[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

[wycombewheeler]

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.

depends on your definition of advanced really, you are assuming it means better educated or more highly skilled.

When it seems from the letter it means further along the patth of entitlement and aggression that is the direction for travel for drivers these days.

[WiznaeMe]

Rendel Harris wrote:

Isn’t there a recommendation/regulation from the DoT that riders exceeding 18mph shouldn’t use cycle paths – which is what what most of the “Lycra Brigade” will be doing?

Ministerial guidance that cyclists doing 18 mph should use the road rather than cycle paths was issued by Paul Boateng MP.

[espressodan]

Our local council has also
Our local council has also done a great job with cycle lanes, if you don’t want to go over 15kph and want to stop at every side road.

Chris Boardman says it best.. The problem with bike lanes is that most of them are built for the benefit of cars. Try building them for the benefit of cyclists, then they might be fit for purpose.

[espressodan]

Another good example of
Another good example of privilege dressed up as reason… “Cyclists hold up traffic”.

Cyclists are traffic, along with everybody else. Traffic holds up traffic and the best way to reduce it is to pick any form of transport other than a car.

[IanMSpencer]

I was tempted to write an
I was tempted to write an offer to pay for refresher training based on the letter!

[GMBasix]

Dear Nigel Griffiths FRICS,

Dear Nigel Griffiths FRICS,

All lanes are cycle lanes. Happy to clear that up for you. Anything else you’re not sure about?

[Mungecrundle]

To respond to the letter
To respond to the letter writer I would express respect for any member of the IAM who would admit to having difficulty in driving around cyclists. That cannot be easy to do in the company of people who take some pride in their advanced driving qualification.

However, putting your own ego to one side, recognising your own deficiencies as a driver and obtaining further training in those areas of weakness is to be commended.

[brooksby]

jh2727 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”.

“They’re inconveniencing me, rather than using the infrastructure that was built for their safety” – making it clear that what they actually think, is that cycle lanes and shared use paths exist for the convenience of motorists.

I suspect a lot do think exactly that.

“Why aren’t you riding in that eighteen inch cycle lane painted along the side of the carriageway?”

“Because until you came long there was no other traffic…”

[jh2727]

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”.

“They’re inconveniencing me, rather than using the infrastructure that was built for their safety” – making it clear that what they actually think, is that cycle lanes and shared use paths exist for the convenience of motorists.

[brooksby]

Perish the very thought!

Perish the very thought!  The idea that someone on this site might engage in such underhand practices… 😉

[Hirsute]

They don’t seem to be very

They don’t seem to be very advanced.

Also some people distort the truth, so they might be claiming that in the hope that a casual observer might go along with it. I’m sure I have read some similar tactic being used on here.

[AlsoSomniloquism]

Yes, I saw that on a few

Yes, I saw that on a few sections as well but ruled it our as surely an “Advanced” driver knows the difference between marking the edge of a road and a cycle lane.

[Hirsute]

Thanks. I did suspect that.

Thanks. I did suspect that.

The other option is that where a road has a white line demarking the edge, a few drivers think this denotes a cycle lane !

(The marking should be laid with a gap of approximately 225 mm to the nearside edge

of the carriageway.)

 

[IanMSpencer]

https://issuu.com

Left hand side.

Basically, a mellow “star letter” saying in response to demands for harsher legislation against erant cyclists that the IAM should not become involved in widening the gulf between motorists and cyclists… so the IAM published a letter being a prime example of the sort of opinions that widen the gulf!

 

In that context, the reference to the prior letter is barely a reply to hang their prejudices on.

[brooksby]

So, the bit with (no doubt!)

So, the bit with (no doubt!) litter and broken glass tossed out of passing vehicles, with cracked tarmac, with overgrown hedges encroaching onto it, which looks to be about three feet wide so not really good for two way travel. 

That cycle lane?

[Author]

Replies