HAVE YOUR SAY: Reader Rant - cyclists versus motorists
12:30pm Wednesday 17th March 2010 in
In the first of News Shopper's Wednesday Reader Rant opinion columns Martin Thomason from Welling airs his views on cyclists and motorists sharing the road. Read his article and join the debate by adding your comments.
Let’s get one thing out of the way first. I am a cyclist.
I cycle 100 miles per week almost every week, regardless of the weather. I’ve been cycling regularly for 20 years and commuting into London by bike for around 13 years.
So I believe I know what I’m talking about. With that out of the way let’s get some dos and don’ts sorted.
Cyclists:
DON’T cycle through red lights. They apply to you. The only reason to ignore a red light is to allow an emergency vehicle with lights flashing to get past you. All this stuff about cyclists needing to go through red lights for safety reasons is absolute rubbish! You don’t need to be in front of that large truck, you could have waited behind it.
DON’T cycle on the pavement. If you’re over 11 years old and not delivering the post or newspapers, there is no excuse. Similarly don’t cycle in parks except on explicitly designated cycle paths or roads.
DO stay out of the gutter. You don’t have to be there, you have every right to be on the road. Don’t let motorists try to bully you, with the proliferation of CCTV virtually everything a motorist does will be captured somewhere and he’s got number plates.
Motorists:
DO accept that I have the right to exactly the same amount of road space as you. Also accept that I am allowed to go past you on either side, it is the motorist's responsibility to be aware of the cyclist's whereabouts.
DON’T go on about road tax. It doesn’t exist. The little disc in your windscreen is proof that you have paid Vehicle Excise Duty which is levied on motorised vehicles. It is not road tax.
DON’T make the mistake of thinking I have to use cycle paths. I don’t. Also don’t park across a cycle path, that just annoys cyclists.
DON’T cut across me. Cyclists no longer travel at 5mph, give me space. If you do cut across me, I will chase you to the next set of traffic lights and give you a very stern talking to.
If we all obey these simple rules, the road will be a much happier place for all of us. Well, except for motorists because this is London and so you will still be stuck in traffic!
This column is produced by an independent writer and in no way reflects the official position of News Shopper or its parent company.
What do you think? What habits of cyclists or motorists annoy you? What changes to the rules would you like to see to make life easier for certain road users? What are your experiences of travelling by bike or car around south-east London and north Kent? Add your comments below.
Check News Shopper's website every lunchtime for a new daily opinion column. Thursday will cover a moral issue. Friday is a sport rant. Monday is back to the Shopper Rant on a topical news story. Tuesday is entertainment day. Be sure to have your say if you agree or disagree with what you read.
If you want to get a good grumble off your chest and be considered for next Wednesday's Reader Rant send your article to web manager Simon Bull at sbull@london.newsquest.co.uk
We're looking for something interesting, lively, thought-provoking and outspoken which will spark debate among readers.
Comments(42)
angel49
says...
1:38pm Wed 17 Mar 10
SeeSomeSense
says...
2:06pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Keep cyclists off the road unless there are proper cycle lanes painted onto the road surface. I agree with the point about cars parked in cycle lanes: drivers, don't do it!
Unless cycle lanes are made standard on every main road in Britain, I don't blame cyclists for riding on the pavements as, long as they are careful and use some common sense!
The-Voice-Of-Reason
says...
2:26pm Wed 17 Mar 10
I once had abuse hurled at me when a cyclist rammed my near-side wing mirror, complaining that I had not left enough room for him to pass on the inside.
When I pointed out that he could have used the cycle lane instead of the road, he let rip with a torrent of foul-mouthed abuse that would have made Jon Lydon blush.
Fortunately, and hilariously, he was then ordered to move to the cycle lane by the police officers in the unmarked squad car behind me!
The point Mr Thomason neglected is the one about cyclists using light in the dark. Don't get me started on that one ........
LNN
says...
2:40pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Department for transport states; Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 ofthe Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local Government Act 1888...
The Road Traffic Act 1991 makes the two most serious cycling offences parallel to those of dangerous and careless driving. The maximum fines are currently £2,500 for dangerous cycling and£1,000 for careless cycling....
Didn't realise it was illegal to cycle on the pavement, till now, learn something new everyday :)
Sayso
says...
2:57pm Wed 17 Mar 10
It's easy to say cyclists can get off their bikes or stop when they see pedestrians coming but in reality this just doesn't happen. In my experience these idiots zoom along the pavements regardless of how many people are about, and they actually scowl, grumble and swear if you have the audacity to get in their way or tell them to get off their bikes.
I'd struggle not to think justice is being done if I ever saw one of these lawbreakers fly off their bike and land face-first on the concrete.
LNN
says...
3:20pm Wed 17 Mar 10
By the way that law becomes legal once the cyclist is over 11..
DrDBexley
says...
3:25pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Might want to check the cars indicators before going up the drivers side though mate! Overtaking a car that is turning will only end up with one result and I doubt very much it would be in your favour!
I think the thing I find, and is demonstrated by this article, is the arrogance of some (not all!) cyclists. Yes, you might have the right to be on the road but common sense takes precedence over right of way and the more you cycle defensively the more car drivers will take account.
And I also have to take exception to your point about not "having" to use the cycle lanes; yes, you might not have to but they are there for your protection so to not use them is a bit like taking a roasting tin out of the oven without oven gloves! Stupid people do stupid things!
star972
says...
3:27pm Wed 17 Mar 10
SeeSomeSense
says...
4:09pm Wed 17 Mar 10
I walked the entire length of the North Cray road this afternoon and noticed that the path has been widened in places to allow for pushbikes, so why can't ALL extra wide pavements have cycle lanes and, if possible, why can't some paths be widened to allow for cyclists?
When I talk of cyclists using the pavement, I'm obviously not talking about busy high streets and the like. As usual, it is a matter for common sense to prevail.
SeeSomeSense
says...
4:12pm Wed 17 Mar 10
What utter rot!
LNN
says...
4:40pm Wed 17 Mar 10
http://www.dft.gov.u
k/pgr/sustainable/cy
cling/cyclingpolicyo
verview?page=6
And yes i agree with designated cycle lanes ( these are legal ) on wider paths in the hope it cuts down accidents..
LNN
says...
4:43pm Wed 17 Mar 10
SeeSomeSense wrote:Missed your comment SeeSomeSense, wasn't sure who you meant.. ;)
Sorry, I forgot to quote the made up nonsense that I referred to. It is this piece of fiction from Sayso: 'In my experience these idiots zoom along the pavements regardless of how many people are about, and they actually scowl, grumble and swear if you have the audacity to get in their way or tell them to get off their bikes.'
What utter rot!
Sayso
says...
4:48pm Wed 17 Mar 10
SeeSomeSense wrote:Sorry SeeSomeSense, but I can assure you my experience of inconsiderate and rude cyclists are entirely accurate. Obviously on largely deserted country roads cycling on the pavements may be borderline acceptable but not at all in towns.
Sorry, I forgot to quote the made up nonsense that I referred to. It is this piece of fiction from Sayso: 'In my experience these idiots zoom along the pavements regardless of how many people are about, and they actually scowl, grumble and swear if you have the audacity to get in their way or tell them to get off their bikes.' What utter rot!
SeeSomeSense
says...
4:55pm Wed 17 Mar 10
martint235
says...
4:59pm Wed 17 Mar 10
1. I didn't have space to write about lights or for that matter headphones (I agree with lights, disagree with headphones)
2. Sorry but common sense does not take precedence over the right of way. Common sense is, unfortunately, all too often a personal judgment. I use the middle of the road when I feel it is safer to do so, eg. doing 30mph at a reasonable distance behind the car in front. I do this to stop the inconsiderate driver overtaking me and then braking to slot into was USED to be a reasonable distance but hey hum. The laws, including right of way, were designed, initially, to take any ambiguity out of "common sense"
3. Cycle lanes, I'm not against them and for slower cyclists and those who feel safer in them I think they are an excellent idea. Before you force me to use one though, consider the shared pavement variety, would you rather I travelled at 25mph on the road or inches from a child?
star972 re-iterates my closing argument that we all share the road and should consider the other party.
Sayso
says...
5:12pm Wed 17 Mar 10
SeeSomeSense wrote:It was remiss of me not to keep a dossier on this in case I one day got into an argument about it on the internet :-)
How accurate? Please tell us where, when, how long ago or how often, exactly. How many times in the last year, for instance?
There have been various occasions when I've nearly been mown down by maniac cyclists on the pavements around Orpington, and in some of these incidents the cyclists involved have tried to blame me for not jumping out the way quickly enough as they've sped towards me.
On another related topic, I think CCTV cameras should be installed on every road crossing, and every single motorist going through red lights should be fined and have points put on their licence.
LNN
says...
5:12pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Im safer on south eastern trains followed by a 10 minute walk home ;)
martint235
says...
5:42pm Wed 17 Mar 10
LarryGravesend
says...
6:00pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Why should car drivers have to guess where cyclists are going, do using your arms as an indication cost money to use. I also ride a motorbike and wouldnt even consider undertaking a car indicating left or overtaking a car indicating right and certainly would not undertake a lorry at anytime.
martint235
says...
6:37pm Wed 17 Mar 10
It is all about respect on both sides. If cyclists were treated in the same way as cars (and penalised sufficiently for disobeying rules that apply to cars eg red lights) I think we'd all get along better.
GODUPERE2
says...
9:20pm Wed 17 Mar 10
apak24
says...
9:40pm Wed 17 Mar 10
GODUPERE2 wrote:Well said sir.
Theres good and bad in both so lets not pretend one is better than the other.
madras
says...
9:42am Thu 18 Mar 10
MrsW2b
says...
10:42am Thu 18 Mar 10
I can't understand why you wouldn't stop and wait even if you have priority, I drive a car and when idiots just turn right infront of me or pull out infront of me, or if a schoolchild runs across the road infront of me I stop, priority or not. I don't want to cause an accident just because I had right of way, I think the courts would take a dim view of me saying sorry I hit that group of schoolkids guv, but they weren't on a crossing so it is thier fault, yes I did see them crossing the otherside of the road and was aware there was a chance they could just run out but it was my right of way don't you know.
I think sometimes people need to take responsibility for their own safety and for their own actions, you are not made of rubber and if you continue to act in a bloody minded manner because you believe you are in the right your luck will run out, I'm sure your family don't want to have to buy a headstone with the enscription "well, he had right of way but the car infront was a toyota and had no breaks"
martint235
says...
11:43am Thu 18 Mar 10
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Given your thinking of incident I do agree with you and I guess that this ties in with a previous post regarding common sense.
woodyhill
says...
5:01pm Thu 18 Mar 10
SE9,10,18
says...
5:10pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Erastus
says...
6:50pm Thu 18 Mar 10
What do pedestrians think bicycle bells were invented for if not to warn them to let cyclists pass? If the pavement is good enough for two feet, it is also good enough for two wheels. The day pedestrians - including skateboarders/roller
skaters and pesky pensioners in invalid scooters - start paying tax for using the pavement, will be the day I pay insurance for cycling on it.
SE9,10,18
says...
6:59pm Thu 18 Mar 10
f_harper
says...
7:23pm Thu 18 Mar 10
"sorry cyclist but there's no argument it's your fault however it happened."
It's definitely not intended to be a hard and fast rule which is, or should be applied to all circumstances. Anyone who thinks so is just taking a sensible rule of thumb out of context and using it to bash cyclists with. Some people need to get off their bike when they're on the pavement, others need to get off their high horse!
martint235
says...
8:08am Fri 19 Mar 10
For as long as motorists perceive cyclists as law breakers we'll never be listened to or considered. We have to start obeying the law and being seen to obey the law then perhaps we can take the moral high ground. Once the population in general see us in a better light we stand a chance of making things better for cyclists.
Sayso
says...
9:12am Fri 19 Mar 10
f_harper wrote:I suppose you'd say drink-driving is only illegal if you get caught or it's only a loose guideline that doesn't apply to everybody.
I don't think anyone really pays any more than lip service to it being against the law to cycle on the pavement. The reason that the law is there is to say in the event there's a collision with a pedestrian, "sorry cyclist but there's no argument it's your fault however it happened." It's definitely not intended to be a hard and fast rule which is, or should be applied to all circumstances. Anyone who thinks so is just taking a sensible rule of thumb out of context and using it to bash cyclists with. Some people need to get off their bike when they're on the pavement, others need to get off their high horse!
Cycling on the pavement is most definitely a hard and fast rule which should be applied in all circumstances. If a few cyclists got heavily fined it might make others think twice about breaking the law.
madras
says...
11:47am Fri 19 Mar 10
By your logic 'what do you think car horns were invented for if not to warn cyclists to let motorists pass'
No, it's a warning in emergencies - and the day I move to let a cyclist pass on the pavement is the day you've paid your tax, licence, insurance etc. to ride on it...
martint235
says...
12:00pm Fri 19 Mar 10
:)
Talis2
says...
1:35pm Fri 19 Mar 10
I'm very pleased to see posts advocating consideration for all - be they cyclists, motorists or pedestrians. If we all considered others on the road, no matter how they are using it, there would be little problem.
One or two points I'd like to comment on.
1). Cycle lanes. Most motorists believe they are for the benefit of cyclists - if only that were true! I used to believe the same until I tried them. A line of white paint provides no protection whatever, and on the cycle lane I use there are at least three places where the cycle lane stops in an at least a difficult and at worst an actually dangerous place. I'm only too happy to use cycle lanes where provided - I just wish some of them had been designed by cyclists and were better thought out. That doesn't justify the cyclist who was rude when the motorist pointed to the cycle lane - its just many of them are more dangerous than cycling on the road.
2) Pavements. I'm with those who see pavement cycling as permissible as long as you are very careful. Obviously since there are (thankfully few) occasions when I do use them. Slowly, carefully and with due regard to pedestrians. No, its not because I'm not confiident on the road, but because occasionally (and I stress occasionally) the road is just too dangerous. No excuse whatever for aggressive or inconsiderate cycling though.
As regards bells - I use mine and usually get mouthed at by the pedestrian for making them jump (this is normally on shared cycle/pedestrian path where the pedestrian wanders into the cycle lane). Sometimes you just can't win. I know the letter of the law says don't cycle on pavements but the letter of the law says don't use a mobile phone while driving...which one would you prefer the police to actively pursue?
3.Tax. I'm amazed this one hasn't come up more. No, as a cyclist I dont pay Vehicle Excise Duty (no reason why I should - its a tax, not a right to use the road) but I have two cars and pay for both of those. If I did pay as a cyclist it would be £0 as my CO2 emissions are 0. I have third party insurance for my bike, and I maintain it far better than I do my cars - I check my bike brakes and tyres every day but my cars get checked once a year at their MOT...
Finally, another plea for consideration. You motorists who think its funny to blast your horn as you come up behind a cyclist to make them jump, throw things at them or mouth abuse (yes I've had all of those, worst being an air-gun let off at me) please remember we're all human beings and just because we're choosing to use a different mode of transport to you doesn't give you the right to abuse us. And cyclists - for heavens sake, be sensible, obey the law (no RLJ's please) and don't endanger anyone by cycling aggressively.
Thank you if you've read through all this
PS Martin - yes, I've also had problems with cars on my right inviting others to cross my path. Luckily never had an accident but its been close. I think cycling has actually raised my awareness as a motorist to those around me.
f_harper
says...
1:36pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Sayso wrote:Who would put drink driving on a par with riding a bicycle on the pavement?
f_harper wrote: I don't think anyone really pays any more than lip service to it being against the law to cycle on the pavement. The reason that the law is there is to say in the event there's a collision with a pedestrian, "sorry cyclist but there's no argument it's your fault however it happened." It's definitely not intended to be a hard and fast rule which is, or should be applied to all circumstances. Anyone who thinks so is just taking a sensible rule of thumb out of context and using it to bash cyclists with. Some people need to get off their bike when they're on the pavement, others need to get off their high horse!I suppose you'd say drink-driving is only illegal if you get caught or it's only a loose guideline that doesn't apply to everybody. Cycling on the pavement is most definitely a hard and fast rule which should be applied in all circumstances. If a few cyclists got heavily fined it might make others think twice about breaking the law.
I'm not advocating a law free society but that type of catch-all jobsworth attitude of not letting people take accountability to decide whether they're going to cause a nuisance to someone else or not is ridiculous. And heavy fines? Aren't motorists already enough of a cash cow, do me a favour!
martint235
says...
4:57pm Fri 19 Mar 10
l.net/news.php?artic
leshow=801
DrDBexley
says...
11:42am Sat 20 Mar 10
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/england/londo
n/8577612.stm
madras
says...
6:21pm Mon 22 Mar 10
martint235 wrote:I guess I must be showing my age - still think of it as a tax disc :-)
@Madras, I agree with almost everything you said apart from the bit about tax. There is no such thing as road tax, it's Vehicle Excise Duty.
:)
Talis2
says...
9:16pm Tue 23 Mar 10
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/england/londo
n/8577612.stm
Talis2
says...
9:40pm Tue 23 Mar 10
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/england/londo
n/8577612.stm
Unfortunately it's stories like these that demonstrate that there is a contingent amongst the cycling fraternity who are reckless and neglient and can kill. http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/england/londo n/8577612.stm
The fact that this story has reached the national news shows how rare such an incident is. Had the poor lady been knocked down by a car, there would have been no mention beyond maybe the local paper.
If you read the local (Camden) news it appears that the police don't know what happened, and there is no suggestion that the cyclist has done anything wrong. He has been arrested because that is the procedure when a death has occurred. The most likely cause (according to police) is that the poor lady looked the wrong way (I've done it myself when abroad) didn't hear a car and stepped out - with horrible consequences. Apparently tourists are four times more likely to be knocked down in London than locals simply because they look the wrong way..
What a shame the News Shopper leads into this story with an inflamatory quote. There is no need for "motorists against cyclists". I cycle every day, and every day I encounter considerate and careful motorists, pedestrians and fellow cyclists. There is room for us all on the road.
More Where I Live stories
- Police hunting pickpocket who took jewellery worth £1,500 from woman's bag
- Bromley people honoured for their contributions to borough life
- Police release Bromley Christmas drink driving figures
- Boys' brigadier wins award
- Hundreds of Bromley school kids to see the Olympics
- Boris Johnson pushing for control of London's suburban railways
- Empire Cinemas concerned about Bromley South redevelopment project
- Cops hunting Crystal Palace train arsonist
- IPCC sets out how it will investigate fatal police chase
- Pupils learn team building at Duke of Edinburgh bronze award training session
Read News Shopper's daily opinion columns and have your say
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Sayso says...
1:30pm Wed 17 Mar 10