"Ignorant and grotesque" - CTC blasts article on cyclists by Road Haulage Association director

We all know that cyclists have the same rights as other road users. Fact is "other road users" just dont all see it this way.
I for one wouldn't even consider riding in London, and avoid all busy roads when possible.
For me cycling is a sport/hobby it is only rarely a means of transport in terms of getting anywhere, I use my car as I like my body and don't really want to be almost killed or maimed every 30 seconds.
Shame but I cant see things changing anytime soon, cycling on busy roads just too dangerous in my eyes.

"It's a hard job. Change gear, change gear, change gear, check mirror, murder a prostitute, change gear, change gear, murder. That's a lot of effort in a day."

Erm, I was under the impression we have MORE rights. Pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists have a 'right' to use Her Majesty's highways and byeways. Lorry drivers etc. are required to hold a 'licence' and therefore it is a priveledge, not a right, for them to be on the road.
Road excise duty paid by HGV's is in no way proportionate to the human and environmental damage they cause.
Both the legal and moral implications written by this individual show him up for the kretin he is.

The odd things is that IMX most HGV drivers are courteous and respectful of cyclists. Granted, I work in a town where most HGV movement is by the big boys (DHL, Bibby etc.) rather than one-man bands (the 'Alf Robertson Haulage's of this world). But I never, ever, have a problem with HGVs. It's ordinary car drivers, and in particular, minicab drivers who cause the problems.

(I accept that the situation is clearly different in London.)

@Goldfish You only have to look at the piss-poor driving and appalling attitude towards cyclists exhibited by drivers who have, remarkably, passed the requisite tests to realise that any similar license requirement for cyclists will make little difference to actual behaviour. We have a major issue in the UK: Driver Attitude Problem. Until that is sorted out (don't hold your breath) then conditions on our roads for cyclists (and, arguably, all road users) will continue to deteriorate.

Err Goldfish, your suggestion will dissuade kids from cycling and add to the problem of obese children. It's that simple. This will increase their risk to health overall and boost the burden on the NHS. I don't think you've really thought about what you've suggested at all. Plus, the cost of the paperwork involved in taxing each bicycle will far exceed the £10 charge you've suggested, makign it a burden on the state. And this move will also dissuade people from cycling, result in more switching to motor vehciles and increasing congestion.

I wish the RHA could discuss the need for speed dictated by poor work schedules for most haulage and white van drivers. We had a boilerman around yesterday who described his schedule for the day devised by a call centre 200 miles away rather than knowledge from him and his neighbouring driver. They criss-cross all day everyday trying to meet deadlines that each could easily cover if they were allowed input. It's no wonder delivery drivers are ploughing through cyclists all the time.

Betjeman was right in 1966 with his sarcastically titled 'Inexpensive Progress'. I wish he was around to speak up for us now. A poet lauriete who cycled would be great for us. Maybe we could buy Ms Duffy a Brompton?

Let's say goodbye to hedges
And roads with grassy edges
And winding country lanes;
Let all things travel faster
Where motor car is master
Till only Speed remains.

'Cycling with headphones/earbuds etc is really too dangerous for urban riding.'

I've yet to hear a convincing argument to support this. If someone's going to drive into a cyclist, they'll do it whether the rider is listening to music or not (unless they're deliberately doing it *because* the rider, (probably like the driver) is listening to music.
If the rider decides to change lanes or otherwise ride into the path of a vehicle * without using their eyes and brain*, whether they're listening to music or not, they're an idiot.

So, this traffic behind you, that you can hear even when you are looking forward...what is it going to do to you, exactly? Just drive straight through you? Or does being able to hear also give you the ability to hover in the air and allow the truck that was about to hit you from behind to pass safely underneath?

I repeat. If they're going to hit you, they're going to hit you, and being able to hear that they're about to hit you won't make the slightest bit of difference, other than to give your chamois an extra pico-second of trauma. If one is putting ones self at risk by moving into the path of a vehicle without checking what's around first, *even if you can hear*, one is a numpty.

so I should just give up taking any responsiblility for my own safety and put my life in the hands of the drivers.
um, no. My point is exactly the opposite. Use your eyes (even if you can't read too well, you might be able to see cars) and take responsibility for your own safety, don't rely on your hearing. And given the pico-second warning about someone to go straight into the back of you, again, what would you do, exactly?

Cyclists need to rely upon a range of senses together. Why voluntarily cut one of these out. I'd defend your right to wear earphones on your bike but I wont do it myself. Is it really worth the risk?

I do feel though that like shaved legs, some cyclists like to be seen with one earphone in for that 'pro' look. Only it's not the DS on the radio, its the missus with a Tesco order to collect on the way home from work. For the complete look you could add a strip of surgical tape over the earphone and pretend to talk to your chest from time to time.

Without wishing to labour the point, in response to Andyp I will say that hearing is important in many scenarios. Not least when you are overtaken by a lorry on a country lane. You may yield to the verge a little to ease the passage of the lorry, but because its big, slow and difficult for other cars to overtake, it may have a one or more vehicles behind it. I guarantee you'll be relying on your hearing to detect these as your eyes are concentrating on the big thing that's passing you.

Mr Flanders' attitude is as sad as it is incorrect but to see fellow cyclists with earphones in worries me.

@ AndyP - By all means listen to your iPod when out on the bike and use your eyes. But your ears are also important. I can hear cars accelerating, decelerating on the approach to pinch points and roundabouts. Drivers revving their engine behind me have earned a long over the shoulder and you know what they stop revving. My ears being unblocked from other distraction gives me extra time to re- position myself on the road it also allows me to hear a fellow cyclist approach from behind and allows me to warn of obstructions or pull over to let them safely pass me.

You have to wonder how Flanders - a complete prat can hold so much responsibility and stupidity at the same time.

It is possible to have earphones in and still hear traffic.

a) Don't use the ones that seal the ear canal.
b) Have the music very quiet.

The only time I've worn them whilst cycling has been during the occasional solo century(+) training rides on my own, on some overly familiar or not especially interesting roads. It's akin to having a transistor radio playing in the next room, as far as volume levels go i.e. I can hear the music, but can also hear the nuances of engine noise around me, or the click of a shifter, or whatever.

I wouldn't like to think I was being unreasonably judged, just because I happened to want to subdue the boredom or stave off 'the voices'. I'm making a judgement call, in much the same way I wouldn't listen to music in a car at a volume level that would stop me from hearing the horn of another vehicle, or the shout of a pedestrian, for example.

One point with regards to people cycling whilst listening to music/speaking books etc, are you saying that deaf people are not allowed to cycle or drive on the roads. Lets face it when the moron in the car hits you it's not going to make an ounce of difference if your listening to the sound of his/her untaxed uninsured chave mobile or your favourite piece of music.

@fatbeggaronabike - no, that is not what is being said. Folk that are deaf are much more aware of what happens around them visually. An individual who has no issues hearing will not put greater emphasis on sight but be caught up on the playlist. If you watch a deaf cyclist you will see a lot more head movement. Same applies to blind cyclists being taken out on tandems - they will hear stuff quicker than the 'eyes' of the bike.

Mr Flanders has made an ill thought statement and quite possibly a personal viewpoint that is not in line with the RHA's approach to cyclists. Hopefuully Oldridgeback will get some sence from the horses mouth.

What an ignorant rant by Mr Flanders.
I did wonder if he had tried to fit every ill-informed anti cyclist rant in one article.

Finally, Mr Flanders warns lorry drivers: “Some [cyclists] have started to fit small video cameras to their helmets. If you are unfortunate to upset them on the roads they will report you to the authorities and will have evidence of whatever it was that you did. There are cases of this already where the police have taken action!”

So Mr Flanders doesn't like it when cyclists have evidence of poor driving. Oh dear

I did like the way when he taled about liability insurance, he didn't mention how little it is for cyclists compared to motorvehicles. That more than anything else show the damage caused by each.

Mr Flanders is either unbelievably ignorant or has an agenda to drive cyclists off the road, or both. We should remember that the RHA is a trade body, and as such its overriding purpose is to further the interests of its members. The tactic he uses is to use trivial issues to distract from the key issue on road safety, which is? - that it is motor vehicles that kill and HGVs are the most dangerous motor vehicles. Getting drawn into discussing issues like cyclists wearing earphones and cycle insurance, is a complete red herring in the context of road safety. Unfortunately the "roads are made for cars and lorries" lobby is very succesful in getting their view across and this sort of distraction is one of their key methods. I think we have a long hard job to do in challenging this sort of nonsense. We should focus on the FACTS:
1. MOTOR VEHICLES cause virtually all the casualties on roads.
2. HGVs are the most dangerous motor vehicles.
3. Since cyclists rarely cause any injuries, changing legislation regarding cyclists, whether it is insurance or headphones or anything else to do with cyclists is largely irrelevant, and won't lead to any noticeable improvement in road safety.
4. For similar reasons to 3. above, increasing enforcement of cycling breaches won't have any significant effect on road safety.
5. Roads were NOT made for cars, cyclists came first, cyclists brought about the big improvements in road surfaces and cyclists have a right to be on the road.
6. If cyclists are at at too much risk as Mr Flanders suggests, the answer is to remove or reduce the risk, not the cyclists (what will be next? a ban on horses using roads?)
7. My personal view is that we need to introduce a rule that "moving motor vehicles are always at fault when in collision with a cyclist". This sounds extreme, but in practice it is just common sense.

I don't think legislation is the answer. We have a cultural problem in this country - go to continental Europe and there is a far more harmonious relationship between drivers and cyclists.

I think more legislation would just exacerbate the situation and create more animosity.

Whilst Flanders' comments are not welcomed by any of us, let's not risk a backlash that involves falling out with the whole HGV community. I find that generally (there can be exceptions) they are professional, courteous and thoughtful drivers. I would prefer to keep it that way (we are too soft and squidy to start a fight). White van man is an entirely different kettle of fish...

Whilst I wouldn't recommend cycling with headphones of any sort, being deaf doesn't prevent anyone having a driving license, or for that matter, cycling. If anyone riding a motorcycle values their hearing, earplugs are a good idea. The man's an utter moron.

I always have headphones in while I'm riding. I can still hear the traffic. If I couldn't listen to music while cycling I'd never cycle again.

"Grumpyoldbiker" sums it up all very well. This is the type of ignorant comment that one hears in the dodgy sort of pub so it makes one wonder where RHA members spend their leisure time. I'll pick out just a couple of aspects. Firstly, how can a senior RHA figure believe that there is such a thing as "road tax"? The answer can only be total ignorance of the UK's fiscal arrangements. Secondly, why should he be so concerned about cameras? It is the very absence of camera evidence of incidents that prevents courts understanding just what did occur. One has to suspect that he knows that the behaviour of his members' drivers will be shown to be improper.

However, we should take heart. When an organisation states that an opinion is a personal one and then goes on to make conciliatory comments it is corporate-speak for: "We know that this man has made a prat of himself and embarrassed the organisation. We will make that clear to him but we cannot give him a public dressing down".