A London cargo bike user and cycling campaigner who was this week subjected to a social media pile-on after pictures of her riding on the pavement, with her daughter in the cargo box, were shared to a local Facebook group and other platforms, has given a detailed explanation of why she avoids riding on the road at the location in question.
In an opinion piece for road.cc Sylvia Gauthereau, who is a trustee of London Cycling Campaign and co-chairs its policy forum, outlines why she uses “that pavement and that crossing at that location consciously, deliberately, and regularly, for my own and my children’s safety,” and highlights that “The real issue here is the complete lack of safe cycling provision on the A5 and the lack of connectivity to the side streets.”
It’s a post that clearly expresses why inadequate provision of safe routes in many parts of the capital, and other cities in the UK, leads many cyclists to adapt their riding to cope with the hazards found at a particular location, and also explores some of the specific issues women face while cycling and on social media.
So, over to Sylvia …
I am THAT cargo bike mum and cycling campaigner, and this is why I cycle briefly on that pavement.
I am a busy working mum who cycles everywhere. I already had a lot on this week and could have done without being in the middle of a nasty social media pile on. At least it was good to know people do see me on my cycle.
Cycling on the pavement or using a pedestrian crossing would never be my first choice, but I do it out of necessity at that specific location where I have been photographed, in an attempt to be ‘shamed’. It is not a lapse in judgement. I use that pavement and that crossing at that location consciously, deliberately, and regularly, for my own and my children’s safety. I do so with due consideration to others and within the spirit of relevant regulation. Given the weight and size of my cargo bike, I ride across because it is more manoeuvrable that way, I need to keep momentum to aim at the uphill dropped kerb between four bollards on the other side.
The alternative would be to continue straight ahead, move from the left to the right (on a major road) and wait for a gap in traffic further along between a lane of moving traffic including buses and trucks on my left, and on the right, one lane of moving traffic and a bus lane. It is barely possible for even the most skilled and experienced solo cyclist, and I often have my kids on board.
The A-road running through my neighbourhood is utterly hostile to cyclists and pedestrians, and no one is taking responsibility for it. Whenever I use this turn on rare occasions, my entire body is lit up with alarm bells, signalling to my brain: get out of here! And I also have to time it right with pedestrians potentially crossing the side street, so I don’t risk ending up yielding to them in the way of an incoming bus or vehicle. At that precise moment, I am the only person in the entire world who can evaluate the levels within which I feel safe, the threshold of tolerance I can manage from the anxiety of danger around me. No one else can.
I also found myself on several occasions prevented from positioning myself on the right, to wait for that gap in traffic. Despite putting my hand up well in advance, some drivers just go ahead regardless. When I do it too early, I get beeped. This caused me to miss that turn and I had to cycle to the next side street, turn left to do a u-turn, wait some more to have drivers letting me across, back on the A road. It’s just insane.
The real issue here is the complete lack of safe cycling provision on the A5 and the lack of connectivity to the side streets. Cycling provision in outer London boroughs is appalling and very neglected. Actual cycling infrastructure is patchy to non-existent, below design standards, scary, uninviting, and exclusive, despite a huge and well evidenced appetite for cycling, healthier lives, and better air quality. So, what do we do then to stay safe? Well, we do what we can and when you add a child into the mix, even more so. So, it means going on the pavement at some point.
I started cycling out of necessity – to embed the school run in my work commute, to free up two hours per day in my life. Women cycling have interestingly different patterns from many men who ride; we do more quick short trips, from school to playground, to dentist/optician appointments, after-school club, errands, and other caring related work (we can have the debate about sharing the caring load another day).
I am a practical person. When I see a problem, I try to find a solution. Am I a traffic engineer? No. Am I a local elected politician with the powers to solve this? No. So campaigning was the solution to this specific problem, and I became a cycling campaigner because I started cycling. For me, for you, for my friends and for my two children, neither of whom has been able to cycle to school regularly so far. When they do cycle with me, it is mentally exhausting, there is far too much risk. You have to constantly calculate all the different scenarios that could unfold and think of the matching manoeuvres to prevent any potentially dangerous situation turning into an horrific one.
Covid has sharpened feelings about quality of life, about caring for our neighbours, and about our future. After what we have all been through, why are we now wavering over Low Traffic Neighbourhoods for example, which are one of the best ways of giving people the chance to cut back on sedentary lifestyles, get out and about walking or cycling for short local journeys, with a great knock on effect for physical activity levels and mental health? The choices made over transport affect our quality of life and have implications for everyone from the youngest to the oldest. It is unforgivable to keep avoiding this conversation.
This recent harassment of me and my family is not about cycling on pavements or danger to pedestrians; it is about revenge. Revenge for me standing up and publicly voicing an opinion, with an added special layer reserved for women where the basic decency seems to be even more acceptable to forgo. Cycling as a woman in London has exposed me to comments on the way I look, what I wear or not wear, a free for all to comment on my parenting and mansplaining on what type of cycle I use. Sharing an identifiable photograph of my child to hurt me says far more about the author of this social media post than it does about me.
I became a campaigner because of my lived experiences, and I can tell you that London is changing. I can see it and smell it. I can see the change in driving behaviour too, I can see more drivers giving me more space when overtaking, I can see more eye contact and basic courtesy, I can see all the other parents cycling with a child seat on the rear carrier, I can see the wider variety of cycles and all the different types of people cycling, including more children cycling to school. I see you and I applaud you.
So, if you too want to stand up to those who want to bully us off the road, join your local cycling group, email your councillors and demand better now.



























85 thoughts on “London cargo bike mum who was victim of social media pile-on for cycling on pavement explains why she does it”
This is just the flip side of
This is just the flip side of “Fully Vaccinated” Cycling Mikey and Jeremy Vine posting minor infractions for clicks and ego, isn’t it? I mean if you watch Mikey harassing Chris Eubank, you’ll see that Chris didn’t commit an offence, yet was sufficiently haranged and bamboozled into mistakenly driving through a red light. Rather than simply handing over to the police, for reasons only known to himself, Mikey would rather anger polite society by gloating about it.
That others do the same back to cyclists shouldn’t come as any surprise. Exactly why cycling shouldn’t be put into the center of the culture war, especially when it’s on the losing side.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Well, except for the ‘using a mobile phone’ offence, but, hey…
He didn’t commit an offence
He didn’t commit an offence with his mobile phone, but, hey if you want to make up that he did…
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/mobile-phone-laws/
Hands-free phone use: the law
There are two things to remember here:
You cannot hold your phone when behind the wheel, even momentarily (this includes when supervising a learner driver).
He got 3 points and a fine
He got 3 points and a fine for driving through a red light, nothing for using a mobile phone at the wheel, and it isn’t illegal to simply pick up an object in a stationary car. If it was, he’d have been found guilty of that too in court.
Nice try but you said
Nice try but you said
“He didn’t commit an offence with his mobile phone, but, hey if you want to make up that he did…”
He did commit an offence but they did not prosecute but you didn’t make that claim.
Currently
https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law
It’s illegal to hold a phone or sat nav while driving or riding a motorcycle. You must have hands-free access, such as:
a bluetooth headset
voice command
a dashboard holder or mat
a windscreen mount
a built-in sat nav
The device must not block your view of the road and traffic ahead.
You must stay in full control of your vehicle at all times. The police can stop you if they think you’re not in control because you’re distracted and you can be prosecuted.
The law still applies to you if you’re:
stopped at traffic lights
queuing in traffic
supervising a learner driver
So no, “and it isn’t illegal to simply pick up an object in a stationary car” doesn’t hold.
edit: and it was still illegal to use it to make calls back then which is what he was doing.
hirsute wrote:
That RAC article you linked to shows that merely holding a phone whilst driving, was not an offence at the time of the recording – i.e. it was before the loophole was fixed in April this year.
That said, I don’t have much pity for him, it is the same Chris Eubank who was convicted of careless driving which resulted in a man’s death – and was fined the princely sum of £250. Of course, these days it would have been at least death by careless driving – but these days, there probably would have been a scene investigation that would have blown a double decker bus sized hole in his story that he lost control whilst travelling at 58 mph in the ‘fast lane’ of the A23 – and as the person he hit wasn’t on a bicycle, he might have got jail time for death by dangerous driving. To be fair, given the amount of blows to the head he’s suffered, theres a good chance he was being honest (to the best of his ability) and confused 85 for 58 – it’s not like professional boxers wear helmets.
In the body of the text it
In the body of the text it says
It’s illegal to hold a mobile phone while driving (correct as of April 2021)1
The law was tightened up but was to do with photos and videos. If you listen to the sound track, he is having a phone conversation which was covered back then.
Did that loophole actually
Did that loophole actually get closed? I can see it was widely discussed, but I can’t find any legislation in force that actually does so.
I appreciate the gov.uk website suggests it is always illegal to hold a mobile phone when driving, but in my experience gov.uk always over-simplifies things just enough to make sure that the “advice” given is technically incorrect. And, very unhelpfully, it never references any actual legislation when making bald assertions about the law (cf. the highway code which links you directly to the relevant section of legislation).
(Although you are correct that making a phone call would be covered anyway).
It is supposed to update this
It is supposed to update this
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/contents/made
but that doesn’t even have para 110 in it from 2003, so who knows if it has been closed
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regulation/2/made
but this event was covered by amendment 4
Nigel Garrage wrote:
He was using his phone while the engine was running…pretty sure that’s breaking the law, happy to be corrected! Please provide a reference.
Also quit it with the group responsibility nonsense.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Didn’t see a seatbelt being worn, but hey, perhaps he has an exemption or is working as a local delivery driver in the Rolls. And if that wasn’t an offence with his phone, it would only be because he was not making a call – a particularly crappy loophole.
This cargo biker is also being “hassled and bamboozled”, but on a daily basis, and taking rather more risk to life and limb than officer Eubank in his big heavy car. She is also acting within the spirit of the law.
She is campaigning for improved infrastructure, and perhaps Mr Eubank was doing the same with his phone when spotted, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
TheBillder wrote:
I suppose he could have signed on with UberEats to supplement his retirement income.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
He wasn’t convicted for a mobile phone offence, but that’s not to say he didn’t commit one. The law on mobile phone use is unfortunately quite specific (https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-mobile-phones) which means it is hard to secure a conviction unless you can demonstrate what the person was doing with their phone. You do not commit an offence under S41D* if you are using internal features of the phone; only if you use it for interactive communication. So playing music already downloaded onto your phone is allowed; streaming music is not (even though on modern phones thse two functions are often pretty interchangable).
* For clarity, you could still be committing an offence under other sections of the RTA such as driving without due care and consideration.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Jeez Nige, it’s fine for a mum and child to be harassed and intimidated cos mikey? Fack me, you really are getting better at this trolling biz…..
I didn’t say it was fine –
I didn’t say it was fine – you need to read what I wrote again.
My point was that if you rachet up a fake war between motorists and cyclists then don’t be surprised when unsavoury incidents like this occur.
Me, I just go about my business with politeness and a studious courtesy to other road users. I get the same back in return by 99% of motorists.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Not fine but perfectly understandable? Gotcha!
So if I was to retype that –
” it’s perfectly understandable for a mum and child to be harassed and intimidated cos mikey!”
MMmnyeah, still doesn’t seem to work Nige. Still seems that Mikey is irrelevant to this topic…
I think the point Nigel
I think the point Nigel Garrage is making is that if you stoke a conflict then there are casualties on both sides. It’s not about agreeing with one or the other, even if one is “in the right” (as here, obviously ?). Some die hard motorists will be piqued by the likes of “Cycling” Mikey, and will get their satisfaction where they can. It’s the rules of the playground, and many never get beyond that.
Sriracha wrote:
Aah. Now I got it!
Don’t witness or report lawbreaking or the mum and kid gets it!
It has a certain pragmatism about it I suppose…. Can’t help thinking it still doesn’t feel quite right….
Captain Badger wrote:
Aah. Now I got it!
Don’t witness or report lawbreaking or the mum and kid gets it!
It has a certain pragmatism about it I suppose…. Can’t help thinking it still doesn’t feel quite right….— Sriracha
Sigh, you’re deliberately misconstruing what was written. As has already been pointed out and confirmed, Chris Eubank wasn’t committing an offence when Mikey needlessly – and in my opinion recklessly – started to distract someone who should have been concentrating on driving.
Then, instead of simply reporting it to the police, Mikey decided to triumphantly and distastefully post it on YouTube for clicks. None of that has anything to do with upholding law and order whatsoever.
So now imagine I’m a member of the public who’s seen Mikey’s idiotic antics and decides they’ve had enough of cyclists being above the law, riding through red lights and on pavements. I go out and about looking for minor law breaking incidents, just like Mikey does. I post them on social media, just like Mikey does.
Do you get it yet?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Nige I’m hurt, I’m not deliberately misconstruing you. I’m trying to understand your point.
Weirdly you’ve brought in the difficulties that Chris Eubank has in controlling his vehicle safely, into a conversation about a mother and child being harrassed on the road, and then on SM
You’ve then tried to make out that bullying women and children is a reasonable response to another unrelated member of the public assisting the police.
You see, I am a member of the public. And a driver, who probably drives more than he cycles. And I get no violent feelings from Mikey’s activities. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Why would it? it’s not illegal, immoral, antisocial (except to those who think the word “grass” is an insult), and it affects me not one iota. So I don’t really buy that as a reasonable, or even inevitable response
Now of course you might say, that irritating as his activities may be to some, he wouldn’t (couldn’t in fact) do it were it not for those law-breaking dangerous drivers.
So by extension, the fault of the physical bullying, intimidation on teh road, and SM pile-on of a woman and her child lies with, wait for it…. dangerous entitled, bullying drivers. That’s actually what I’d say.
PS I am teasing you a smidge, I do understand your point. It’s just completely wrong, on all levels.
It’s been confirmed multiple
It’s been confirmed multiple times with different posters that he was committing at least 2 offences
The only one saying it isn’t is you and you don’t offer any support for your claim.
hirsute wrote:
The legislation states that it’s an offence for a person to drive or supervise the driving by a provisional licence holder, or cause or permit to be driven a motor vehicle on a road if the driver is using:
a hand-held mobile telephone, or
a hand-held device (other than a two-way radio) which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
“A mobile telephone or device will be in use where it is making or receiving a call, or performing any other interactive communication function, whether with another person or not.”
The legal guidance can be seen at https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-mobile-phones.
As “Simply the best” Chris Eubank was not using his phone, he couldn’t possibly be prosecuted for that offence. That’s why his only punishment was for driving through a red traffic light. If there was a reasonable chance of prosecution for using a mobile phone he’d have been prosecuted for it. He wasn’t using the phone, and in my view the only reason he drove through the red traffic light was down to distraction from Fully Vaccinated Cycling Mikey (EU flag, Flag of Zimbabwe) .
Yes and he was in breach of
Yes and he was in breach of that and hence committing an offence.
He was also not wearing a seat belt but you ignore that as it doesn’t fit your narrative
Nigel Garrage wrote:
It’s worth remembering that driving whilst distracted is an offence in itself that carries points. Note that it’s the responsibility for drivers not to be distracted – it isn’t mitigation for other offences.
In addition, unless you know Eubank, I don’t really think that you are in a position to say that he only commits offences in the presence of Mikey, although I know you like to blame mikey for poor drivers.
If only Eubank had enlisted the help of St Freeman of the Long Handles, he could have got off on a technicality….
Nigel Garrage wrote:
In which parallel universe is the correct reaction to distraction to drive off through a red traffic signal? That’s nothing to do with distraction. He wanted to leave the scene as he’d been caught bang to rights and realized that further appearance in the video (sorry, Capt B) would incriminate him further.
I try to be considerate and courteous on these forums and 99% of the time…
Nigel Garrage wrote:
— Nigel GarrageWhich of those is the reason for your irrational, strong dislike of him? And he is dutch not zimbabwean.
110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;
Hence guilty of an offence.
Boo is trying to state that
Boo is trying to state that he wasn’t charged with anything so wasn’t supposedly commiting an offence with the phone. However you could argue if he hadn’t of picked it up and looked like he was committing an offence, then he wouldn’t have had cycling mikey stop and query him. So abit chicken and egg at the start and still doesn’t justify him driving through a red light as proven by the Police prosecuting him on that offence at least.
Boo is trying to state that
Boo is trying to state that he wasn’t charged with anything so wasn’t supposedly committing an offence with the phone.
Crikey! On that basis, Lancashire drivers are the most law abiding in the world, because they’re hardly ever charged with anything no matter what the evidence.
Unsurprisingly, I thought of
Unsurprisingly, I thought of your campaign straight away as an example of not charging anyone.
Well according to out troll
Well according to out troll-lite legal expert…
Anne Sacoolas never killed Harry Dunne by careless driving, (should be dangerous but it would have been pleaded down if she hadn’t run away, bit of a ban, fine and maybe suspended sentence, you know driving…)
Fred West definitely didn’t commit any offences by murdering all of those girls.
And Jimmy Saville never did anything bad.
Killer Driver Helen Measures is a perfect motorist, same goes for Killer Driver Gail Purcell. In fact Denisa Perinova and Michael Mason were never killed in horrible and utterly pointless ways.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I laughed.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Mate the only way to get less shit from drivers is to ride in the gutter and make every effort make sure they don’t notice you. Problem is that isn’t safe and it takes forever to get anywhere. There isn’t a war as a war would imply some sort of casualties on both sides. This is more of a slaughter.
Bikebikebike wrote:
Mate the only way to get less shit from drivers is to ride in the gutter and make every effort make sure they don’t notice you. Problem is that isn’t safe and it takes forever to get anywhere. There isn’t a war as a war would imply some sort of casualties on both sides. This is more of a slaughter. — Nigel Garrage
I have no idea where you live or what the state of the roads are near you, but I just don’t have the same experience (or “lived experience” if you’re woke) as what you’ve written.
In my experience, riding in the gutter is the worst thing you can do. Now I’ve just had a perfectly nice, incident-free 55 mile ride (near the guy from Royston actually), which I’m going to post just to prove I actually ride a bike and am not trolling. At no point did I feel remotely in danger.
That isn’t to say I never encounter an idiot, but I just question how you can use emotive words like “slaughter” without the data or facts to back them up. Victimhood seems to be a modern day blight on society.
Anyway, enjoy your afternoon folks, and don’t forget how lucky we all are.
Drivers who don’t cycle just
Drivers who don’t cycle just ignore the big fucking difference between a bike and a car. The car invariably kills what it hits, the bike rarely does. It’s not about culture, it’s literally a life and death difference. Drivers complain about cyclists jumping red lights. If this happens so much, and the often claimed ‘cyclists always jump red lights’, why is the media not full of the death and destruction at junctions caused by cyclists jumping a red light? Provide just one example where a cyclist has smashed into a vehicle and killed or maimed the occupants, or clipped a car sending it into the path of a following bike and killing the driver because the cyclist misjudged the proximity of their overtake? Cyclists will invariably only use the pavement because it is safer than using the road at that point. They will invariably jump a light because it is safer to get ahead of the angry morons revving their engines 6 inches behind their rear wheel.
I didn’t say it was rational,
I didn’t say it was rational, but it is how a lot of people’s brains work.
It really comes down to fairness, decency and equality. It’s not that cyclists kill people when they cycle on the pavement or ride through a red light (it isn’t completely risk free though by the way). It’s the act of breaking a law with seeming impunity, that they themselves are constrained by.
You can see the manifestation of this breakdown in the rule of law in calls to regulate cycling, with even lawyers at the top of their discipline like Nick Freeman calling for tabards, insurance, etc.
Then, as the final insult – the cherry on top of the cake if you like – you have a virtue signalling idiot who spends his days with a camera sneaking around looking to catch out motorists in stationary traffic (which is less dangerous than a cyclist jumping a red light or riding on the pavement). Then triumphantly posts the video to YouTube.
That just isn’t cricket. The straw that breaks the camel’s back. The final indignity. If you lose your job, can’t afford to pay your rent and become homeless as a result Mikey won’t care. “Don’t break the law” would be his retort, the same law he systematically ignores when it comes to cyclists breaking the rules.
Now instead, if everyone just conducted themselves with the respect afforded in times gone by, before culture wars and self-entitlement became the norm, this anger – and therefore danger – could be avoided.
What exam are you studying
What exam are you studying for ? Is it trolling level2 or wum level2 ?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Banging on about respecting the law by referencing the lawyer who makes his living by ensuring people who have broken the law go unpunished – here we have the rarely seen spectacle of a troll jumping the shark.
Nick Freeman, top of the
Nick Freeman, top of the legal discipline:
“Judge Goldstaub said: “This appeal is a frivolous and vexatious piece of criminal litigation by the appellant and should never have been initiated. It is based on technical and legal points empty of substantial merit and bad in themselves.””
Top, the very top. Exercise of the finest legal brain in the righting of the most egregious wrongs. Oh, and trademarking “Mr Loophole”.
The rules have to be fair to
The rules have to be fair to start with. Expecting cyclists to ride in the gutter so as not to impede the car driver, when it would be safer if the cyclist had the entire lane without risk of being smashed into the kerb or the path of the following vehicle..not fair is it? Expecting cyclists to wait for the green light at a junction when it is safer for them to make a start ahead of the following or crossing traffic and reduce the chances of being left hooked or wiped out by a driver that assumes their vehicle will be able to make the turn before the cyclist gets halfway across the junction..not fair is it? Expecting cyclists to unclip and push their bike along the pavement when they are avoiding a dangerous narrow section of road that drivers willl attempt to squeeze past them. There are extremely low incidences of cyclists maiming pedestrians on the path and there is never an expectation that drivers must get out and push their vehicle past cyclists on a narrow road section…not fair is it? And claiming Freeman is at the top of his trade is the same as stating a skilled chemist is at the top of their trade when they cook crystal meth to sell to kids rather than teaching chemistry to those kids at school. You claim that Cycling Mikey is virtue signalling, which shows a complete lack of understanding why his activities are making the roads safer for cyclists and then virtue signal yourself by posting a screenshot of your Strava ride which serves no useful benefit to anyone.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
You’re a bit obsessed with these guys, aren’t you?
The mum’s and her child’s
The mum’s and her child’s lives are at stake, but the law prohibits cycling on the pavement (for the purposes of this discussion at least)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma
…unless you are riding on
…unless you are riding on the pavement out of fear of the roads (the Boateng exception, IIRC).
(edited) I meant ‘exception’, but typed ‘exemption’
…hence my parentheses.
…hence my parentheses.
The latest iteration I can
The latest iteration I can find is in here
https://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cyclists-can-ride-pavement
IMO part of the problem is
IMO part of the problem is how so many motorists appear to think that if a parent has their child with them, then it is somehow the parent’s fault for putting the child in harm’s way regardless of whether it is the motorist who is causing or threatening to cause harm.
brooksby wrote:
I found that when I had a child seat on my bike I tended to get given a lot more space – even when I was only using it to carry a rucksack. That said, I see quite a few secondary school kids riding school on my morning commute and they get treated like shit by motorists. The only school kids that are given any space on the road the road by motorists are the ones that ride in packs pulling wheelies. I have also been mom-splained* for being irresponsible enough to tow my daughter on a tag-along on the road.
*mom-splainer being a mother (and it always is) who feels (and is unable to resist) the urge to critize the parenting of people she doesn’t know.
jh2727 wrote:
“Speaking as a mutherrrr…”
As anyone got the location
As anyone got the location where the photos were taken, nice to know the area to see Sylvias justification on the road layout etc.
I came here to read Sylvia’s
I came here to read Sylvia’s letter. It’s really very good.
Completely condemn the social
Completely condemn the social media shaming she’s had, but she doesn’t explain why she couldn’t dismount on the pavement.
Also not a fan of the gendering and sexist generalisations – “Women cycling have interestingly different patterns from many men who ride; we do more quick short trips, from school to playground, to dentist/optician appointments, after-school club, errands, and other caring related work.”
Takeaway – women are primary caregivers and parents, dads don’t do this kind of thing. Disrespectful to modern mums and dads IMO, and completely at odds with my (lived ?)
experience.
Perhaps you could just shut
Perhaps you could just shut up for a while instead of hijacking every single article with your long, rambling pontifications about your personal pet hatred topics.
Do you know why she couldn’t
Do you know why she couldn’t dismount Stephan? Perhaps I’m missing something simple. If I’d chosen to go on to the pavement I’d have dismounted, which is why I asked the question.
Also, I thought the point of having a comments section under the article was to invite comments and opinions. I’ve spent a lot of time contemplating how to reduce negative interactions between car drivers and cyclists and believe that playing identity politics and gender stereotypes, such as the author of the letter has done here, is counterproductive.
The author is the victim here as is her child, just as I would be if I was videoed with my son without my permission. Her gender is separate to this, and I believe dilutes the story rather than adds to it. That isn’t to deny that there are additional barriers to women in cycling, but I simply don’t believe that they apply in this particular scenario.
You’re free to ignore or overtly disagree with what I write if you like, but I don’t think personal abuse is a good look for you, especially from someone with a doctorate from an admittedly second-tier University. In short, I expected better.
But by your weird and twisted
But by your weird and twisted view of the law, she wasn’t doing anything wrong, no offence had been commited because there was no conviction.
Or does that only work for former boxers?
Or is it just your hatred for CyclingMikey, who is only recording dangerous behavior of drivers, after all…?
ktache wrote:
I promise I’ll stop responding to these, but I’m getting so many good questions. Thanks for reaching out ktache.
The difference between Eubank and this particular case was that – in Eubank’s case – a crime was reported to the police and the police acted on it. They decided to proceed to prosecute only on the offence of driving through a red traffic light, meaning they thought that there was not enough evidence or Chris wasn’t committing an offence by holding the phone in his hand.
In the case of the cargo bike, to the best of my knowledge, no crime has been reported to the police. It is therefore difficult to ascertain guilt, and in any case I doubt it would be in the public interest to proceed.
I don’t hate anyone or anything by the way, but I do think Mikey is severely misguided if his aim is to make cycling safer.
ktache wrote:
Only the best former boxers…
ktache wrote:
Can you tell me in the comments he’s made here where he has quoted law, stated the lady has broken the law. If you have something personal against this person. PM him, we don’t need to see your offensive nasty behaviour. Look at your comments as a third person or person on the end of them, would you feel as that 2nd or 3rd person, that the comments (your comments) are not offensive? Pretty much the situation of the pot calling the kettle black here. Where the kettle is any colour but black!
didsthewinegeek wrote:
I’m surprised that you’re taking offense from ktache’s comments as I typically find him to be polite and very considerate of other’s feelings.
More importantly, however, how do we PM other commenters on this forum?
Generally I prefer it if the
Generally I prefer it if the comments stick to the topic, even (or especially) when divergent views are expressed, with a minimum of sarcasm and hyperbole which seldom work well in a thread. But I’m sure I am not innocent of these things myself. On the whole, I’d find the debates a bit sterile if there was only the orthodox views tolerated, and others were shouted down or piled-in upon. I guess the exception is where a poster is simply looking to needle and provoke, but I don’t see that here. There was one, but they have been booted out.
Sriracha wrote:
I’m not sure that I’ve understood you correctly – do you mean that I was out-of-line with replying to didsthewinegeek in support of ktache?
Not really, I was just
Not really, I was just stating my preferences, which is to hear what people have to say and keep replies and arguments on topic. It’s not always easy though, but that is the price of hearing challenging or different views. But unless it is people simply being contrarian for its own sake then I think it’s with having.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
I was perplexed by the call to use PM to address other commenters as I’m not aware that we can do that.
Can you tell me in the
??
Mike actually steps out into
Mike actually steps out into the roadway and confronts motorists, which is vigilantism and tantamount to instigating road rage, an offence in Australia btw (I used to be a traffic cop there) – UK cops are lenient to allow his behaviour; if Mike stayed on the footpath to film and pass that evidence onto the authorities, no problem, but confronting motorists to get a reaction is so much better for his social media/u-tube notoriety…
I see you still need some
I see you still need some assistance in understanding what a vigilante is.
‘instigating road rage’ – what exactly do you think road rage is then ?
hirsute wrote:
Gotta love it when speaking to people is conflated with vigilanteism, and “road rage” (whatever that might be) promoted to the motoring equivalent of righteous, violent anger.
if Mike stayed on the
if Mike stayed on the footpath to film and pass that evidence onto the authorities…
Then he wouldn’t be able to obtain the indisputable evidence of, for instance, handheld mobile phone use while driving. It’s very difficult to do that without ‘blowing your cover’, and the hilarious antics of the guilty covering up the phone etc. make it even more worthwhile.
Personal gripe: Mikey is performing a valuable service to the community, but he has it easy! Up here in the Lancashire backwoods we have to put up with Neandertal police who are decades behind the likes of Surrey Police and who think that the only evidence of close passing is buckets of cyclist blood on the road, that cyclists are duty bound to get out of the way of cars speeding up from behind so that the hard-pressed respectable driver is not obliged to close pass them etc etc…
Personal abuse – this from
Personal abuse – this from someone who is quite happy to use ad hominem where it suits them.
You can have any opinion you
You can have any opinion you want, but your endless ramblings have usually very little to do with the articles you’re commenting on, and then you’re trying to turn everything into a culture war full of non-sequitur, ad-hominem and strawman arguments. Do that somewhere else.
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:
Au contraire! My comments have *everything* to do with the story, and I’m assiduous in ensuring that I do not insult others, regardless of what they say. It comes from having a good upbringing. I do talk about a culture war because that’s what people on both sides are trying to do with cycling. I think that emotional connection isn’t helpful for cyclists, and serves to endanger us unnecessarily.
Compare that to what you’ve done here. You’ve posted two comments. Neither has anything whatsoever to do with the story. Both are full of irrelevant personal abuse. Both serve as distraction from the victim.
If you think my arguments are illogical, counter them. Be better.
“and I’m assiduous in
“and I’m assiduous in ensuring that I do not insult others, regardless of what they say. It comes from having a good upbringing.”
Shame about your poor memory then
“Surprised to see you still posting at this hour hirsute- thought you’d be in your bunker by now preparing for the alien invasion”
If it helps you become more
If it helps you become more self-aware, I find a lot of your posts insulting and offensive, as well as dismissive, arrogant and usually lacking in empathy. I mean no offense with my observations. I hope it helps.
Aside from those 5 minor
Aside from those 5 minor quibbles, can I just check you’re happy with me? I’d be upset if you had forgotten to mention something significant ?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
It’s a pity that all this contemplation has lead you to the conclusion that cyclists should suck up any danger and not upset the status quo of car dominance.
Maybe you ought to try
Maybe you ought to try pushing a cargo bike full of kids? I think she explained that bit quite well.
HoarseMann wrote:
Thank so much too for your question and observation HoarseMann. I’d honestly missed that particular part of the story to be honest, which I guess serves to underscore why the stuff about sexism got in the way of the real narrative. Thanks for pointing that out.
I have in fact ridden a cargo bike with a 35kg labrador without issue – including pushing it, but I do concede that others might find it difficult (although not sure why a child couldn’t walk a few metres).
Anyway, people seem to be getting angered you my responding to questions, so I hoped I’ve satisfied your curiosity without the need for further response.
With that, I bid you a good evening!
I’ve a few years experience
I’ve a few years experience doing the school run on a cargo bike and it’s also my view that it’s not easy to push a cargo bike full of kids. Not sure what a labrador would be like though.
If you’re unsure why a kid couldn’t walk a few metres, have you tried walking near a busy road and controlling young kids whilst holding onto a bike? Kids are safer in the bike – I assure you.
As for the sexism bit – she’s right that it’s mainly women that are doing the school run. As a Dad doing it regularly, I was certainly in the minority.
This isn’t “the flip side” of
This harrassment isn’t “the flip side” of anything cyclists do. This particular case is harrassment by someone who’s latched onto opposing LTNs as a way to stir people up, get clicks and promote eg Richard Tice and the Reform Party. https://www.facebook.com/100001638104896/videos/4342486402482587/
He also rides and promotes escooters, even though riding them on the public highway isn’t legal, which makes waiting to video a cyclist going onto the pavement on her regular school run look rather hypocritical.
And yet Nick Robinson poses
And yet Nick Robinson poses the exact same conundrum on R4’s Today program (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000wyt9, 2hr 24 in).
“A growing number of cyclists do actually put cameras on their bike helmets and so on to prove what motorists are up to, so why shouldn’t us motorists have the same opportunity to prove what cyclists have been up to?… And I must stress I’m a cyclist myself as well as a motorist, but you do see a large number of cyclists who believe that the rules of the road are not for them.”
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Bingo!
Why are you ignoring the
You’re ignoring the harrasser’s evident motivations and hypocrisy.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Is that Nick “I’m a cyclist myself” Robinson who had to be corrected by his bosses after lying about LTNs last year?
I think we should be told….
classic “I saw a cyclist who.
classic “I saw a cyclist who…” on the part of a lobby that wants to go on killing, maiming, polluting, getting diabetes, etc. It’s so overwhelming common day after day, we no longer notice it, indeed we expect it, moreover we’re surprised at times when it doesn’t happen.
You see a pavement rider, or a RLJ cyclist – I see someone trying navigate and survive a hostile environment that has forgotten them, has been turned over to cars.
When did you see them jump this light, oh last week? Did it cause a problem, anyone in hospital as a result?
Far too much chat from
Far too much chat from opposing corners, gets us anywhere, but the chances of having civilised, constructive talks or debate remains nil, so I guess it will just continue. I love to cycle but the local road traffic frightens me, and I am an experienced cycle commuter of 20 years experience. Drivers of all types car, lorry, van, bus and even other cyclists only look to their own progress and haven’t the patience to consider the safety of this welshcyclist or any other ordinary cyclist.The only answer is dedicated cycle lanes where cyclists can be safe. Road use aparteid is the answer, road traffic and cyclists cannot co exist in the same space. When will that happen?
I don’t cycle on pavements at
I don’t cycle on pavements at any time. Highway Code specifically states that you must not cycle on the pavement. If we are expecting motor vehicle users to stick to the highway code then so should we. Also the pavements are for pedestrians unless a cycle lane is incorporated. Old age pensioners and disabled are vulnerable when we use pavements.