Home

Former Olympic cyclist Chris Boardman has called on Boris Johnson to consider banning lorries from some of London's roads during peak times.

Following the death of six cyclists on London's roads in two weeks, Mr Boardman asked the mayor to honour a "promise" he made by looking at similar schemes in operation abroad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24999302

Full beeb article, clicky. The voice of rationality takes on Humpty Dumpty [totally unbiased view.]

34 comments

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Chris Boardman has hitherto displayed an admirable desire to understand human performance, so I wonder if he might like to try working the really awkward shifts that he is suggesting HGV drivers work (just a week of funny shifts should be sufficient) to see what effect this might have, not just on his ability to drive safely but also on his own personal health.

Avatar
Jimbonic [135 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I may be getting old. But, where did he suggest that they would have to work "funny" shifts? I believe he's asking for a ban at peak times (7.00-9.00 and 4.30-6.30? something like that?). Is that particularly difficult to achieve, given the limited hours to which truck drivers have to adhere? 9.00 (or 9.30, if you like) to 4.30 is 7.5 hours. I don't know. What hours do truck drivers work?

It may not be workable as a plan. But I would think that truck driver shift patterns would be amongst the easier of the challenges to overcome.

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Jimbonic wrote:

I may be getting old. But, where did he suggest that they would have to work "funny" shifts? I believe he's asking for a ban at peak times (7.00-9.00 and 4.30-6.30? something like that?). Is that particularly difficult to achieve, given the limited hours to which truck drivers have to adhere? 9.00 (or 9.30, if you like) to 4.30 is 7.5 hours. I don't know. What hours do truck drivers work?

It may not be workable as a plan. But I would think that truck driver shift patterns would be amongst the easier of the challenges to overcome.

Although drivers' hours are strictly controlled, many people would be surprised by the actual limits. Drivers can, and are often required to, work up to 15 hour shifts, with as little as a 9 hour rest period between those shifts.

According to RoSPA's fatigue policy statement, driver fatigue is currently responsible for up to one quarter of all fatal and serious accidents. RoSPA identify the critical risk times as 2am-6am and 2pm-4pm. In other words, the very times that drivers might be forced to work, if peak period restrictions are enforced.

Channelling lorries through "timing gates" inevitably makes things potentially competitive, and increasing the risk of "bunching", queueing, speeding and pollution, and making the whole supply chain more expensive, costs that have to be absorbed by consumers, many of whom are already facing extreme hardship.

Additionally, the health implications of shiftwork, and especially shiftwork where duty and rest periods vary from shift to shift, are well known and place a huge burden on both the NHS and the wider society. These health implications would have an impact not just on drivers, but all workers within that supply chain.

Although I have a "foot in both camps", being both a cyclist and a HGV driver, it does annoy me that suggestions to restrict drivers even further seem to come from people who don't really understand the implications of changes they're proposing, particularly since a visit to any transport cafe or motorway service might provide an indication that drivers are already on the absolute limit of what is possible, in terms of a "work/life balance".

So my invitation to Mr Boardman remains; to replicate the sort of working hours likely to be faced by drivers if these restrictions are imposed, perhaps for just a week, and then to assess whether he still feels safe enough to drive.

Avatar
Jimbonic [135 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I didn't know that (maximum driving time up to 15 hours). Is that in one hit? Or are there stipulated breaks? Given that the average punter is recommended to take a break every 2 hours - motorway signs, company H&S advice, etc. - that would seem a little foolish. I would have thought, then, that one simple way to increase road safety overall (for everyone) would be to reduce that 15 hour figure. I appreciate that hauliers may be resistant to that. But, wouldn't your average HGV driver welcome it? I take that last question from your point about drivers at transport cafes, etc.

It's interesting to compare those HGV hours vs., say, the London Underground staff, who are allowed to work no more than 11 hours in 24, and have to have an 8 hour break (if I remember correctly).

Your stipulation that drivers would be forced to drive in the hours of 2.00-4.00 and 14.00-16.00 is an assumption. It would fall upon the hauliers, retailers, construction industry, etc. to ensure that drivers and other road users are not put at risk by working at unsafe times and with insufficient rest. I don't think it's unworkable, just that it would come up against severe resistance - see Kate Gibbs comments in the article you quote.

So, in summary, I won't hold my breath!

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Jimbonic wrote:

I didn't know that (maximum driving time up to 15 hours). Is that in one hit? Or are there stipulated breaks? Given that the average punter is recommended to take a break every 2 hours - motorway signs, company H&S advice, etc. - that would seem a little foolish. I would have thought, then, that one simple way to increase road safety overall (for everyone) would be to reduce that 15 hour figure. I appreciate that hauliers may be resistant to that. But, wouldn't your average HGV driver welcome it? I take that last question from your point about drivers at transport cafes, etc.

It's interesting to compare those HGV hours vs., say, the London Underground staff, who are allowed to work no more than 11 hours in 24, and have to have an 8 hour break (if I remember correctly).

Your stipulation that drivers would be forced to drive in the hours of 2.00-4.00 and 14.00-16.00 is an assumption. It would fall upon the hauliers, retailers, construction industry, etc. to ensure that drivers and other road users are not put at risk by working at unsafe times and with insufficient rest. I don't think it's unworkable, just that it would come up against severe resistance - see Kate Gibbs comments in the article you quote.

So, in summary, I won't hold my breath!

I didn't quote Kate Gibbs, the fatigue statement is on the RoSPA site.

To answer your query about drivers' hours, we can drive for a maximum continous period of 4.5 hours before taking a break, but our shifts can last up to 15 hours. I agree, it is perhaps too long, but we collectively adhere to EU regulations and often have very little say in the hours we do, other than find a different employer.

Currently, the London restrictions are:
Monday - Friday: 9pm - 7am (including 9pm Friday night to 7am Saturday morning)
Saturday: 1pm - 7am Monday morning
Sunday: (all day)
Bank holidays: treated as a normal weekday

Yes, 2.00-4.00 and 14.00-16.00 is an assumption but, equally, if we assume that drivers avoid these times, plus the night restrictions on entry to London, plus the notional additional peak time restrictions (precipitated by these recent tragedies) then I would suggest that deliveries to London would be virtually impossible, commensurate with the need to actually make a profit from the operation. In my opinion, time restrictions can be very dangerous, because drivers inevitably become "keen" to clear the restricted zone before the "time runs out". Currently, the penalty is £550 for the haulier and £120 for the driver so, human nature being what it is, there's clearly a conflict.

With regards to HGV drivers vs underground drivers, it's all a question of supply and demand, as with any other discipline. With the opening of borders within the EU, a few years ago, we now have more than enough drivers, and so wage levels have fallen considerably. However, with strong union representation and a requirement for localised training, wage rates for underground drivers have remained buoyant. Consequently, there is an enormous incentive, for HGV drivers, to work much longer hours than perhaps they would like (sometimes, even illegally), with huge numbers of unemployed drivers willing to work for even lower rates, given half a chance, such is the nature of the industry at this time. It's also worth noting that the average age of an HGV driver in the UK is about 54, and that very few young people see the occupation as viable financially, not that that's really relevant but it's a situation which (and I must be tactful here) could conspire to see a gradual lowering of professional standards over the longer term.

Alas, we've invested our post war wealth in a living arrangement that is far from sustainable and social resiliance is dangerously low for huge numbers of people. It is absolutely vital that we keep our trucks rolling with minimal restriction.

Avatar
glynr36 [637 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

They managed to work it in Paris, don't see why London/rest of UK should be any different.

Avatar
thebungle [103 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Neil> I disagree with your opinions on other matters at times but I have to say I'm 100% with you on this one.

To the poster who asked about driving hours; without going into the minute detail a driver has the following;

9 hrs of driving time per day, with the introduction of the digital tacho any movement of the wheel is classified as 'driving', a mandatory break has to be taken every 4.5hrs with uninturrupted rest, once you have had your rest you only have another 4.5 hrs left of driving time.

There is also time during the day for 'other work', this will include time at depot for paperwork/refuelling etc. as well as unloading and loading.

So, 15 minutes for daily checks and paperwork, 4.5 hrs of driving to a destination, 45 minute rest, 45 mins to unload (on average), 4.5 hrs return drive to depot and 30 minutes to refuel, complete paperwork etc.

That very simple day is over 11 hours and that's without accounting for delays in being unloaded or loaded, that truck who is 'only' held up for 10 minutes in traffic could easily end up missing a delivery slot and subsequently lose well over an hour in waiting for a new slot.

Note, and I can't rememember off the top of my head, there is a maximum amount of driving allowed within a two week period as well as a minimum amount of rest.

Clear as mud!

I'm a 'part time' HGVist as it's a secondary part of my job so my details may be a bit on the sketchy side.

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
thebungle wrote:

Neil> I disagree with your opinions on other matters at times but I have to say I'm 100% with you on this one.

To the poster who asked about driving hours; without going into the minute detail a driver has the following;

9 hrs of driving time per day, with the introduction of the digital tacho any movement of the wheel is classified as 'driving', a mandatory break has to be taken every 4.5hrs with uninturrupted rest, once you have had your rest you only have another 4.5 hrs left of driving time.

There is also time during the day for 'other work', this will include time at depot for paperwork/refuelling etc. as well as unloading and loading.

So, 15 minutes for daily checks and paperwork, 4.5 hrs of driving to a destination, 45 minute rest, 45 mins to unload (on average), 4.5 hrs return drive to depot and 30 minutes to refuel, complete paperwork etc.

That very simple day is over 11 hours and that's without accounting for delays in being unloaded or loaded, that truck who is 'only' held up for 10 minutes in traffic could easily end up missing a delivery slot and subsequently lose well over an hour in waiting for a new slot.

Note, and I can't rememember off the top of my head, there is a maximum amount of driving allowed within a two week period as well as a minimum amount of rest.

Clear as mud!

I'm a 'part time' HGVist as it's a secondary part of my job so my details may be a bit on the sketchy side.

Cheers for that, I appreciate your support. Passengers on planes, trains and coaches would be rightly concerned about operator tiredness, but hardly anyone seems to grasp the idea that tired hgv drivers could be be just as dangerous.

In answer to your question, drivers can drive up to 90 hours in any fortnight, in addition to their other duties, and up to 56 hours driving in any weekly period. Far too long, in my opinion.

Avatar
Ush [590 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Great information Neil753. I'm learning a lot from your posts.

Avatar
oozaveared [933 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

why on earth do haulage companies want their drivers and vehicles virtually stationary in London in the rush hour.

I don't think they do. They are probably there at that time because the customer wants something delivered during the normal working day and that when they have to be there.

If there were a ban on them entering then the customers would have to adapt and couldn't insist on say a 9.30 delivery.

In other words it isn't just the hauliers and drivers who will have to adapt, customers will as well. This will mean customers will also have to accept deliveries later in the evening or early morning. And that may actually benefit haulage companies by increasing efficiency by delivering at times that mean their drivers aren't sitting in traffic wasting fuel. That frees them up to make more deliveries per driver and per vehicle.

Business is dynamic and generally flexible. Move one parameter and the rest usually adjust to compensate.

A bit like engines. Create a rule that caps emissions and lo and behold the R&D goes in to cleaner engines and we start doing 40mpg instead of 22. No restrictions and we'd have all been driving cars with engines on their 2oth upgrade since original design in 1971 or such.

Unless of course you think the road haulage industry thinks its vehicles and drivers are best used sitting in London rush hour traffic going no where very fast just so they can deliver in office hours to a customer that will ditch them if they refuse.

Avatar
gazer117 [25 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Why not just put a ban on lorries using the same roads as CS2 during the said hours, and leave other roads unaffected ?

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
gazer117 wrote:

Why not just put a ban on lorries using the same roads as CS2 during the said hours, and leave other roads unaffected ?

.

I don't mean to pick on you, because this is indeed a serious issue, but for the purpose of stimulating debate....

What exactly do you want lorry drivers to do? Do you want us to all flood into London after the rush hour has finished, and just in time to mix it with pensioners and young mothers with pre-school children, all choosing to cycle once the rush hour has finished? And all this upheaval just so you can improve your PB to the office?

I know there isn't an equally direct alternative to CS2, but what's to stop you from just setting your alarm clock to wake you up a little earlier, and using that extra time to ride a route well away from trucks? Probably a lot nicer, and definitely easier on your lungs, from a pollution perspective. Are you worried you might get lost? Would the slightly longer distance be too much for you? Is it the blue paint?

Why not try a few alternative routes, and then pick one you like.

Avatar
Goldfever4 [213 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Neil753 wrote:
gazer117 wrote:

Why not just put a ban on lorries using the same roads as CS2 during the said hours, and leave other roads unaffected ?

.

I don't mean to pick on you, because this is indeed a serious issue, but for the purpose of stimulating debate....

Sorry but your comment is rhetorical, ridiculous and trolling. Gazer didn't say anything about his PB or how long his ride is or even if he is in London to 'try a few alternative routes' (According to his profile he is based in Wales). As far as you or I know he doesn't even ride to work.

Also, I may be ignorant or have not seen some research done, but since when do pensioners and young families only leave the house after rush hour as if they specifically wait for 9am before apologetically creeping out their front door? What about the evening rush hour anyway?

And, seeing as you didn't answer his point I'll answer yours - Gazer suggests that during rush hours HGVs use different routes. Not that they aren't on the roads at all in rush hours. Whether it's a decent suggestion or not is irrelevant, you just plain ignored his actual point just to be condescending and take the piss. Some of your other posts have been reasonable and informative but that one just wasn't.

Avatar
Leviathan [1779 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

+1 Goldfever
Neil, If you really want to 'stimulate debate' nail your colours to the mast and write your own post. You are capable of a opinion piece. Then we could all read what you think in isolation; no sniping from the sidelines as usual, instead of digging up old threads that no one is going to follow.

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Goldfever4 wrote:
Neil753 wrote:
gazer117 wrote:

Why not just put a ban on lorries using the same roads as CS2 during the said hours, and leave other roads unaffected ?

.

I don't mean to pick on you, because this is indeed a serious issue, but for the purpose of stimulating debate....

Sorry but your comment is rhetorical, ridiculous and trolling. Gazer didn't say anything about his PB or how long his ride is or even if he is in London to 'try a few alternative routes' (According to his profile he is based in Wales). As far as you or I know he doesn't even ride to work.

Also, I may be ignorant or have not seen some research done, but since when do pensioners and young families only leave the house after rush hour as if they specifically wait for 9am before apologetically creeping out their front door? What about the evening rush hour anyway?

And, seeing as you didn't answer his point I'll answer yours - Gazer suggests that during rush hours HGVs use different routes. Not that they aren't on the roads at all in rush hours. Whether it's a decent suggestion or not is irrelevant, you just plain ignored his actual point just to be condescending and take the piss. Some of your other posts have been reasonable and informative but that one just wasn't.

.
I quantified my post, which was aimed at "stimulating debate", rather than specifically questioning Gazer's circumstances, of which I obviously know nothing at all, as you point out.

I admit I haven't done research on pensioner movements, but took my queue from this week's HOC cycling committee meeting, in which research by the RTA showed that pensioners do indeed tend to get out in the period immediately following the morning rush hour. I haven't done any research on the movements of mums with young children either, but my daughter takes two of my grandchildren out shopping in the trailer bike, immediately after dropping the oldest one at school. So, if there was a peak hour lorry ban, she would be out on the streets at the exact moment the HGV "rush" would start. I'm making an assumption that this would be a common scenario, especially since many shops don't actually open until 9 am, so many cyclists going shopping on a weekday would also be affected.

Similarly, children get picked up from school at the very time HGV drivers would be "rushing" to get out of town before incurring a penalty and, as we know from the figures, pedestrian deaths are an even bigger problem than cyclist deaths.

It's worth remembering that any "rush " of HGVs, twice a day, as a result of peak hours bans, would raise the level of small particles at street level at the very moments that pensioners were out in the morning, and children were out in the afternoon, potentially contributing long term to a death rate that is already at around 4000 per year in London alone.

Gazer specifically suggests HGVs use a different route to CS2 but, since there is arguably no easy alternative to that particular route, I assumed he actually meant a peak time restriction instead. If Gazer was indeed suggesting that HGVs use an alternative route, I would have pointed out the impossibility of such an arrangement, due to the narrowness and layout of nearby streets, and the effect a tortuous route would have on residents' health due to the increased pollution created.

As I have said, I used Gazer's post to stimulate debate, by asking a serious of short (but provocative) questions that might prompt at least some users of CS2, to perhaps consider some alternatives.

The 10,000 cyclists that have already taken part in the "Changing Places" scheme, show that many cyclists are keen to see things from a differnet perspective, and I'd like to think that hgv drivers on cycling forums, and indeed cyclists on hgv forums, not only stimulate debate, but help us all to to stay safe on our busy roads. If we just waited for the government to get their finger out, rather than take at least some responsibilty ourselves, by choosing quieter routes for instance, then substantial changes for the common good would take decades.

Apologies if you were offended in any way.

Avatar
drfabulous0 [409 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Neil you seem to be pouring fuel on the fire here.

I think there is cause for some restrictions on HGVs, for example up until last year the residential area where I live had hundreds of HGVs daily using it as a rat run to get to the airport and a large distribution center for a well known supermarket. There were restrictions in place but these were ignored and at least once a fortnight buildings or street furniture were damaged at a junction right outside a primary school which was simply not suitable to accommodate such large vehicles without them mounting the pavement. Because of the ongoing mayhem and complaints from residents the council eventually installed huge concrete barriers both in the center and at the edge of the road, physically preventing HGVs from turning at this junction, sadly they had to remove a genuinely useful cycle lane to do this. In protest against these restrictions the distribution center relocated, with the loss of about 200 jobs locally, but this reduced the lorry problem further, especially the way that one would regularly see a dozen HGVs illegally parked on the pavement on either side of the road outside waiting to enter. Overall the addition of simple concrete barriers has significantly increased the quality of life around here and most businesses still seem to manage, in fact quite a few new ones have started up.

I would be in favour of banning HGVs from all residential areas, maybe even confining them to the Motorway, I have various reasons for this opinion, they are a nuisance and there is really no need to be hauling so much shit about, but cycling safety sure isn't one of them. Lets face it the quality of driving from HGV drivers is generally far higher than that of car and LGV drivers (thank God), and anyone who cycles, walks or drives into the blind spots is a muppet. The concept of making cycling safer by further restrictions on HGVs is just a massive red herring, what's needed is the same as always has been: infrastructure, enforcement and education, stimulating debate on HGV bans is simply talking about the dead cat on the table while avoiding the real issues.

Avatar
jacknorell [942 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Neil753 wrote:

It is absolutely vital that we keep our trucks rolling with minimal restriction.

I tend to disagree with your viewpoint regarding lorries. But the long post this is from is one I agree with, besides the above snippet.

No, we need to minimise the reliance on lorries. And ASAP. However, currently they're needed as other infrastructure isn't available.

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

@bikeboy - I'm hardly "digging up an old thread", seeing as I responded to a post submitted today.

@drfabulous0 - I'm sorry to hear of the disruption caused by hgv drivers using your road as a rat run. Sounds like poor planning. The key to parked up lorries is the lifting of all time restrictions, improved operations management and the discouragement of private drivers making short trips in towns. The success of the barriers is interesting; I'm a firm believer that a couple of bollards is the most cost effective way to turn a residential street into a "quiet way". String a few of them together and you've got a network. And I totally agree with you that more time restrictions for HGVs will just make things worse - delivery drivers need to keep their eyes on the road, not the clock.

@jacknorell - many thanks for the support. And, yes, I agree that we should minimise our reliance on lorries. We certainly shouldn't be eating apples grown in California, fuelling our aging coal fired power stations with wood shipped from the USA (in order to circumvent emmisions legislation, or indeed importing cheap carbon frames made in China. But the transition to a low impact economy must be carefully managed, because many people won't like lowering their lifestyle expectations.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1111 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Neil753 wrote:

The success of the barriers is interesting; I'm a firm believer that a couple of bollards is the most cost effective way to turn a residential street into a "quiet way". String a few of them together and you've got a network.

I tend to think the most useful item for making cycling safer and more popular is not high viz or a helmet, but the bollard. Stick a few good quality separated lanes on the wider of the busy main direct routes as well and cycling becomes a viable option for a lot more people.

My preferred urban transport policy is a load of bollards. Which is only a few letters different from what we have at the moment, so its not that big a change, surely?

Avatar
Shep73 [211 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Instead of cyclists blaming everyone else, may be they need to look at why accidents happen. A cyclists goes up the inside of a lorry and ends up getting crushed, what do they expect. It doesn't hurt to sit back and wait in the traffic like everyone else does. One of the cyclists killed in london was down the left and the nasty lorry had his right hand indicator going. Just may be the lorry has to swerve out to make the right turn so don't go down the inside.

As someone who drives to London a fair bit for football, I am astounding by the idiocy and impatience some cyclists show, it won't kill them to wait.
As for the blue lanes and Boris bikes. Both should be abolished, it it does is encourage complacency and people to ride in one of the busiest cities in the world with out any head protection, which is clearly needed when you see half of them weaving all over the place.

As a keen cyclist I think commuter cyclists leave a lot to be desired. It's all too easy in this country to blame everyone else instead of people taking responsibility for their own actions.

Avatar
teaboy [306 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Shep73 wrote:

Instead of cyclists blaming everyone else, may be they need to look at why accidents happen. A cyclists goes up the inside of a lorry and ends up getting crushed, what do they expect. It doesn't hurt to sit back and wait in the traffic like everyone else does. One of the cyclists killed in london was down the left and the nasty lorry had his right hand indicator going. Just may be the lorry has to swerve out to make the right turn so don't go down the inside.

As someone who drives to London a fair bit for football, I am astounding by the idiocy and impatience some cyclists show, it won't kill them to wait.
As for the blue lanes and Boris bikes. Both should be abolished, it it does is encourage complacency and people to ride in one of the busiest cities in the world with out any head protection, which is clearly needed when you see half of them weaving all over the place.

As a keen cyclist I think commuter cyclists leave a lot to be desired. It's all too easy in this country to blame everyone else instead of people taking responsibility for their own actions.

We need to understand exactly why people ride up the left hand side of vehicles. Could it possibly be because that's where the road shows them to be? Cycle infrastructure in this country is so bad that where it does exist cyclists are told not to use it because it's dangerous! THIS is the problem that needs to be sorted out. Is it fair to paint roads to show everyone where cyclists 'should' be and then criticise them for obeying the 'rules' by being there? Create high-quality integrated segregation for cyclists that doesn't prioritise motor traffic and people will use it and be less likely to die whilst doing so.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1111 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Shep73 wrote:

Instead of cyclists blaming everyone else, may be they need to look at why accidents happen.

I have done. The answer is 'terrible road design' 'bad driving' and 'lack of enforcement of the laws of the road'.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1111 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Shep73 wrote:

It's all too easy in this country to blame everyone else instead of people taking responsibility for their own actions.

Indeed. That's pretty much what motorists and the road lobby do.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1111 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

Avatar
teaboy [306 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

It's quite possible to be a motorist, a cyclist, a pedestrian AND a user of public transport. Just because you use one mode of transport it doesn't exclude you from using any other.

Avatar
VeloPeo [300 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

I'm not defending the guy's rather idiotic (or trolling) comments but it's possible to be both you know. I'll have driven about 12k miles and cycled 2.5k miles by the end of this year

Avatar
Shep73 [211 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

I just don't believe in blaming other people for everything. Cyclist need to take responsibility for their actions as well. I take it it was the trails fault a mountain biker died at Swinley the weekend. May be all mountain bike trails should be sponge.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1111 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
VeloPeo wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

I'm not defending the guy's rather idiotic (or trolling) comments but it's possible to be both you know. I'll have driven about 12k miles and cycled 2.5k miles by the end of this year

Well, I'm overstating it a bit. But personally I'm mostly just 'not a motorist' and I get tired of people claiming to speak 'as a cyclist' because they do a bit of off-roading or occasionally cycle for sport or leisure when their main means of transport for practical purposes is a car and their attitudes and sense of self-interest are consequently those of a motorist above all.

Avatar
VeloPeo [300 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I didn't realise there was a minimum threshold....

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1111 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Shep73 wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

I just don't believe in blaming other people for everything. Cyclist need to take responsibility for their actions as well. I take it it was the trails fault a mountain biker died at Swinley the weekend. May be all mountain bike trails should be sponge.

I believe in blaming those responsible. And in the vast majority of cases that would be the motorist and the road traffic engineers (and the wider society that contributes to their behaviour). Not only do the statistics demonstrate that the motorist is far more likely to be the one who caused the accident, there's also the basic point that the motor vehicle is the thing that creates the risk, not the bike.

Cyclists (and pedestrians) already take the consequences of their mistakes because they are the vulnerable parties, the problem is that motorists mostly don't. So why do you chose to bang on about the least culpable and most vulnerable party?

Pages