Labour MP's anger after London cyclist leaves him bruised

Was the MP wearing high visibility and a helmet?

The comment about cyclists not wanting to stop shows a fundamental misconception of most cycle policy and a cause for poor infrastructure design.

Forcing a cyclist to stop from 25 kph is equivalent to making the rider do an extra 100 metres in terms of energy used. To encourage more people to switch to cycling should be designed to minimise this impact to cyclists by making red lights "Give Way" and granting cyclists priority over pedestrians on shared routes and over motorised traffic on roads. In a large city this could be done with vastly bigger, 15-20 metre, ASL zones at busy junctions.

Its impossible to discuss this without knowing what actually happened. If the cyclist was jumping a red at the time that's a very different thing from if they weren't.

If he was then my sympathies are 100% with the MP, but if not, then responsibility is more-than-likely a bit mixed (I do tend to think pedestrians always have priority, but if someone literally steps out right in front of a vehicle there's not much that can be done about it).

Main thing is, typically for a bike accident its just bruises and people being annoyed, and not a death. Also - would it be wrong to point out that it was probably the presence of large motorised vehicles that obscured everyone's lines of sight?

I go through here every day. Due to tourist levels (and no doubt to assist politicians in getting back to Parliament from their other places of employment nearby) there are two sets of lights and two Pedestrian crossings there. I have seen plenty of jumpers, and plenty of people stepping into the road, deep in conversation or just plain lost. Most of the crossings run up near Parliament itself, and are within 30 yards of armed uniformed police manning barriers and suchlike. If an MP had been left with "massive bruising" I am sure someone would have gone to his aid, and that more of a story would have resulted. With no other info at hand, this smells a little bit like - "look constituents - still working hard - and taking risks for you" Is there an election in the offing?

The pedestrian SHOULD exercise proper care when crossing the road - whether at a crossing point or not and whether or not traffic is stationary. Clearly here not all of the traffic was stationary as there was a moving bike (which as we all know is traffic).

However the cyclist just like all other road users should always be aware of what is going on all around them. If you are filtering you still need to maintain awareness and if passing a vehicle that limits your ability to see then you slow down accordingly. If you do that you don't generally hit pedestrians (even idiot MPs - note I'm basing "idiot" on his policies not his road crossing ability).

When a motor vehicle is being driven a bit too quickly for what they can see, or makes manouvres where they don't have clear vision and hits a cyclist because they couldn't stop we quite rightly get upset and angry about that. So lets not get too defensive of cyclists before we know the full facts.

in fact, just checked his twitter feed and he hasn't answered someone ask if the cyclist was RLJ, so I've asked him again...lets see if he replies/confirms that as i expect, the cyclist was not RLJ

If it was a red light, he would have said so. Here, he just implies it and allows the association that lights + cyclist = RLJ without saying so. It is a classic politician spin technique. He can't be called up for lying if he didn't say that he was hit by RLJ. therefore, it is very safe to conclude that he was not RLJ, but was crossing through stopped traffic and stepped in front of the cyclist who quite rightly and legally was filtering.

Sounds to me as if he was in the wrong...

Pedestrians only have right of way if they are already crossing a road in which you are turning. Rule 1 for pedestrians states, "If you have to step into the road, look both ways first. Always show due care and consideration for others." Rule 18 states, "always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing." 12 states, "You should only start to cross the road when the green figure shows."

Of course we don't know if there was a light or not, but if this was me I would have stated that the lights were red if they had been. It could have just as easily been a motorbike coming down there, in which case the MP would be tweeting from a hospital bed.

It's got a touch of the Brick Tamlands this thread.

If red light jumping cyclist (95% of which in my experience are not cyclists as defined on here but casuals) then throw the book at them. They are a minority in London regardless of what people think but I'm sick of them.

If they were legally filtering when some d*ckhead walked out in front of them without looking then I hope he reads this article and decides to sue.

I 100% agree with giving pedestrians priority and forcing vehicles including cyclists to stop if they can but you simply can't overcome the laws of physics - I've seen this too many times and they always think they're in the right in the heat of the moment

those pedestrians going through static traffic without caring are so annoying
even when there is zero pedestrian path they run through cars.. and jump in the bikes. and of course they're completely wrong to do so.

sounds like this is the stuff that happened there.

Nothing is ever a politician's fault - you only have to look at this idiot Perkins' Labour collegues' reaction to what's happening in Iraq to see that

I hope the cyclist apologised for his carelessness. When cycling (or driving) you've got to think for everyone else but above all always give way to pedestrians. Just remember any crowd you've ever tried to walk through in a hurry...random motion.

We'll never know what happened and it's always possible that Mr Perkins walked out from behind a slab sided van into the cyclist's path. However the cyclist should have been travelling at a speed that would have enabled him to stop, or at least limit the damage.

Careless cycling will not win supporters for this excellent mode of transport.

How about this then?

Labour MP is running late and in a hurry decides to cross the road weaving through the stationary cars. No problem , he is after all a 'by right' user of the highway.

He is so intent on reaching his destination that he fails to see another by right user [the cyclist] and react to the fact that their paths will cross causing a possible conflict. As he is the one crossing traffic flows then he is the one who has the main responsibility for avoiding collision. (See rules of the sea from time immemorial). Or put another way his actions directly caused the collision.

He when arrives at his destination after berating the person he has assaulted and then proceeds to denigrate the victim via social media and whinge about his self-inflicted injuries. Note: He makes no mention of his victims injuries as he didn't endeavour to find out and doesn't care.

"How dare this Pleb get in my way! Doesn't he know I'm a very important person - I'm a Member of Parliament!" aka Pompous Git.

Just a thought.

Telling that a politician didn't have the sense to look properly or have the balls to shove the chopper cyclist off his bike. I'd much rather read a story one here entitled 'politician shoves RLJ'ing cyclist under a bus then stamps on his jaw' than this sort of story.

P.s. Could we all stop defending the cyclist when we all know the probable truth.

We have no idea if the incident occurred on a pedestrian crossing or at a junction that did not have pedestrian phase (they do exist - here's one local to me http://goo.gl/maps/4EZD2 )If the traffic has come to a halt at a junction or there is no traffic the pedestrian can then cross with care. Lights only serve as an invitation to cross in relative safety, though motorists have been known to sail on through regardless which happened to me once when half way across a pedestrian crossing on the green man. Fortunately I was keeping an eye for such a possibility and was able to stop in time. A youngster or elderly person may not have been so lucky.

At least he could tweet about it, a car/bus/lorry would have killed him.

I was always under the impression that a pedestrian no matter the status of the light has absolute priority.

Remember that this guy is a politician. They are very adept at choosing words carefully to give an impression which is quite contrary to the truth, without actually lying.

The fact that he could have said that the cyclist went through a light set at red, but that he did not say this, leads me to assume that in fact the lights were green for traffic and that he took the opportunity to cross because some other congestion, or a traffic signal further on, had brought traffic to a halt.

Of course, the cyclist would be well advised to proceed with caution in such a situation, but I am guessing he didn't actually commit any offence.

So is the MP going to tell us more details about what happened? Was he at a crossing? Was the cyclist jumping a light? Or was the MP crossing between stationary traffic and didn't see the cyclist? If it was the last case, then the cyclist would actually have right of way. Pedestrians are supposed to look out for moving traffic when crossing, and that includes bicycles. But it's impossible to tell from the information here.

I'm another of those London cyclists and have had numerous close encounters with pedestrians who may listen but don't look when crossing roads.

It's entirely possible the cyclist was either filtering too fast or ignored a light. I don't know that, but it happens. Now why am I as another one of those "London cyclists" somehow associated with that in his broad catch all statement?

How many unassociated groups do you think you could get away with saying such a thing. Let's go straight for the obvious, and pick on race or religion, I'm sure that would go down well

Well thats me voting for UKIP then.