Today's cyclists are a real test of my liberal instincts
Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 15:03 Writing in City AM this week Alex Deane commented:
London’s fanatical cyclists from hell are taking crazy risks with pedestrians’ lives (City AM).
As a driver and a pedestrian it's a subject of some interest to me too. In fact, a few weeks ago I tweeted: "When did cycling on the pavement become a 'thing'?"
I was prompted to ask because I'd seen an adult cycling on a narrow pavement in our village (where the streets are fairly quiet so there's no excuse for not cycling on the road) and he very nearly knocked a small child over.
It reminded me of an incident that happened when I was only six years old myself. The difference was, I was the cyclist!
I was riding my bike on the pavement when an even smaller child ran out in front of me. I swerved and avoided hitting him but his mother came out and gave me a bollocking. Why, she demanded to know, was I cycling on the pavement?
It's one of my earliest memories and from that day I never rode on the pavement again. Each day I cycled to school in the centre of Maidenhead – a round trip of 2.6 miles – on the road (and without a helmet!!).
So when did cycling on the pavement become acceptable? Officially the answer seems to be 1999 because in the 'debate' that followed my tweet someone posted a link to this 2014 article – Transport minister: Responsible cyclists CAN ride on the pavement:
Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill has reiterated that the official line from the Department for Transport (DfT) is that cyclists may ride on the footway – more commonly referred to as pavements – provided they do so considerately, and that police officers need to exercise discretion.
The confirmation came in an email sent to a cycle campaigner in London just two days after the Metropolitan Police confirmed nearly 1,000 cyclists had been fined for pavement cycling as part of its Operation Safeway.
In a letter emailed to Donnachadh McCarthy of the pressure group Stop Killing Cyclists, which has recently held protests outside the headquarters of Transport for London (TfL) on Southwark Bridge Road and at Vauxhall Cross, the minister said that original guidance issued by the Home Office 15 years ago when Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) were introduced, and repeated in 2004, was still valid.
Mr Goodwill told Mr McCarthy, who had written to his ministerial colleague at the DfT, Baroness Kramer, in December: “Thank you for bringing the issue of cycling on the pavement around dangerous junctions such as Vauxhall Cross to my attention. I agree that the police should be using discretion in enforcing this law and would support Paul Boateng’s original guidance. You may wish to write to Sir Hugh Orde, President of the Association of Chief police Officers, to bring this matter to his attention too."
That guidance from Mr Boateng, issued in 1999 said: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
So there we have it. Permission to cycle on the pavement has been enshrined in 'guidelines' since 1999.
But what about cyclists who ignore red lights or cycle the 'wrong' way down a one-way street? To be honest, I'm conflicted.
Last week I narrowly avoided being hit by a cyclist who was doing exactly that (cycling against the traffic in a one-way street). I didn't see him because I was looking for traffic coming from the other direction.
The problem is, just as I abhor the law that forces motorcyclists to wear crash helmets, I would be equally sorry if regulations on cycling became too restrictive.
If the road is clear why should cyclists be forced to stop at a red light? Likewise, why shouldn't they be allowed to cycle the 'wrong' way down a one-way street if it's reasonably clear? I have no real problem with that.
And just because there's a cycle path, why should cyclists be forced to stay on it, especially if there's not much traffic on the road?
It's all about common sense (on both sides) and that's the issue. Too many cyclists seem to think that everywhere – the road, the pavement, the world – belongs to them.
And boy, are they sensitive to criticism, implied or otherwise. On the few occasions I've mentioned this subject on Twitter a small army of red neck cyclists appear, eyes popping, veins throbbing.
I think I know what the problem is. Like the worst ex-smokers who now despise smoking they feel morally superior to those of us who prefer to drive to work or, worse, the local shop.
They're saving the planet, we're destroying it. They're keeping fit and healthy while lard buckets like me are sitting behind the wheel listening to Five Live or Mink DeVille.
They're also angry that, having chosen to cycle rather than drive, they're still getting criticised. It's just like vapers who, having quit cigarettes (for which they were rebuked and ostracised) are now being attacked for using a healthier alternative.
Their frustration is understandable but they need to calm down. Most of all they need to drop the false sense of entitlement and the smug, holier-than-thou attitude.
If they don't even natural liberals like me will turn against them.
PS. Just to be clear, I'm not anti-cyclist but it's not a method of transport I particularly enjoy.
A few years ago my wife bought me a bike for Christmas but the saddle was supremely uncomfortable for a man of my advancing years. After the first five miles cycling along our local country lanes I was in agony. And that was just my bottom.
In fact my love affair with cycling (and my prized teenage possession, a red Raleigh racing bike with beautiful drop handlebars) ended in 1975 after I spent 10 days cycling around central Scotland with my friend Bill.
On a good day we would cycle 40 miles in less than two hours. On a bad day, which was most of them, it would take us all day to cycle even half that distance.
There was a reason for that – the wind and driving rain that forced us to arrive, hungry, wet and tired, at one hostel after another where we lucky if we found a tin of beans to share.
The good news is – we were 16 and at no point did we ever cycle on the pavement.
My issue with adult cyclists is ... when did cycling on the pavement become a 'thing'? https://t.co/mEtrwllFYr
— Simon Clark (@simonclark_) September 3, 2016
Reader Comments (8)
The problem with Police discretion is that a Policeman must actually see one of these helmeted natters barreling dangerously down a pavement before any action can be taken. How likely is that on any given day. Ban the bastards I say!
Cyclists are a bloody nuisance. They don't obey any rules of the road and have no regard for pedestrians. Its time they were cracked down on. They are totally speed obsessed in the UK. They behave totally different in Denmark, Sweden, Holland , and Germany. Cycling is civilised there.
According to Bikehub – a cycling website – cycling on the pavement is: “very much against the law.” They advise choosing a different route if a stretch of road is too dangerous to cycle on, or getting off and pushing the bike along dangerous parts of the road. Hence the advice to police to “act with discretion,” because if it wasn’t against the law, there’d be no need for them to apply any “discretion” in the first place. “Permission to cycle on the pavement” is indeed contained in the Home Office guidelines, although it isn't stated in so many words, but only with the added proviso that such cycling is carried out with “consideration to other road users.” which, let’s be honest, given the mindset of the majority of cyclists, isn’t very likely, is it?
As an aside, I often wonder – usually when I’m stuck behind a wobbling cyclist with no prospect of a safe overtake in view – exactly how much cyclists cost the economy through causing traffic hold-ups, accidents and injuries both to themselves and others. I bet if you counted up the lost working hours caused by making a dozen or so other people’s journeys to work a lot longer than they would otherwise be every morning, the cost would run into millions!
Not a test of liberal instincts at all. The law should apply equally to all road users. Nobody should get special privileges.
I've started Boris biking to work the past two months and it's confirmed everything that used to annoy me about cyclists. Cars keep far away, and ( black cabs aside ) behave rationally. I've been almost taken out about 20 times by other idiot cyclists flying past t high speed, cutting people up and generally acting imbecilic. There's a clear sense of entitlement - as if the world should bend to their will and that no compromise is required.
As with the smoking issue, tolerance and consideration would benefit those for and against.
Pedestrians and cycles are safer together than pedestrians and cars or cycles and cars. Pedestrians need to be tolerant of cyclists, and cyclists need to be considerate to pedestrians on the pavement who should always have right of way.
I ride on the pavement at walking pace when people are around and I walk and push my bike when in heavily pedestrianised places. No cyclist should ring their bell and expect pedestrians to jump out of the way while they tear along at 20mph, and pedestrians should not expect cyclists to have to ride on traffic choked roads.
As usual though, in this new age, tolerance and consideration can go to hell as long as one side of any issue is selfish enough to demand more rights than anyone else.
My list is endless so here is just one. A cyclist using a pedestrian crossing ARRRRRRRSHITEEEEEEEEEEEFUCKEMRRRRRRRRRRRRRSTICKITUPEMGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Last year I was crossing the road in our high street when a cyclist came round a distant roundabout at high speed and screamed at me to get out of the way. I stopped and stepped back and screamed something unprintable at him as he flew past. Why?
I was on a pedestrian crossing.
Clearly normal road rules do not apply to some on a bike.