MIDNIGHT DEADLINE to reply to Highway Code consultation; “Nobody who lives in London needs an SUV” – Twitter debate rages as Keir Starmer hits cyclist; Council accused of hypocrisy over cycleway + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Anti-LTN group in hot water for condoning moving injured pedestrian to improve 'traffic flow'
OneWandsworth, an anti-LTN group, have faced widespread criticism for suggesting it was necessary to move an injured pedestrian to improve ‘traffic flow’.
ACCIDENT #A24 #tooting on 26/10/20
Pedestrian was hit by a motorbike and collapsed onto road
Bystanders assisting had to manually get him off road onto pavement to allow traffic to flow
See video when police & ambulance van comes they can’t even park due to wands! pic.twitter.com/mkTZfZP1m1
— OneWandsworth (@OWandsworth) October 26, 2020
Many have pointed out that the injured pedestrian should not have been moved in any case to prioritise traffic flow.
Jessica Nilsson replied: “This post is extremely distasteful for so many reasons – please consider taking it down. Moved with potential spine or other injuries and what you mention is traffic flow (even though the accident was due to motor vehicle traffic in the first place)?”
Another added: “No one had to move anyone. People chose to risk someone’s life by moving them to allow traffic to flow.”
The controversy over the incident stemmed from OneWandsworth claiming the ambulance and police vehicles attending the scene were slowed down due to the new segregated cycle lane which has been installed on the A24.
In the video the ambulance can be seen reversing to avoid congestion.
OneWandsworth deny condoning moving the pedestrian
We DO NOT advocate moving injured
The wands and road closures restrict movement of cars inhibiting free flow for emergency services
Cars unable to give way due to #wands
Police & LAS can’t park so goes into next side rd.
Bystanders panic&move victim so LAS can get there!
— OneWandsworth (@OWandsworth) October 27, 2020
If you missed Chris Boardman on Desert Island Discs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000ntrq
Chris Boardman received plenty of praise for his appearance on Desert Island Discs and his music choices which include a Freddie Mercury song about the city he won Olympic gold in.
Questionable kit choices
Probably not one for your Sunday cafe ride…
Reaction to Keir Starmer collision with cyclist
Thankfully the cyclist involved in the collision with Keir Starmer on Sunday suffered just a minor injury to his arm and was taken to hospital as a “precaution”.
The incident has prompted some to speculate about Jeremy Corbyn’s movements on Sunday lunchtime…
Police have released an image from Kier Starmer’s dash cam moments before the collision. pic.twitter.com/lPm5IkKdps
— föxintheböx2001 ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜 (@foxinthebox2010) October 27, 2020
£162 frame pump
Rapha are no strangers to expensive cycling products and their latest release is no exception.
The collaboration with SILCA will set you back an eye-watering £162 with the smaller IMPERO mini-pump costing £115.
Zero positive COVID-19 tests at the Vuelta
Joint Unipublic-UCI statement concerning the testing campaign carried out on the first rest day of la Vuelta 2020 https://t.co/LC2pjC9LEt #Vuelta2020 #vuelta20
— UCI_media (@UCI_media) October 27, 2020
All 684 COVID-19 tests at La Vuelta a Espana were negative during the first week of the race.
The riders and staff were tested on Monday’s rest day with the action resuming this afternoon on stage seven from Vitoria-Gasteiz to Villanueva de Valdegovia.
Behind the scenes of Giro third week
Team Sunweb have released this behind the scenes look at their third week at the Giro d’Italia.
It would ultimately end in disappointment for the team with Jai Hindley losing the Maglia Rosa to Tao Geoghegen Hart on the final stage.
Wilco Kelderman rounded out the podium with Sunweb in second and third.
North Tyneside Council face backlash over plans to remove 'Sunrise Cycleway'
We’ve secured funding for a fleet of electric Cargo bikes to help improve air quality, promote sustainable travel and support businesses.
Read more: https://t.co/KOZU0jYPAr@BLNorthTyneside @morecobalt @WhitleyBayCoT @rideelectricgo pic.twitter.com/K36a2UKwCe
— North Tyneside Council (@NTCouncilTeam) October 26, 2020
North Tyneside Council faced criticism on Twitter for promoting their new fleet of electric cargo bikes in a video shot on the segregated ‘Sunrise Cycleway’ that runs from Whitley Bay to Tynemouth.
Local residents and cyclists pointed out the hypocrisy of the council celebrating the infrastructure to promote the cargo bikes while also having no plan to keep the segregated cycleway beyond a temporary measure.
FILMED ON THE @SUNRISECYCLEWAY WHICH YOU ARE RIPPING UP NEXT WEEK? SERIOUSLY? Over 28 local Doctors have written to NTC to extend the project for health reasons – ignored by the council.#sunrisecycleway #COVID
Sign the petition – save the Sunrise Cycleway https://t.co/Va7es0FWCX pic.twitter.com/ps6V9jF9RO— Billy Biketruck (@Biketruck) October 26, 2020
Dozens of local doctors and other NHS staff have backed the campaign to keep the segregated cycleway permanently and the petition currently has more than 5,000 signatures.
The cheek of it! To actually show the cargo bikes on the @SunriseCycleway when you’re about to rip it up is unbelievable! Make sure you show the everyday reality of the cargo bikes on a shared road with a queue of angry motorists behind it.
— Max (@Maxneeodz) October 27, 2020
Councillor Sarah Day said: “It is great news that we have secured this funding for a fleet of new e-Cargo bikes – we are leading by example in shifting towards greener and more sustainable forms of transport.”
Cycleway users have been left disappointed that the council’s commitment to more sustainable forms of transport will not stretch to keeping the segregated lane open permanently.
Sussex Police worker hits pedestrian while cycling on pavement
Incidents between pedestrians and cyclists remain thankfully very rare with just 2% of cases in which pedestrians sustained serious injuries involving cyclists, compared to 81% that involved drivers of cars.
The police worker in this video collided with a 73-year-old man while cycling on the pavement in Worthing leaving John Wilson with facial injuries.
Sussex Police confirmed the cyclist worked for their force and their ‘Professional Standards Department’ would investigate the case to determine if there was any need for disciplinary action.
Speaking to The Argus, Wilson believes he is “lucky to be alive.”
“I was whacked straight in the face, I hit the ground. I’m very annoyed at watching the video as I’m a human being with a terminal illness and I think he thought of me like a piece of dirt.
“It’s his attitude. I hit the floor and he did not ring an ambulance – a neighbour had to ring an ambulance.”
Of collisions with pedestrians that resulted in death, just 1% were involved with cyclists. Incidents between car drivers and pedestrians were the leading cause of pedestrian deaths, accounting for 68% of cases.
Sussex Police aim to educate cyclists instead of issuing fines
Sussex Police have announced a scheme to improve safety by educating cyclists about bike lights.
The operation will run from1 November to 31 January and will involve police officers educating cyclists rather than issuing fixed penalty notices.
PCSO Richard Moorey explained the scheme: “If a member of public is seen riding a cycle during the hours of darkness whilst the operation is on, they will been given the opportunity to purchase a set of bike lights, and bring their bike into the police station to show the lights have been purchased and fitted.”
“This will mean no further action will be taken and no fixed penalty notice will be issued.”
Dangerous break at La Vuelta
🏁 Etapa 7 – Stage 7 | #LaVuelta20
🇪🇸 Es el propio @alejanvalverde quien tensa la fuga, que aumenta su ventaja💨
🇬🇧 Valverde himself pushes the break to grow the gap 🔥👉https://t.co/zqaO4Bw62K pic.twitter.com/7ZnGvwWzmc
— La Vuelta (@lavuelta) October 27, 2020
It’s stage seven in Spain and seemingly half the race is in the breakaway.
Alejandro Valverde is the best-placed rider on GC up the road, three minutes behind race leader Richard Carapaz.
The Movistar veteran is joined by around 35 riders including Jumbo-Visma duo Sepp Kuss and George Bennett.
First Japanese cyclist arrested for reckless riding and road rage
A Japanese man has become the first cyclist to be arrested under the revised ‘Road Traffic Law’ for reckless riding and road rage.
Akihiko Narushima was arrested after interfering with drivers as seen in the video above.
Narushima can be seen deliberately swerving towards cars up to four times.
The 33-year-old was then arrested later in the day after allegedly grabbing a car driver’s relative who cautioned him about his reckless riding.
Decisive moments at La Vuelta
We’re on the final climb of the day in Spain… Dorian Gaodon (AG2R) is about to be caught by the the breakaway.
Ineos are raising the pace back in the peloton.
"Nobody who lives in London needs an SUV"
Nobody who lives in London needs an SUV. Honestly, I think they should be outlawed just for being obnoxious. https://t.co/TPunzReoQ0
— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) October 27, 20
The news that Keir Starmer was involved in a collision with a cyclist on Sunday has sparked much debate on social media.
Top of the pile was Ash Sarkar, who recieved hundreds of replies to her tweet stating that SUVs should be outlawed for being “obnoxious”.
Nobody in London needs a bike either. I think they are children’s toys and not an appropriate mode of transportation.
— Ben #KBF (@Ben_Boh93) October 27, 2020
Unless you live/work on a farm or enjoy driving off roads, you don’t need one. Can’t count the number of times back home in Norfolk I’ve had to drive onto a bank to avoid a driver with a SUV that doesn’t want to get it muddy.
— Ben (@HoppingJackdaw) October 27, 2020
Michael Woods wins stage 7 of La Vuelta a Espana
🏁Etapa 7 | Stage 7
🙋🏻♂️🏆 MICHAEL WOODS @rusty_woods 🏆#LaVuelta20 pic.twitter.com/wFgISosWkF
— La Vuelta (@lavuelta) October 27, 2020
Final chance to support Cycling UK's proposed Highway Code changes
Do you want to help put an end to serious issues like close passing and car dooring?
We’re proposing 10 key changes to the #HighwayCode to make our roads safer for people cycling – and it’s consultation deadline day! Have your say before it’s too late: https://t.co/vKuEzaWBQn pic.twitter.com/PmY5dxtp2b
— Cycling UK (@WeAreCyclingUK) October 27, 2020
Midnight tonight is the deadline for you to have your say and support Cycling UK’s campaign to help the Highway Code better protect cyclists.
Cycling UK have been involved in pre-consultation with the Department for Transport and have suggested 10 key changes to the Highway Code.
These changes include better protection for cyclists in cases of close passes and giving priority to road users travelling straight at unsignalled left turns.
More than 15,000 people have already contributed to the campaign with suggestions and comments about the current Highway Code and the deadline for any further input is midnight tonight.
27 October 2020, 09:13
27 October 2020, 09:13
27 October 2020, 09:13
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 £1.99. 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.
61 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Some years ago (before there was a cycle lane) I used to commute on Sidmouth St. But only because I worked on the London Road campus, from anywhere else there are better alternatives. As a cycle route it runs from between two busy roads, neither of which are exactly cycle friendly. So it's hardly surprising that no cyclists use it.
The officer's comments unfortunately reflect the reality of UK law. While the Highway Code guidance indeed refers to 1.5m, that is not anywhere in the law. And the criteria in law for proving a charge of careless driving does in fact rest on whether the rider is being "inconvenienced", as the discovered several years ago when the Met prosecuted a taxi driver who nearly hit me when cutting into my lane from the left near Marylebone. The prosecution lawyer was a barely competent newbie who fumbled over his words. The court computer was barely capable of playing the video footage, which kept freezing and crashing. The cabbie had an highly assertive defence lawyer who immediately seized on this point, and argued to the magistraite that I clearly hadn't been "inconvenienced" because I had not stopped or swerved, and had carried on my journey. Never mind that didn't have time to do either of those things, or that I was centimetres from being hit - the magistraite acquitted him on those grounds. That is unfortunately the outrageous reality of actually prosecuting a close pass incident. I know it's popular to blame the police and the CPS for not prosecuting enough close passes ... but the fact is the law is inadequate, and if the driver has a good lawyer then they can likely get off most close pass prosecutions.
Let's not forget the protruding "side" mirror...
HTML rules are clearly only partially implemented
please can we have the ability to use bold and italics for emphasis back as well?
As a Reading resident and cyclist, I can say I cannot think of a single occasion when I have seen a cyclist using the Sidmouth St cycle lane, nor can I think of any reason I'd use it myself. It doesn't connect to any other useful cycle routes. I don't rejoice that some of it is going back to motor traffic but I can see why the council is proposing to do that. Reading could really do with a cycleway to cross the town centre west to east and east to west but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Giant are one of the most trustworthy brands out there when it comes to manufacturing components given that they actually own their own production facilities. None of that matters though when it comes to road hookless, I and most other people won't touch it with a barge pole. We're surely at a stage now where it's toxic amongst consumers and it's only a matter of time before the UCI ban it for racing.
Filling the road with one person per car is using the road space more efficiently, amazing, I never realised that.
I bought a Giant Defy recently and immediately sold off the hookless wheels at a pretty big loss and won't ever do that again. I'm not buying hookless for road ever. Giant in particular has very short list of what tires they test with their rims so it's way too restrictive even if I was going to ride hookless wheels. Which I won't. Very short sighted by Giant.
Insulting someone on the basis of their ethnicity, gender or sexuality is a hate crime, calling them fat isn't. It would be the homophobia, not the fat-shaming, for which he was charged.
61 thoughts on “MIDNIGHT DEADLINE to reply to Highway Code consultation; “Nobody who lives in London needs an SUV” – Twitter debate rages as Keir Starmer hits cyclist; Council accused of hypocrisy over cycleway + more on the live blog”
Car hits pedestrian – anger
Car hits pedestrian – anger vented on cyclists. What a f***ked up world we live in.
That – and the mind-numbing
That – and the mind-numbing ignorance insisting that more space for cars = freer flowing cars. Twats.
*Motorbike hits pedestrian
*Motorbike hits pedestrian
That’s a horrible stretch of
That’s a horrible stretch of road. It’s very busy and also very narrow. I ride my motorbike and cycle down there regularly. I avoid driving the car there if at all possible. The cycle lanes have not worsened the situation for cars, which were pretty much bumper to bumper and moving at a crawl beforehand. But they have made things a bit trickier for motorcyclists in various points as the cycle lanes have taken up space. I always take care there.
So a motorcyclist hits a
So a motorcyclist hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian is blocking motor vehicles, so the passersby move them? WTAF? And then, as if that wasn’t bad enough (it is) the local car addicts use it to prove that cycle facilities are dangerous because they inhibit motor vehicles?
I thought the world was quite fu***d up enough already, without totally stupid, ignorant, crass, incompetent, insane f*****rs f******ing it up even more.
eburtthebike wrote:
…and breathe.
To retain being abe to
To retain being abe to breathe, keep away from any media concerning One Wandsworth and similar ‘local’ groups like One Oval. They follow the same infuriating logic and despite managing to recruit a minority of loud angry locals to their cause, their funding and origin is suspect and almost certainly didn’t originate in the local areas they are supposedly fighting for.
markieteeee wrote:
I doubt that “they” are “local”, are “they” even “groups”? Or is it some mouth-breathing cellar-dweller, who is only ever outdoors to get from the cave to the car.
Bugger, I’ve worn out my ” ” ” key…..
To be fair to Rapha, the
To be fair to Rapha, the Silca Impero Ultimate Frame Pump will set you back that much whether or not you get it in the Rapha colour scheme.
I don’t see why you would want to have it in the Rapha colour scheme (black is fine, or else get it painted to match your frame) but each to their own I guess.
Hope that old boy makes a
Hope that old boy makes a recovery, as much as he can. Road CC, it might be the case that there are single-digit percentage serious iinjuries on pavements due to cyclists, but it’s kn0bheads like that that cause it to be >0%….
Captain Badger wrote:
I’ve just watched again. I’m staggered, at no point did he go and see to the old boy. WTF???
Captain Badger wrote:
Likewise, that seemed utterly callous and uncaring. If I’d hit a pedestrian walking legally on the footpath while illegally and dangerously riding my bike on that footpath, I’d be rushing to their assistance. Would have been very enlightening to hear what they were saying.
I know from bitter experience that not all cyclists are angels, but this guy has just given the anti-cycling lobby a year’s worth of ammunition.
Captain Badger wrote:
At one point he does examine his own hand to make sure it’s okay.
To me it looks like this
To me it looks like this thoughtless jerk cycled where he shouldn’t have, too fast, knocked someone down, made no effort to see if they were ok or comfort them, call an ambulence etc.
Dolt in the extreme ;-(
NZ Vegan Rider wrote:
Quite
On the basis of that Vid, the
On the basis of that Vid, the rider certainly appears to be a bit of a callous knob. Never even approaced the casualty, and the body language all looks very defensive
I was thinking “Don’t you
I was thinking “Don’t you dare just check your bicycle and ride off”, but his apparent lack of concern and failure to render assistance was almost as bad. Maybe he was worried about making a bad situation worse? Hope the elderly gentleman makes a swift recovery from any injuries he received during the incident and most importantly a full apology from the cyclist involved.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I know, the bike would have been fine anyway as it was wearing a helmet [ducks]
HoarseMann wrote:
Helmet ducks? Y’mean like this?
I feel a bit of caution needs
I feel a bit of caution needs to be applied before putting the boot in too hard here.
The error of the day was cycling on the pavement, everything else is projection.
It appears as if words were quickly exchanged between the two, which may have had an influence on the cyclists stand off demenour. He might be a callous git, he might have been nervous about getting too close… he might have simply been in shock!
We don’t know, so I’m all good for saying, the guys an idiot for riding on the pavement, not so good questionning his morality beyond that.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
You’re clearly more charitable than I, however, your caution is commendable
I agree. We are only hearing
I agree. We are only hearing one side here and on the video he is talking to the old lady quite calmly from what I can see. If he wanted to be incognito, why even tell them he worked for the Police and the Police have mentioned he gave his name at the time.
He was defininite a knob for the initial cycling though.
Not defending that cyclist,
Not defending that cyclist, who should have been taking more care before and after the collision, and appears to be committing an offence by cycling on a footway. BUT:
Successive ministers have advised ACPO/NPCC not to prosecute footway cycling where it is in fear of motor traffic and is otherwise done considerately. So let’s not make this about all cyclists on any footway anywhere. It’s just that one, right there.
Also, one of my pet peeves, as a pedestrian, is people stepping from a shop door right out into the middle of the pavement without looking where they are going or who’s coming. They force me to dodge them as I walk, and it’s inconsiderate. It could have been any pedestrian, runner, child buggy who hit him. Rule 1 (for pedestrians) ends, “Always show due care and consideration for others.” He did not appear to take much effort to look. He might have been entitled to be there, but he contributed to his own misfortune.
And finally… the cameo appearance of irony in this shot is the “No Waiting; No Loading; No Parking” bollard adjacent, carefully guarded by a parked van, a parked motor bike and a nearby parked car (partially parked on the footway), all making the carriageway much narrower and more hostile for cycling.
GMBasix wrote:
Welcome to the comments.
I’m usually firmly on the side of riders (not tribally of course, just cos mutter mutter) and am not averse to hopping on pavements myself with caution. However, when on my bike it is my job to ensure I don’t hurt anyone. I don’t think we would entertain the argument about contributing to his own misfortune had he been hit by a car, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect to be able to step out of a shop without being knocked off your feet – particularly considering elderly, disabled, partially sighted or hard of hearing pedestrians
Agreed on the parking issue – that should have been enforced, but it does not carry any bearing re absolving the rider from responsibility. When cycling I believe you are supposed to take into account local conditions
Captain Badger wrote:
I think it’s reasonable to expect somebody to look before they step out of a shop and not just assume the way is clear. It is not reasonable to expect to be able to step out of a property onto the highway without looking. Not doing so could mean you collide with anybody already using the footway. In this instance it was a person on a bicycle (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his padded shorts); another time he could have ploughed into a toddler running away from its vexed parent. To that extent, he contributed, albeit partially, to his misfortune.
GMBasix wrote:
I’m pretty sympathetic to the pedestrian here, and I say that as a guy who always looks before stepping out. It’s been ingrained on me at work, where not doing so may get me creamed by anything from a 5 tonne forklift to a 100 tonne track-type tractor.
99.9% of pedestrians walking on that pavement would have had no trouble avoiding him. Nor would the vast majority of pavement cyclists. “Oops, sorry, that was close” and we’re both on our way.
It looked to me as if the
It looked to me as if the pedestrian walked into the side of the cyclist, who still should have been taking more care.
ChasP wrote:
It’s a view. Of course the hierarchy of liability (that doesn’t yet exist in teh UK, but whose foundations are being put in place with the current amendments to the highway code) would probably side with those on foot.
That must be one of those
That must be one of those Lycra Clad Louts I keep on hearing about.
Hope the gentleman is okay.
He was going too fast and too
He was going too fast and too close to the shop doorway, end of. If you must ride on the pavement then you do it at little more than walking pace when anything like this can happen (peds about)…and you should be prepared to stop and wait/walk at all times where necessary
EddyBerckx wrote:
Exactly
Guys, the anti LTN peeps have
Guys, the anti LTN peeps have already been found out. The vast majority of people in the UK want LTN’s and a small minority of trolls wont change that now – chill! – or write to your local council to support them if there is still debate in your area
Quote:
Is he saying that someone should have been able to tell by sight that he had a terminal illness?
I thought modern etiquette is “don’t ask, don’t tell” (referencing all the no-masks-in-shops controversies now, and the disabled-seats-on-public-transport controversies pre-Covid).
And (added, edited) isn’t it possible that the cyclist didn’t go up and check on the bloke up-close-and-personal because of Covid rather than callousness? Certainly (watching without sound) looks like he spoke to him. Doesn’t excuse not phoning for an ambulance, though, if that’s the case.
And, and, when I’m leaving a doorway onto a pavement nowadays, I ALWAYS go out slowly and carefully and watch for people approaching (not pavement cyclists, admittedly, just folk).
A non-cycle based observation
A non-cycle based observation but nobody who stepped in to help the bloke on the pavement nor who decided to shift the injured person, to allow traffic to flow, thought to put on a mask on before doing so.
My understanding is you would
My understanding is you would only move a casualty if it was in their interests to do so, i.e. they were in real danger where they were.
Quelle surprise a policeman
Quelle surprise a policeman breaking the law, riding on a pavement where there is a road to cycle on, Road traffic act 2005.
Whilst ignorance is not a defence, that should be doubly so for a policeman.
I see it far to often, people on bikes on pavements and the police letting them do so.
didsthewinegeek wrote:
A ‘police worker’, not a police officer.
didsthewinegeek wrote:
I believe that Paul Boateng gave the direction to use discretion back in 1999 when it was made an FPN offence. Robert Goodwill reiterated this request in 14
Captain Badger wrote:
Yes, discretion. I take that to mean to not arrest every cyclist pootling quietly and with care along a pavement just because it’s a pavement, but to use the legislation to target idiots like this one.
Sriracha wrote:
I would concur
From North Tyneside Council’s
From North Tyneside Council’s Transport Strategy:
“i.Improve safety, health and well-being outcomes and sustainability;” and:
“More people are cycling; the proportion of North Tyneside residentswho cycle to work increased by 20% in the ten years to 2011.Cycling in the borough has trebled in the past decade” and:
“8i.How to improve safety, health, wellbeing and environmental sustainability; challenges include supporting healthy lifestyles and improving health through increased physical activity such as cycling and walking; ensuring that local air quality continues to meetgoodstandards; and meeting the challenge of climate change by supporting transport options which reduce carbon emissions, It is also important that travellers feel safe as they use our network”
Just like South Gloucestershire, these policies and strategies are decorative only, not, under any circumstances to actually be implemented. I’ll bet their sustainability, environment and health policies all speak glowingly about cycling too.
I’ve just watched the police
I’ve just watched the police worker collision, as far as I can see he was cycling far to fast for the circumstances, forcing his way,at speed through the pedestrians at the start of the video, he then swerved towards the shops/houses whilst looking at his handlebars. Seems to me to be a textbook example of an arrogant dick.
Agreed ;-(
Agreed ;-(
Gus T wrote:
He was cycling illegally on the pavement. No excuse for it.
pedestrian-pete wrote:
Paul Boateng, Govt Minister, 1999:
“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.
“Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road. Sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
Oh – and, Mr First Post – go back to your bridge! 😉
brooksby wrote:
There is no reason for adults to cycle on the pavement. Completely understand that there are sections of road that people may feel uncomfortable cycling along. In which case they could stop, get off their bike and push it along the pavement, and everybody is safe.
Sorry… I don’t understand… should my first post have been extolling the virtues of cycling?
pedestrian-pete wrote:
And you registered and joined the road.cc community because…?
Possibly because a previous
Possibly because a previous incarnation got ‘vanished’?
I think reasons for adults
I think reasons for adults cycling on pavements were covered in Brooksby’s comment, quoting Paul Boateng. In addition, there seems to be cross-party agreement as this view was further endorsed by one Mr Goodwill in ’14. The discretion mentioned would clearly allow action to be taken in this case, but also makes the “no excuse” opinion just that – an opinion.
Personally, I’m not about to start frothing and renew my Daily Heil subscription if I see a grown-up on a bike whilst on the pavement, provided they’re being sensible.
Quote:
You trot out these figures as if they convey some meaning. However without comparing the relative numbers of bicycles versus motor vehicles at large, they are meaningless. It’s no different than saying that far fewer injuries are caused by motorists driving V8s compared to 4-cylinder cars, with the implication that V8 drivers are therefore not part of the problem.
Sriracha wrote:
There are many and various ways of displaying data, some more informative and accurate than others. Using a pie chart of miles travelled isn’t particularly helpful when a large segment of those miles is travelled by motor vehicles on motorways from which pedestrians are banned, skewing the data against cyclists. A fairer comparison would be urban miles for motor vehicles and bicycles, the places where pedestrians are actually at risk.
Sriracha wrote:
can you provide the same chart but with miles in urban environments where collissions with pedestrians take place?
Your argument seems to be that cars cause 68% of deaths but 77% of miles travelled while cyclists are 1% and 1% therefore if all cyclists switched to cars safety would increase.
Sriracha wrote:
Indeed. relatively few casualties on motorways with massive amounts of miles driven. Strike that out to include only roads used by all and we’d get a fairer picture still.
It’s still the case that drivers as a group (of which I am one) impose a disproportionate amount of mayhem on the populace at large thorugh collisions. That’s not even accounting for deaths by pollution, and degradation to life quality through noise, restriction of movement and soaking up the public space, amongst other things.
Sure, I understand that you
Sure, I understand that you might want to compare only urban miles – but at least we need some basis of comparison.
Simply stating the raw figures with no comparison is misleading, probably deliberately so. And it finds receptive minds here; I constantly see arguments advanced here on the lines of, deal with the motorists first, they are the bigger problem [i]because so few injuries are caused by cyclists compared to motorist[/i]. On the same basis you would ignore injuries by motorists in brown cars.
The case for cycling is good enough without appealing to a deceptive use of statistics. In fact, doing so can only be counterproductive.
Sriracha wrote:
You are correct, we do. And I for one do not think there is a case to “ignore this until we have dealt with that”. Concurrent activity is obviously possible with enough resource. In the case at hand, my view is that the rider was entirely at fault, and in addition, I believe Road’s immediate “but this hardly ever happens” was unhelpful (I believe my comments on this thread attest to that view).
However, any suggestion that bikes are an equal risk as cars either in frequency of collisions, or outcomes of collisions when they do happen would need to be rigorously argued – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Captain Badger wrote:
And of course I never made any such claim. It just rankles with me when stats are used in a deliberately deceptive way. I’m quite sure that a mile cycled is less harmful on any measure than a mile driven, and I don’t think that deceptive use of stats helps advance that argument.
Sriracha wrote:
I think we can agree that it would be fascinating to see more nuanced breakdowns of teh stats than the usual tired old broadbrush.
The pavement cyclist was
The pavement cyclist was going far too fast so no question he is at fault as he shouldn’t have been on the pavement in the first place (though one can see why he might not have been keen on the very unwelcoming road).
But the pedestrian walked into him rather than the cyclist hitting the pedestrian. If the pedestrian had walked out of a shop without looking and banged into a mobility scooter or a pushchair would he also have been complaining that he had been treated like a piece of dirt? If he walked into someone older and more frail than him, who would he want to blame them?
Particularly in the current times where keeping distance from other people is important, is it too much to ask that people don’t stride out of shops without checking the pavement is clear of other people?
Zigster wrote:
Then he should have been pushing his bike along the pavement, and maybe nobody would have got hurt.
You don’t know that the pedestrian didn’t look. Maybe they looked through the shop window and saw the pavement was clear and walked out, not expecting there to be an idiot cycling illegally on the pavement.
Zigster wrote:
Should someone walk out and bump into another it’s a case of “watch where you’re going” and nothing more. Certainly not a black eye (unless things get heated)
Those driving mobility scoots have a duty of care too, and driving at a speed likely to knock someone over would be irresponsible.
It is clear in the video that the rider is going too fast, and his actions resulted in injury to someone else. That is the circumstance at hand.
I caught the Chris Boardan
I caught the Chris Boardan desert island discs this morning, quite lovely it was and less anti cycling than eBurts BBC normally is. I was a bit disappointed that they don’t play all of the song, though it is Radio 4, more talking and less music.