[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

[quiff]

But on the other hand he’ll

But on the other hand he’ll be rubbing his hands with evil glee that we’re still talking about him on a thread that he hasn’t even commented on.  

[Flâneur]

Thanks for clarifying. Having

Thanks for clarifying. Having now seen it, that farcility which gives up everywhere difficult, can’t decide which side of the road it’s happy on, and involves so much side road/driveway danger, means that Goebbels’ fellation of his local Tory ERG MP is a bit excessive. 

[I like bikes]

I’m local to there, and there
I’m local to there, and there’s no cycle path, or provision on the road between Corfe Castle and Wareham, there’s a smaller road that’s probably twice as long, potholed, and too narrow for safe overtaking.
There’s a cycle lane which cost a few million (I think) to install, for a small portion of the route between Poole and Wareham, but it’s so badly designed that it’s dangerous to use

[Tom_77]

I think he means the A351

I think he means the A351 between the A35 and Wareham. Which is basically just a pavement you’re allowed to cycle on, I can understand why cyclists wouldn’t want to use it.

[Flâneur]

The direct route between

The direct route between Wareham and Corfe is the A351, which from Streetview appears, surprise surprise, to have no cycle provision whatsoever. Nigel Goebbels and his big lie. Starts bad and gets worse.

[AlsoSomniloquism]

The bit weird bit was

The bit weird bit was “Cyclists should be in single file so not to hold up traffic” followed a few paragraphs later with “As advanced motorists, my wife and I give cyclists plenty of room before overtaking them, as well as a wide berth”. 

So we always give a wide berth but can’t overtake two cyclists riding together. 

[AlsoSomniloquism]

Well I can only go with his

Well I can only go with his description of “who use the roads to Wareham and Corfe” and took the main routes between that were not single track.

The bit on the far side maybe for the cycle lane?

[brooksby]

Rendel Harris wrote:

Nick Griffin, Nigel Garage, Nigel Griffiths…seeing a pattern.

Shall I polish up your tinfoil hat? 😉 😀

[Awavey]

what was the piece that

what was the piece that triggered those letters in the first place ? as it seemed like they were continuing the theme started there, rather than responding completely randomly.

the thing that disappoints me most, and its something I have felt on the road sometimes in the treatment we get, is that they are saying rather than just its a cyclist on the road and as IAM’s we’ll just cope with that situation in a totally safe for everyone normal manner, they are saying well cyclist, the risk for you being on this road instead of that in all likelihood rubbish cycle lane, is all yours and yours alone, be it on your own head to ride there, youll only get the bare minimum, and maybe not even that, help from us.

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.

[lonpfrb]

IanMSpencer wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:

simply to drive cars on interesting bits of roads rather than making journeys.

Ha ha, but the choice of roads is to challenge aspiring associates to raise their driving standard not to look at the view. So that’s quite a serious purpose, more so than ‘a journey’.

IAM does use Circuits for experience that can not reasonably or legally be gained on the public highways.

Always amusing to see recent or serving first responders “seeing what it’ll do”…

[lonpfrb]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

That doesn’t sound like an advanced driver to me if they don’t even know the basics.

Agree, however it doesn’t follow that because someone wrote to the IAM that they are a member who has passed the required standard or exceed it (distinction). There is a significant period when aspiring associates are being observed and advised so that improvement is part of the approach.

Previously the value of knowledge about multiple modes has been an IAM working practice and is commonly affirmed by members experience.

The IAM advice feature has people bouncing ideas or questions for the valuable advice that can be had. So I’m disappointed this was just a published letter, without informed comment..

[lonpfrb]

Steve K wrote:

Steve K wrote:

“there must be something wrong with those lanes if cyclists aren’t using them”.

It seems that the Highway Design Guidance contains a lot of opt out clauses since it is common for the after-thought cycle lanes added by local councils to stop just where you need them most, at junctions, and not consider the need to be as continueous as the road is for other vehicles.

When you add in consideration of vulnerable footpath users and the speed expected, or limited, the thoughtful cyclist may well decide that it’s safer overall not to use them, as a Judge has confirmed that we have the right to do.

[HoarseMann]

Quote:

They should be as considerate a road user as the motorist.

On the mode of transport scale of considerateness, the choice of the motorist is pretty low down the list in my view (well, unless your only consideration is yourself).

[Steve K]

hawkinspeter 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”.

[IanMSpencer]

He will have a mental
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.

[Author]

Replies