Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

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

Cyclists without insurance and riders using iPods under attack - as are those using helmet cams

In an article that national cyclists’ organisation the CTC has described as “unbelievably ignorant and grotesque,” the head of the Road Haulage Association (RHA) in Scotland says cyclists should carry insurance and maintains that those using iPods and similar devices when cycling should be charged with an offence of “cycling without due care, etc.”

Phil Flanders, the RHA’s Scottish Director, also warns lorry drivers that police are acting upon helmet camera footage provided by cyclists, should a driver be “unfortunate to upset them on the roads.” The fact that police will only do so when they suspect the driver has committed an offence is not acknowledged, however.

Writing in issue 65 of transport industry magazine FACTS, ” Mr Flanders unleashes a broadside against bike riders that, coming from such a senior figure within the haulage industry, makes for depressing reading.

In his article, Mr Flanders displays some of the entrenched attitudes against bike riders that cycling campaigners and politicians in London and elsewhere are up against in trying to improve the safety of cyclists around lorries following a string of recent fatalities.

It’s a sad but inescapable fact that lorries are responsible for a disproportionate number of cycling fatalities – the CTC says HGVs make up 5 per cent of traffic, but are responsible for 19 per cent of the deaths of cyclists on Britain’s roads.

Indeed, Mr Flanders begins his piece by acknowledging, “There have been a spate of accidents involving cyclists and lorries recently,” but adds, “as usual the lorry is the big bad bogeyman.

“It reminded me of an article I read last year in New Zealand where they have a similar problem,” he continues.

The RHA director goes on to cite large parts of that article, headed Cyclists and Cars are a Fatal Mix and emphatically anti-cyclist in tone, which originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald in November 2010 and was written by the newspaper’s motoring correspondent, Eric Thompson.

“A public road with motor vehicles is no place for a cyclist, no matter how they bleat about having every right to be in the same place as a car. A cyclist will always come off second best in an accident with a motor vehicle,” wrote Mr Thompson.

“No matter whose fault it is, in any type of motor versus pushbike altercation it’s not going to take a rocket scientist to work out who’s going to end up in the back of an ambulance,” he added.

His article went on to set out a number of legal requirements that he believed bicycles and their riders should be subject to, “as other vehicles are required by law.”

Those included the fitting of rear-view mirrors, indicators, riding in single file unless overtaking, having front light on at all times [as he says other two-wheeled vehicles in New Zealand have to do, riders to pass a “road-license test,” and bikes to be registered and subject to “road tax.”

Since all those points in the New Zealand Herald article are repeated, verbatim, by Mr Flanders, without comment or qualification, it’s reasonable to assume that he’s in agreement with them.

Mr Flanders, however, does have some suggestions of his own.

“I would go further and add that all must have adequate insurance for any accidents they cause and maybe even liability insurance for those who knock people down,” he writes, although he seems to present as two different types of insurance what is essentially one and the same thing – third party liability cover, which many cyclists, such as CTC members, already carry.

“Those cyclists, and there are many, who play their iPods or other types of mobile music should also be charged for committing an offence of cycling without due care etc etc as they have no chance of hearing any vehicle approaching and are totally unaware of what is going on around them,” he adds.

Now, many cyclists agree that you shouldn’t listen to music while you ride, not least world champion Mark Cavendish, who last month said, “Don’t cycle with an iPod in, it’s dangerous!”

At present, it’s entirely legal to ride a bicycle while listening to music, just as it is legal for a lorry driver to listen to it in their cab. Of course, many riders choose not to do so on the grounds that they want to be as aware as they can of everything going on around them.

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!”

That comment, presumably, isn’t aimed at those among the RHA’s membership who drive within the law and therefore have nothing to fear from the police.

In response to Mr Flanders’ comments, a spokeman for the CTC told road.cc: “This is an unbelievably ignorant and grotesque statement.

“The only accurate thing he says is that some cyclists are now recording illegal behaviour by lorry drivers using helmet cameras - implying that the incessant illegal behaviour by his members might, shock horror, actually lead to prosecution.

“We already warn cyclists to stay away from heavy vehicles - knowing that idiots like this could be behind the wheel is truly worrying."

Officially, the RHA highlights that cyclists need "to be careful around trucks," but it also states that cyclists need to be better educated about how lorries execute manoeuvres at junctions in particular. It expresses concerns about safety equipment such as sensors being the answer to improving the safety of bike riders where HGVs are concerned, and points out that "RHA Training includes cyclist awareness in its driver refresher courses."

In response to Mr Flanders' comments, the RHA said: "The article you refer to is part of a regular column and is a personal report of views from around the world on this important subject, including views from a senior safety engineer at the world's largest commercial
vehicle manufacturer. To call the article "ignorant and grotesque" does nothing to contribute to sensible debate on what is an important subject.

"The RHA is actively exploring ways to achieve greater safety of cyclists around HGVs and other freight vehicles, particularly with Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police. A longer RHA comment on this important subject, dated June 30 2011, is on our website."

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

66 comments

Avatar
Simon E replied to CraigTheBiker | 12 years ago
0 likes
CraigTheBiker wrote:
Simon E wrote:

Flanders is writing from a blinkered and polarised position, which is far from constructive.

Totally agree. But I think we cyclists are also guilty of promoting polarised positions which are far from constructive e.g. suggesting that there should be an automatic presumption of guilt placed on the driver.

You forget that most cyclists are also drivers. There are very few cyclists with a witch-hunting mentality. If you are referring to Stricter Liability then you have misunderstood it.

Quote:

The vast majority of accidents are just that - accidents.

Most collisions are not intentional but that's a long way from saying they are not preventable. Huge efforts are made to avoid accidents in the workplace but too many people are unwilling to apply the same conscientious behaviour when behind the wheel of a car/van/lorry. I'm sure the vast majority of the incidents, including those that cause death and injury, are preventable.

Each driver has a responsibility towards every other road user, whether cyclists, pedestrians or vehicle occupants. So why is speeding, talking on mobiles, cutting people up, overtaking on blind bends and double white lines etc etc so common?

Perhaps you'd like to consider the days when drink-driving was more common, and deaths caused by drunk drivers much higher. They were still 'accidents'. Do you think that driving under the influence is acceptable?

Avatar
Daclu Trelub | 12 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

To call the article "ignorant and grotesque" does nothing to contribute to sensible debate on what is an important subject.

Utterly priceless comment from the spokesman, considering the buffoon at the the RHA who wrote the article sparked it off. No buffoon, no article, no criticism - this seems to have escaped the fool of a spokesman.

Avatar
CraigTheBiker | 12 years ago
0 likes
Simon E wrote:

You forget that most cyclists are also drivers. There are very few cyclists with a witch-hunting mentality. If you are referring to Stricter Liability then you have misunderstood it.

I was referring to comments on here that drivers should automatically be blamed for any collision with a cyclist. In my opinion that is wrong, and far from constructive. As for Stricter Liability, I've not misunderstood it. I simply don't agree with it, and I don't believe it will make cycling safer in any meaningful way.

Quote:

Perhaps you'd like to consider the days when drink-driving was more common, and deaths caused by drunk drivers much higher. They were still 'accidents'. Do you think that driving under the influence is acceptable?

Glad you brought that up, because it illustrates my point. Drink driving has been illegal in the UK since 1925. But the illegality of it did not stop people from driving under the influence in any significant numbers. The thing that has reduced drink driving more than anything else is the cultural shift that has taken place in the last couple of decades. Society itself now stigmatises drink drivers, and it is this cultural shift that has reduced the incidence of its occurrence.

We need a similar cultural shift for society to accept cyclists, and even to prioritise them over other road users. But such cultural shifts are rarely brought about by legislation. We need serious investment in education, creating awareness, building infrastructure and, more than anything else, actually getting far more people to cycle in this country.

Avatar
millook | 12 years ago
0 likes

 14 Do you silly cyclists realize how difficult it is for a RHA driver to concentrate on his newspaper when you insist on hogging your cycle lanes. It's hard enough to balance a tabloid on the steering wheel as it is.  19

Avatar
Littlesox | 11 years ago
0 likes

Blimey, this has prompted some debate - and rightly so, some of the man's comments are ridiculous.

The worst has to be that there is no place on the road for cyclists.

Where then ? On the footpath ? (That's if there is one)

Is he advocating a total ban on cycling on the road ?

I have just pasted this from the RHA web-site !

"3. Cycling and their interaction with HGVs has taken much of our attention over the past year or more. We have been engaged in extensive discussions about the safety of cyclists with Transport for London and others, including the cycling lobby groups. We have also been in discussions with other regional authorities in the UK and with the Department for Transport.

4. We recognise the significance of the resurgence in cycling in recent years - which has been given such an added boost this summer by the country’s outstanding success at the Olympics. Improving the safety and enjoyment cycling by large numbers of people is an issue that will remain firmly on the agenda of policy makers and of road planners and designers. In the past year or so, the issue has also become more prominent in the minds of truck operators and drivers that it had been.

5. We welcome the increased attention that has been given to the consequences of HGVs and cyclists coming together in an accident. The increased profile given to the issue in the general media in London and to operators is surely one reason why Richmond councillor Katharine Harborne was able to tell the committee on July 12: “There have been six deaths in London this year from cycling. None of those have involved a lorry. By this time last year there had been 13 deaths involving 5 lorries, so things have certainly improved.”

This appears to be at odds with his comments above.

Eeejit

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael | 11 years ago
0 likes

"... one reason why Richmond councillor Katharine Harborne was able to tell the committee on July 12: “There have been six deaths in London this year from cycling. None of those have involved a lorry..."

That's wrong for a start. According to The Times, there was a cyclist killed by a tipper lorry in Southall on 5 July.

And the danger certainly hasn't gone away - more recently, in the past month alone three London cyclists have been killed by lorries.

The RHA of course is a national organisation - more than 20 riders in the UK have now lost their lives to lorries so far in 2012, again sourced from The Times.

Pages

Latest Comments