Sir Bradley Wiggins says that London’s cyclists need to stick to the rules of the road or face the authorities enforcing the law, and that those who ignore the Highway Code have no right to complain about the behaviour of other road users.
Speaking to the London Evening Standard last week, the four-time Olympic champion and 2012 Tour de France winner said that with the launch of his range of children’s bikes, “I have a responsibility and duty to help educate people.”
He took aim at bike riders who flout the law, saying: “We are seeing a boom in cycling but it’s how we all coexist that is important. Cyclists have to help themselves by behaving.
“With traffic volumes and emissions going up, people are starting to use cycling as a means of transport more but we won’t see the full cycling legacy of the Olympics for 10 years and we have to ask; what will London look like in the future?
> Wiggins on London Bike Boom – cyclists aren’t going to go away
“This might be the beginnings of an Amsterdam or Copenhagen but everyone abiding by the rules and co-existing is key. New cycle lanes are great but you always get cyclists who give a bad name to the rest; people who jump the kerbs, jump red lights and ride around with iPods so you can’t hear the rest of the traffic. You would not do that in a car so why would you on a bike?
“You do not have a right to complain how you’re being treated on the road unless you apply the rules yourself,” he continued.
“Traffic lights are there for a reason. Jumping traffic lights … you get run over by traffic coming the other way. The next morning that’s another cyclist that’s died. They are termed under the phrase ‘cyclist’ but they’re not cyclists as such, they are not membership holders of British Cycling.
“The roads are free to cyclists and that right should never be taken away, one of the reasons for the boom in participation is that it’s so accessible and free.
“If cycling continues growing and people continue [with the bad behaviour] there will have to be rules put in place to control people. Cycling is a free activity that is accessible and with very little effort – in terms of adhering to the rules – the rewards are great,” he added.
Wiggins’ words are bound to prove contentious.
Some would point out that motorists do commonly drive through red lights or mount the footway, and that the potential consequences of doing so are much more serious than when a cyclist commits a similar offence.
Yet a lifetime ban from driving is rarely imposed, one recent example being a Belfast motorist who had been convicted of drink-driving 17 times, among 276 previous convictions.
There are of course already rules in place to govern cyclists’ behaviour, set out in the Highway Code with the applicable legislation highlighted in the excellent Cycling and the Law article on the BikeHub website – and most adult cyclists do hold a driving licence and are shown consistently in surveys to be more likely than the average person to have one.
It’s not the first time that Wiggins, who in late 2012 was knocked off his bike by a van driver while on a training ride near his home in Lancashire, has spoken out on legal issues relating to cyclists on Britain’s roads.
In 2013, he said that cycle helmets should be made compulsory – although earlier this year, he was photographed riding a Boris Bike in London without one.
> Wiggins: Make cycle helmets compulsory and ban riding with iPods
70 thoughts on “Sir Bradley Wiggins says London cyclists need to stick to the law”
In other news, scientists
In other news, scientists have found there is no correlation between the number of Watts a cyclist can sustain for an hour; and the sensibility of the opinions they have on general cycling.
Indeed, at the very extreme (though n=1), scientists have found a strong negative correlation.
Really Brad, just shutTFU on general cycling, you’re clueless.
Pretty sure many drivers
Pretty sure many drivers would do all that Brad – and with worse consequences. Not much difference to cycling with headphones in vs driving some spam chariot kicking out insane volume levels from its ICE. Been there, done that, got the tinnitus. Personally I would never cycle with headphones (reduces my spatial awareness plus I like to hear the birdsong) but then I wouldn’t walk in a busy city with them in either.
It is quite refreshing to see a sports personality who is clearly so unmanaged in his comments – there’s no way any of that was part of a PR brief for his new bike range.
kil0ran wrote:
Isn’t he sponsored by Kia?
I’ve just been out on the
I’ve just been out on the streets of London and – STOP PRESS!!!!!
HUNDREDS OF FORMER RED LIGHT JUMPERS HAVE MAGICALLY STOPPED JUMPING RED LIGHTS!!!!! ALL THEY NEEDED WAS SIR BRAD TO TELL THEM NOT TO!!!!
WooHoo!! Glad he spoke up, he’s the next Chris Boardman don’t you know!
Ps the cabbie/white van
Ps the cabbie/white van bigots that read the standard are lovin’ it – cheers Brad, do continue to speak up, and don’t forget to ignore all the bad behaviour from London motorists while you’re at it.
Love you!! Xx
Ps the cabbie/white van
/
I wonder when was the last
I wonder when was the last time he actually cycled in London?
He could use some pr coaching
He could use some pr coaching. Was awful on Graham Norton too.
Wiggo:
Wiggo:
1) You don’t have a duty to educate other people. You’re not the right person to do it anyway. You’ve got so accustomed to other people hanging on your every word, that you’ve started to believe everything you say is important and wise.
2) People in cars do do all sorts of stupid things, including using mobile phones when they should be looking at the road. Some people do stupid things, and their mode of transport is not what causes this.
3) The idea that all ‘cyclists’ are responsible for what other ‘cyclists’ do, and we’ll all deserve to be punished with draconian rules unless we collectively get our house in order, is idiotic.
4) Talk about something you know something about, shut up about everyday cycling.
Chris Boardman does appear to
Chris Boardman does appear to be the exception that proves the rule: being good at cycle sport appears to mean that you do not have the first idea about cyclists’ safety or well-being and generally what happens on the road.
I spent a lot of time criticising him a few years ago because my club was sponsored by his sponsors – explaining in detail why he gets it so wrong:
Obviously he doesn’t read our web site…
Abject bullshit from a
Abject bullshit from a sporter guy who knows SFA about what he spouts. Collective responsibility is not present in any other aspect of society – so why the mothering fsck does Wiggins think my 5yo should carry the can for some 60-yo woman on her mobile or a teenager who blows a red? HINT: Just because I’m on a bike doesn’t mean I’m in your ‘club’. Or yours. Or yours. Wouldn’t want to be, especially if you’d have me.
I’m sure as hell not responsible for your actions, nor are you mine.
On foot, on a bike or in a car.
….and as for “They are termed under the phrase ‘cyclist’ but they’re not cyclists as such, they are not membership holders of British Cycling” – whah…wha..wh…so now you’re not a ‘cyclist’ unless you hold a BC licence?
Asshattery of the first order.
KiwiMike wrote:
Spot on. Doesn’t matter how many track and road titles he has, he does not get to decide who is and isn’t a ‘cyclist’.
I’m hoping his quotes have been seriously ‘taken out of context’ as he’s come across as a pompous bellend.
Row back, Wiggo – and take the opportunity to have a go at the real road menaces.
From past experience, I know
From past experience, I know that it is very difficult for some people on this forum to grasp the idea that the acts of unrelated, unconnected people who happen to be riding bicycles when they do something irritating, stupid or illegal may have an effect on the common perception or stereotype of all cyclists in the minds of non cylists. We have no control over those people, we are not responsible for their actions but the fact remains that when some third rate scribbler of opinionated drivel writes an anti cycle column in a daily rag and can legitimately cite real instances of red light jumping, furious pavement cycling and the general disregard for their own safety or courtesy to other road users displayed by those cyclists then it plays straight into the hands of those who would see the whole lot of us banished from the road, or restricted by means of licencing or compulsory safety equipment laws or who go out on some sort of stupid anti cycling vigilante crusade in the mistaken belief that they are doing a public service in ridding the roads of 2 wheeled vermin.
Is it fair that the consequences of a cyclist making a mistake are either self inflicted injury or some scraped paintwork, whilst the consequences of a truck or car driver running a few tonnes of metal into a human can easily result in injury and death? Of course not, but that is a different argument, a red herring in this context and certainly no excuse to cycle badly.
AFAIAC Bradley is right to use his position as a public figure widely known as being a ‘cyclist’ to encourage cyclists in general to be responsible road users and to respect the rules that govern our use of the road. Personally speaking I’ll be seriously pissed if the bad behaviour of a few idiots causes problems for the rest of us. I have no wish to live under New South Wales types of draconian legislation that some here in the UK would be happy to impose on us tomorrow and it annoys me when Police forces come under pressure to put resources into cyclist oriented safety campaigns when they could be out dealing with unlicensed, uninsured drivers or mobile phone use or many of the other stupid things that motorists do that lead to life changing damage to real people.
Mungecrundle wrote:
There are innumerable things that annoy motorists: having a helmet cam, riding in primary, not wearing hi viz, not wearing a helmet, wearing lycra, cycling too fast, cycling too slow, cycling two abreast, cycling, being on the road, not being in a car, etc. If you are doing any of those things, you are therefore also to blame.
Bikebikebike wrote:
True, but as far as I am aware, none of those things are actually illegal or prohibited in the highway code. Whereas jumping red lights and aggresive cycling on pavements are.
Just out of curiosity, do you feel that it would be inappropriate or worthy of condemnation should someone like Lewis Hamilton lend his name to a “dont’ drink and drive” or “Put your f*cking phone down while driving” campaign?
Mungecrundle wrote:
Perhaps Hamilton could be persuaded to say that motorists will be held in contempt until they all stop speeding, running red lights, texting and ignoring road signs. Because that’s pretty much the eqguivalent of what Wiggins said, and it would be vastly more accurate if said of drivers.
Bikebikebike wrote:
And the drivers of cars speeding or jumping red lights, or texting are not the ones who endanger cyclists etc, so the crazy laws shouldn’t apply to them.
No true Scotsman.
I love my bike wrote:
The finest example of No True Scotsman on this page is Wiggo’s elitist ‘No True Cyclist’ shit.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Very much this – well done Sir.
Such a refreshing change from all the (inevitable) pithy sarcasm and ‘He knows nothing about it’ that’s been thrown about all afternoon…
Mungecrundle wrote:
Wrong, so wrong.
1. The “effect” happens because of the prejudice against cyclists and – more important – the acceptance of endemic rule and law breaking by typical motorists. It is NOT the other way round.
2. There are literally millions of bicycle journeys in the UK every day. Even with a generally immaculate standard amongalmost all, there would still be numerous cases of improper cycling. So even then we would, according to the “give us a bad name” mob, have to accept that motorists are justified in prejudice against us and it’s all our fault.
3. And what gets included as worthy of condemnation. Wh is going to agree on that?
4. Most important, bad driving is not only socially tolerated, but accomodated by “forgiving” road and vehicle design. Imagine the fuss if RLJing was accomodated so as to not hurt the errant cyclist.
ChairRDRF wrote:
The fact that this sort of ‘tainting’ of the perception of a group can be brought about by the actions of a minority of its members is common throughout the world, in all sorts of situations would suggest that he may have a point. It’s certainly not right, but that’s unfortunately the way the world has been until now. This often seems especially true when one group has limited understanding of the other. That this tainting might be exaggerated due to other reasons does not make it any less apparent and to say it is entirely due to ‘prejudice’ is at best naïve – there is prejudice of course, but suggest that the actions of some cyclists does (or should) not create issues in perception seems odd to me. We need to change attitudes, but the education is not wholly (though admittedly mostly) one way.
Really, wigg should not be
Really, wigg should not be allowed out on his bike until he stops all cyclists from wearing lycra and being eco smug. Makes drivers angry and cycling is free, for now, and remember the olympics. And how should readers know who is or isn’t a real cyclist / paid-up BC member? And so we don’t deserve safe infrastructure, or something.
Move over, Chris Boardman, there’s a new brain in town.
fukawitribe wrote:
But that this ‘outgroup homogeneity’ effect happens, as you correctly note, in all sorts of contexts, just emphasises the fact that pandering to it doesn’t help. It’s an attitude that needs to be consistently and loudly rejected, not accommodated or taken as one’s own.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The fact that this sort of ‘tainting’ of the perception of a group can be brought about by the actions of a minority of its members is common throughout the world, in all sorts of situations would suggest that he may have a point. This often seems especially true when one group has limited understanding of the other. That this tainting might be exaggerated due to other reasons does not make it any less apparent and to say it is entirely due to ‘prejudice’ is at best naïve – there is prejudice of course, but suggest that the actions of some cyclists does (or should) not create issues in perception seems odd to me. We need to change attitudes, but the education is not wholly (though admittedly mostly) one way.
— ChairRDRF But that this ‘outgroup homogeneity’ effect happens, as you correctly note, in all sorts of contexts, just emphasises the fact that pandering to it doesn’t help. It’s an attitude that needs to be consistently and loudly rejected, not accommodated or taken as one’s own.— Mungecrundle
Agreed – but there are also things that can be done to reduce the conflict somewhat. In this particular example acknowledging that behaviour like RLJing is not only dangerous for the perpetrator, but is also against the law, is anti-social and has potentially dangerous consequences (e.g. how other road others subsequently react) and something that can be improved by us – directly or indirectly. Saying, as some seem to be, “but they did it too, and they’re bigger than us” – as though that’s some sort of excuse for it – is hardly helpful in that regard. Of course rail against the frankly awful state of much driving – as loudly and clearly as possible – but doing so whilst effectively denying we’re doing any wrong or that we’re somehow justified in it is not helpful IMO.. quite the opposite (not saying you are, but that seems to be a common thread on here).
About as relevant to everyday
About as relevant to everyday cycling as comments from say Tiger Woods or Andy Murray.
We need a new term to distinguish between everyday cyclists and people who cycle for sport. In the Nethelands sports cyclists are called “wheelrunners”.
We’ve got Boardman for
We’ve got Boardman for intelligent, helpful advice & advocacy on day to day cycling as a means of transport…and we’ve got Wiggins for facial hair and Mod appreciation.
The two should stick to their respective fields.
“Some would point out that
“Some would point out that motorists do commonly drive through red lights or mount the footway, and that the potential consequences of doing so are much more serious than when a cyclist commits a similar offence. “
So, the fact that drivers break the rules means it’s excusable for cyclists to do so also?? So, using that very same logic, i’m alright to go and shoot people because that’s what some people in America do?? Cyclists should stick to the law, as should drivers, as should anyone participating in any activity that is goverened by the law. Motorists on their mobile whilst driving has nothing do with a cyclist RLJing, for example.
And Bradley is entitled to his opinion. If it just so happens that the radicalist cyclists who peruse these parts don’t like his opinon, well that’s life. However, the behaviour of many cyclists does give all cyclists a bad name, that’s a fact. Just like the poor behvaiour of some priests hasn’t done their reputation any good. I’m sure there are some nice priests out there, though.
Bradley is right, if cyclists, in general, behave beyond reproach then it makes those arguments attempting to villify cyclists that much harder to sustain. That is all he is saying, and he is right.
Wow, and it’s any wonder why the perception is that cyclists are a bunch of stuck up their own arse wa**ers when someone speaks a little sense and gets accused of being an idiot.
It was like when Volvo tried to do something to increase the visibility of cyclists and all of a sudden they are being accused of blaming cyclists of accidents. Or, perhaps, they are recognising that the more that can be done to make cyclists more visible, the better. The more cyclists do to improve their perception in the eyes of the public, the better.
Mungecrundle – I get, and
Mungecrundle – I get, and agree with, to an extent, your point – but wouldn’t the real problem in your hypothetical be incompetent, rabble-rousing lawmaking as opposed to a handful of morons on bikes?
As BikeBikeBike says above, all manner of legally riding a bike will piss off certain motons and ‘opinionists’ paid to play to them. Let’s not make kowtowing to them a strategy.
Dodgy cyclists are so far down the list of shit to get sorted on roads the topic should hardly get air time – and yet, it does. Loads.
Mungecrundle – I couldn’t
Mungecrundle – I couldn’t agree with your comment less.
It’s not that people can’t grasp the possibility that other people’s actions could, wrongly, colour the judgement of some people against everyone riding a bike. It’s that it’s wrong and illogical, so we should not accept it.
It will make no difference whatsoever to the third rate scribblers of opinionated drivel if you’re careful and respectful when riding a bike, as I’m sure you are, and so am I. They are determined to hate you anyway, and they will. They’re not influenced by logic, they have a visceral dislike of cycling, and nothing you do will change that.
The problem many of us have here, is that Wiggins sounds like the third rate scribblers of opinionated drivel, and assuming he doesn’t hate cycling, we think he should change his tune or button his lip.
Wiggins mouthing off will have no effect whatsoever on ‘bad’ cyclists.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Spot on, my friend. They are equally furious over men wearing lycra, our smug attitude, our do-goodiness, that we are health nazis, and a danger to ourselves. I’d ask Wiggo to stop with the idiotic roadblocks, let us get on with improving infrastructure.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Agree with this (and the rest of your post).
All this does is fuel anti-cyclist rhetoric, giving aggressive car/taxi/van/HGV drivers an exuse to malign (and in some cases endanger) people because they are riding a bicycle. THAT is why it is of such concern to people like us.
Simon E wrote:
Agree with this (and the rest of your post).
All this does is fuel anti-cyclist rhetoric, giving aggressive car/taxi/van/HGV drivers an exuse to malign (and in some cases endanger) people because they are riding a bicycle. THAT is why it is of such concern to people like us.— HarrogateSpa
Yep: and, if you are likely to be a tad more careful because of Wiggo’s comments, I’d bet that you’re pretty careful anyway and not one of the knobheads he’s targeting.
It is inevitable that people
It is inevitable that people on bikes will do stupid shit that’s either against the law or annoys a group of people (round here that can be one or more of: car drivers, tanker drivers, lorry drivers, horse riders, walkers, land owners, the National Park Authority – there are probably more).
Brad or anyone else saying we’re collectively responsible and should do something about it makes no difference – they’ll carry on doing it. Same as Lewis Hamilton fronting an anti-speeding campaign – the hardcore will still misbehave and people will still be pissed off with them.
Therefore the whole argument is a complete straw man and not really worth worrying about – just deal with the aggression from some drivers and hope they don’t kill you, or stop cycling.
Cycling is a choice – a balance of risk vs reward. Granted for some people its a choice between feeding their kids or not, or spending hours on public transport getting to work but its still a choice. If the risks are unacceptable, don’t cycle.
Up until the points where he
Up until the points where he mentions extra rules, and his narrow definition of what a cyclist is , I feel Sir Bradley is quite right. I really don’t see what is unreasonable in saying that that we all have a duty to obey the rules of the road and that the bad behaviour of a minority spoils the image for the rest of us. And in his position as a public face of cycling he does have an entitlement to speak out. He is a role model. Who else should be doing it ?
CommotionLotion wrote:
if all he’d said was we ALL have duty to obey the rules of the road, fair enough I totally agree…but he didnt, hes rambling on about ipods like thats the biggest danger to cyclists on the roads, and how Ive no right to complain how Im treated on the road because some other cyclist might have jumped a red light once.
what the flying forks he expects me to be able to do about other cyclists “bad behaviour” Ive no idea, maybe Ill table it as a motion at the next Grand cycling moot we have, after all we all we must know each other, as we always wave to one another out on the road.
Awavey wrote:
He didn’t say that, he said “You do not have a right to complain how you’re being treated on the road unless you apply the rules yourself” – note the last word. Whether that’s a fair comment is another matter, but let’s not distort things by making stuff up.
fukawitribe wrote:
He didn’t say that, he said “You do not have a right to complain how you’re being treated on the road unless you apply the rules yourself” – note the last word. Whether that’s a fair comment is another matter, but let’s not distort things by making stuff up.— Awavey
Well that’s easy: it’s NOT a fair comment.
I do obey the rules: never cycled on a footway, never jumped a red light.
So Mr Wiggins, sir, am I allowed to complain about bad driving? Oh, wait, I never joined British Cycling..,
brooksby wrote:
Agreed, he never said that.
Who else should be doing it ?
Who else should be doing it ?
Boardman. He’s thoughtful and intelligent, and knows what he’s talking about. Wiggins sounds like an idiot.
So are people saying that
So are people saying that Wiggins has no right to talk? That we shouldn’t follow the rules? Or that we shouldn’t care what other people think or do?
All of the above is rot and really what Wiggins says is mostly common sense.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
as a result of wiggins speaking up not 1 law breaking cyclist will change their behaviour.
BUT THE PERCEPTION OF CYCLISTS WILL GET EVEN WORSE THAN IT CURRENTLY IS – IE VERY BAD DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT STATES THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF CYCLISTS BREAK THE LAW AS MOTORISTS
I put it in capitals to spell things out. The people commenting on here are probably not the ones doing the red light jumping etc, but they’ll get the extra abuse arising from this and other ignorant media crap anyway.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
I don’t know what ‘people’are saying. What I would say is that yes, cyclists should ‘follow the rules’, but the notion that following the rules will, alone, keep us safe, or make drivers treat cyclists with respect, is plainly pish. His words are focussed on the minor problem, the cyclists, and ignore the major one, the people whose vehicles kill, pollute and congest.
oldstrath wrote:
Meanwhile the attention, column inches and comments on pages like this one are devoted to something fairly trivial and debating amongst ourselves.
Nobody’s saying cyclists shouldn’t obey the rules. Nobody’s saying all cyclists are perfect.
Some people are saying that cyclists RLJing and cycling with ipods etc is an insignificant road problem, and that if someone in Wiggo’s position feels they have a duty to speak out about something, they could pick many more worthy issues as the subject – and that, if he’s doing so as some sort of cycling spokesman, he might want to do some research.
oldstrath wrote:
I don’t think it is pish. It’s not going to stop every dickhead, but your comments imply that every public service campaign is useless, which they clearly are not. People in vehicles will always kill and maim, but if you didn’t have campaigns which force you to get a drivers license, that highlight drink driving, or think bike it does start to have an effect. I think it would be silly to expect driving to clean up its act before cycling does….and you’ll just end up pointing fingers and calling each other ‘hypocrite’ if you do.
I can see the opposite effect that happens with your attitude. Cyclists that break every red light, and others who are persuaded to do likewise by example. Cyclists that pay no regard to other road users and are actually disrespectful and dangerous to other road users, and what is worse about it is that some, if not all do not understand the ramifications (being a danger to themselves and pedestrians, upsetting other road users who may then seek their own form of justice – I had some pedestrian knock me off my bike because he was fed up of other cyclists ignoring road rules – rough justice for me because I was obeying them but his prejudice had been built up by others). Pedestrians become scared for themselves and look down on us. If there was a qualification that you need to have (and could be taken away) before you cycled would mean that poor behaviour could be punished and that cyclists attain a minimum standard, as it is the road is filled with guys who don’t even know if their breaks work throwing their bike at pedestrian, cyclist and car alike.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
I always knew London were reet weird, but streets filled with cyclists throwing themselves at cars! That’s proper weird, that is. Clearly you exaggerate a little the danger posed by cyclists, but back in the real world, no, it is not ‘silly’ to expect the major objective danger (the motor vehicles ) to be fixed first.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
And yet, as we are constantly reminded, there are far more cars and other motor vehicles on the roads than bicycles; so why shouldn’t the majority in their one-tonne-plus of motor-driven-sitting-room (I wish English had the same ability for portmanteau words as other languages) be expected to behave?
After all, most of the time if a cyclist breaks the road laws then they are at risk; if a motorist breaks the road laws everyone else is.
OK – how’s about we ‘share’ the cleaning up our act? The HGVs that shouldn’t be on the road due to maintenance issues and urban visibility issues, the diesel- (and bile-) spewing taxis, the ‘internet-of-things’-connected cars that are practically a moving sitting room: they can all start cleaning up their act too.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
Sorry, what?
You’re suggesting bad cycling and bad driving are equivalent: they’re really not.
Approximately 1,800 deaths occur on roads each year. Over 20,000 serious injuries. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-main-results-2014
And the vast majority of those, and minor injury, road accidents are caused by driver error. http://www.iam.org.uk/images/stories/policy-research/licensetoskill.PDF
Given the disparity here, why is anyone focusing on antisocial cycling as a problem of any scale, or suggesting it and murderous driving are worthy of similar treatment?
The effect of cycling ‘cleaning up its act’ will be to give Daily Mail readers fewer things to complain about. The effect of driving ‘cleaning up its act’ could be thousands of friends and families not losing loved ones this year.
Can someone please explain why these should be given similar effort? Or why the words Bradley Wiggins shouldn’t be preceded by ‘Moton Apologist Rentagob’ henceforth in cycling publications?
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
Who said he had no right to talk? Personally I just don’t get why the media pays so much attention to what he says about subjects he has no particular expertise on.
The ‘red light’ bit is particularly annoying as I’ve had the following experience three times in the last month:
Crossing a road on a green man, car at the front of traffic stopped OK , only for another car to come roaring up behind at high speed, swerve onto the wrong side of the road to over take the stopped car, and jump the red just as I’m half-way across the road, before shooting across the junction against the lights.
A significant subset of drivers just seem to whizz around constantly at high-speed, ignoring lights , zebra-crossings and give-way lines and expecting pedestrians to leap out of their way. Can we get lewis hamilton telling London drivers to obey the law, please?
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
No. The problem is eventhough majority of accidents involving cyclists are a fault of the driver and stupid behaviour on two wheels are a cause of very few accidents he is still banging on what we should or shouldn’t be doing on two wheels just his nonsense about helmets. He lacks balls to address directly the issues of dangerous driving and treatment of cyclists.
Crazy talk aside, I’m quite
Crazy talk aside, I’m quite struck by his blythe unquestioning notion of “olympic legacy”. Do people really buy that?
The olympics cost 9 billion pounds, for a two week tv sports day, quite a contoversial spending choice. They aren’t the cause of cycling popularity in Amsterdam and Copenhagen. There is a current cycling uplift in NYC, Paris, Seville, and London too. It’s not about the olympics or the Tour de France.
“I have a responsibility and
“I have a responsibility and duty to help educate people.”
huh, he’s like Joan of Arc, he’s heard voices?
Wiggins looks like a macho
Wiggins looks like a macho but unlike Boardman doesn’t have balls to talk about real problems.
He’s not wrong but he’s not
He’s not wrong but he’s not right either.
It’s all a bit playground isn
It’s all a bit playground isn’t it?
Think there is some growing up needed.
What an asshat. How about we
What an asshat. How about we concentrate on reducing deaths on the roads first and then we can start worrying about the perception of cyclists? If cars/trucks can run people over and it’s acknowledged as “a moment of inattention”, then I’ll be damned if I should care about the rules of the road. I’ll also be damned if I care about what other cyclists do in case that’ll colour the perception of motorists.
Please, just stop running us over first and then we can discuss our behaviour.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well put.
atgni wrote:
Not really. Excusing poor road-user behaviour in this way just perpetuates conflict.
Surely its not such a difficult task to accept the need to obey the law AND campaign for infrastructure improvements and action to reduce the dangers cars pose to vulnerable road users.
This article is click bait designed to raise the ire of militant cyclists and so many of you fell for it!
700c wrote:
Well put.
— atgni Not really. Excusing poor road-user behaviour in this way just perpetuates conflict. Surely its not such a difficult task to accept the need to obey the law AND campaign for infrastructure improvements and action to reduce the dangers cars pose to vulnerable road users. This article is click bait designed to raise the ire of militant cyclists and so many of you fell for it!— hawkinspeter
Fair point, but you could just as easily counter with “This article is click bait designed to suck apologies out of victim blamers and so many of you fell for it!”
Again, nobody above has said that antisocial/illegal cycling isn’t a problem that doesn’t need addressing, and there wouldn’t be an article if Brad wasn’t banging the wrong drum.
700c wrote:
There’s nothing ‘militant’ about acknowledging reality – which is that our car-culture is a major public health problem. On the contrary, its those who refuse to face up to that who are the militants.
And the article is merely reporting something that has been reported elsewhere, where it serves to encourage the attitudes of the militant petrolheads in thinking its everyone else who is the problem.
hawkinspeter wrote:
And with that kind of crappy attitude you will be damned, and what’s worse you will damn the rest of us to suffer legislation in the form of licencing, helmet rules and other guff imposed in the name of our best interests. Your attitude creates an environment of conflict between road users. You are the problem. I truly hope you don’t drive a car with the same sense of entitlement and hostility.
Simply put, if you cannot sign up to obeying the highway code and respecting the rules that apply to cyclists when using the public highway then you have no place on it. And absolutely yes the same applies to all other road users. Because your argument is as stupid as saying ‘Cyclists jump red lights, so I don’t see why I shouldn’t use my phone while driving’
Mungecrundle wrote:
Obviously, I disagree with you.
I think you’re getting it back to front about my attitude creating an environment of conflict. It’s more the environment of conflict (e.g. car users shouting at me for not using the not-fit-for-purpose bike lanes) that engenders my attitude. (I don’t drive a car, so you can rest easy on that count.) If you think that licencing and helmet laws are a rational response to the numbers of deaths on the roads, then you are most gravely mistaken. They are just political posturing to gain favour with the motorised majority and I take no responsibility for them despite your words.
I have never been found guilty of any kind of road traffic incident, yet I fail to see why I should respect rules that were introduced for unruly motorists. Your ‘cyclists jump red lights, so I don’t see why I shouldn’t use my phone while driving’ completely ignores the scale of the problems. Phone using drivers kill lots (sorry, I don’t know the numbers) of people, whereas cyclist RLJers do not (cue the anecdotes).
Rules of law are supposed to be used to the service of society to protect people’s safety and well-being, but the dire situation of lack-of-enforcement means that I see many, many drivers jumping red lights on a daily basis. I refuse to blindly follow laws that I see flouted every day and instead, I judge for myself when it is safe to go through a red light and when not to. I appreciate that you don’t want me on the roads, but tough, I am a cyclist and I am very often on the roads.
In my defence, I do not endanger other people and I try to be polite to all pedestrians and other road users (except when drivers endanger me and I get angry – nothing like swearing and gesticulating to blow off some steam).
Mungecrundle wrote:
Woah there. People drive cars into other people due to incompetence or downright illegal behaviour and kill them on a daily basis. People drive cars too close to more vulnerable users on a much more regular basis – several times each way on my cycle commute.
And the problem is that the vulnerable users are getting pissed off about it?
It’s sad to see Brad engage
It’s sad to see Brad engage in this kind of aplogetic statement. I imagine he thinks his words will appease “motorists” (not just people who drive but those who are overtly anti-cyclist and identfy themselves as motorists) but will unfortunately have the opposite effect. Having Britains most famous cyclist speak out about poor cycling in this manner will just reinforce their views in two ways:
1. Cyclists are a homogeneous group who’s behaviour reflects on each other.
2. They all break the rules so cannot protest the awful, unsafe and sometimes wilfully dangerous standard of driving of a sizeable minority of drivers.
The second point is a prime example of a moral equivilance fallacy and does little to move the debate on to the real problems with cycling in the UK, and we all know what they are.
Where’s the Atomic Facepalm
Where’s the Atomic Facepalm emoticon…
So, a gold medal and grand
So, a gold medal and grand tour winning cyclist knows nothing about social cycling and therefore should shut up. According to those, who believe improving cycling standards will not change the publics perception of cyclists?! That must be 0-0 then!
It sometimes feels like some cycling advocates embrace ‘the public hates cyclist and nothing will change that’, which is a stereotype in itself. The poor, beaten down, social crusader, fighting the man and trying to save the world one white bike at a time.
Can we not have both worlds, where we improve cycling standards and cycling infrastructure and other changes that will help make cycling safer and more enjoyable in this country. Does it have to be us and them? Or is that what some people want I wonder?
If we choose not to discourage anti social cyclists, are we not making it harder to become more significant within the social and political structure? Or do we want our role and image to be that actual stereotype – even if it is not correct?
Not for me. I hate it when another cyclist goes through a red light. You can almost feel the car body language as you set off, being influenced by that selfish persons decision. Maybe I am wrong and it has no affect what so ever, how we behave around other road uses, but it seems pretty fanciful to me. It is just behaviour after all, where people treat you accordingly.
bluemoonday wrote:
er, you must be new on here?!
..coming round here with your rational and reasoned pragmatism. How dare you!
Good points well made of course but you’ll be banging your head against a brick wall before too long!
700c wrote:
Indeed – why resort to argument weighted against evidence when you can have opinion, ideology and victim-blaming…
The point is that bad
The point is that bad infrastructure encourages bad behaviour. Why do you think people jump red lights? Or walk across the road against the red man? It’s because the infrastructure and environment areweighted against the cyclist or pedestrian, people get fed up of waiting, it’s safe and convenient to just nip across so they do.
If you build a continuous segregated cycle path, you remove all of that. No red lights to jump, no junctions, the cyclist is out of the way of all the vehicles so everyone behaves. You should see it in London on the new paths, it’s a pleasure to ride on them. Get back onto the main road and it’s straight back to being the alpha user, having to claim road space, having to match the speed of the traffic, having to place yourself in a visible position or having to break the law to avoid all the vehicles (the drivers of which are also breaking the law by speeding, using mobile phones, stopping in the ASL, RLJing, parking in cycle lanes etc).
Bradley Wiggins is about as relevant to transport cycling as Lewis Hamilton is relevent to your drive to the shops.
Bez has written a very good column about it:
http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2016/03/the-rise-of-the-idiots/
crazy-legs wrote:
I get your point about the difference when riding in a cycle lane and on the road. It is safer and sure, you have to take less risks to stay safe.
But there are plenty of intersections, where cyclist are in no danger and simply jump the light. It is simply impatience. We would all be upset if a car did the same thing. And in fact, on Queens Circus, which now has new cycle lanes, red lights to allow pedestrians to cross are still ignored. It is that sort of behaviour that gets up the publics noses and why this is surprising or even unreasonable to some, makes me wonder.
Ok, we all accept that we
Ok, we all accept that we shouldn’t go through red lights, here is what is wrong with what Brad has said
1) “I don’t tend to go through red lights” which suggests that, normally he doesn’t but sometimes he does
2) as he is famous it would be heavily publicised if he did, suggesting the only reason for his compliance is fear of being identified.
3) even though motorists jump red lights as often as cyclists, he singles out cyclists as if this is something only cyclists do. just like the motoring lobby.
4) it is also, like the helmet debate, something that recieves a disproportionate amount of media coverage, while the more serious risks of speeding, mobile phone use, lack of signalling, lack of proper observation are as usual the elephant in the room. Stop distracting attention from the real causes of danger on the roads.