bradley wiggins/cycling

[northlondoner]

Jeez Dave R - Nette's post is a joke. I don't think she really wants a cannon.

Listen, I'm a cyclist as well as a driver. I've had my share of close shaves with buses, cars etc. But as I've said before , the last time I did a good commuter cycle I felt most endangered by the aggressive , risky behaviour of other cyclists.

I'm sorry if that's too "anecdotal". But that's the reality as I experienced it.

There's a curious thing at work here - a cult of invincibility ( I've been told by cyclsists "I don't have to wait" and " it's no skin off your nose if I got through a red light" ).... and a cult of victimhood ( check out mynamehere's dotty ramblings) . I'm not saying you fall into either caregory Dave R . But this is a toxic mix.

[LondonLogCo]

I drive a big white truck up through the city. I treat cyclists like horse riders. Never know when the beast they ride might misbehave or rear into the traffic. It's a bit mental out there and the law needs to step in now.

For sure confiscate bikes without lights. Prosecute wreckless drivers. Pull up the law breaker and all that but, if you ride a bike down hells alley ( blackfriars bridge rd) give your self and everyone a chance. Lights, helmet, high viz as standard. Improve your skills on two wheel & four, as it's new territory out there.

I am also a cyclist btw.

But I'm ashamed at the behaviour or other bikers and van drivers. (colour optional)

[northlondoner]

LondonLogCo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I drive a big white truck up through the city. I

> treat cyclists like horse riders. Never know when

> the beast they ride might misbehave or rear into

> the traffic. It's a bit mental out there and the

> law needs to step in now.

>

> For sure confiscate bikes without lights.

> Prosecute wreckless drivers. Pull up the law

> breaker and all that but, if you ride a bike down

> hells alley ( blackfriars bridge rd) give your

> self and everyone a chance. Lights, helmet, high

> viz as standard. Improve your skills on two wheel

> & four, as it's new territory out there.

>

> I am also a cyclist btw.

>

> But I'm ashamed at the behaviour or other bikers

> and van drivers. (colour optional)

Sensible fellow

[titch juicy]

Very sensible

At last some cyclists in this thread are not treating it like an 'us against thenm' conflict, and acknowledging that for the safety of all road users, all road users need to pull their socks up

[northlondoner]

Careful TJ .DaveR and Mynameetc could have you stripped of your Lycra for cycling sedition and the perversion of pedalling pedagogy.

[DaveR]

Okay, I'll bite - again. This was my original post on this thread:

"I think frustrated rather than deranged, to be fair. Anyone with any interest in the 'cycling debate' (if such a thing exists) has heard this argument go round and round in circles a million times before. The one thing that never changes, and the most important thing, is that in an encounter between a cyclist and a motor vehicle, it is the cyclist who is at risk. If a cyclist does something stupid and puts themselves in danger, that is their individual action and they have to take the consequences. However, it has no relevance at all to debates about tax, insurance and licensing for cyclists (which are all stupid ideas, frankly), nor does it ever excuse a vehicle driver of the responsibility to drive sensibly and have specific regard to the vulnerability of other road users. And the stats clearly show that, if the aim is to stop people getting killed/seriously injured, tackling bad driving should be a higher priority than bad cycling.

I agree that it would be better if all cyclists didn't jump red lights or ride at night without lights. But as a car driver neither of these things present any risk of harm to you. Get over it.

BTW, overtaking on the inside is fair game, if there is enough space. You need to start actually looking in your nearside mirror - that's what it's there for."

Nothing in there about 'us and them', nothing suggesting that cyclists should be able to do whatever they want, are never at fault, etc. My only problem with many of the posts on here is that people are extrapolating from their own experience - "I see lots of cyclists do stupid things" - to a general proposition - "cyclists themselves are wholly or mainly the cause of risks to their own safety" - which the data shows is wrong. IMHO persistently advancing this wrong propostion is likely in itself to aggravate the risks, beacuse it encourages complacency by drivers, and, ironically, the kind of 'us and them' attitude that you have accused me of adopting.

I should also comment on this:

"There's a curious thing at work here - a cult of invincibility ( I've been told by cyclsists "I don't have to wait" and " it's no skin off your nose if I got through a red light" ).... and a cult of victimhood ( check out mynamehere's dotty ramblings)"

Again, whilst it might represent your own experience, as a generalisation of the behaviour of all people who cycle, I think it's almost certainly a load of crap. There is a kernal of truth however. Cyclists (like motorcyclists) behave differently on the roads from cars. Bikes are smaller, lighter, slower, more difficult to see but more manoeuvrable. That means cyclists are both more vulnerable but also able to negotiate city traffic better than cars. I suspect your real complaint is that when you are driving, cyclists sail past you when you're waiting in traffic, but when you want to pass them they expect you to give them a lot of room. In fact you said as much earlier - "wait in line like everyone else!". That's quite a common source of resentment, but - and you know the point I'm going to make - it's not really that relevant to the central issue of safety (and it definitely does not constitute a good reason for losing your rag and running someone over - a more common occurrence than you would think).

[Alan Medic]

DaveR wrote:I agree that it would be better if all cyclists didn't jump red lights or ride at night without lights. But as a car driver neither of these things present any risk of harm to you. Get over it.

That's the sort of attitude that pisses people off. What if car drivers went through red lights when it was 'safe' to do so? Is that okay?

[Cyberia]

There was a thread on here not so long ago about motorists failing to stop at zebra crossings. As I recall this was a local issue - Goose Green roundabout and ED Grove. Quite a few drivers came up with various spurious justifications for this. Not to mention all the complaints about having to comply with parking restrictions.

Other complain that cyclists don't stop at the lights.

And the last time I checked, 'jay-walking' wasn't illegal in this country - you don't have to live in London long to see that when it comes to going through red lights, pedestrians are also at it.

What is it with this culture of law-breaking?

Maybe we really do need a more Dutch-style system where cyclists have their own routes around the neighbourhood, separate from the rest of the traffic... I know which routes I'd choose to walk along!

Or maybe everyone could just obey the rules. But if many drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists simply won't, well - maybe our transport options need a re-think.

[Voyageur]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DaveR wrote:I agree that it would be better if all

> cyclists didn't jump red lights or ride at night

> without lights. But as a car driver neither of

> these things present any risk of harm to you. Get

> over it.

>

>

> That's the sort of attitude that pisses people

> off. What if car drivers went through red lights

> when it was 'safe' to do so? Is that okay?

Added to which in such circumstances the hapless car driver might well suffer psychological damage of they hit a cyclist who had shot through red lights. A collision would also present a risk to other road users in its immediate aftermath.

[northlondoner]

DaveR wrote: I suspect your real complaint is that when you are driving, cyclists sail past you when you're waiting in traffic, but when you want to pass them they expect you to give them a lot of room. In fact you said as much earlier - "wait in line like everyone else!". That's quite a common source of resentment

Gosh DaveR - that "common source of resentment " wouldn't be an anecdotal point, now would it? Cos you hate anecdotal points, innit?

Anyway (sigh) I don't resent people passing me -as long as it's safe to do so.

It's the dangerous weaving in and out of traffic that frustrates me - whether I'm in my car or on my bike.

But I suppose the empirical evidence shows that hardly ever happens.

So that's all right, then.

[malumbu]

Car drivers do go through red lights. More car drivers by percentage to through red lights. You only remember us cyclists doing it because we get to the front of the queue we have a greater opportunity so those that do it magnify the effect. Touche

[Jeremy]

I don't agree with the "wait in line like everybody else" comment. When cyclists have room to negotiate their way through queues of traffic, then why not do it? As long as they're careful not to find themselves on the inside of a bus/truck/van while it's turning.

The main problem I have is the denial that reckless cycling is a danger to other road users - not just pedestrians and cyclists, but yes, drivers too.

[titch juicy]

"More car drivers by percentage to through red lights"

No they don't, don't be silly.

[the-e-dealer]

Stand out side the National Portrait Gallery anytime and watch the Cycles go through 2 or 3 sets of lights. In the daytime ofcourse because at night half of them don't have lights so you wont see them.

[DaveR]

"The main problem I have is the denial that reckless cycling is a danger to other road users - not just pedestrians and cyclists, but yes, drivers too."

To be clear, it's obvious that individual acts of reckless cycling can endanger pedestrians, other cyclists, and in some extreme cases even drivers. But from what I've seen, it doesn't really figure in the stats i.e. it appears to be rare enough to to be statistically insignificant.

Red light jumping is a good example of an issue that often comes up in any discussion, and that, as noted above, pisses people off. However, lots of things piss people off, so it is reasonable to ask why it pisses people off, and why anyone else should care.

So why does it piss people off? Because it's against the law? Well so is doing 75mph on the motorway, and we all seem to get on OK with that. Because it's against the law and the law is not enforced? It's not strictly true, and in any event, similarly with 75mph - it's over the limit but you won't get pulled over for it as a matter of police policy.

Because it's not safe? Now that's the interesting one. In some circumstances, going through on red may actually be safer - that's why Boris is proposing lights that will allow for an earlier green for cyclists, and also in essence why there are Advance Stop Lines - to give cyclists a head start. In other circumstances it's obviously not unsafe. A pedestrian crossing with no pedestrian in sight - if you go through on red, you're treating it like a zebra crossing, and no-one is suggesting that zebra crossings are inherently unsafe. In fact, the UK is one of the few countries I've driven in where ped crossings with traffic lights operate 24 hours, rather than changing to 'cross if safe' mode at quiet times.

However, there are times when it's clearly unsafe, for the cyclist and for others. I have no problem with the idea that any cyclist who goes through a red when there are pedestrians crossing should get a proper fine, that the offence is recorded, and if you do it say three times they take your bike away. Similarly for idiots who go flying through busy junctions, because that creates chaos and uncertainty, and increases the risk for everyone.

So I can understand why people get pissed off with cyclists jumping red lights, and in some cases I get pissed off too, and would be very happy if something was done to stop it. But in other cases it is harmless, and maybe should be recognised as such. And, going back to the thing I've said at least ten times now, whatever your view of red light jumping (i) there appears to be little evidence that it is a major risk factor for RTA injuries (ii) it does not provide a legitimate excuse for drivers to get pissed off and then run someone over.

[DJKillaQueen]

Also it's worth pointing out that central London for example has a lot of courier cyclists for whom time is money. In my experience, they seem to be the worst offenders for some of the things we are talking about. But the Police do regularly target cyclists in central London with on the spot fines, just as they target unisured drivers with pop up ANPR road blocks.

I totally agree with the sentiment of DaveR in that most of the angst levied at cyclists is about cyclists being able to sail through traffic jams. The green boxes at the head of lights have been one of the best safety measures introduced for cyclists, yet many times you will see motorists sat in the green box. And I think Boris's idea of advanced filter lights is an excellent one too.

I don't cycle through red lights but often if a light has just gone red, I'll get off my bicycle and walk accross if clear to do so, and get on my bicyle on the other side. I'm not breaking any law by doing so.

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't cycle through red lights but often if a light has just gone red, I'll get off my bicycle

> and walk accross if clear to do so, and get on my bicyle on the other side. I'm not breaking any law

> by doing so.

And that is the safe and legal way of doing so.

DaveR, on the other hand, is doing the standard approach of picking and choosing which laws he would like to take notice of. And then tries to justify it. Sorry Dave, but that is a complete and utter fail. It is cyclists like you that give them such a bad name. And then whine that cyclists have such a bad rep.

[LondonLogCo]

Pots - 2

Kettles - 3

It's been a fairly clean game, but a few messy tackles in the first half.

Hopefully the second half will go well.

*blows whistle*

" play on "

[DaveR]

Loz, like I said before, I really don't care what people think about cyclists (and for this purpose, 'cyclists' includes me and 'people' includes you). Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even when it consists of saying 'but you broke the law!' as if that's a complete answer to anything.

I only care about what people do about cyclists, and only then because I want to get to work in one piece.

And just to remind everyone, I'll say it again. Cyclists having a bad name is not a good reason to run them over.

[northlondoner]

DaveR what is this fantasy world where people who criticise cyclists then go on to mow them down?

You seem to have slipped the reins of reason.

[DaveR]

FFS, am I doomed to just repeat myself ad infinitum ? So who the f@ck is out there killing and injuring 100s of cyclists? Do you think it's more likely to be someone who recognises that cyclists are inherently vulnerable and that that is ultimately far and away the most important factor as regards safety, or is it someone who appears utterly convinced that if only cyclists themselves stopped being silly, everything will be fine? In short, is it me, or is it you? People are dying needlessly; that's not a fantasy, it's a tragedy. But it appears there will always be someone who's first reaction will be to say 'but they always jump red lights you know'.

Anyway, I said at the very beginning that this alleged debate always goes round in circles and tbh I've had enough for now.

[northlondoner]

Ok ok, pax.

[Muley]

Has there been any news of the driver who hit Bradley Wiggins being prosecuted? I'd have thought she would be charged with driving without due care and attention- maximum penalty six points on the licence and a fine of ?600. Happily he's back in training but the penalty seems to bear no relation to the severity of the injury imposed on the cyclist by the driver.

[northlondoner]

Jeez Muley, were you actually present at the accident. How do you know what happened. Do enlighten us.

[Laddy Muck]

1 :) :)