"Drivers will weaponise hatred and take it out on cyclists": CyclingMikey blasts police on Jeremy Vine show for misinformation about "speed-limits"; Jumbo Visma not "put under pressure" at Tour of Britain; La Pietà at Vuelta + more on the live blog

You're missing the point that the police ignore the motorists travelling at a similar if not greater speed and instead have focussed on the cyclists. If the police were effective in stopping motorists from speeding, then it would be acceptable for them to also deal with cyclists, but instead we have the situation where drivers are being allowed to break the law and introduce significant danger to others on the roads and the police decide to tackle some cyclists who are not even breaking any laws and don't pose nearly the same level of danger.

the police ignore the motorists travelling at a similar if not greater speed and instead have focussed on the cyclist ...the police decide to tackle some cyclists who are not even breaking any laws

Selective and non-enforcement of the law is the police technique which allows them to remain, essentially, the makers of traffic law in the UK. They like to retain that power and will bend and break the rules to do so. I have demonstrated ad nauseam how Lancashire police refuse to take action over red light offence drivers, phone using drivers (one, doped up on nitrous, even turning to show me a picture of naked breasts on a phone held in his right hand while driving), drivers of vehicles without MOT/ insurance/ VED for years on end etc. etc. The weakness in my argument is that I don't have evidence of them instead taking action against cyclists- I have to rely on evidence from elsewhere in the country for that because there simply aren't many cyclists around here. However, I do assert they would act in these stupid ways if they ever saw any- I never see police except when hordes of them are parked hiding away from work at Garstang police station.

BigDoodyBoy wrote:

Please stop with the hystrionics. This is a total non-event. Or at least it should be.

Hadn't started.  IMHO they were a bit speedy there.

You seem to be proving Mikey's point about "people will use this as ammo" though!

BigDoodyBoy wrote:

Have you never been stopped in your car whilst obeying the law?

Ah - glad we're on the same page!  Not only have I not been stopped in a car whilst obeying the law, I've never been stopped in a car whilst not obeying the law *.  Perhaps that's why there isn't "harmony" on the streets?  I'd say most people are more or less "honest".  However you still need to keep honest people honest.  Not only does everyone give themselves a pass from time to time but where there are rarely consequences people sensibly don't see the point in rules.

BigDoodyBoy wrote:

If you break the law, you break the law. It's nobody else's fault. And there are seldom mitigating factors.

Again - great minds and all.  I see you've picked up on the fact that when road offenses appear in court, the CPS aren't afraid of applying the maximum relevant charge ("dangerous driving" rather than "careless"), juries don't have sympathy for those whose defense was that they weren't competent to drive so should get a pass ("I didn't see... the sun was in my eyes...") and magistrates and judges aren't convinced by pleas of "exceptional hardship" and "genuine remorse" (where the accused has a ton of previous).

Oh... sorry, I had that backwards!  I'm sure the goverment's urgent review of road law (announce 2014) will sort that out.

* In the UK - I've definitely exceeded the speed limit and I've certainly I've managed to go through a traffic light on red due to confusion about lights.  Bound to have parked illegally too.  Now, I'm a very infrequent driver.  However I have been stopped by the police in a car several times ... in the US.  (I was a passenger every time, but they seem to take road policing a bit more seriously there.  Remarkable when there's so much road...)

BigDoodyBoy wrote:

(Other points also regularly dealt with on road.cc) ... turning the focus and blame back on to motorists ... furthering the divide between the cyclist and non-cyclist factions ... some cyclists get it wrong ... Remember that motorists also report bad motorists. We report our own bad 'uns. Why don't you?

You appear to be undermining your own promising "let's not be tribal" argument there.

The notion that somehow "harmony", "sharing the road" and "we're all just trying to get from A to B" is some kind of overlooked ingredient which will make the roads "safer" or "better" (normally by the minority / more vulnerable group "giving some more respect") is a lovely idea!  Unfortunately unrelated to the reality of human psychology, our modes of transport or of street design.

Why do you think is hasn't happened already? (There have been several campaigns).

Why do you think a tiny minority (the majority of whom also drive) somehow have the power to make it better (or are making it worse) for all?

I'm pleased to hear you're also interested in improving our roads and public spaces, and the safety of these - me too.  You didn't ask but I might recommend some reading / viewing on why different transport modes don't and won't "just get along" (unless there are very few of each) and how we might still make places safer, more efficient and more pleasant for all:

The best country in the world for drivers.

What encourages cycling - same as driving!  A network of good quality routes, the feeling of safety and social travel.

A safe road ethos to efficiently and safely move people, not just motor vehicles.

A nice "it's people" article (New York)

BigDoodyBoy wrote:

Have you never been stopped in your car whilst obeying the law?

Literally never. Nor on a motorcycle. None of my family ever have been. None of my friends ever have been. Nobody I've ever known ever has been. When 54% of motorists ignore 30 mph limits and 86% of motorists ignore 20 mph limits, one rather doubts that the police have a lot of time to pull over people who are actually obeying the law and if they did why would they be doing that instead of catching those who are breaking the law?

Apply common sense ?
You don't use common sense for the highway code, you have to read and understand it. Far too many drivers have little or no knowledge of the HC
Watching various dash cam videos, far too many drivers have no appreciation of hazards or how to mitigate them.

Hirsute wrote:

Apply common sense ? You don't use common sense for the highway code, you have to read and understand it. Far too many drivers have little or no knowledge of the HC Watching various dash cam videos, far too many drivers have no appreciation of hazards or how to mitigate them.

Documents like the HC exist precisely because of a failure of 'common sense'.

And anyway, far too much of the time "it's just common sense" is used to mean "what I agree with/approve of"...

Yeah - using the roads - and especially driving motor vehicles - is a learned skill.

The arguments about "respect" or "why can't we all just get along?" correctly recognise an aspect of human nature in driving.  It's seems reasonable for people to do so in that case* because driving's ubiquitous (by political choice!) and so normalised we effectively treat it like walking or other use of public space, not like other licensed activities.  So people apply the same expectations around the emotional needs of humans and effects on their behaviour (impatience, convention, politeness etc.)

However it is not just a case of influencing behaviour in the same way as a politician or an advert might try ("don't drop gum!").  That's because of power imbalances (car vs. bike vs. pedestrian) and the skill aspect.  That needs training, feedback loops to reinforce practice and physical changes to the environment in many cases.  Which makes changing things subtly different (and more involved) than just exhortations around behaviours.

Trying to alter things via law change / policing things better also has limitations here since on the roads lots of things are happening to millions of people all the time.  And the timescales are very short.

I do think we should got a bit further [1] [2] [3] in terms of "human factors" e.g. trying to work with human nature.  For the fallible drivers of motor vehicles we have improved things via *lot* of work on "user interface design", driver assistance, in-car safety, safer infrastructure for driving etc.  Of course drivers are "customers" - of manufacturers, oil / power companies and the government sees them as enhanced taxpayers.  (Although I think they're still getting a net subsidy if you sum all the costs and benefits!)

* Consider - "you can't expect all pilots to wait for clearance for takeoff..."

Im talking about using common sense in your life and on the road. Do you not understand my point life is about using common sense and showing respect and courtesy to others?
That im afraid is sadly missing in a percentage of our country now.

I understand that you are just throwing in the term 'common sense'.

What is the connection with common sense and the HC ?

You do realise that sufficient numbers think might is right and that faster road users should have priority over slower users (even those sticking to the limit).

Stephankernow wrote:

We all need as a nation and roadusers to start respecting each other and both sides need to apply common sense. Their are noisy/vociferous minorities on both sides who love to stir up trouble and its up to the majority of road users to show respect to one another. Lets give each other time and space and show patience to each other. I cycle, drive tractors and a van so on two of my modes of transport im slower but we just need to respect one another a drive sensibly.

I agree, but it's important to remember that the two "sides" aren't equivalent.

One side has genuine issues with road safety and endangerment due to other people's selfish and distracted behaviour. The other side makes up imagined laws and rules and then complains that they're not being followed.

Yes but this us and them attitude by both groups and its only a minority on both sides is part of the problem.
Tne breakdown in respect in this country toward one another in all spheres of life is a problem.
Its down to the individual to make a personal decision.

Stephankernow wrote:

Yes but this us and them attitude by both groups and its only a minority on both sides is part of the problem. Tne breakdown in respect in this country toward one another in all spheres of life is a problem. Its down to the individual to make a personal decision.

Hmm... but when it's 10 of "them" to every one of "us" ... not much we can do to "win hearts and minds" *.  (I know, most cyclists are also drivers - but most drivers and their passengers are not also cyclists).

Is "respect" is a separate magic ingredient that can be added or more like a consequence emerging from other factors?  To what extent would you respect those who are uninterested in returning the favour?

* AFAIK psychology suggests that once stereotypes exist they're extremely hard to overcome.  Humans preferentially collect evidence to confirm things they believe rather than looking at all evidence.  Worse, we may actively seek out such confirmatory evidence.  Changing these beliefs seems to be a "one at a time, through building personal relationships" business.  Slow and very difficult when you're the minority!

Stephankernow wrote:

Yes but this us and them attitude by both groups and its only a minority on both sides is part of the problem. Tne breakdown in respect in this country toward one another in all spheres of life is a problem. Its down to the individual to make a personal decision.

Well, let's start with not maiming or killing each other on the roads and go from there.

I agree, but it's important to remember that the two "sides" aren't equivalent.

One side has genuine issues with road safety and endangerment due to other people's selfish and distracted behaviour. The other side makes up imagined laws and rules and then complains that they're not being followed.

[/quote]

That's some pretty sweeping generalizations right there. Not only unhelpful but unless you have some data to back it up I'd suggest it is FUD just to get you likes on this platform.

House!

Bradshsi wrote:

That's some pretty sweeping generalizations right there. Not only unhelpful but unless you have some data to back it up I'd suggest it is FUD just to get you likes on this platform.

I can't be bothered to go looking for the data again as your suggestion of FUD is risible.

Think about it. How many motorists are worried about being injured or killed by a collision with a cyclist? Compare that to how many cyclists are worried about being injured or killed by a collision with a motorist.

Ask around any cyclists you know and see if cyclists have been on the receiving end of abuse that has been factually incorrect (e.g. "You have to use the bike lane", "you don't even pay road tax"). Similarly, you can ask around drivers and see if they commonly get abuse from random cyclists for no discernable reason (i.e. the cyclist doesn't have a valid complaint of being close-passed etc).

Or, to put it another way, do you think cyclists have a valid concern about their safety? Do you think motorists have a valid concern that there is a war on motorists? (hint: society subsidises car usage to a large extent and tends to treat them as the only important traffic).

By all means, find the KSI rates of different modes of transport and adjust for the different sizes of categories to see if I'm incorrect about cyclists hardly ever killing motorists whilst motorists do kill far too many cyclists.

I found this site that shows the fatalities by road user type per billion km travelled: https://www.statista.com/statistics/300601/average-number-of-fatalities-according-to-transport-in-the-united-kingdom/

Unfortunately it doesn't show the causes or involvement of other vehicles (that would be more instructive), so it includes single vehicle crashes and also collisions between same types of vehicles (e.g. crashes between cars or crashes between cyclists).

Cyclists are at 19.8 and car occupants are at 1.1, which definitely supports my assertion that cyclists are at more risk than car passengers. (Motorbikes would appear to be the most dangerous mode of transport with pedestrians in second place, just slightly ahead of cyclists).

Ah, but once they're out of their cars pedestrians are nervous about cyclists!  Barely a month goes by but someone says "some wheel-mounted desperado nearly did for me".

Statistics vary (probably because the numbers are small) but pedestrians and cyclists seem to be a similar risk to each other.  Vans and LGVs would appear to be the velociraptor on the roads (by distance travelled) - likely mostly due to usage patterns [PACTs stats analysis].

In an ideal world (or just a hundred miles or so from the UK's East coast) it would just be people, behaving normally.  So reacting emotionally, telling you how the world seems to them (and possibly having a part of the picture right).  And everyone similarly concerned about getting from A to B safely however they did.  Not a zero-sum game.

Due to our previous political choices however those who cycle on the roads in the UK not only form an "out-group" (or series of them) to many other people - they don't quite resemble the profile of the rest of the population (also data here varies but e.g. much more likely to be male [also see Sustrans' walking, cycling and wheeling survey]!).  (If nothing else because most tend to have a keener appreciation for the vagaries of driving!)

The lack of equivalence is not just numbers of course.  I believe motor traffic / road provision also has a suppressive effect on other modes (for some of the reasons listed below; because once you've opted in to having a car a journey is "marginal cost"; because you tend to keep using your car for subsequent journeys once you've got into it).  Motorised traffic is also catered for at the expense of other modes despite its negative side effects.  A couple of those are regularly cited ("pollution", "danger" and sometimes "congestion") but others are less considered, like noise [road noise a major stressor according to the WHO], extremely inefficient use of space, expense to the taxpayer in general, disconnecting communities...

Thanks - the PACTs analysis was the one I was failing to find as it clearly shows the level of danger posed by different road users, though it doesn't apportion blame e.g. a collision between a pedestrian and cyclist may rarely result in a KSI, but it doesn't imply which party was at fault for it (and similarly collisions between cars and pedestrians may be the fault of either party).

The data set has the issues as you say, plus that particular graph of course is just raw numbers, not corrected for number of a given mode.  Nor frequency of encounter - now that would be really interesting!  Of course we're unlikely to be able to find that without getting our big-data-gathering corporate overlords to cooperate in using their rather sinister powers for the public good.

I find these charts lead to more questions.  Like "why do LGVs and vans come out as the worst?"  "Where and when are these collisions happening (road type, traffic speed / volume)?"  "Given we know x, what can we do about it which doesn't break something else? (like requiring all pedestrians to cross roads by burrowing underneath them)".  And "which poor cyclist 'killed' a driver?" (as you say, they likely didn't - or at least didn't do so and cycle off laughing - it's in the data "coding").

I guess that is a good thing!

chrisonatrike wrote:

The data set has the issues as you say, plus that particular graph of course is just raw numbers, not corrected for number of a given mode.  Nor frequency of encounter - now that would be really interesting!  Of course we're unlikely to be able to find that without getting our big-data-gathering corporate overlords to cooperate in using their rather sinister powers for the public good.

I find these charts lead to more questions.  Like "why do LGVs and vans come out as the worst?"  "Where and when are these collisions happening (road type, traffic speed / volume)?"  "Given we know x, what can we do about it which doesn't break something else? (like requiring all pedestrians to cross roads by burrowing underneath them)".  And "which poor cyclist 'killed' a driver?" (as you say, they likely didn't - or at least didn't do so and cycle off laughing - it's in the data "coding").

I guess that is a good thing!

LGV and van drivers often suffer from poor visibility of other traffic and their extra weight means that collisions are going to involve more energy and thus be more likely to result in deaths. There may be other effects at play as well, such as the demographics (young people are more likely to be involved in collisions which is why motor insurance is so expensive for them), but that'd involve a lot more analysis and probably a bit of guess work.

I suspect that the motorists that died in a collision with a pedestrian most likely hit something else as well, like a wall or a building.

C'mon... it's Friday afternoon!  Can't be producing volumes of evidence from the media, nor links to peer reviewed publications every day of the week!

Or... you could just search road.cc for a cargo-bike-load of the same.  But that would likely be some kinda logical glitch, like failing to look at both positive and negative evidence for a particular theory.

Happy cycling anyway, too good to stay in!

Whose "common sense" are you using as your standard? The driver who thinks it's "common sense" that cyclists should immediately pull over when a motorised vehicle is behind them? The cyclist who thinks it's "common sense" that they can ride through a zebra front of pedestrians because they've seen a gap? The driver who thinks it's "common sense" that they should be allowed to exceed the speed limit if the road is clear and it's a nice sunny day? As Voltaire noted, common sense is actually quite rare and, as we can all note, everyone has their own definition of it. That's why we have road laws rather than relying on common sense.

NOtotheEU wrote:

Turns out it's all you bloody cyclists fault that my local council is now bankrupt, I hope you're all ashamed of yourselves! (The DM wouldn't lie to me right?)

Reminds me of Alexei Sayle's definition: "Austerity is the idea that the 2008 financial crash was caused by Wolverhampton having too many libraries."

NOtotheEU wrote:

Furious locals slam bankrupt Birmingham council for wasting £10million on 2.5-mile cycle highway that is wider than a bus lane, barely used and causes traffic chaos

Wait - they've managed to get a wide cycle path 2.5 miles long (at all!) for 10 million?  Can we get them up here?  In 2019 Sustrans quoted £1.3 million per kilometre for a "high specification cycle path" - but a decent sized project like that will likely be lots more because junctions.  £50 million per kilometre back then to build the average road of course...