Sajid Javid has become the latest Conservative politician to weigh in on the viral video – discussed during Tuesday’s episode of Jeremy Vine’s Channel 5 show and viewed almost 2.5 million times on Twitter – which shows a motorist failing to stop before narrowly passing a five-year-old cyclist.
The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has also served as the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care during his time in government, joined Tory peer Baroness Foster and Conservative London Assembly leader Susan Hall in pointing the finger at the child’s father for letting him cycle on the road in the first place.
Responding to a tweet from the Jeremy Vine on 5 Twitter account, which asked viewers who they thought was “in the wrong”, Bromsgrove MP Javid – who unsuccessfully stood to replace Boris Johnson in the first of this year’s Conservative leadership contests, before later endorsing Liz Truss – replied: “The 5-year-old’s father”.
The 5-year old’s father. https://t.co/nMfncye03d
— Sajid Javid (@sajidjavid) November 10, 2022
Javid (whose driver, incidentally, was filmed stopped in a bike box outside Westminster earlier this year) has been heavily criticised for his comments by other Twitter users, who ridiculed the MP’s apparent ‘car is king’ attitude and advised him to review the Highway Code:
You might want to review the highway code:https://t.co/yjnUlHzeCq
— Chris Parker (@HyperHydr0) November 10, 2022
Car is king, eh, Sajid? I expect better from you, as the current health secretary and a former secretary for sport.
— Felix Lowe (@saddleblaze) November 10, 2022
The pavement would be safer:https://t.co/j3B3rUVAf9
— Sustainable us – moving at 25km/h (@Havant_Enviro) November 10, 2022
Nevertheless, the MP’s comments echoed those made earlier this week by some of his Tory colleagues, including Susan Hall, the chair of the Police and Crime Committee in the London Assembly.
Replying to a tweet – this time from Vine himself – which suggested that anyone who does not think “the driver must go dead slow, or stop” should “cut up their driving licence and send the pieces back to the DVLA”, Hall argued: “Surely the issue here is that a 5-year-old should not be on the public highway riding a bike!”
Hall then claimed that the child should only cycle “slowly on the footway, or preferably in the park” and that she was “amazed that given road behaviour by all that you find it acceptable for a five-year-old to be on a bike in the road.”
Conservative peer Baroness Foster – appointed to the House of Lords by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson in December 2020 – also took to Twitter to castigate the child’s father, writing: “A child that small should not be cycling on a road! A completely irresponsible decision along with your comments that put the entire onus on the car drivers if/when something goes horribly wrong!”
The widespread argument shared by the Conservative politicians, that the five-year-old should have been cycling on the footpath instead of the road, was today countered by his father, who posted the below video of his school run:
“just ride your bikes on the pavement, no one will mind. It’ll be safer, no cars on the pavement are there?!”
The pavements next to a school pic.twitter.com/tq45IcW1m0
— AZB (@azb2019) November 10, 2022
On Tuesday, after the contentious video went viral, the child’s father Ashley also appeared on Vine’s Channel 5 show, where the noted cycling advocate criticised the driving on display.
Ashley told the show that “the facts are clear on this one: the driver was wrong and my son has every right to ride on the road.”
Panel guest and journalist Mike Parry agreed, dismissing the debate about whether the child should have been cycling on the road as “utterly irrelevant”.
“Surely human compassion, surely human nature says that if you’re driving a car at speed and there’s a little child coming the other way your instinct should be the protective nature of an adult in a car over a child,” he told Vine.
Meanwhile, on the same day that the video was discussed on Channel 5, road safety expert Tim Shallcross of IAM Roadsmart told the Sunday Times Driving: “There is no minimum age limit for cycling on a road; the lad is a little younger than most cycling organisations recommend to be on a road, but he’s certainly riding competently and with confidence and under supervision, so no problem there.”
Shallcross also pointed to Rule H3 of the Highway Code, referencing the ‘hierarchy of road users’, which tells drivers to “stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary”.
“Highway Code guidance is for cars to give 1.5m clearance to cyclists in 30mph limit, and since the cyclist was already passing parked vehicles and there was clearly not room for 1.5m clearance, the car should have waited until the cyclist was clear before carrying on,” he concluded.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
93 thoughts on “Sajid Javid blames father of five-year-old cyclist for letting child ride on road in viral video”
Flintshire Lad incoming with
Flintshire Lad incoming with “A Conservative politician! Can you believe it?!” in … er… never.
As others have pointed out neither main party is short of people who could have come out with this. I’m not entirely sure the SNP is much different although in Scotland we’ve managed to get a slightly more sensible share for active travel compared to the overal “transport budget”. (No idea about other regions).
Motorist to bloke on bike:
Motorist to bloke on bike: “You [i]idiot[/i], I could have killed that kid.”
Bloke on bike: “Yeah, I saw that, I was right behind and you nearly hit me too. Guess you didn’t see either of us, huh.”
Motorist: ” ‘course I saw. Whatever. How about you keep your kid off the road?”
Bloke on bike: “That’s not my kid.”
Motorist: “But… so where is the person responsible for me driving so close to that kid?!”
My twitter on that thread:
My twitter on that thread:
“The staggering number of people who think the cyclists were at fault, not the driver, explains why so many people won’t cycle on the roads. If you think the cyclists were at fault, please, please, please, read the Highway Code; you are the problem.”
The vast majority blame the father, even when they admit that the driver should have stopped. There could be no better example of the utter, incredible, sheer deluded attitude of entitlement of drivers than this, where a 5 year old cyclist is put in danger by a callously indifferent driver.
The fact that all the politicians who have condemned the father are tories is yet another example of their party’s complete lack of empathy for anyone of lower social status than themselves. Cyclists are by definition, for them, of low social status, so it doesn’t matter what you do, you’re wrong; even when the law says you’re right. The fact that so many of these tories are quite senior, and should have some knowledge of the law and should be behaving like adults, not like 5 year old children, demonstrates their astonishing detachment from real life.
The problem is that twitter
The problem is that twitter is just hot takes and not a proper discussion. The father shouldn’t be taking his kid on the roads at 5 when they are clearly a bit wobbly. Thats simply the reality of our roads at the moment. That is 100% on the dad. This is like the argument against helmets that some have. That they shouldn’t be necessary and wearing them just makes people think cycling is dangerous which it shouldn’t be….and yet it is. For whatever reasons, cycling on our roads is bloody dangerous and not the place for 5 year olds
Now, the separate point of is the driver in the wrong is indisputable. Of course they are. They usually are. I wouldn’t put a childs life on the line and rely on the UKs drivers not to kill them. They are fucking awful in general. As a 6’2″ man with lights and bright clothing on I still get people nearly hitting me because they haven’t seen me or they think that they can get away with a manouvre. Being half my height and a bit wobbly is just making that far worse.
Some people are utter ***** on twitter (and in real life) and other people are just arguing different points not necessarily disagreeing.
I am very disappointed with
I am very disappointed with Javid, who I would have supported (had I been a Tory) for the Tory leadership because he was the first to break ranks in protest at Johnson. Here, he is simply following the hyper-junk press line.
but I dont understand why he
but I dont understand why he is bothering or getting involved, his twitter timeline seems full of the mundane boring MP delights at meeting constituents stuff to the point you wonder if its someone on his staff just tweeting for him as no-ones twitter feed is surely that boring, and gets barely any engagement from his followers (304k followers and he gets around 10 likes per tweet).
So why touch this with a political bargepole, he doesnt provide “hot takes” on other issues of the day, and this wasnt in Bromsgrove was it ? and you can quickly read the room temp and work out where not just angry taxi mob on twitter is.
seems a completely selfed own goal, because it will get dragged up everytime in he attempts to go further in his future political career, and he didnt have to say anything about it.
Awavey wrote:
I’m aware of an MSP who has an 18 year old first year politics student doing her socialz, so it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this was written by either an enthusiastic young idiot or daft politician.
But he’s not great at spotting fault really, as a Truss voter.
He’s far far worse that Boris
He’s far far worse than Boris..
I am very impressed with
I am very impressed with Javid, and it’s good to see 10,000 likes and rising for his honest and common sense Tweet.
Martin is completely correct is his question below; either the roads are too dangerous for grown adults (never mind children), like the pearl-clutchers hysterically claim every day, or the roads are safe enough and they have been lying all along.
Where I diverge with Martin is that I believe strongly that Britain’s roads are indeed safe enough to ride with a 5 year old, as I have done many times, but the 5 year old has to be competent in cycling, and the dad has to be confident in their ability. Without both of those being true (as is the case is this video), the father showed astonishingly poor judgement.
Congratulations on your 51st
Congratulations on your 51st post!
???
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Good effort to get over 50 without a further banning.
the thing that annoys me most
the thing that annoys me most, which I suspected would happen when the video first went viral, is people focus solely on the aspect theres a child involved, so weve pivoted completely away from the closeness of the pass and the actions of the driver and whether they should stop and give way which is the aspect of the pass thats actually the issue whether its a child or a full grown adult riding there, and instead are focussing on going on a completely irrelevant sidetrack about whether a 5year old should even be riding on the road.
Maybe if we brought the discussion back to no you cant pass any cyclist like that on a road, than these politicians wouldnt keep making themselves look stupid.
But that is exactly why it is
But that is exactly why it is so illuminating, to see how some people take any avenue to exculpate the driver. It’s like a Rorschach test – what did you see here? Especially galling is seeing how our political leaders align themselves. I don’t believe for a moment they are merely trolling, or even too dim to see both sides, so I’ll take their stance as a manifesto for the next election.
Oh if you want a really good
Oh if you want a really good example of this just watch some videos of dash cams and you will see a huge number of the comments on a cyclist that did something stupid. They ignore the other 95% of the video with drivers nearly colliding head on when overtaking on the wrong side of the wrong on a blind corner. Its that bloody cyclist who nearly got hit by flying out of a side road without looking.
Awavey wrote:
— AwaveyBut they are stupid, so they can’t help it.
What experience and knowledge
What experience and knowledge of cars, lorries speed and stopping distance does this 5 year old have? It is very irresponsible of the father to allow his child to ride on the road. Whether the approaching car should have slowed or stopped to allow the child through is irrelevant. A 5 year old inexperienced riding in the road could have panicked. Not knowing what the car driver was going to do he could well have lost control of the bike and fallen off into the path of the car. Would the driver have been held responsible for the child’s inexperience just because of a new rule written into the highway code? It also appears the car is on the correct side of the road and the child is perhaps too far over.
An experienced adult cyclist would have stopped by the van and waited for the car to pass so that he/she could continue on safely.
Tonbar wrote:
Good to know the incredibly low importance you place on whether someone follows the highway code, in your first couple of posts at that. If you think this, you should not be using UK highways. A child knows this.
The driver should have
The driver should have stopped. That you can’t see this is rather worrying.
‘The 5 year old might have… ‘ – all the more reasons to stop then as a driver.
The driver is over the centre line and the 5 year old is on his own side. Clearly shown in the still.
An experienced cyclist would have taken an even stronger road position to stop the driver trying to squeeze through.
Amazes me that drivers come onto a cycling site to try and tell cyclists how to use the roads. And then think that the highway code can be ignored if you are a driver.
Tonbar wrote:
Not going to waste too much time on you as you are obviously yet another first-time-straight-in-with-the-hate poster, but just have a little think about the logic of that; there are parked cars to the left and right of the driver, the only way they could be completely on their side of the road is if the road was a four lane carriageway, which it quite clearly is not or there would have been no conflict at all..
Rendel Harris]
Is it really obvious? I’d have thought long-time-troll with yet another sock puppet account was at least possible, if not probable. Not that it makes much difference.
An experienced adult cyclist
An experienced adult cyclist would have stopped, or slowed more likely, purely because they expected the driver to behave like an impatient idiot.
not because it inferred that cyclist had to stop, the driver had any priority call and the driver wasnt doing something that was totally wrong.
It is amazing how much
It is amazing how much emphasis you place on the cyclsts needing to take action to mitagate the poor driving standards of motorists.
Do you even ride bro?
The child is NOT “perhaps too
The child is NOT “perhaps too far over”. They’re cycling about a car door’s width away from the parked cars/van, as recommended. For example, that panel van is a prime candidate for a good old fashioned dooring. Obviously you have zero experience or knowledge of how to cycle safely.
It’s very relevant because
It’s very relevant because even if you regard the father as irresponsible for allowing the kid to cycle on that road, it doesn’t absolve the car driver of their responsibility to drive with due care. Forcing their way through with an oncoming bike in the position it was was not driving with due care. And then there is the obvious fact it was a small child not an adult, clearly higher risk yet the car driver still barrelled in.
LeadenSkies wrote:
Yep – the irrelevant bit is whether or not the child should be on the road. He clearly is, therefore the driver should have stopped. If you were bowling in a cricket net and a child wandered in, you wouldn’t carry on bowling just because the child “shouldn’t be there”.
Does he have a helmet on
Does he have a helmet on though?
Newbie troll says what?
Newbie troll says what?
Read the Highway Code.
Read the Highway Code.
Of course Javid is wrong. He
Of course Javid is wrong. He’s a Conservative and so will always make the wrong decisions.
So based on the universal
So based on the universal Tory response that cyclists are de facto banned from the roads, by poor road safety, I take it that they’re about to legalise pavement cycling or build an integrated cycle network? No?
Actually on that note how
Actually on that note how have Labour responded to this? I can’t say I’m hopeful there either..
This is back on the ch5
This is back on the ch5 Jeremy Vine show right now, the child’s father is being interviewed in response to the govt sanctioned victim blaming.
I saw the Daily Mail had
I saw the Daily Mail had picked it up as one of their who do you think is right stories
My two pence on this issue:
My two pence on this issue:
I think both the father and the driver were in the wrong.
The driver was driving dangerously, not in keeping with the highway code, if he had collided with the child I believe he would have been entirely at fault as he could have completely eliminated the risk to the child simply by stopping.
The underlying principle behind safe driving (or cycling) is to only proceed if it is safe to do so. Regardless of priority, traffic lights etc. In this situation the potential for a collision was obvious so the driver should have done all in his power to mitigate the risk.
The father has made a poor judgement call in choosing this road. In an ideal world all roads should be safe enough for children to cycle on. In reality they are not. I have a child the exact same age. I cycle with them on the road but I choose the roads very carefully. Low traffic areas with good visibility and minimal potential for conflict. If I do find myself on a road with potential for conflict I will always ride alongside my child, this maximises our visibility and also removes the risk of close passes.
In summary, poor judgement from both the father and the driver but regardless of the father’s poor judgement the onus is on the driver to recognise and respond to risks on the road. Something they patently failed to do.
No not really. That road even
No not really. That road even has traffic calming measures. I am thinking you aint very smart.
I would comment though that in the Netherlands the parent would have been cycling alongside the child, often with a hand on their back and full control of both their own bike and ready to intervene if necessary if their is a sudden fcktard like the driver in the video doing crap like that. Of course Dutch drivers have a lot more respect for fellow road users.
Always good to start with an
Always good to start with an insult…
The traffic calming measures increase the potential for conflict.
They require a driver to see the cyclist and then to cede priority. Anyone that rides regularly through such chicanes will know that neither of those are a given. I’ve had a few near misses and I’m far larger and easier to see than the child in the video.
I’m glad we agree on the optimal positioning of the adult cyclist though.
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s quite clearly a quiet residential road with regular traffic calming measures, there’s even a park running down one side of it so you only have to watch for people exiting driveways on your left. It’s completely straight so no problems with dangerous sightlines. It’s hard to imagine a much safer road, to be honest. The only thing that makes this road unsuitable for the child is the behaviour of the driver. Anywhere can become dangerous if drivers make it so; I’ve occasionally seen people driving in London’s completely segregated cycle lanes, if one of those hit a child cyclist would the parents have chosen the wrong route? Additionally, in the original tweet by the father he points out that he is less than 100m from his house, so it’s not so much a matter of choosing a road to ride on as wanting to ride home.
Hang on – are we missing the
Hang on – are we missing the elephant again? Non-moving elephants this time. Houses on the left (that I can see) have driveways. And there are vehicles parked along much of that side of the road, and on the other side also. Right at the start there are (thin) cycle bypasses by the traffic calming restrictions (on both sides, they’re marked with a bike symbol) – and look! My favourite – a vehicle (truck) parked right after the one on the right…
Now this may be “by design” e.g. “parking will narrow the carriageway and slow down drivers”. On the other hand the vehicles also then force people into conflict. All I know is there is a subtle but maybe important difference from how they do this where there is lots of cycling.
Not relevant to the main
Not relevant to the main point but as a bonus “could do better” – someone reversing out of a side street. You weren’t advised to do that when I learned (rule 201):
I noticed that too.
I noticed that too.
Also, most (all?) of the cars on drives were facing in so will all be reversing out onto the road at some point.
They’ll be doing that with absolutely terrible visibility due to all the parked cars and vans.
Ideal.
It’s increasingly obvious to
It’s increasingly obvious to anyone in their right that anyone who responded to this video with nothing to say about the driver and everything to say about the child, should have gheir responses passed to their insurance company for appropriate risk rating.
No, the driver was 100% in
No, the driver was 100% in the wrong. The size of the cyclist isn’t the issue here. If the cyclist was an adult, the driver would still have been in the wrong.
Did you read my post?
Did you read my post?
I don’t think I could have made it much clearer that I thought the driver was entirely in the wrong with regard to the incident in question.
The father erred in his route selection.
What annoys me with all these
What annoys me with all these ‘the child doesn’t know the highway code’, ‘is too young to be on the road’ comments, is that they neatly ignore the fact that the child is being actively supervised.
When I ride with my kids, I am always communicating to them about there position, what to do etc. so I’m surprised that everyone just things this father is blindly following his child in this instance.
And also, whilst ranting… that road is not busy. In both versions of the video I’ve seen, there are only two moving cars. As an aside, both of these were arguably driving poorly… no one’s commenting about the car reversing into oncoming traffic at all. What there is, is a lot of road hazards (parked cars), that turn an arguably pleasant road into something else.
This has become such an
This has become such an emotive video, as the comments from around the socials demonstrate.
As someone who’s put my child on the roads in a similar situation, I have a different view point with an outcome. My daughter lost confidence from this exact kind of incident and now is far more nervous about road cycling than she used to be. Her bike handling is excellent (very proud) but she visibly tenses up on some roads now and we forcefully now find longer (sometimes painfully longer) less roadie routes to our destinations.
So regardless of ‘blame’ in this video, the ‘only’ issues this video should highlight are our nations reliance on cars, drivers issues around their entitlement and the broken laws of this land which do not promote safe roads for all.
Reminds me of:
Reminds me of:
https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/insert-loved-one-here/gallery
I take my 4 and 8 year old to
I take my 4 and 8 year old to school and the journey unfortunately involves a short section on the road. I tend to put my 8 year old ahead, I ride primary and my 4 year old rides on my left. I find that if I don’t do this then drivers will overtake/squeeze past. I’ve still experienced drivers being unwilling to yield to us (when it’s our right of way) and basically driving straight at us. The right wing press has a lot to answer for in terms of dehumanising people on bikes, regardless of age.
Some years ago I was cycling
Some years ago I was cycling with my son to his football training. He was close passed by another parent taking his child to the same football training session. I challenged the parent about this when we arrived, at the same time incidentally, as the driver had to wait in a traffic queue. The other parent said my child had wobbled on his bike, which was the cause of the close pass. I pointed out that even if my son had wobbled on his bike (he didn’t) he wouldn’t have been at risk if the driver had kept a proper distance. He shut up after that. I gave the parent the evil eye for weeks afterwards every time I saw him at training. I never said another word to him. He got the message.
Watching Jeremy Vine this
Watching Jeremy Vine this morning it occurred to me:
How many children have been killed or seriously injured in their parents’ own cars?
Were those parents all hauled over the coals for irresponsibly putting their children in danger by taking them on the roads?
I recall a recent case on RoadCC where the trauma and injury to a driver’s own child was used as mitigation in sentencing for that same driver’s dangerous actions…which led to their child’s trauma and injury in the first place. I can’t remember much public outrage about that.
pockstone wrote:
Ah but you don’t understand, motor cars are a huge benefit to society and apparently directly responsible for increased life expectancy, so those deaths are a price well worth paying, whereas cyclists are attention-seeking virtue signallers deliberately putting small children at risk for YouTube clicks.
Or from a non-troll point of view, that’s a very valid point.
I don’t see why you are
I don’t see why you are getting so angry at the obvious fact that motorised vehicles increase life expectancy in the aggregate.
If you get really ill, I suggest – rather than calling one of those “pollution spewing” ambulances – you get 4 blokes to take you to hospital on a rick shaw. While you’re at it though, make sure you find a hospital that doesn’t use electricity, would hate for you to be saved using fossil fuels. Oh, but the hospital also wouldn’t have to have any products made out of evil plastic… In fact, don’t bother calling that rick shaw, eh?
Rakia wrote:
Rickshaw is one word. I wouldn’t normally be so petty as to call someone out for their linguistic ignorance, but as you tried to claim the other day that the police shouldn’t be listened to as they made a typo with “hierarchy” I think it’s appropriate to point it out here.
Bigger issue – in health and
Bigger issue – in health and safety terms what we have on our roads is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance
Simply put – what you get away with (no legal or e.g. physical consequences) you probably repeat, and if “everyone does” that becomes the standard.
So speeding, illegal and dangerous / antisocial parking, phone and screen use, this kind of “barging through” and close passing, “amber gambling” (actually – speeding up or continuing to drive through on red)…
Just like happens in the courts people then see problems as the vulnerable road user’s fault because they identify with the poor standard of driving or accept that this is “not unusual”.
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
Are there a nationwide network of road cycling simulators?
There will always be a first ride on the roads.
We all did it.
It’s how you get experienced.
ktache wrote:
I would like to simulators mandatory prior to driving tests… pretty sure RAC have had them for decades. However, I would like an additional VR element after your lesson where you get to experience being the recipient of your driving, cyclists, pedestrians etc. The tech is there and I think it would be mind-blowing to a lot of drivers as to how that ‘it wasn’t THAT close’ pass felt.
And all you need is powerful
And all you need is powerful fans so that you can get the hair on the arms (and legs) moving from the draft.
Irrespective of what the car
Irrespective of what the car did or didn’t do, it’s all about risk.. Drivers and cyclist misjudge various scenarios each and every day… it’s human nature.
The guardian of a cycling 5yr old should prioritise the 5yr olds safety above whatever else is going on, thus the real issue here is essentially a narrow road with a plethora of parked vehicles either side which is a terrible choice to take a young child down on a bike. The hazard perception required is quite high..potential pedestrians emerging between vehicles, doors opening, vehicles moving off, oncoming vehicles (of which there was an issue in this case)..
The potential for evasive action is limited as the Guardian is providing rearward protection whilst instructing , which has its limitations in this case, due to hazards both at the side and ahead of the child..A bad choice of road in my opinion
If only they lived somewhere
If only they lived somewhere else.
You don’t have to cycle the
You don’t have to cycle the road just because it’s near your house.
I live on a road that I consider unsafe for my 5 year old to cycle so we walk the last 250 yards.
Not ideal and if driving standards were higher it wouldn’t be necessary but that is unfortunately the world we live in.
what is unsafe about it?
what is unsafe about it?
The motorists.
The motorists.
It’s always the motorists.
Drives with poor visibility
Drives with poor visibility for cars leaving. Potential for cars to hit cyclists when leaving drives. Magnified for children.
Lots of cars parked either side limiting the road space and creating potential for conflict as demonstrated in the video.
Traffic ‘calming’ chicanes with same potential problem.
Lots of potential for people to emerge unseen from behind/between parked cars/vans/trucks potentially spooking an inexperienced cyclist.
Indeed – although note that
Indeed – although note that the designers did try to make the traffic calming chicane safer for cycling with bypasses but this effectively failed. That was partly through not considering the whole of the street in the design e.g. it’s legally OK for vehicles to park in between these points so cyclists are forced out into the middle anyway – but it’s worse because it’s actually OK for vehicles to park really close to the entry / exit from these bypasses. It’s also probably moot because even if the designers had specified double-yellows we know that these have variable effectiveness and at any rate require parking enforcement also. Without that in some cases they may be ignored by many.
Good point on the “reversing out”. Wouldn’t help here with driveways but there is a mitigation for this for on-street parking which I discovered recently which in the UK is termed reverse echelon parking. One of the main objections to implementing this is actually the whole reason for suggesting it in the first place e.g. drivers find reversing difficult and tend to hit things! As you might imagine the other objection is our favourite “but slows other drivers / congestion”. That shouldn’t be an issue on a residential street but again the UK’s multi-functional streets make that a problem (see video here on how other places avoid this).
Again if people didn’t already I’d encourage a read of the article I linked last time – it’s a deep dive into why what looks similar on the surface (a residential street with cars parked on one or both sides) is actually a very different proposition here vs. e.g. NL. (For our resident contrarians, no, it’s not mostly “the culture” although of course driver expectations are important).
That reverse echelon parking
That reverse echelon parking would definitely improve things in a lot of residential streets.
The article about Dutch street design is interesting.
A street in Cardiff that links segregated cycling paths has been given a very Dutch looking makeover. It’s now very safe for cycling on and is one of the streets I cycle on with my children.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xxqTK3tRDbB7S7CF6
Compare and contrast to the street in the article!
Interesting! This is
Interesting! This is certainly an improvement by UK standards – although like many “new infra” things I bet there are some places in the UK this kind of thing has been in existence decades!
Couple of thoughts on that particular design (I am not a civil engineer or even a huge kerb-nerd). The mostly good:
20’s plenty (good) but the Taff embankment carriageway is a bit wide. It’s still a two-way, two lane street. Yes, the “median” treatment is a reasonable effort at dealing with this – presumably a) to avoid having to make this one-way (note – Dutch examples often are) and probably the “how will the bin lorries / fire trucks get through” objection was raised. However because cars and probably lorries (see later) will be running over it hope it stands up to the treatment! If it were narrower it would be better for the river side because ATM the trees are a bit in the way of pedestrians. Of course in the UK there are often extremely noisy objections to removing mature trees – even where that stops the streetscape being made “nicer” – because we’ve hacked too many down in the past. Rarely for cycle infra…
The side-street junctions? Hmm could do better – this is “UK alpha version” I’d say. We have this in Edinburgh dating from some decades back I think – actually makes it a bit of a PITA to ride as a) bumpy b) the brick surface gets uneven where motor vehicles squash the surface. See “Continuous footway” – so we’re still signalling that even in a “quiet residential street” the main purpose of the space is “motor vehicle movements”, not people walking.
Also good – Aber Street – but
Also good – Aber Street – but again look how *wide* the street space is (once you’re woke, you can’t not see…). Even after installing effectively 3 parking lanes there are still two good-size lanes for drivers! Also in the Dutch version they might have used that space to make those lanes move from side to side instead of being straight because that “naturally” helps keep speed down (if they had two; they’d have likely reduced to one).
Also good to see some signed restrictions on heavy vehicles. Although I’m immediately questioning why this was needed. Why would you put a sign up if not necessary – but then what are 7.5 ton trucks doing being in a quiet residential area *except* for very occasional access anyway?
Not so good: because it’s still 2 way, we have 2 lane entrance to side streets (that at some of the streets is narrowed a bit but still is 2 lane). We have an obsession in the UK with “access in all directions” for motor vehicles. This place looks like a great candidate for “modal filters” / all or part one-way access. Then kids could really play in the streets…
There’s not much of it. Even this street is not all done this way at e.g. the west end. And at the East as it goes round the corner, all of this goodness just stops! Streetview has the usual e.g. cars half-on the pavement etc. It looks like there is new tarmac there so presumably it’s not that they haven’t finished, you get 300 metres of this treatment and that’s it!
Finally – streetview had several cyclists at the east end who’d chosen to ride on the shared space on the river side rather than in the carriageway. There are some reasons why they might be there but it’s another sign that it’s still very early days in the Heroic Resistance to the Invasion of the Motorist (formerly “War on the Motorist”).
Interestingly the next area
Interestingly the next area that got the Dutch style upgrade did get continuous footways despite being a far busier road.
This was, AFAIK, the first area in Cardiff to get this treatment so maybe they didn’t want to rock the boat too much hence the 2 way. The rumble strip in the middle is a nice touch though.
Thankfully this street doesn’t go anywhere really so doesn’t get too many vehicles. It’s a few years old and, so far, has stood up well.
Fair comment about the trees on the pavement but the pavement was significantly widened as part of the upgrade, before the trees took up the entire width! Personally I think keeping the trees is worthwhile, without them the street would lose a lot of character and it’s not a busy walking route.
I think with the trees that’s
I think with the trees that’s certainly a sensible move here, there’s a footway the other side and looks like some “park” further down. In the fullness of time reclaiming more “waterfront” with walk/cycleway for people could be great (and likely increase house prices!). Also even just adding a rumble strip for a couple of hundred yards and rearranging parking is a major deal in the UK. Lots of people are very suspicious of the local authorities!
Good to see this happening even if not perfect. How long has it been in? What do local residents think of it now?
Again I suspect that the “full Dutch” treatment would see this as a one-way / small traffic cells (“LTN”) exactly because there is no logical “through route” here. Plus redo the carriageway with bends in to “naturally” slow driving.
I think it’s been about three
I think it’s been about three years now. It seems to be very popular.
I haven’t heard anyone complain about it and the area is now gentrifying hard!
Cardiff is building quite a lot of new cycling infra and there are a few schemes like this being put in place so hopefully we’ll get the ‘Full Dutch’ somewhere soon.
Hmm… maybe the Celtic
Hmm… maybe the Celtic nations can share some newer cultural goods! It’d be great if we in Scotland could pick up the 20mph urban default for example. I’m not surprised to hear that when the worst worries fail to appear people quickly forget the drama and life proceeds.
Never been to Cardiff but it’s now on my list – if only for a Streetview virtual tour in the near future.
Cathay’s Terrace is the
Cathay’s Terrace is the latest big project. Will eventually connect the bike lane network to the hospital and a major park. Mostly finished now and looking pretty good.
Not on street view yet but it can’t be long until the little Google car does its rounds again.
Weird take there. Pretty sure
Weird take there. Pretty sure that is a quiet road from the video. Only two oncoming cars on the full length and plenty of spaces for safe passing if only the drivers thinks about it.
Or it sounds like you would prefer the child to be on a 40mph- dual carriageway as there are no parked cars or adults who might step out on some of them. Of course, no road in the UK is dangerous, it just depends on the drivers that happen to be on them.
It is a typical motoring
It is a typical motoring viewpoint. Cars create risks, so some attempt is made to constrain them, but the motorists object to being constrained to they ignore the rules. As enforecement is limited, drivers learn from each other that these things are acceptable. Then the law gets degraded by poor case law and Government, in fear of the motoring lobby, fails to rectify these problems.
So we have:
– speed limits – ignored and poorly enforced;
– pavement driving and parking – ignored and poorly enforced.
– cycle lanes – derided and ignored
– bollards, vandalised and driven over
– LTNs – campaigned against, vandalised and ignored
– Pedestrianised areas: ignored and now even plod has encouraged their use.
– Driving standards – rarely enforced, tolerated by other road users.
Yet it remains the pedestrians’ and cyclists’ problem to deal with the motorist culture which is that careless and inconsiderate driving is the norm and should be accepted and tolerated and those who seek to resist such a culture are at fault.
It is weird, that while many
It is weird, that while many cyclist are also drivers, all drivers are at some point, pedestrians. I’m guessing they criticise others pavement parking.
I wonder how much is also a
I wonder how much is also a generational/upbringing thing?
I was brought up not to litter – I come home with pockets full of wrappers and other detritous, I cannot bring myself to stop on a double yellow, abide by bus lanes and pedestrian areas. I also try to avoid pushing my way out of give ways, that should always be a negotiation and one where I am quite content that several cars should pass on a major road before anyone even considers giving me the opportunity to pull out. So as a driver, I am still aggrieved that other drivers cannot abide by the clearly marked rules. As a cyclist doign gravel rides, I make it obvious I am going wide and slow, and I always thank walkers who cooperate with me on a bike.
It seems to me that there is a social aspect, the working man who feels entitled to brush others out of their way because they’ve got work to get to (oblivious to the status of other road users), the wealthy entitled (or the fake wealthy who are leasing beyond their means), and the plain anti-social, petty criminal attitude.
Someone told me I had an over-developed sense of right and wrong. A mate defended me, asking “Is that possible?”
its funny to think when I was
its funny to think when I was that age I was riding round on NSL roads in the countryside, unsupervised, didnt even wear a helmet, I wasnt supposed to go to far out of the village but I may have bent those rules once or twice, guess there were less cars then, but risk is that thing that humans are particularly bad at comprehending properly.
it looks a perfectly safe road to teach kids to ride on, drivers just need to be less self intolerant impatient twats about it.
Ashley Neal just gave his
Ashley Neal just gave his opinion and he puts most of the responsibility on the driver for endangering the child by not giving priority. He also criticizes the dad for pushing on regardless while agreeing he had priority. The bit I liked was his opinion that the only one who was observant and aware of the danger was the 5 year old and he followed the adults instructions and held a consistent line even when turning his head (much better than I manage when I’m looking over my shoulder).
I think AN was wide of the
I think AN was wide of the mark again. Yes, he did rightly call out the poor driving, but he also:
– stated nobody had priority, where actually the cyclists did (by arriving there first and due to the hierachy of vulnerability).
– assumed the kid had perceived the danger, when they were probably just confirming who had right of way. If you’ve ever cycled with a kid on the road, they ask if they should stop in a lot of situations.
– said it was clear the car was not going to stop, when it actually looked like it was going to (it did slow down quite a lot).
– at 2:23 in, put in a clip of him not following his own advice on an e-scooter!
His solution to this seemed to be the cyclists should have stopped. He didn’t mention riding two abreast (as rule 66 advises), nor that the driver should be prosecuted. He didn’t give any consideration as to how safely communicating a stop could have been acheived (it was wet and there was only a very short timescale to make a decision); telling the kid to stop could have seen them wobble as they slowed and could have made the situation worse.
Bit disappointed, but not surprised, by the analysis. It all seemed to boil down to you cyclists are vulnerable, so should not get in the way of a dodgy driver. Most of my cycling involves getting in the way of dodgy drivers – it’s quite hard to avoid doing that if you ride anywhere on the roads!
Just wondering where all of
Just wondering where all of these safe roads are, where drivers are always considerate, safe, and very careful around inexperienced, vulnerable road users, where said inexperienced vulnerable road users can gain vital experience?
ktache wrote:
Unicorn Avenue – just turn left at Yellowbrick Road and carry straight on over the rainbow.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You mean here? https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2021/06/16/the-worlds-longest-rainbow-cycle-path/
I don’t approve of those.
I don’t approve of those.
If you want to do a bit of virtue signalling, then don’t do it with road surfaces.
We have a zebra crossing gussied-up into a Rainbow at our District Hospital, which constantly has the public and ambulances driving across it against all the patients arriving – and I somehow doubt that a H&S assessment has been done.
…and how many accidents
…and how many accidents have been caused by that then?
They seem cheerful enough to me and fairly unproblematic – except to those who’ve got ideological objections.
In general I want good, regular, boring and above all standard infra (including colours and markings) over “we’ll just do it our way here” or “hey – I’ve a cool design!” I’ll certainly accept a few exceptions to e.g. break the monotony of built environments. (I recall the pleasant effect of of subtle modifications to e.g. light fittings on the York cyclepath from way back). That shouldn’t compromise things though (e.g. “this one’s cool but cost as much as 10 normal bridges”) e.g. legibility, visibility or other safety-critical aspects. Same as “hi-vis and lights everywhere” means that nothing stands out.
Luckily someone’s already done a bit of research for you on just this:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2018/08/building-legal-rainbow-crossing.html
mattw wrote:
You’d have to be a pretty inconsiderate and/or massively pedantic individual to drive up to a rainbow crossing with people waiting, where there used to be a zebra crossing, and say to yourself, “NO – it isn’t painted in black and white and therefore I don’t think it’s a legitimate zebra crossing, so I won’t stop”.
…however judging by what
…however judging by what rears its head here “if I don’t think it’s in the highway code I’ll ignore it, if it wasn’t in the highway code when I learned 20 years back I’ll ignore it, if it isn’t in black and white in the highway code now I’ll see you in court as there’s a good chance that even if I’m wrong and it is there and is law there’s wriggle-room for my lawyer to get me the benefit of the doubt!”
brooksby wrote:
It’s a good thing that drivers are never inconsiderate then…
mattw wrote:
I don’t see it as being virtue signalling, but more of a welcoming/non-discrimination signal. If you’re a member of a minority and you see various indications (such as rainbow zebras) that you’re welcome in that area, then surely that’s a positive thing. After all the Brexit toxicity, we could do with some positive messages about tolerance of others.
Unfortuately it currently
Unfortuately it currently involves a flight / boat trip / train journey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0yzZLVsTCE
Have a look at Chris’ link
Have a look at Chris’ link earlier in the thread.
You can’t eliminate bad driving entirely but you can design a lot of conflict out, making streets far safer for cyclists new and old.
I thought it was clear the
I thought it was clear the car was not going to stop, but not for the reasons Ashely thinks, its because experience has taught me 9 out of 10 drivers prioritise arriving at their destination a few seconds sooner than bothering to give any space to a cyclist.
also lets say they did stop when the kid asks the question, theyll have stop by the white van because bike brakes arent instaneous especially in the wet, and theyd be left in the same position on the road, so would the car magically give more space by manouevering quickly back across to the kerb, or carry on the line theyd already adopted…yep theres that experience kicking in again.
again though we’re back to debating how a 5year old child and their parent should ride on a road,whilst completely ignoring the main point that it could have been Ashley himself on that bike, and the driver would have done the exact same wrong thing.
Yep, the age of the kid is
Yep, the age of the kid is irrelevant, they actually rode really well. The only criticism I could place on the Dad is not riding two abreast – but it’s a minor point; resorting to such defensive riding should not be the norm.
To be fair to AN, he did call for the Highway Code to be made clearer in terms of the required room to give when passing an oncoming cyclist, appropriate speed and when to stop. I do think the HC is deficient in this area.
if we could just come up with
if we could just come up with a catchy phrase to use like Googles dont be evil, but we shouldnt have to prescribe this stuff to that level of detail IMO just to get people to drive considerately around vulnerable road users.
I had one today, single track country road, close passed by an impatient BMW driver, literally a couple of bike lengths away from a passing place I could and would have pulled into.
the mistake I made that let them go for a gap that wasnt there, I wasnt riding prime, because I didnt think I needed to do it, because I thought it was obvious there wasnt the room to pass safely. I doubt even if the HC was clearer about this stuff it would have changed my close encounter, one iota.
We got buzzed like that as
We got buzzed like that as Peds. Only 20 m from a safe passing area when on a single track road in the middle of no where in Suffolk.
As you say, pure impatient.