My earlier post on how tea-drinkers are treated attracted a record number of comments. I said it was one of several things that irritated me. I was planning to pursue my Victor Meldrew approach and the latest report from the Public Accounts Committee in the Commons provides a peg on which to hang another of my pet hates.
In Improving road safety for pedestrians and cyclists in Great Britain, the PAC declares:
“It is surprising that the Department [of Transport] was unaware of a strongly held perception that, through the irresponsible behaviour of some cyclists, they are a hazard to themselves and other road users. The Department should devise education, training and publicity measures to target such anti-social behaviour, particularly when it breaks traffic laws.”
Cyclists riding on pavements are a problem, but what particularly annoys me are cyclists who go through red lights on pedestrian crossings when pedestrians are using them. Cyclists are subject to traffic laws but act as if they are not. I have never known a motor cyclist fail to stop at a pedestrian crossing when the lights are red, regardless of whether anyone is crossing. Pedal cyclists seem to think they are in a different category. The problem is certainly apparent in the Westminster area. I have seen pedestrians come close to being seriously injured by cyclists. One peer was knocked down by a cyclist some years ago, and I’m not sure he ever fully recovered.
A few prosecutions may send a valuable signal.
Lord Norton,
I have seen in China that it is possible to encourage and enforce good bicycle behavior and still provide infrastructure for cycles, automobiles and pedestrians. However, even there the explosive growth in the number of automobiles may have begun the end of this harmony. Elsewhere the problems are intractable. In much of the USA cycling is not really safe due to a total lack of infrastructure. Cycling might get more respect if the cycles were policed and the cyclists fined to a greater degree — I am interested to see if I can find a way to follow up on your idea’s progress.
I know what you mean, but writing about “pedal cyclists” as if they are a particular category of human beings who behave differently from the law-abiding majority is no better than writing about “motorists” in the same way. Cyclists I know would not dream of ploughing through pedestrians on a crossing. I have to admit that some of them would go through a red light on a crossing when there were no pedestrians. But so would motorists (and some do) if there were not a significant penalty.
Oddly enough, both motorists and cyclists are human. Some keep the law on principle, but many do what they think they can get away with if the risk of an accident, in their own perception, is low. Like it or not, that is normal human behaviour.
The latest “great plan” I read about in the paper, which I hope doesn’t come to fruition, is that motorists should be blamed for all incidents involving cyclists.
I’ve only been driving 6 months, but I’ve experienced my fair share of dire cycling. I’ve been undertaken by one as I was turning left. I’ve also seen cyclists riding on the pavement and then cycling straight across a zebra crossing without even a cursory glance, forcing cars to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting them.
I did some silly things as a pedestrian before I learnt to drive. So maybe it is largely ignorance which causes such recklessness. At the very least there needs to be more safe cycling schemes in primary schools.
But you also get the odd cliche militant cyclist who takes great pleasure in pressing pedestrian controlled buttons as they pass for no reason, and who wear gas masks to try and make a point.
However, James May made some very good points against trying to regulate cycling http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/columnists/jamesmay/6251683/Regulation-will-spell-the-end-for-bicycles.html . I don’t like regulation, and so I shouldn’t really make an exception of cyclists. Perhaps I’m just bitter that I never learnt to ride a bike!
Lord Norton is either a mind-reader, reads my own blog or he and I have similar Meldrew tendencies.
Last night, in Oxford I almost reversed over an invisible cyclist. Earlier I had seen two cycle against a red light in to the path of oncoming traffic.
http://brennigjones.com/blog/?p=2212
Everyone should obey the law, and face prosecution if they do not. However, I don’t think cyclists should be singled out. I see plenty of examples of bad driving every day: failure to signal at roundabouts and junctions (very irritating and often dangerous for pedestrians); tailgating; continuing over a crossing before pedestrians are safely on the pavement; etc. A big part of the problem is that speed cameras are now seen as the big solution to road traffic offences, whereas actually they only detect one offence: speeding. If they were replaced with traffic policemen, many more bad drivers – and cyclists – could be caught and re-educated.
I have to say I don’t mind cyclists on the pavement if there’s room and they are courteous. However, some of them have a really bad attitude against pedestrians – even though they are the ones breaking the law!
@Brennig: cyclists without lights is a serious problem that something needs to be done about.
@franksummers3ba: you mean in China where it’s quite a free-for-all, cyclists amd motorcyclists don’t stop for anyone, and simply sound their horns to warn pedestrians to get out of the way?
As a cyclist myself I feel very ashamed when I see a fellow cyclist jump a light or ignore the traffic rules. On the other hand I can understand why some prefer to ride on the pavement given how little space cars can give you on the road. Added to that quite often the pavement is duel use walkway/cycleway which while not as good as a dedicated cycleway is generally preferable to putting your life out in the main traffic stream.
I cycle to work in London and pass Parliament Square on my way. Everyday I see a minority – not a small minority, but a minority nonetheless – of cyclists who break the law by doing some of the things you describe in your post. And everyday I see a minority – again, not a small minority – of motorists breaking the law in similar ways. Yet you don’t see articles criticising motorists for passing through traffic lights after they’ve changed to red (very very common in London), using mobile phones while driving, speeding, etc. I’m all for greater enforcement of the law for cyclists, but only if the law is enforced for motorists as well.
As a cyclist, there are two things that I think need to be clarified for motorists:
i) If you need to stop in a car, you press a pedal. To speed up, you press a second pedal. On a bike, conservation of momentum is key, so cyclists will always try to avoid having to brake. This doesn’t excuse breaking the law, but does explain why even law-abiding cyclists will push the boundaries.
ii) In my experience, the cyclists who are head to toe in lycra are far less likely to jump red lights. Middle aged women on shoppers seem to be the worst culprits…
Michael Parker: The difference is that many traffic junctions have CCTV cameras and motorists jumping the lights can and frequently do get a fine as they are readily identifiable. The same is not true for cyclists.
Jonathan: “I have to say I don’t mind cyclists on the pavement if there’s room and they are courteous” Agreed.
Michael Parker: My experience is the reverse. The Lycra warriors are exactly those who, so concerned with their momentum, break the rules the most.
The point not mentioned here is the really serious problem that if you are hit by a cyclist or scratched when they pass you on the line dividing lines they are hard to identify and effectively uninsured.
The one occasion when a cyclist ignored a red light and nearly ran into me happened on the crossing in Westminster directly opposite Lord Norton’s office…
Matt Korris
Hansard Society
Franksummers3ba: You identify the two ends of the spectrum. I suspect there are also other reasons for the dearth of cycling Americans. The convenience of driving does tend to trump other forms of getting from A to B. I remember once being in a southern town where I was told it was not safe to walk, never mind cycle. When I suggested we walk to our destination, I was accused of being parochial.
Tony Woolf: You may wish to read Brennig’s blog. The problem is one of training: motorists and motor cyclists have to pass a test. Cyclists don’t. I have seen some motorists act stupidly and some motor cyclists speeding, but they are a small minority, whereas irresponsible cyclists are very much to the fore. There’s a veritable swarm of them in Westminster.
Chris K: Perhaps fortunately, I have not encountered many militant cyclists. (I did, though, see lots of naked cyclists on their national bike ride in London in June, but that’s another story.) I don’t think we need more regulation but rather enforcement of the existing law.
Brennig: Thanks for that. As you indicate on your blog, motorists have to undergo training. Cyclists don’t, with results of the sort that you detail.
Jonathan: I am all for ensuring the law is enforced in respect of all behaviour on the road that is dangerous. I am less concerned with cyclists on the pavement (where safe and not inconveniencing pedestrians) than I am with cyclists whizzing through red lights when pedestrians are crossing. If the law was enforced, I have no doubt that more cyclists would be caught than motorists.
Alex Bennee: As I have just mentioned in reply to Jonathan, cycling on the pavement concerns me less (if done responsibly) than cyclists going through red lights. I agree with you about the dual walkway/cycle path, though dedicated cycling lanes are clearly preferable.
Michael Parker: You certainly will see me criticising motorists who use mobile ‘phones while driving. They are on my Victor Meldrew list as well and get the same look as I give a cyclist going through red lights. However, I don’t accept that cyclists are in a small minority in doing the things I describe. It is a minority of cyclists who will stop patiently at red lights and wait for them to change. If in doubt, spend a morning at one of the crossings on Albert Embankment.
Matt Korris: The problem is that you are not alone. Did the cyclist stop and apologise?
I recall he gave some muttered words of apology – perhaps muffled by the traffic noise, if I’m feeling generous!
A few prosectutions for selling laws for cash may send a valuable signal.
Lord Norton you should do what good old Baroness Sharples did a few years ago and handbag the cyclist. The only regret she had was the she did not hit him harder enough.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23432384-tory-baroness-84-uses-handbag-to-whack-cyclist-who-jumped-a-red-light.do
tory boy: I think I shall have to add Baroness Sharples to my list of formidable baronesses. If I hit a cyclist with my briefcase, they wouldn’t get up for quite a long time: it weighs a ton.
Jonathan said: Everyone should obey the law, and face prosecution if they do not.
Lord Norton said: I am all for ensuring the law is enforced in respect of all behaviour on the road that is dangerous. I am less concerned with cyclists on the pavement…
Jonathan also said: However, some of them have a really bad attitude against pedestrians – even though they are the ones breaking the law!
Lord Norton also said: If the law was enforced, I have no doubt that more cyclists would be caught than motorists.
Wheels on pavements were outlawed in 1835: does this remain true? When Oxford City Council decided to paint nice white lines in the middle of pavements, some less than 4ft wide, and apparently allowing cyclists to rip the skin and shred bits of clothing from me, I began to loathe local authorities (LAs) almost as much as cyclists.
It seems to me that LAs have taken the easy route and allowed wheels on pavements in order to satify groups representing the disabled and elderly who require safe access whilst in motorised vehicles.
Are pedestrians third-rate citizens?