House of Lords to debate cycling "safety issues"

Was he slacking off, then?  I mean, I have it on good authority that the average cyclist in that there London is travelling at 52mph…

I can only see a pair gloves? I assume the phantom cyclist is wearing black, hence nobody can see them

I must admit when I first looked, I saw a scuba driver. It is probably a more accurate picture than any of the house of lords have.

I fully agree that with the Government target that 50% of all journeys will be walking, wheeling and cycling by 2030, a Government review of cycling safety is long overdue. The current personal costs and costs in emergency care, medical treatment, and life time care of cyclists severely injured by car drivers in this country should be front page news, but as a daily event, is not newsworthy.
Recently, on a trip to a charity of which l am a trustee, twice l had cars driven AT me along a single track road, as l was cycling to a passing place.
My wife has two bikes set up for shopping, attending Council meetings, and travelling to church services, and l noticed her starting to use her car for these journeys. My wife has stopped cycling because "l do not want to be an unnamed victim".
I fully understand that this debate, though, is about "lycra louts who NEARLY hit people" - but never do.

John Emms wrote:

I fully agree that with the Government target that 50% of all journeys will be walking, wheeling and cycling by 2030...

I fully approve, but I have approximately zero belief they're get near this - unless they successfully achieve an actual war on the motorist.

We're currently at (2022 NTS survey figures) 31% trips walked, 2% cycled (latter seems if anything a bit high).

I'd love to see it but have even less belief they'll be able to shift the dial on cycling by more than a percent or two within their current tenure*.  TBH if they really mean that they better hope the public transport system improves itself and start subsidising shoes really hard!

* It's an imponderable but there are estimates that we'd take 50 years to "get to being like NL" - and those are probably nonsense.  Even at an unlikely accelerated rate of change given 50 years we might look somewhat like NL looked say in the late 70s or 80s, just after they'd started changing direction.  They already had mass cycling then and widespread infra!

Being more positive Seville has managed "just good enough" and got up to around 10% of all journeys cycled in (now) about 18 years.  By focussing on a complete network but not covering the whole city they managed a remarkable increase in much less time.  (FWIW they also significantly reduced car use).

A: No.

A few "usual suspects" from our Noble Lords are going to get some gripes off their chests.  No doubt with the aid of a handful of anecdotes of "a criminal / antisocial cyclist did this - what are we going to do about that?"  And "many of my (elderly / disabled / visually impaired / concerned parent) constituents are very concerned ..."

No doubt "stricter penalties" and "addressing cyclist impunity (tabards, cycle registration)" etc. will be mooted.

Hopefully some of those who have some actual cycling experience will help weed out the completely fabricated tales slightly exaggerated details / supply some perspective.  Maybe some will even bring up sensible points like yours.

Maybe one or two - while duly noting the few issues and the (much much larger) concern of some - will find a way of bringing in the idea that in fact cycling is something we would be wise to massively encourage.  For a whole bunch of reasons but including everyone's health and safety [1] [2].  Including pedestrians and even motor vehicle occupants - who are still at risk from other motorists.  And one necessary part of this is addressing concerns about the cyclist's safety.

So I guess it's too much to hope that a Lord will stand up and say that this numpty's views are utterly moronic, and village (more like  major city) idiot level?

Cyclist fought long & hard to have the heirarchy system of vulnerable road uses made part of the Highway Code. Just as car drivers are supposed to look out for us, we as cyclists have to look out for those lower down the food chain and when in their presence adjust our riding style accordingly.

I agree 💯. But I'd also like the amount of political heat dedicated to each source of danger on our roads to be proportional to how dangerous each source is.

Capt Sisko wrote:

Cyclist fought long & hard to have the heirarchy system of vulnerable road uses made part of the Highway Code. Just as car drivers are supposed to look out for us, we as cyclists have to look out for those lower down the food chain and when in their presence adjust our riding style accordingly.

That's not an entirely accurate representation (framing it as a 'hierarchy' hasn't been entirely helpful here). The larger/faster/more dangerous your means of transportation is, the greater the duty you have to take care of the safety of others, but the relevant section of the Highway Code begins

Quote:

It is important that ALL road users are aware of The Highway Code, are considerate to other road users and understand their responsibility for the safety of others.

Seems there's still zero interest in "meddling in the market" by restrictively regulating what is offered for sale.  Or the freewheeling delivery companies with their "we don't have employees, we just offer our dispensible, cheap, deniable valued partners flexible opportunities" ways (IIRC I read somewhere they've already got pals in the new government).  Indeed I'm sure the various delivery firms, makers of electric motorbikes and perhaps even online "mobility shops" are lobbying the new lot e.g. to expand what is legal / add categories of powered vehicles which can use cycle infra, same as the old lot.

Why would you think that? Statistically its cyclists that cause the most injuries and death on our roads to pedestrians and cyclists are the most protected group of any road users. Right? Right?

That's interesting. Please provide us with the source of your information.

Sarcasm