“Share the road? Cyclists never endanger drivers”: Campaign to make endangering a cyclist “as unacceptable as drink driving” praised – but angry motorists urge riders to “find a safer mode of transport”; Julian Alaphilippe tributes + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
“That’s a more assertive message than ‘share the road’. Cyclists never endanger drivers”: Campaign to make endangering a cyclist “as unacceptable as drink driving” praised – but angry motorists say “if you don’t like it, don’t ride on the road”
A recent post by Amy’s Foundation has caused quite the stir on social media – for simply urging people to treat endangering a cyclist on the roads as seriously as drink driving. Yes, that’s the world we live in.
Amy’s Foundation, as I’m sure you’re aware, is the current iteration of the Amy Gillet Foundation, the campaign set up in memory of the Olympic rower-turned-elite cyclist. In 2006, 29-year-old Gillet was killed during a training ride with the Australian national team in Germany, when a driver lost control of their car, hitting her and her teammates.
The foundation has been at the forefront of road safety advocacy in Australia for two decades, and led the campaign to enshrine in law the requirement for drivers to leave a minimum of one metre’s distance when passing cyclists. That campaign came to an end in 2021 when Victoria became the final state to pass the 1m law.
> Australian helmet cam study says motorists to blame in 88 per cent of accidents with cyclists
The foundation says it wants to “build a culture of mutual respect between cyclists and motorists, enhancing cyclist safety through effective legislation, advanced technology, and improved infrastructure”, which it hopes will pave the way to “essential-zero” cyclist fatalities and serious injuries on Australian roads.
In 2024, the foundation was liquidated after losing its federal government funding, but managed to bounce back a few months later thanks to a new leadership team, including former pro Phil Anderson and Gillet’s teammate and world points race champion Kate Bates, rebranding as ‘Amy’s Foundation’.
On 13 September, it will host Amy’s Great Ocean Gran Fondo, the annual event raising funds for the foundation and its road safety campaigns.
In recent weeks, the foundation has produced several posts related to various aspects of road safety, from the risk of ‘dooring’ incidents and inadequate cycling infrastructure to the school commute and motorists driving in bike lanes.
But yesterday’s post has appeared to have attracted a lot more attention online than the others. Why? Because it simply pointed out that endangering people on bikes on the road should be treated as seriously as drink driving. Yes, really.
“Behind every campaign is a small team with one clear goal: make endangering a cyclist as unacceptable as drink driving became,” the post read.
Of course, some Facebook users were happy with the campaign’s simple, to the point messaging.
“That’s a more assertive message than ‘share the road’,” said David Baillie. “Drivers endanger cyclists. Cyclists never endanger drivers.”
David Jones added: “Decades ago, on my first lesson with a new driving instructor, he said, ‘This is a lethal weapon and it is my job to teach you how to drive it responsibly.’ I am convinced that they no longer teach this.”
“We MUST get dangerous drivers off roads and thank a cyclist for that extra parking space at work or store. Cyclists aren’t dangerous distracted or speeding drivers. Cyclists are gentle. They don’t kill 40,000 people per year like drivers do,” noted Joseph Barnett.
However, rather inevitably, not everyone was in agreement with a post calling for people not to put other people’s lives in danger.
“High time cyclists took responsibility for their own safety, not expect driver [sic] to think for them,” wrote Edward Sayers, who also questioned why the 1.5m passing rule doesn’t also apply to cyclists passing vehicles (yes, really).
“If they want drivers to respect them on the roads they need to earn it.”
“Before cyclists try and change how others use the roads, they need to do everything they can to make the way they use them as safe has [sic] they can,” said Lawrence Wilton.
Responding to David Baillie’s comment about cyclists not endangering motorists, Mike Smith said: “A pack of cyclists that ran a stop sign caused me to knee jerk react and swerve into oncoming traffic. Thankfully neither I nor the person in the truck I hit were seriously hurt. The pack of cyclists kept riding. They categorically endangered me.”
And UK-based Paul Rennie chipped in: “Cyclists should try using the roads, for what they are intended, not for training.
“I cycle as well, yes I agree the standard of driving is ridiculous but the UK’S infrastructure is built around motor vehicles and wanting/campaigning for equal rights will never happen.
“The infrastructure in the UK has NOT got the room for a cycle infrastructure as well. The quicker you realise that the better.”
Well, that’s a bit pessimistic, isn’t it Paul? I wonder what he makes of the increasing size of cars, then?
“You ride on the road you take the same chance as everyone else! If you don’t like it then don’t ride on the road,” added Keith Birchall (complete with a smiley face at the end).
And finally, Richard Standing said: “Or maybe the cyclists should find a safer mode of transport…”
My head hurts. We’re on to the ‘don’t tell me not to endanger another person’ stage of the internet, it seems. Although, to be fair, we’ve probably been here a while…
“And drivers wonder why cyclists ride in middle of the road”
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
6 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Campaign to make endangering a cyclist “as unacceptable as drink driving” praised – but angry motorists say “if you don’t like it, don’t ride on the road” I am not sure the language here is helpful. Are there really many 'Angry' motorists? who is getting angry at the idea of being thoughtful when passing a cyclist? Yes, I am sure there are plenty who will complain about cyclists being 'in their way' but is anger the first emotion you think they jump to? If you want a climb down from the perceived war on our roads - made up entirely by the media, dont feed it with language like this. It helps nobody.
Of course doing that we'll get chips with everything and it'll end up "needing" AI * ... ... but eg. the Dutch have gone a long way with "just don't make every street a through-route for motor traffic". Along with "where you seriously reduce motor traffic volumes and speeds different modes can share space; where that's not possible physically separate them (but design it so cyclists can keep rolling as much as possible)". Although their traffic light phasing (and advance detection of approaching traffic, *including* cyclists) is "space age" tech compared to UK usually timed lights... * Doing planned societal change "simply" appears almost as impossible as following the simple diet advice of "just eat less than you expend energetically, mostly vegetables". There are very strong forces reinforcing any status quo.
"Bastardo! Mama Mia! (Not going to bother with the accent) You've hit me with your beast of an Suv. I'll sue the ass off you. I'm the mayor of Como and I'm going to ban your vehicles from the city. Where's your insurance details?" "Sorry old chap I'm St Peter."
For those who think the answer is to find a safer mode of transport, they're clearly incapable of driving safely, so I'm asking them to stay off the road to help me fulfill their request for me to move to safer transport.
I used to ride that area occasionally - Louth to Donna Nook range and back. The roads are thin heavily cambered county roads which have lots of agricultural vehicles using them more than anything else. They are mostly just breaking apart due to the weight they bare and and the fact most have irrigation ditches next to them. It would take millions to repair them all. I would suggest just not riding on them and sticking to the more well maintained roads around that region. there are lots of good roads around too. going down a quiet country lane thats away from most traffic is obviously going to be in a bad state for the reasons I mentioned above.
RE: the foundation looking to "build a culture of mutual respect between cyclists and motorists, enhancing cyclist safety through effective legislation, advanced technology, and improved infrastructure" I have an idea what that "advanced technology" could look like!
@Mr Blackbird but what if the others have bigger SUVs? Perhaps Dodge Ram trucks? Best get a truck yourself. Or even something with armour... It's the only responsible thing to do if you are carrying passengers.
"in the past, bearing cups have been machined directly into the aluminium hub shell" Absolutely not, come on! Surely nobody has ever made aluminium bearing cups? Even my cheap Tiagra spec wheels from 2006 had press-in steel bearing cups in the cheap alloy hubs. The problem was, you couldn't get replacements by 2012 when I needed them. Campag's bearing cups are replaceable too, but also fairly tricky to find after a few years... I remember taking ages to get cups for some early 1990s 8 speed hubs, but I did eventually find them.
Could it be the Lincolnshire counterpart to the Sheffield - a "Surfleet stand"?
Take a bow Mr Richard (the voice of common sense) Standing. Finding a safer form of transport than cycling is the ultimate solution. I have just put my bikes up for sale on eBay and will put the proceeds towards buying a huge SUV. Hopefully I will be able set some PBs if I get it before the end of the time trial season. Maybe the tragic loss of Fin Tarling will force professional cycling to take the same path? This would also remove the need for improved cycling helmets.
6 thoughts on ““Share the road? Cyclists never endanger drivers”: Campaign to make endangering a cyclist “as unacceptable as drink driving” praised – but angry motorists urge riders to “find a safer mode of transport”; Julian Alaphilippe tributes + more on the live blog”
Take a bow Mr Richard (the voice of common sense) Standing.
Finding a safer form of transport than cycling is the ultimate solution.
I have just put my bikes up for sale on eBay and will put the proceeds towards buying a huge SUV. Hopefully I will be able set some PBs if I get it before the end of the time trial season.
Maybe the tragic loss of Fin Tarling will force professional cycling to take the same path? This would also remove the need for improved cycling helmets.
@Mr Blackbird but what if the others have bigger SUVs? Perhaps Dodge Ram trucks? Best get a truck yourself. Or even something with armour…
It’s the only responsible thing to do if you are carrying passengers.
RE: the foundation looking to “build a culture of mutual respect between cyclists and motorists, enhancing cyclist safety through effective legislation, advanced technology, and improved infrastructure”
I have an idea what that “advanced technology” could look like!
Of course doing that we’ll get chips with everything and it’ll end up “needing” AI * …
… but eg. the Dutch have gone a long way with “just don’t make every street a through-route for motor traffic”. Along with “where you seriously reduce motor traffic volumes and speeds different modes can share space; where that’s not possible physically separate them (but design it so cyclists can keep rolling as much as possible)”.
Although their traffic light phasing (and advance detection of approaching traffic, *including* cyclists) is “space age” tech compared to UK usually timed lights…
* Doing planned societal change “simply” appears almost as impossible as following the simple diet advice of “just eat less than you expend energetically, mostly vegetables”. There are very strong forces reinforcing any status quo.
For those who think the answer is to find a safer mode of transport, they’re clearly incapable of driving safely, so I’m asking them to stay off the road to help me fulfill their request for me to move to safer transport.
Campaign to make endangering a cyclist “as unacceptable as drink driving” praised – but angry motorists say “if you don’t like it, don’t ride on the road”
I am not sure the language here is helpful. Are there really many ‘Angry’ motorists? who is getting angry at the idea of being thoughtful when passing a cyclist? Yes, I am sure there are plenty who will complain about cyclists being ‘in their way’ but is anger the first emotion you think they jump to? If you want a climb down from the perceived war on our roads – made up entirely by the media, dont feed it with language like this. It helps nobody.