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.
.jpg) |
| 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.
.jpg) |
| 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment