Transport secretary Chris Grayling ignites fresh row by claiming cyclists aren’t road users

It's dog whistle stuff for the Tory shires. Daily Fail readers will be creaming themselves over this.

At the risk of sounding overly cynical, it seems the real problem is not Grayling, but a system that appoints unqualified nincompoops to important jobs. What happened to the meritocracy?

Greebo954, you have a point, but it doea all depend on how you define the cycle provision.  Grayling was talking about cycle LANES, HC 63-

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer. 

And rule 140- 

Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.

Cycle lanes are on the road (carriageway), and users of them, being on the road must be defined as road users.

Now if he had said cycle TRACKS, these are  different HC62-

Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you. 

Now, and it is my opinion, that Road Traffic regulations may still apply to cycle tracks, for example, not having working lights while on a cycle track, so that may complicate things as this comes under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, notice the words Road and Vehicle.   During any of these visability blitzes our forces of law and order do regularly, do they ever do them on a cycle track, shared or otherwise, and do they ever use The Law as part of the arguement on why you need lights?  Has anyone been prosecuted for such an offence, thus setting any precedent?  But I digress.

"Grayling replied: “Where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes.

“And there’s a road alongside – the motorists are the road users, the users of the road.

“It’s fairly straightforward to be honest.”

Grayling, the former Justice secretary and current Transport secretary, should know that these terms are very specific and he should be careful which he uses.  Idiot.  Fairly straightforward to be honest.

 Does everybody here have access to a part of his statement that isn't in the article because it seems pretty fucking simple to me.

 Where exactly did he say that if the cyclist was actually cycling on the road they would not be a road user?

 Am I a road user if I am in a field or on a disused rail line on my muntain bike next to the road? No.

Am I a road user cycling on a pavement with a cycle lane next to a road in town? No.

 Am I a road user cycling my bicycle on a road? Yes.

Am I a road user when cycling on a road next to a pavement with a cycle lane but choose not to use it because it is either inconvenient, slower and or on the other side of the road? Yes.

Am I allowed to do this? Yes.

If you are not on the road then......you are not a fucking road USER.

Another short term appointment with no aptitude at all for the job.   No change there alas.

Transport is at the cross roads.   Do we continue the love affair with the motor vehicle or no we embrace more healthier and safer means of transport?  There seems little government awareness of this.   The Supreme Court has already had to take the government to court for its failure to reduce air pollution to European standards.   Of course, with Brexit we can carry on as before.

 Well  more major road projects announced today for my region, so i guess thats country wide. So no increase in the amount per head for cycling infrastructure, but this expenditure for the car brigade. So more roads or widening of existing roads, to fill up with even more cars. These cars will then make town or city travel even worse as no one wants or can afford to use public transport to get to their job. Most will be occupied by only the driver.The result carmagedon, at which point these idiots will realise that bicyles, motorbikes & scooters or getting folk to use public transport is a better idea.

But we're in the hands of the motor industy who want us to buy buy buy, and wil always influence government policy with their money.

No party have done much for the cyclist, but the Tories have always excelled at promoting the car. Dont forget gorgeous George Osborne slashed funding for cycling infrastructure projects.

When you're in your ministerial limo you will hate the cyclists getting in you way, when you are on your way to your next car manufacturers slap up lunch

The cycle campaign guy could at least get the law right before climbing his high horse.

If, as a driver, you are involved in a road-traffic accident and one or more of the following occurs:

a person, other than yourself, is injured
damage is caused to another vehicle or to someone else's property
an animal has been killed or injured, except in your own vehicle or trailer (an 'animal' is defined as 'any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog')

You must:

stop and remain at the scene for a reasonable period
give your vehicle registration number, your name and address, and that of the vehicle owner (if different), to anyone with reasonable grounds for asking for those details.

If the cyclist did not consider himself to have been injured then there is no need to exchange details, if the cyclist did not ask for details there is no requirement to provide them.

Also the actual road traffic act reffers to the driver of the car being the one who is required to give their details.

Dooring someone can be a criminal offense on it's own, however I don't think this comes with a specific requirement to identify oneself.

FFS!

I don't enjoy riding my bike in this country anymore. I ride mostly on Sustran off-road tracks.

I don't like it, but I want to get home in one piece. 

I'm saving my money and moving to France. I lived there for three years and never experienced the kind of shit I recieve from dickheads in cars in this country.

Cyclists are canon fodder.

Last one turning a crank, please turn off the light...   

Dear Mr Grayling,
You are kindly requested to review the introduction to the Highway Code for an accurate definition of Road Users, and for the overriding duty of all road users, who include drivers, riders and pedestrians, to be considerate to each other.
As Minister, you have a duty to be acquainted with the relevant legislation and customs pertaining to your portfolio, and to ensure that your words and actions provide leadership to the country.
If you feel that you are not, I would suggest that you become so, or resign.

It's quite straightforward to be honest.

Yours faithfully,

Was that patronising enough? 

If only Malcolm Tucker was a real person...

Separate question: why do all Chris Grayling's publicity photos make him look so damned smarmy...?

Quote:

Rule 204

The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.

Well, the Highway Code thinks cyclists are road users... 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-users-requiring-extra-...

Suggest that we all take the opportunity to fill his inbox with our thoughts: chris.grayling.mp [at] parliament.uk. 

Might not do much but if he (or his secretary) has to trawl through 100s of emails from angry cyclists then maybe, just maybe, he'll start to understand the issue. 

The cyclist he knocked down shook his hand, wtf?

Many MPs and councillors work incredibly hard -I don't buy this "all politicians are corrupt" line, it's not good for society. I wouldn't want my profession slagged off in such general terms.

However, there's a certain class of career politician, and yes, more of them are conservative, who come from a privileged background and have very little connection with reality.

Hopeless... no chance of getting any progress with this kind of idiot at the helm...

The guy is an utter imbecile!

From the Local Government Act 1888:

https://twitter.com/WeAreCyclingUK/status/819566022298628096

Grayling clearly not a brain user! Even his own side think he's unfit to be a minister https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2350810/chris-grayling-urged-to-resign-aft...  

Anyone up for setting up a government petition to call for his removal to be debated in the house? 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/check

You just need 5 supporters to second your petition 

Question for him. Are buses and taxis in the reserved space of bus lanes road users?

Perhaps someone should explain to Mr Grayling that a road is a public highway i.e. a route over which the public has right of way (regardless of the type of conveyance).

At the same time he could be reminded that the cost of vehicle accidents is approx £34Bn (2012 figures - £15Bn reported plus balance unreported) which coincidentally is roughly the same amount raised in total from VED and fuel duty (2009 figures - £32Bn).

Conclusion - car drivers don't pay for the roads (and arguably pay much less than the real costs of motoring from pollution, traffic congestion etc)

well it is the arrogance of knowing no real opposition. Can say and get away with anything, we are on our own, the Labour Party wont help us and we have to band together like stopping the insurance limit of 5K.

and if you want to look into their eyes the whole time:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c229fd92-c029-49de-b7e0-a16d742...

and zip along to 10:24, the menu on the right will let you jump to the question

God, I've actually just watched it. It's some pretty passive-aggressive questioning from Zeichner, but Christ, I've never actually watched Grayling in action. To be fair to him, he does actually say "where there are cycle lanes. ...", then he launches into his smug ignorance, a living embodiment of the  Dunning–Kruger effect 

it's worth watching, just for the appreciative mocking guffaws

he really is a first class twat