Two Wheels Good, or Two Wheels Bad?

I reckon that cyclists are simultaneously the most endangered and the most dangerous of all road users. Not all of them, just a significant proportion of them.  It seems an almost daily occurrence to find, on Facebook or Twitter, or a news site, some video showing a cyclist being overtaken by a car, or often, a white van and for harsh words to be exchanged between driver (or passenger) and cyclist. The majority of these show the cyclist being cut up, or the driver getting too close, in short that the cyclist was not at fault (what would you expect, these are normally from the cyclist's headcam), but despite which the driver feels obliged to hurl abuse at the apparently innocent cyclist. What we haven't seen may be an earlier incident in which the cyclist was at fault and which enraged the motorist, albeit that they may have over-reacted.

This is a situation where there are at least three sides to the story. There are thousands of cyclists who are perfectly normal, law abiding road users and they have my respect, nay admiration, for putting themselves in such a vulnerable position and actually behaving like normal human beings on the road. Some of these overlap into the group of cyclists who are abused, verbally and sometimes physically, by motorists. Sometimes because the cyclist was on a particular occasion, behaving like a complete idiot and sometimes because the motorist is an even bigger idiot. These cyclists tend to be generally competent but given to moments of madness or recklessness (quite like most people if we are being honest). When this group of cyclists make a mistake on the road they are at first sight indistinguishable from our third group, except that their actions do tend to be down to an error of judgement rather than a deliberate act. The third group are those to whom The Highway Code is either a mystery, or if they are aware of its existence, firmly believe themselves to be exempt from it.

Anyone who has worked in the City of London will have encountered cyclists who pay scant regard to their own safety or the safety of others on a daily basis. Crossing Cannon Street for instance has always been fraught with danger for the innocent pedestrian. Wait at the crossing, wait for the little green man to appear, and wait (not very long) for the rush of air and stream of invective from a cyclist too impatient and too ignorant to stop despite the red light, who whizzes within a hairsbreadth of your face. For this group of cyclists, red lights are presumably considered a mere decoration and not any form of traffic signal, and this is particularly true of the junction of Bishopsgate and Leadenhall Street. The number of cyclists who zoom through this junction irrespective of the colour of the traffic light is (or was when I used to walk through there), phenomenal. It was not uncommon to see one stopped by a policeman, but apart from a brief lecture, they were soon on their way without penalty or disincentive to repeat the act at the next set of lights.

An all too common sight.

And just last week I saw two cyclists cross a mini-roundabout where traffic, approaching from the right, had right of way. Only the prompt braking by the car driver prevented a collision, while the cyclists poodled merrily along, apparently unaware of the rules of the road and oblivious to the danger they had caused to themselves and other road users. These two ladies were quite different from the class of cyclist in the City; these ladies appeared to be genuinely unaware of the need to give way, the lycra clad couriers who cause such fear in City of London pedestrians are probably sprinting to their next drop or collection and don't feel that they have the time to stop.

Cycling through a red light is all too common too.

The funny thing is that all cyclists are, at one time or another, pedestrians and many are also car drivers. It appears though that once they mount their bikes many of them completely forget their obligations to other road users.

Cyclists are of course extremely vulnerable on the road.  In 2013 there were over 19,000 cyclists injured on Britain's roads, 3,143 of them seriously; 109 cyclists were killed[1]. A particular blackspot has  always been the junction of Lower Thames Street and Southwark Bridge, where cyclists have frequently been injured, and some killed, by lorries turning onto the bridge and being unable to see a cyclist on their left side. Interestingly the BBC recently took a group of lorry drivers, plonked them on bikes and let them loose on the roads to see what it was like from a cyclist's perspective. Without exception they came back with a greater understanding of the cyclist's problems and how better to interact with them on the road.  On the basis that we should all walk a mile in another's shoes, this struck me as really worthwhile in creating better understanding, because  understanding is key. [2]Motorists are implored to "Think Bike" and to look out for cyclists through various advertising campaigns, yet educating cyclists in how to make themselves safer and how to behave on the roads seems to have a much lower profile.

Cycle lanes...a good thing.

Riding on the pavement...a bad thing

Unlike the motorist, the cyclist is not governed by any licensing, tax or insurance issues. A motorist must tax and insure their vehicle and must pass a test of their driving proficiency and knowledge of The Highway Code and other theory of driving. A cyclist can go out, buy a bike for the first time in their life and ten minutes later be hurtling down a dual carriageway among cars, trucks and buses all travelling at up to 70 mph! I would not go so far as to propose that cyclists should be required to pay road tax, which is a bit of misnomer anyway, it is a tax on motor vehicles and the amount you pay is to some extent based on your vehicles emissions, so cycles would fall into the zero emission category and be exempt.  Insurance, on the other hand I believe should be required of cyclists. They are the only class of vehicular road user who do not have to pay it. They correctly have equal rights with other road users, they should bear equal responsibility. Cyclists ought also to be able to prove some sort of proficiency; if a cyclist has a licence to drive a car, then they will have passed a test proving their knowledge of how to negotiate traffic, so a bike test would be superfluous, but if they have no driver's licence, why should they not have to pass a test? When I was young, many schoolchildren took The Cycling Proficiency Test (superseded by the  National Standards for Cycle Training, or Bikeability). The problem is that it is voluntary and mainly aimed at children, although adults can participate, and in fact my wife did a year or so ago and she found it very useful.

Cycle training...another good thing

Britain's roads are a great deal safer today than they were years ago and this is not a car versus bike issue but a good road user versus bad road user issue. There are both good and bad drivers and cyclists, we need more of the good and fewer of the bad, whether they are on two wheels or four.

---

[1] That represents 6% of all road deaths of which there were 1,713

[2] You will not get me on a bike however, as regular readers will recall my complete inability to ride one; see http://rulesfoolsandwisemen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/badminton-big-toes-and-bikes.html for details of my incompetence on two wheels.