.

Fixed penalty notice (although as BenB says I'm probably wrong about the amount) so unless the perpetrator asks for it to go to court, it's sorted more or less there and then. I wouldn't expect many would want to go to court after RLJing at a junction that's crawling with CCTV.

 

[martint235]

It's quite ironic that we seem to be talking about what to do with cyclists rather than how to potentially make the roads safer for cyclists after what we should be able to assume was a (famous) cyclist involved in a collision riding perfectly legally.

Just an observation - not intended to be opinionated.

I think it may be, as happened to me, that this story has got people talking about cycling and cyclists. During these discussions, if you're a cyclist, what's thrown at you more and more is how irresponsible some cyclists are which is very true.

RLJer et al repeatedly refute that their actions damage cycling as a whole whereas what I'm certainly seeing today is that they do. "Cyclists behave recklessly, they have no lights, they ride on pavements, they RLJ. Of course there are some good ones and I'm sure you're one of those" is what I'm hearing. What we need to do is redefine the conversation to "On the whole cyclists are fairly well behaved but you get some nutters same as with everything else.". Now some one is going to say that the stats show cyclists are 92% well behaved but that's not the perception and it's the perception we need to change if anyone is ever going to listen.

 

[400bhp]

Good post.

I've said this before but the perception that cyclists RLJ is because they often do it when traffic is stationary, rather than just after the lights have turned to red and cars are still moving and slowing to a stop. This then means that a lot of car drivers have turned their attention from slowing down, to staring ahead and looking at what's going on at the junction. a front row seat at a cyclist going through a red.

 

[growingvegetables]

Plenty of numpties in the cycling community too I hate to say.

The argument for cycle registration was lost long ago. Why the f*** are we still debating it? And why, when the subject of the danger posed to cyclists by drivers rears it's ugly head, does the conversation turn to cyclists on pavements, cyclist RLJing and cycle registration? None of it is relevant to the discussion in hand.

We must make every effort to avoid falling into this trap and remind people that cyclists, on the whole, and when compared to the mayhem wreaked by the automobile, simply do not pose any danger.

+1001




naaaah - make it 10,001

 

[martint235]

+1001




naaaah - make it 10,001

I don't disagree that motorists are the ones that pose the danger. However as I've said above, as long as we're perceived as a bunch with no general regard for the laws of the road no one will ever listen to us.

Compare pedestrians to cyclists. We all know that peds walk out from between buses, at night, dressed all in black yet the general perception is that on the whole pedestrians are reasonably well behaved hence society as a whole tends to care when they get mown down at a bus stop. Now look at the general public perception of a cyclist: ignores red lights, rides on the pavement scaring grannies and young children and is a general menace. Until you change that, you won't get public sympathy and you can stand on a box jumping up and down screaming "It's motorists that kill people" and "The stats show that most cyclists obey the law" till you go blue in the face, it won't make the slightest difference.

 

[mickle]

I don't disagree that motorists are the ones that pose the danger. However as I've said above, as long as we're perceived as a bunch with no general regard for the laws of the road no one will ever listen to us.

Compare pedestrians to cyclists. We all know that peds walk out from between buses, at night, dressed all in black yet the general perception is that on the whole pedestrians are reasonably well behaved hence society as a whole tends to care when they get mown down at a bus stop. Now look at the general public perception of a cyclist: ignores red lights, rides on the pavement scaring grannies and young children and is a general menace. Until you change that, you won't get public sympathy and you can stand on a box jumping up and down screaming "It's motorists that kill people" and "The stats show that most cyclists obey the law" till you go blue in the face, it won't make the slightest difference.

The idea that cyclists must clean up their game before motorists will take them seriously simply doesn't add up. (Aside from the fact that motorists pose two thousand times more danger than cyclists) by every measure drivers break more road traffic laws than cyclists. To motorists we are an 'out group'. Motorists hate cyclists and then they use every example of poor cyclist behaviour to justify that hatred. You're looking through the telescope the wrong way. It's not cyclist behaviour which needs to change but motorist attitudes.

 

[martint235]

The idea that cyclists must clean up their game before motorists will take them seriously simply doesn't add up. (Aside from the fact that motorists pose two thousand times more danger than cyclists) by every measure drivers break more road traffic laws than cyclists. To motorists we are an 'out group'. Motorists hate cyclists and then they use every example of poor cyclist behaviour to justify that hatred. You're looking through the telescope the wrong way. It's not cyclist behaviour which needs to change but motorist attitudes.

It's not about motorists, it's about society. We are perceived as rljing, pavement riding nuisances. Until you change that, no one else will give a damn about cyclists. And if no one gives a damn, there will be no action taken to change motorist attitudes. Sorry but as I said you can jump up and down about motorists but until people care about cyclists nothing will change. And people won't care about cyclists until the general perception of them changes.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

It's not about motorists, it's about society. We are perceived as rljing, pavement riding nuisances. Until you change that, no one else will give a damn about cyclists. And if no one gives a damn, there will be no action taken to change motorist attitudes. Sorry but as I said you can jump up and down about motorists but until people care about cyclists nothing will change. And people won't care about cyclists until the general perception of them changes.

That begs the question why cyclists are perceived in such a way. I'm a firm believer in the scapegoat theory, aka the ''out-group'' theory.