“Share the road? Cyclists never endanger drivers”: Campaign to make endangering a cyclist “as unacceptable as drink driving” praised – but angry motorists urge riders to “find a safer mode of transport”; Julian Alaphilippe tributes + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
“That’s a more assertive message than ‘share the road’. Cyclists never endanger drivers”: Campaign to make endangering a cyclist “as unacceptable as drink driving” praised – but angry motorists say “if you don’t like it, don’t ride on the road”
A recent post by Amy’s Foundation has caused quite the stir on social media – for simply urging people to treat endangering a cyclist on the roads as seriously as drink driving. Yes, that’s the world we live in.
Amy’s Foundation, as I’m sure you’re aware, is the current iteration of the Amy Gillet Foundation, the campaign set up in memory of the Olympic rower-turned-elite cyclist. In 2006, 29-year-old Gillet was killed during a training ride with the Australian national team in Germany, when a driver lost control of their car, hitting her and her teammates.
The foundation has been at the forefront of road safety advocacy in Australia for two decades, and led the campaign to enshrine in law the requirement for drivers to leave a minimum of one metre’s distance when passing cyclists. That campaign came to an end in 2021 when Victoria became the final state to pass the 1m law.
> Australian helmet cam study says motorists to blame in 88 per cent of accidents with cyclists
The foundation says it wants to “build a culture of mutual respect between cyclists and motorists, enhancing cyclist safety through effective legislation, advanced technology, and improved infrastructure”, which it hopes will pave the way to “essential-zero” cyclist fatalities and serious injuries on Australian roads.
In 2024, the foundation was liquidated after losing its federal government funding, but managed to bounce back a few months later thanks to a new leadership team, including former pro Phil Anderson and Gillet’s teammate and world points race champion Kate Bates, rebranding as ‘Amy’s Foundation’.
On 13 September, it will host Amy’s Great Ocean Gran Fondo, the annual event raising funds for the foundation and its road safety campaigns.
In recent weeks, the foundation has produced several posts related to various aspects of road safety, from the risk of ‘dooring’ incidents and inadequate cycling infrastructure to the school commute and motorists driving in bike lanes.
But yesterday’s post has appeared to have attracted a lot more attention online than the others. Why? Because it simply pointed out that endangering people on bikes on the road should be treated as seriously as drink driving. Yes, really.
“Behind every campaign is a small team with one clear goal: make endangering a cyclist as unacceptable as drink driving became,” the post read.
Of course, some Facebook users were happy with the campaign’s simple, to the point messaging.
“That’s a more assertive message than ‘share the road’,” said David Baillie. “Drivers endanger cyclists. Cyclists never endanger drivers.”
David Jones added: “Decades ago, on my first lesson with a new driving instructor, he said, ‘This is a lethal weapon and it is my job to teach you how to drive it responsibly.’ I am convinced that they no longer teach this.”
“We MUST get dangerous drivers off roads and thank a cyclist for that extra parking space at work or store. Cyclists aren’t dangerous distracted or speeding drivers. Cyclists are gentle. They don’t kill 40,000 people per year like drivers do,” noted Joseph Barnett.
However, rather inevitably, not everyone was in agreement with a post calling for people not to put other people’s lives in danger.
“High time cyclists took responsibility for their own safety, not expect driver [sic] to think for them,” wrote Edward Sayers, who also questioned why the 1.5m passing rule doesn’t also apply to cyclists passing vehicles (yes, really).
“If they want drivers to respect them on the roads they need to earn it.”
“Before cyclists try and change how others use the roads, they need to do everything they can to make the way they use them as safe has [sic] they can,” said Lawrence Wilton.
Responding to David Baillie’s comment about cyclists not endangering motorists, Mike Smith said: “A pack of cyclists that ran a stop sign caused me to knee jerk react and swerve into oncoming traffic. Thankfully neither I nor the person in the truck I hit were seriously hurt. The pack of cyclists kept riding. They categorically endangered me.”
And UK-based Paul Rennie chipped in: “Cyclists should try using the roads, for what they are intended, not for training.
“I cycle as well, yes I agree the standard of driving is ridiculous but the UK’S infrastructure is built around motor vehicles and wanting/campaigning for equal rights will never happen.
“The infrastructure in the UK has NOT got the room for a cycle infrastructure as well. The quicker you realise that the better.”
Well, that’s a bit pessimistic, isn’t it Paul? I wonder what he makes of the increasing size of cars, then?
“You ride on the road you take the same chance as everyone else! If you don’t like it then don’t ride on the road,” added Keith Birchall (complete with a smiley face at the end).
And finally, Richard Standing said: “Or maybe the cyclists should find a safer mode of transport…”
My head hurts. We’re on to the ‘don’t tell me not to endanger another person’ stage of the internet, it seems. Although, to be fair, we’ve probably been here a while…
End of a swashbuckling era: Julian Alaphilippe retires from cycling with immediate effect, according to reports
That’s it, let’s pack up cycling, we’re done.
Because, according to L’Equipe, Julian Alaphilippe – swashbuckler supreme, the daring, attacking darling of every cycling fan – has retired with immediate effect, bringing an end to a panache-filled era.
The 34-year-old has another year on his contract at Tudor Pro Cycling, but according to the French outlet, he’s intending to terminate the contract early and forgo that final season.
Alaphilippe, who joined the Swiss team at the start of 2025 on a three-year deal, isn’t intending to pin a number on for the rest of the season, meaning his last ever race may well have been in Paris at the end of last month’s Tour de France.
To be honest, the news – despite it sending shockwaves among Loulou’s global fanbase – doesn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone paying attention to the Frenchman’s recent demeanour.
In Bourg-d’Oisans, among the team buses at the start of the penultimate stage of this year’s Tour, I spotted Alaphilippe as he made a point of visiting his old Soudal Quick-Step squad, hugging several staff members and ex-teammates, and looking pretty emotional as he did so.
Later that day, at the top of Alpe d’Huez, Alaphilippe told reporters: “It’s maybe my last one, so I made the most of it, I gave everything, not with a lot of success but I didn’t leave anything out there.”
If the reports are correct, and July in fact was the last time Julian Alaphilippe raced a bike, merci Loulou.
“And drivers wonder why cyclists ride in middle of the road”
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
11 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@rideANDdie People writing any comment on any social media platform should be taken with a pinch of salt, they could be from anyone, mostly rage baiting. I dont for a minute believe people suddenly get absolutely furious with vein popping anger at a cyclist in the road. words on a screen like that are written by the same cowards who try to act big but if they were confronted in the real world they balls would shrink up inside them. And as for trolling, I think youll find I am a regualr commentor on here , and I am a strong advocate for raod safety as many who have read my comments will know. So bore off with that one. My point still stands, the language used is inflammatory, and helps NOBODY, its adding to a problem that made out to be far worse than it is by the gutter press and social media. Adding to it just compounds the hem and us its the ones who perpetuate the war on the roads create
So how would you describe the comments left on that post, friendly? What about the comments left on stories of people being knocked off their bike and killed saying "good they deserved it"? What about the many cases of drivists deliberately hitting people on bike? How would you discribe the coutless times I've had someone deliveratly swerve at me, sometimes from the on comming lane, while swearing and shouting, almost always when there was plenty of space to just go around, would you say they were calm while threatening the life of another human being for just exisiting? Just a bit of banter right? Maybe try actually riding on the roads before trolling a cycling website because there's no way a regular road cyclist hasn't had an encouter with an angry driver! The point you miss is bigots and idiots can't get away with blaming all their problems on people of different races, genders etc, one of the last groups it's socially acceptable to overtly hate is cyclists, so we thankfully don't have lynchings anymore what we have instead is people actually wanting to kill or see cyclists be killed and glorifying this behavour. We are just human beings going about our day in a healthy and environmentally friendly way that actually reduces congestion on the roads and half the population (it seems) litterally state outloud they want to see us dead for it and frequently treatern or try to hit us, or just don't care if they do... of course there's nothing angry about that!!!
Motorists should be allowed to drink and/or use drugs while driving at speed in residential areas; pedestrians and cyclists will have to learn how to jump out of the way and wear body armor to protect themselves.
I agree that most motorists are considerate towards cyclists. I think in some cases irritation, which soon escalates to anger. Although some drivers may miss out the irritation stage. But just read some of the idiotic comments in the article. It is a minority to be concerned about.
Trying to distract attention away again from the fact that car drivers do most of the pedestrian killing and injuring, and cyclists kill and injure hardly anybody.
Of couse ultimately one of those German tunneling machines might have to be the answer, just under crawl, at cm per hour, the problem.
@chrisonabike AS I said, I rode them roads regularly, I know there are some very bad country roads, and they criss-cross that entire region. Its pan flat and they are very old lanes. The damage is caused mostly by them subsiding hence the cracks, its a losing battle when the majority of the traffic is still heavy tractors. I could ride from Louth to Somercoats on fair roads. I could also ride a shorter route across these lanes and they were poor due to the subsidence. top tip - avoid them and ride a road that not falling apart cos an irrigation ditch is providing no foundational support to it.
@Smoggysteve but around Lincolnshire the "good roads" (any roads) are normally few and are either busy A-roads (lots of trucks!) or effectively A-roads in terms of traffic volume and speed, just narrower and with worse sight lines. (Use the footways? Good luck there...) Pity since it is mostly flat and there's great touring potential...
Campaign to make endangering a cyclist “as unacceptable as drink driving” praised – but angry motorists say “if you don’t like it, don’t ride on the road” I am not sure the language here is helpful. Are there really many 'Angry' motorists? who is getting angry at the idea of being thoughtful when passing a cyclist? Yes, I am sure there are plenty who will complain about cyclists being 'in their way' but is anger the first emotion you think they jump to? If you want a climb down from the perceived war on our roads - made up entirely by the media, dont feed it with language like this. It helps nobody.
Of course doing that we'll get chips with everything and it'll end up "needing" AI * ... ... but eg. the Dutch have gone a long way with "just don't make every street a through-route for motor traffic". Along with "where you seriously reduce motor traffic volumes and speeds different modes can share space; where that's not possible physically separate them (but design it so cyclists can keep rolling as much as possible)". Although their traffic light phasing (and advance detection of approaching traffic, *including* cyclists) is "space age" tech compared to UK usually timed lights... * Doing planned societal change "simply" appears almost as impossible as following the simple diet advice of "just eat less than you expend energetically, mostly vegetables". There are very strong forces reinforcing any status quo.
11 thoughts on ““Share the road? Cyclists never endanger drivers”: Campaign to make endangering a cyclist “as unacceptable as drink driving” praised – but angry motorists urge riders to “find a safer mode of transport”; Julian Alaphilippe tributes + more on the live blog”
Take a bow Mr Richard (the voice of common sense) Standing.
Finding a safer form of transport than cycling is the ultimate solution.
I have just put my bikes up for sale on eBay and will put the proceeds towards buying a huge SUV. Hopefully I will be able set some PBs if I get it before the end of the time trial season.
Maybe the tragic loss of Fin Tarling will force professional cycling to take the same path? This would also remove the need for improved cycling helmets.
@Mr Blackbird but what if the others have bigger SUVs? Perhaps Dodge Ram trucks? Best get a truck yourself. Or even something with armour…
It’s the only responsible thing to do if you are carrying passengers.
Of couse ultimately one of those German tunneling machines might have to be the answer, just under crawl, at cm per hour, the problem.
RE: the foundation looking to “build a culture of mutual respect between cyclists and motorists, enhancing cyclist safety through effective legislation, advanced technology, and improved infrastructure”
I have an idea what that “advanced technology” could look like!
Of course doing that we’ll get chips with everything and it’ll end up “needing” AI * …
… but eg. the Dutch have gone a long way with “just don’t make every street a through-route for motor traffic”. Along with “where you seriously reduce motor traffic volumes and speeds different modes can share space; where that’s not possible physically separate them (but design it so cyclists can keep rolling as much as possible)”.
Although their traffic light phasing (and advance detection of approaching traffic, *including* cyclists) is “space age” tech compared to UK usually timed lights…
* Doing planned societal change “simply” appears almost as impossible as following the simple diet advice of “just eat less than you expend energetically, mostly vegetables”. There are very strong forces reinforcing any status quo.
For those who think the answer is to find a safer mode of transport, they’re clearly incapable of driving safely, so I’m asking them to stay off the road to help me fulfill their request for me to move to safer transport.
Campaign to make endangering a cyclist “as unacceptable as drink driving” praised – but angry motorists say “if you don’t like it, don’t ride on the road”
I am not sure the language here is helpful. Are there really many ‘Angry’ motorists? who is getting angry at the idea of being thoughtful when passing a cyclist? Yes, I am sure there are plenty who will complain about cyclists being ‘in their way’ but is anger the first emotion you think they jump to? If you want a climb down from the perceived war on our roads – made up entirely by the media, dont feed it with language like this. It helps nobody.
So how would you describe the comments left on that post, friendly? What about the comments left on stories of people being knocked off their bike and killed saying “good they deserved it”? What about the many cases of drivists deliberately hitting people on bike? How would you discribe the coutless times I’ve had someone deliveratly swerve at me, sometimes from the on comming lane, while swearing and shouting, almost always when there was plenty of space to just go around, would you say they were calm while threatening the life of another human being for just exisiting? Just a bit of banter right?
Maybe try actually riding on the roads before trolling a cycling website because there’s no way a regular road cyclist hasn’t had an encouter with an angry driver!
The point you miss is bigots and idiots can’t get away with blaming all their problems on people of different races, genders etc, one of the last groups it’s socially acceptable to overtly hate is cyclists, so we thankfully don’t have lynchings anymore what we have instead is people actually wanting to kill or see cyclists be killed and glorifying this behavour.
We are just human beings going about our day in a healthy and environmentally friendly way that actually reduces congestion on the roads and half the population (it seems) litterally state outloud they want to see us dead for it and frequently treatern or try to hit us, or just don’t care if they do… of course there’s nothing angry about that!!!
@rideANDdie People writing any comment on any social media platform should be taken with a pinch of salt, they could be from anyone, mostly rage baiting. I dont for a minute believe people suddenly get absolutely furious with vein popping anger at a cyclist in the road. words on a screen like that are written by the same cowards who try to act big but if they were confronted in the real world they balls would shrink up inside them.
And as for trolling, I think youll find I am a regualr commentor on here , and I am a strong advocate for raod safety as many who have read my comments will know. So bore off with that one.
My point still stands, the language used is inflammatory, and helps NOBODY, its adding to a problem that made out to be far worse than it is by the gutter press and social media. Adding to it just compounds the hem and us its the ones who perpetuate the war on the roads create
I agree that most motorists are considerate towards cyclists.
I think in some cases irritation, which soon escalates to anger. Although some drivers may miss out the irritation stage.
But just read some of the idiotic comments in the article. It is a minority to be concerned about.
Motorists should be allowed to drink and/or use drugs while driving at speed in residential areas; pedestrians and cyclists will have to learn how to jump out of the way and wear body armor to protect themselves.