A Salford councillor who is a member of the Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) committee has said that cyclists need to show more respect to motorists. His comments came as hundreds of cyclists took to the city’s streets at the weekend to call for improved conditions for bike riders.
Conservative councillor Robin Garrido was speaking at a meeting of the committee where an update on cycling initiatives currently planned by TfGM was discussed, reports the Manchester Evening News.
He said that while motorist were often urged to be more considerate towards people on bikes, the opposite should also happen.
“There is a lot about motorists treating cyclists with respect but I think cyclists should also treat motorists with respect,” said Garrido.
“I would like to get a message out to cyclists to treat motorists with respect.
“There are things like crossing red lights, and crossing from the near side to the left hand side.
“I do think we ought to be telling cyclists to pay more attention to road users,” he added.
The councillor said he was in favour of TfGM’s efforts to provide better facilities for cyclists in Greater Manchester, but added: “We have all seen situations were cyclists seem to regard traffic lights as not necessarily for them or road signs as not being for them so we need to increase training for cyclists as well as motorists.
“If we improve facilities it may have a knock on effect to improve the way we cycling.”
However, Pete Abel, a volunteer of Manchester’s Love Your Bike campaign group said it was right that “people driving vehicles that can kill people” should have a bigger share of responsibility for the safety of vulnerable road users.
“All road users need to show respect to each other but it is car drivers that are responsible for the vast majority of deaths and injuries to other vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists and therefore they need to show a true level of respect for all vulnerable road users,” he said..
“People who drive one-tonne or 20-tonne vehicles have a higher responsibility because they are driving heavy vehicles with air bags that can kill people.”
TfGM’s transport strategy director Dave Newton said it provided training to foster mutual respect between motorists and those on bikes.
“What is required is mutual respect between motorists and cyclists,” he said. “We offer training to motorists and cyclists.
“With cyclist training, we help to give people more confidence and brush up on their skills in cycling in commuter-based traffic.”
On Saturday, as in many other cities across England, hundreds of cyclists took to the streets of Manchester to call for more Space for Cycling. You can see photos of the event on the Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign’s Flickr stream.
61 thoughts on “Cyclists need to show more respect to motorists, says Salford councillor”
Councillor Robin Garrido who
Councillor Robin Garrido who is a member of the Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) committee.
Perhaps with his attitude towards cyclists and complete lack of understanding of the problems faced by cyclists that this person displays he should not be on the transport commitee.
I suspect Councillors need to
I suspect Councillors need to get off their fat expense account ridden arses and ride some bikes in traffic to learn what they are talking about.
And what does he mean by “crossing from the near side to the left hand side.”?
Load of bollocks really.
Load of bollocks really.
Councillor Robin Garrido who
Councillor Robin Garrido who is a member of the Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) committee.
Perhaps with his attitude towards cyclists and complete lack of understanding of the problems faced by cyclists that this person displays he should not be on the transport commitee.
How about we start with
How about we start with people having more respect for people in general, and move on from there
jason.timothy.jones wrote:How
I heartily agree. No more them and us or us and them scenarios. We should be all be given the space to travel on our roads with respect to all road users.
I did a lovely 50km ride in London yesterday – nothing happened of any note. It was beautiful.
stealfwayne
Hear hear!
Dick
Dick
Once again, someone wheels
Once again, someone wheels out the tired old ‘respect’ line. It’s time we started pushing people on what exactly they mean when they say this. I think we’re all agreed that road users should obey the law and stop at red lights, but when someone like Cllr Garrido says “show respect”, what exactly is he expecting cyclists to do? I’d wager it’s some or all of the following:
– Don’t filter either on the inside in the bike lane, or the outside
– Don’t ride to the front of traffic queues to use advanced stop boxes
– If you reach a queue of traffic, queue like a car
– Yield right of way to the bigger, faster vehicle all the time
– Stay in the gutter to permit drivers to pass, at all times
– Don’t use primary to prevent unsafe overtakes
– Give a big wave of thanks to every driver who doesn’t kill them
Basically, when I hear someone say cyclists should ‘show respect’ to drivers, or that cyclists should ‘share the road’, it’s a veiled threat that cyclists should get out of their way, and stop flaunting the fact that congestion and traffic jams don’t really slow bikes down.
Next up, Robin Garrido
Next up, Robin Garrido advises sending Peter Sutcliffe a thank you note, you know, for not murdering your mam with his hammer.
He’s a dicksplash.
I actually had quite a
I actually had quite a incident free long cycle yesterday.
When i say incident free, i actually mean just the three incidents where drivers showed consideration to me at all.
I do abide by his so called consideration rules, i do generally try to keep left (without being too left) BUT it still does not stop cars driving by far too closely or failing to realise that i as a vehcile on the road have right of position when in a pinch point on the road.
Look see Mr Councillor, I too can highlight examples of poor behaviour
The comments section on that
The comments section on that story is another big bag of fun. In particular, I liked this one from a “Nigel Street”
Indeed, we do :))
With the risk of becoming a
With the risk of becoming a pariah, I do in some way agree with his comments.
Should we treat motorists with respect? Yes, because we ourselves want to be treated with respect from motorists. This is the Golden Rule (or ethics of reciprocity).
Similiarly, we should all obey relevant road signage, regardless of mode of transportation. Though I would wager that a number of those people caught running red lights are not what we would identify as “cyclists” but that other group of people that “ride bikes”. In the same way that vehicle drivers distance themselves from red light jumpers, those without VED and insurance, those without licences etc.
I do not think that we should be telling cyclists to pay more attention to other road users, as the experiance of nearly anyone who rides on roads, we are painfully aware of not only what vehicles are doing, but also what they could be doing, the near pass, the failing to give way to cyclists, the left-hand hook. Certainly, the statistics on the cyclist vs. motorist collisions demonstrate, overwhelmingly, it is the motorist that causes the collision and not the cyclist (though they do cause some).
The part I disagree with is the whole tone of the what the councillor says, it is the picking up the lazy stereotype of the lawless cyclist and spouting it. UKIP are publically flogged when they use lazy stereotyping when referring to immigration, this is not too far removed from that.
As Pete Abel goes on the expound, the issue really is one of vulnerability, in a cyclist-motorist collision, if the cyclist is at fault they are likely to injure themselves, if the motorist is at fault the cyclist is likely to be injured. While this balance of power exists the more vulnerable need to be protected by the less vulnerable.
It’s usually pretty obvious
It’s usually pretty obvious when someone calls for more “respect” that they probably haven’t ridden a bike since the age of 7. There ought to be a mandatory requirement for anyone calling for it to join the morning rush hour commute on a bike.
Poor old
Poor old doesn’t-know-his-nearside-from-his back-side. Near side = near to the kerb = left hand side.
LMAO is this fascist cunt for
LMAO is this fascist cunt for real?
I have no respect for any of them, they are murderers.
P***k. He needs to
P***k. He needs to concentrate on the dangerous state of the roads before he starts spouting such drivel. The condition of the roads and the
pathetic attempt at cycle lanes (the usual green paint strip on the inside of a congested bus lane) is a hazard for all concerned.
Commute from anywhere in the Manchester region and what you’ll see is more ‘law breaking’ by motorists than cyclists. A couple of times a week I’ll see red light jumping by a bike. It’s daily by a car with the added bonus of them speeding up to get through the lights regardless.
Every day I thank my lucky
Every day I thank my lucky stars I don’t live in Cheshire. When I spend any time on that side of the country, I see all the painted shared pavements that undulate up and down with the drop curbs and I piece of my heart dies. It’s a scruffy mess as well as being totally unfit for purpose.
There’s a bloke where I live in Cambridgeshire who parks his car in dangerous places with that mancunian drawl. As he shouted at me for mounting the pavement with my bike so he could pass on my side because there were other inconsiderate drivers parked on his side, that accent in the form of an angry driver is one of my least favourite.
I honestly think if I had to ride a bike in Manchester I’d strap some comedy dynamite to my carrier and a sign saying “you hit me, I’m taking you with me”.
Belaroo wrote:Every day I
Its really not that bad. Cheshire is the Surrey of the North. Beautiful rolling planes and the Peak District on the doorstep. Muppets are endemic to any urban area. Fix the road to the edge and I will gladly cycle there.
As for TheHound, I won’t dignify his comments with another quote, but we will soon see if he sticks around. I’ll just go back to being another aggressive cyclist from the ‘mob’ again tomorrow when I move out into the middle of the road to avoid the same potholes I go past everyday.
Once again the cycling mob
Once again the cycling mob shows it’s ugly head on this site.
To all the people slagging this guy off. Have you actually read what he’s said? It’s not really anything out of the ordinary is it.
He’s not gone to the press, but expressed pretty sensible fair views in the appropriate forum.
I hate being labelled a cyclist with some of you, when you’re quite clearly imbeciles.
TheHound wrote:
Once again
The “cycling mob” …? Sorry mate, but the only imbecile I’m seeing here is you. We would simply like to survive our journeys and not constantly get hit on the head with this lazy and utterly retarded victim blaming by the likes of him. Fuck you!
userfriendly wrote:TheHound
The “cycling mob” …? Sorry mate, but the only imbecile I’m seeing here is you. We would simply like to survive our journeys and not constantly get hit on the head with this lazy and utterly retarded victim blaming by the likes of him. Fuck you!— TheHound
Er, I think your moniker needs changing..;-)
fatsimonstan wrote:
Er, I
I’m usually very friendly. It’s things like this that get my goat.
It’s even a very friendly goat, too! Relatively speaking.
TheHound wrote:
Once again
TheHound wrote:
Once again the cycling mob shows it’s ugly head on this site.
To all the people slagging this guy off. Have you actually read what he’s said? It’s not really anything out of the ordinary is it.
He’s not gone to the press, but expressed pretty sensible fair views in the appropriate forum.
I hate being labelled a cyclist with some of you, when you’re quite clearly imbeciles.
The “cycling mob” …? Sorry mate, but the only imbecile I’m seeing here is you. We would simply like to survive our journeys and not constantly get hit on the head with this lazy and utterly retarded victim blaming by the likes of him. Fuck you!
Work harder. Buy a tank.
replyquote
I think above demonstrates that a lot of people do not know anymore how to treat each other with respect…unless they learn manners and consideration they will remain ignorant and transfer that attitude in what ever they are doing. On the road they will always be right, whether they drive a car or cycle. Only difference is the cyclist is more likely to suffer.
TheHound wrote:Once again the
Jesus christ we have a cycling apologist…
TheHound wrote:Once again the
Jesus christ we have a cycling apologist…
TheHound wrote:Once again the
I’d agree with what you were trying to say, but not the way you’ve said it.
The story isn’t the story. Local councillors make comments like this all the time, after all our councils have responsibility for transport planning. You can find pages and pages of articles in just about every local newspaper with councillors expressing concern about cars speeding outside schools (that’s now almost as much of a campaigning cliche as kissing babies).
The story here, is how many local newspapers are now running purposefully controversial cycling stories because it generates a bit of traffic. The story could be about almost any cycling matter, and you’ll get the same vocal minority popping up, usually some retired UKIP voter who is angry about everything and was given a few too many toys made with lead paint when they were young.
Read ’em, laugh, take the piss. Humour and logic always win against bigots and fruitcakes.
Showing respect is all very
Showing respect is all very well and good. We should when we’re cycling, walking, driving, whatever our mode of transport
but these comments are in the context of ‘give space for cycling’ which is about making things better for the vulnerable road user and clearly show where this guy’s sympathies and priorities lie (with the motorist, if you haven’t guessed!)
The trouble is “Respect”
The trouble is “Respect” means different things to different people.
Driver’s idea of respect, a vein popping “GET OUT OF MY F*****G WAY!”
Cyclists idea of respect, a whispered “Please could you see your way to possibly not actively trying to kill me today if it’s not too much trouble Sir.”
What a great steaming pile of horse-apples. No wonder we have to fight so hard for everything we can prise out of them.
If this is the calibre of our public servants then we need some new ones. NOW!
What precisely has Robin
What precisely has Robin Garrido said that is so out of place. I don’t see him “victim blaming”. Just making a few comments full of common sense.
If we cyclists wish to take the moral high ground, then there’s a large minority of us that need to stop acting like a Neolithic tribe and take responsibility for our actions.
Second to that the responses to this article don’t really make us seem a civilized bunch worthy of anyone’s respect.
A little less petty name calling and some more emotionless reasoned arguments are what is needed, should people find something disagreeable.
TheHound wrote:What precisely
As others have also remarked, you’ve sort of missed the point. That’s been covered above so I won’t repeat here.
As for emotional responses, and there are a few on here, in the context of woefully inadequate cycling infrastructre and the high number of cycling casualties, I can quite see why this man, responsible for policy, is coming in for some stick. Can’t you?
700c wrote:TheHound
As others have also remarked, you’ve sort of missed the point. That’s been covered above so I won’t repeat here.
As for emotional responses, and there are a few on here, in the context of woefully inadequate cycling infrastructre and the high number of cycling casualties, I can quite see why this man, responsible for policy, is coming in for some stick. Can’t you?— TheHound
I don’t disagree that improvements could and should be made, but it’s embarrassing some of the rubbish written here.
TheHound wrote:A little less
Absolutely. But calling fellow cyclists “imbeciles” and “Neolithic” (?) isn’t helping. I don’t agree with many of the more militant cyclists, including on this forum – but I’m heeding your advice.
The problem is not the fact
The problem is not the fact that this individual made these comments, it’s not that he found a way to publish them, it’s not that he has wheeled out you stinking corpse of RLJ cyclists* nor is it the fact that he makes strange utterances (crossing from the near side to the left hand side) that make no sense whatsoever.
No the problem is that he is a) an elected councillor, b) sits on the Transport for Greater Manchester committee and that c) this giftless, shiftless bastard is clearly electioneering; going for the knuckle dragging Daily Mail reader.
Anyway! What do councillors know about respect?
*I don’t have the figures for Manchester but here are the figures for London as released by TfL.
15.8% of cyclists RLJ
16.2% of other road users RLJ
22% of Taxis and mini-cabs RLJ
If anyone does have the figures for other towns it might be fun to compare.
This is all a bit ridiculous.
This is all a bit ridiculous. I commute 9 miles each way into Central London, and I have very few problems with most road users. Treat car drivers courteously and they are as good as gold, except for the odd muppet here and there.
Likewise there are also some cycling muppets who ride too fast, who go over zebras when people are crossing and as for red lights, I would say that 20% of cyclists ignore them. Quite frankly that isn’t good enough and gives us all a bad name.
Responsibility is the key word on both sides. To be honest I read some of the comments above and completely understand what the man is saying.
There was a guy at my last workplace who used to get into scrapes all the time, usually with peds. Guess what he rode like he was wearing blinkers and that he owned the road.
For fuck’s sake, let’s all treat each other properly, together.
Joelsim wrote: Treat car
1 in 100 (or whatever) drivers being bad is enough to prevent 90% (or whatever) of people ever seriously considering cycling on the roads. That one muppet can kill or maim in the blink of an eye. Your 20% of cyclists (or whatever) cannot be condoned but they are also unlikely to injure anyone. I hate seeing inconsiderate riding as much as anyone but to give the two equivalence is just playing into the driving lobby hands.
The whole hysteria over cyclist RLJ is a smoke screen and displaced frustration. It’s dangerous as it always comes along as people are demanding safer cycling infrastructure. Good quality infrastructure is expensive so arguing cyclists don’t deserve it is an easy way of avoiding the cost.
Totally agree, if we show
Totally agree, if we show respect whether in a car or on a bike, it’ll avoid the majority of grief. I would add one exception,,,Volvo drivers, but not all of them, just 90%!!
Totally agree, if we show
Totally agree, if we show respect whether in a car or on a bike, it’ll avoid the majority of grief. I would add one exception,,,Volvo drivers, but not all of them, just 90%!!
The councillor said he was in
The councillor said he was in favour of TfGM’s efforts to provide better facilities for cyclists in Greater Manchester.
“If we improve facilities it may have a knock on effect to improve the way we cycling.”
Doesn’t really seem anti cycling does he. A guy say’s we should show the respect we very vocally demand, and that facilities should be provided that make it easier for us to do so, and he gets slammed?
What exactly do you want him to say?
TheHound wrote:A guy say’s we
Again with this odd use of ‘we’! I don’t understand the thought-processes at work here. “We” should show respect? What are you talking about? Who is this ‘we’?
I follow the rules on the road. A very high proportion of motorists I encounter don’t and so make cycling both more stressful and dangerous than it needs to be. What this mythical ‘we’ has to do with this situation I have no idea.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Again with this odd use of ‘we’! I don’t understand the thought-processes at work here. “We” should show respect? What are you talking about? Who is this ‘we’?
I follow the rules on the road. A very high proportion of motorists I encounter don’t and so make cycling both more stressful and dangerous than it needs to be. What this mythical ‘we’ has to do with this situation I have no idea.— TheHound
We = Cyclists. Nothing mythical or confusing there.
TheHound
Again with this odd use of ‘we’! I don’t understand the thought-processes at work here. “We” should show respect? What are you talking about? Who is this ‘we’?
I follow the rules on the road. A very high proportion of motorists I encounter don’t and so make cycling both more stressful and dangerous than it needs to be. What this mythical ‘we’ has to do with this situation I have no idea.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
We = Cyclists. Nothing mythical or confusing there.— TheHound
Actually, confusing and mythical. There’s no hierarchical organisation controlling everyone who ever uses a bike. I have no authority over other cyclists and no responsibility for them. There is no ‘we’ in the way you use the word, as an active subject. Just equating it to ‘cyclists’ doesn’t make the attitude make any more sense. Cyclists are not a ‘we’ in that sense. When I got a bike I didn’t join a club or sign up to some disciplined organisation.
I was going to add that despite how I worded the previous comment, I don’t actually ascribe such collective responsibility to motorists either. I wouldn’t argue no roads should be provided for them till every last one behaves perfectly.
Where there _is_ a meaningful collective responsibility is with politicians (like this councilor, albeit in a small way in that case), the state they are part of, and the population who vote for them.
In that case there is a choice as to whether to enforce the laws that are needed to limit the threat the bad motorists can pose to everyone else, and a choice whether to provide for non-motorists the infrastructure that can help keep them safe from the bad motorists. In that case there is a ‘we’, in the sense there is a political structure that can exercise power.
Cyclists have no such structure of their own, they are not a nation.
That a councillor on the
That a councillor on the committee of the transport authority should speak in a way that echoes the views of so many people who are not well informed is a shame and shows that perhaps he doesn’t understand the issues as he should. That the Manchester Evening News got hold of the comments and decided to use them in typical fashion to inflame feelings is also a shame. It’s a shame but it isn’t a surprise.
When I don’t like what my councillors, or MP, do then I tell them and if I’m still not happy I use my vote against them. That would explain why our local MP came to talk to me about Space for Cycling recently (he wants my vote, and those of other people who ride bikes, for himself and his colleagues on the council).
The councillor makes, as do so many, the mistake of talking about the need for respect. It really isn’t about respect at all but simply about behaving responsibly to those around you whether you respect them or not.
E.G. I don’t respect drivers who drive badly around me and put me at extra risk (whether I’m cycling, driving or being a pedestrian) and I don’t respect people on bikes who cycle badly (again whether I’m cycling driving or being a pedestrian). Behave badly and I’ll tend not to respect you even if that is temporary!
But even when I don’t respect people I will still behave responsibly around them.
What we need more of is people behaving well and being responsible and as Pete Abel so ably put it that means being careful of the most vulnerable.
I always thought Bez had it
I always thought Bez had it spot on about ‘respect’.
Joselito wrote:I always
That’s a very good article.
But what does HE mean by
But what does HE mean by “Respect”? It means different things to different people and is applied differently to different groups.
Look, we all know not all car drivers are demons just as we know that all cyclists are not saints. It’s just that when one of us does something wrong we all do something wrong. It’s an old joke but it’s still true that…
“A 6’2″ cyclist dressed like a tropical toad is completely invisible to car drivers until he jumps a red light. At which point he becomes all cyclists and visible from space.”
This is why so many cyclists (including myself) have reacted so defensively. He may just have been bitten by the sound bite but he still should know better. I still think he’s electioneering. He is an elected representative who sits on a powerful committee, he does not get benefit of doubt.
Once again – What does HE mean by “Respect”?
It would also be educative to
It would also be educative to learn what he means by;
“There are things like… crossing from the near side to the left hand side.”
And not reported above but in the local paper;
“…cutting across cars”
You’d hope any competent journo from local rag would have contacted the Councillor as asked him to clarify what he meant.
But no, just report the remarks and watch the clickbait counter.
It seems to me that the
It seems to me that the councillor is clearly making a threat. What does it mean for a driver to decide that cyclists are not worthy of respect?
He is implicitly saying that he will drive differently around cyclists because some cyclists behave in ways he doesn’t like.
Joselito’s link to Bez explores the idea well.
Yawn.
Some people drive like
Yawn.
Some people drive like idiots.
Some people ride like idiots.
Some people say stupid things.
Some journalists report rubbish.
Calm down.
Carry on.
That is all.
I openly invite any
I openly invite any councillor from Tameside or Manchester to join me on my daily cycle commute into Manchester. This will give them a very real idea of who respects who on the roads in and around this area. I have asked them repeatedly to join my on my daily 10 mile commute down the A57 and never seem to get an answer! I wonder why??? :/
Darn shame, he could have
Darn shame, he could have joined us on Saturday with a couple of very nice, enthusiastic people from TFGM, who cycled up Wilmslow Road and back with 250 or so other cyclists.
Oh well, I’m sure he has plenty to teach me about respect. Say, at 10am on Saturday morning when we can cycle up and down Wilmslow/Oxford Road until teatime. We’ll both have learnt a lot about respect by then.
“Cycle awareness campaigns –
“Cycle awareness campaigns – British Cycling’s core philosophy is the need for mutual respect between all road users. [b]Often, awareness campaigns focus on what road users must do to improve their behaviour, however this can be counterproductive[/b]. Messages should be focussed on mutual respect such as the need to “share the road”, “look out for each other” and “leave plenty of space”.”
Taken from: (http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-network/2014/may/19/why-britains-top-cyclists-are-urging-their-councils-to-back-cycling)
I think this makes a good point. Any debate started with “X should do more” is not going to be very fruitful, as is focuses the narrative unnaturally (and unfairly) on X, when X is just a piece of something much greater. It doesn’t represent the real issues and the real situations that determine whether people live or die on the roads, and is thus utterly unprogressive.
There is no ‘us and them’. There is just a single, shared space. And until that space gets allocated a bit more sensibly, we all have to get by and use it effectively.
Of course, ‘allocating that space more sensibly’ is a key issue, but a separate one, unrelated to these sorts of comments thrown around about various subgroups and what they should or should not be doing.
Designing the road system should be about planning for the mistakes of the future, ironing them out, and ensuring they don’t end up being fatal. It’s a very different thing from throwing around the blame of the past.
Vaguely related, I first saw this today: (www.visionzeroinitiative.com). It’s a very agreeable concept. And it’s got a solid name too; everything seems more concrete when it’s given a name.
Cuts both ways in my opinion.
Cuts both ways in my opinion.
Respect is earned.
Lumping
Respect is earned.
Lumping all cyclists together as disrespectful lawbreakers is disrespectful in of itself.
It sounds to me like Conservative councillor Robin Garrido is asking people to respect him when he doesn’t respect them.
kie7077 wrote:Respect is
No it isn’t – it’s the default position.
If respect has to be earned then you are disrespectful to everyone until someone else demonstrates something to you that you can then respect. When you meet someone for the first time you don’t wait for them to ‘earn’ respect before being pleasant, do you?
If respect is the default then you respect everyone until an incident occurs that causes this respect to be lost BY THAT INDIVIDUAL and not the unlinked group
of individuals they may or may not associate themselves with.
teaboy wrote:kie7077
I think the disagreement is based on respect being a funny word with 2 definitions being quite far apart:
Many car drivers ‘wish’ I weren’t cycliing on the roads they use, they ‘feel’ I shouldn’t be there because I don’t pay road tax – which gives them the ‘right to be there’.
Now, who is disrespecting who? I certainly don’t feel respected on the roads even though I try to be courteous and helpful.
*can* airbags kill people?
*can* airbags kill people?
I have just read this thread
I have just read this thread after reading the sportive v. road race story. It seems that some cyclists cannot even show some respect to other cyclists. Examples like that are a breath of fresh air to the anti-cycling brigade and all the evidence they need to ‘prove’ their irrational dogma.
We = Cyclists. Nothing
We = Cyclists. Nothing mythical or confusing there.
But when I passed my driving test I did not hang up my bike, when I passed my hgv test I did not sell my car. I ride to work, jump behind the wheel spend a lot of time behind the wheel then ride home. The only thing I cannot claim to be is a motorcyclist.
I am not sure what that makes me, at one time I drove a large white van…. does that make me white van man? Would I like to defend their actions? I have spent most time driving a red van… are red van drivers worse or better than white van drivers?
So when people say that ‘we’ should show more respect, what am ‘I’ supposed to do? Hand out leaflets?
Presumably when handing out these leaflets I should not use a white van
Trying to define a person by their choice of transport is plain silly.
SideBurn wrote:We = Cyclists.
I wasn’t defining an entire demographic by using the word “we” and to suggest I am, is entirely missing the point I’ve made and is just plain silly.
Respect is a two way street
Respect is a two way street and the comment from a councillor that cyclists should show motorists some or more respect clearly indicates the mind set of the man. He is not necessarily pro-cars but he is certainly not pro-bikes. He probably wants to get out of the EU, is annoyed at the immigrants and detests teenagers out for a laugh of a weekend. All things of his Parties own making. Well, if you make the bed, you can lie in it.
I don’t want to get all political but I’m going to anyway. Since the 1980’s Tory Governments created the world we live in today; relatively selfish, short tempered, congested, and deregulated. We were encouraged to be pro-car and anti-public transport, pro-pedestrian and anti-cyclist. Well times have changed and we, the cycling electorate, want to see our roads less congested and our living spaces quieter and cleaner. To that end we need to be more even handed about cycling and public transport. In order of priority our road management policies should be as follows; pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, motorcycles, cars, lorries. Whenever there is potential conflict, cyclists and pedestrians should be put together in the same space.
No one complains if a pedestrian crosses a road when the traffic lights are Red because they are not directed at them and we need the same attitude towards cyclists. If a Cyclist filters through a Red light carefully and does not cross the path of oncoming traffic, or across traffic coming from the left, then I don’t see what the problem is. At all times the cyclist should be respectful of all other road users and pedestrians and so long as they are why should they be penalised? Where cyclists are concerned the spirit of the law is what matters, not the letter, but unfortunately there are too many pedants out there, who will never get passed the ‘rules’. When I drive I expect the unexpected and keep my eyes open for cyclists and motorcycles at all times. Being a motorcyclist, and cyclist too, probably helps my awareness but it really isn’t difficult. I just keep my mind on my driving and not on my mobile phone, lighting a cigarette, or the screaming kids, etc.
Things are getting better though. In Twickenham, I noticed the busy High Street T-junction has had the pavement dropped to allow cyclists to filter onto the footpath area and effectively through the lights in safety. A great idea and a bit of good sense by traffic managers. The principle should be duplicated everywhere it is possible to do so, not just at pinch points.