[IanMSpencer]

See https://issuu.com/immediatemediabrandedcontent/docs/iam_006_digital_combined_pdf/60

– the letter titled “Cycling co-operation needed”.

(If the link is dodgy, it is on page 63 as per the printed version)

I had a bit of a wobbly at the IAM for publishing this letter without editorial comment in this month’s members mag. As an IAM member as well as a cyclist, I was surprised they published a letter with the rather snyde descriptions of cyclists – but also published opinions on the safety of cycle lanes contradictory to their own professional view. The real gem is that the author basically says if you get killed by not cycling in a cycle lane, then whose fault is it? The writer also does not understand bunch cycling – while claiming to be a cyclist –  I believe the writer could be our very own NG!

As a member, we are taught observation, but also that the attitude we bring to driving is part and parcel of the skills. Here we have a member claiming to be an advanced driver, who does not understand how cyclists use the road, and objects to the advice he has received from the police on the matter.

I’ve written a stroppy complaint asking for an apology to cyclists from the Letters Editor and that they publish a suitable article in the body of the magazine addressing the issue of how cyclists use the road. We will see how far it gets!

What comments do you think I should have made? Have I over-reacted?

Topic

[IanMSpencer]

Reading the response I got,

Reading the response I got, it appears Michael Dunn and I are not in tune with the required attitudes for membership!

[IanMSpencer]

Well, I nearly choked on my

Well, I nearly choked on my Rice Krispies this morning when I read the reply:

 

Hi Ian

Your letter has been passed to me for attention and I have also consulted with colleagues and the Magazine Editorial team.

We’ve printed a range of letters recently about cycling, and in fact the Star Letter in the Summer 2021 issue was very pro-cycling, and critical of inconsiderate drivers, which then led to the letter you have taken issue with.

In our view the Letters page is exactly the place where this sort of back-and-forth belongs – there have been various issues where members have responded to each other’s views, sometimes in support of them (Smart motorways were unanimously unpopular), or often opposed to them (we’ve had a lot of conflicting views on EVs, for instance).

 All selected letters are printed without editorial comment  as that is the point of that particular section of the magazine.  We tend to avoid putting  ‘the official IAM RoadSmart’ view after every letter as that could suggest that that’s the end of the matter, rather than encouraging members to write in with their letters of dis/agreement.  It is also one of the most popular sections when we survey our readers.

We would be happy to print an edited version of your response (with your full permission and agreement to any changes of course) as a contribution to the next letters page.  It is unfortunate that our magazine is only printed four times a year which does make a swift  interchange of views more difficult.  We are also taking a look at the Letters page layout to ensure it is clear that it conveys no endorsement by IAM RoadSmart, and are considering adding a short statement along the lines of  ‘Views expressed are those of the correspondents and not IAM RoadSmart’.

 I can also assure you that cycling will be featured heavily in the next few edition as we move towards the major changes in the Highway Code due to be launched in Spring 2022.  These will be presented both for information and comment.

 Thank you for taking the trouble to contact IAM RoadSmart.

 Best wishes

 Neil

I am struggling to see any acknowledgement of any inappropriate content of the Griffiths letter, yet there is implied criticism in the mischaracterisation of the prior star letter.

Not impressed.

[lonpfrb]

hirsute wrote:

hirsute wrote:

They don’t seem to be very advanced.

Also some people distort the truth

I think that the best of this site is the experience and critical thinking of the regulars. A tiny minority of trolls like to bluster, but get the contempt they deserve.

Whilst there is no barrier to self-identity as an advanced driver, membership of the IAM is a tough standard usually examined by serving traffic division class one or actual examiners.

So critical thinking and continued improvement is expected of IAM members.

They are the drivers or riders most likely to pay due care and attention to all vulnerable road users. In short, the good guys and girls.

So while skeptical, we should celebrate best practice as much as we deplore some of the stupidity that we see. That’s fair and balanced. We could even consider recommending that to our friends and family who won’t cycle to raise the general driving standard and keep them safer.

PS: you don’t have to be a full member to write in so the letters page doesn’t represent IAM members only.

[Ian Carey]

I am sure that the IAM has

I am sure that the IAM has many sensible members, yourself included. However, of the three letters on the page I viewed, two do not appear to respect the right of cyclistists to ride on the road and the other advocates the return of steam engines for cars.  Does IAM mean the Institute of Ancient Motorists?

[hawkinspeter]

brooksby wrote:

I’m alright, then: I don’t wear lycra when I’m riding a bike 😀

I can see the next angry letter featuring a complaint about the lycra brigade trying to hide themselves by not wearing any lycra.

[brooksby]

Ride On wrote:

Ride On wrote:

The use of “lycra brigade” I think demonstrates the author’s views on the hierarchy of road users.

I’m alright, then: I don’t wear lycra when I’m riding a bike 😀

[hawkinspeter]

joe9090 wrote:

Ask them kindly for a bit of driver cooperation and insist that all cars stick to the motorways – after all we did built them for cars, why can they not stay on them?

Furthermore, it’s very inconsiderate for motorists to run their noisy, filthy machines on roads that people live along – why should residents have to put up with it? Keep them on the motorways that were built at great expense for them.

[joe9090]

Ask them kindly for a bit of

Ask them kindly for a bit of driver cooperation and insist that all cars stick to the motorways – after all we did built them for cars, why can they not stay on them?

[lonpfrb]

Awavey wrote:

Awavey wrote:

which seems totally the wrong attitude even from average motorists, but as members of an organisation that promotes road safety to improve driving, surely it goes against everything the organisation puports to be about.

Absolutely correct. As I say, anybody with an interest in improvement can become an associate member, and over time will get advice, i.e. correction, of their beliefs. I’ve never met an IAM full member who didn’t expect to exceed the legal minimum that the Highway Code provides, and although we await the improved version with further clarification, the previous versions are clear about the importance of due care and attention to vulnerable road users.

If only publication of that guidance was likely to have the intended effect on all road users…

[Ride On]

The use of “lycra brigade” I
The use of “lycra brigade” I think demonstrates the author’s views on the hierarchy of road users.

[Ride On]

This is local to me and for a
This is local to me and for a time formed part of my commute.

It is narrow bumpy, littered with leaves twigs and other debris. It is a shared path often used by dog walkers.

Like many cycle paths it is entirely unsuitable as a cycle path for anything other than pootling along with small children.

That section of road however is reasonably flat and sheltered from the prevailing wind and is pretty fast averaging 36kmh or I can avg 18-24kmh on the cycle path complete with stop / start and punctures. Check out the segment “sandford to organford sprint” on strava used by over 9000 cyclists.

Please push back with a clear message to these advanced motorists that they can expect to find on the road: wild animals, farm animals, pedestrians including children, cyclists, people in disabled vehicles, horse riders, skips, traffic lights, potholes, debris, tractors and broken down vehicles, in fact lots of things they probably would rather not have there. Driving with care, to the conditions is the best way to avoid any collisions if that doesnt work for them please could they return their licences to the DVLA and buy a railcard.

[chrisonabike]

wycombewheeler wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:

He will have a mental explosion at the idea of IAM promoting going to places simply to drive cars on interesting bits of roads rather than making journeys.

I don’t know, I got the impression he was arguing that we should load our bikes in the car and take them to the velodrome so we could get our exercise without holding drivers up on their (essential) leisure journeys. Burn more fuel end the climate crisis.

Indeed. Because cyclists cause congestion, cycles and cycle infrastructure causes pollution etc. etc. Remarkable what bicycles can do, even in tiny numbers!

[wycombewheeler]

IanMSpencer wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:

He will have a mental explosion at the idea of IAM promoting going to places simply to drive cars on interesting bits of roads rather than making journeys.

I don’t know, I got the impression he was arguing that we should load our bikes in the car and take them to the velodrome so we could get our exercise without holding drivers up on their (essential) leisure journeys.
Burn more fuel end the climate crisis.

[wycombewheeler]

Steve K wrote:

Steve K wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

They’re basically saying that cycle paths should be compulsory for cyclists to use when the Highway Code most definitely states that they are optional. That doesn’t sound like an advanced driver to me if they don’t even know the basics.

It always amazes me that (some) drivers’ response to cyclists not using cycles lanes is “cyclists deliberately getting in my way” rather than “there must be something wrong with those lanes if cyclists aren’t using them”.

Not always something wrong with that particular lane, but cycle lanes in general, leaving cyclists with no confidence in any unfamiliar facility.

[mdavidford]

wycombewheeler wrote:

depends on your definition of advanced really

Further ahead in the queue.

[Author]

Replies