Article
Bikes are not above the law
Cyclists are far from the worst offenders on the road, but they're not all angels, either.
To say that he is no stranger to controversy would be to damn Ken Livingstone with faint praise. With the unerring instinct of the contrarian, he homes in on it like a heat-seeking missile. Recently, he outraged the motoring lobby by suggesting that drivers of "Chelsea tractors" - gas-guzzling 4x4s - should have to pay a higher rate of congestion charge in London. This week, just to show that he's not in the green transport lobby's pocket, he has put cycling campaigners' noses out of joint with the launch of Transport for London's Share the Road campaign.
The purpose of this initiative is to increase awareness among the capital's cyclists that they are breaking the law if they run red lights or ride on the pavement - in effect putting bike riders on notice that they can expect to pick up on-the-spot fines for infractions in future. The crackdown will also, we are told, target motorists who drive in cycle lanes and infringe advance stop lines at traffic signals.
Responding to this news, the Evening Standard - in a rare instance of unequivocal pro-cycling editorialising - took its cue from the CTC, the UK's largest cyclists' membership organisation. It objected to the TfL campaign on the grounds that motorists who run red lights and who use mobile phones, illegally, while driving - and they are legion, certainly - are a far greater menace than the odd rogue cyclist. The CTC backs up the point with a press release using TfL's own accident statistics to show that, no matter how many don't bother to obey the rules of the road, cyclists are responsible for an absolutely negligible number of casualties compared with cars, buses and lorries.
Yes, yes, yes ... all true and perfectly good points. But I can't help feeling that just for once it would be great to hear cycling advocates take on the chin the criticism that there are too many flouting the rules. Why can't we acknowledge that this is a problem - not because it's dangerous (it demonstrably isn't), but because it's wrong in principle? Cyclists are not entitled to behave as though they are above the law. Riding through red lights may be more nuisance than menace, but it is a gross discourtesy to pedestrians and other road users. It gives us all a bad name.
The fact of the matter is that cyclists in London now benefit from a budget of £24m a year being spent on infrastructure like bike lanes, advance stop lines, routes and parking facilities to promote cycling and make it safer. We should accept that this confers on us some responsibility to do the right thing. So, when the finger is pointed at us, instead of pointing our finger at motorists and whining "Yes, but they're worse", we should say, "Yes, it's an issue we need to deal with and that's why we support this campaign."
So, please, let's drop the eternal "Yes, but ..." Apart from anything else, it would be good politics and good PR - something we could learn by the mayor's example.
Related Content
User Comments
sam38
7 September 2006 2:48PM
If I got treated like a vehicle on the road I would find it easier to comply with all the road rules. But the amount of times I've just avoided being knocked off my bike because motorists assume cyclists have not right to take up space in the road makes me think otherwise.
bs747
7 September 2006 2:50PM
I agree. Most of them are arrogant sods who ignore lights, and all road rules. Try crossing Clapham High Street during rush hour when a thousand holier than thou cyclists are heading for the city, its like a tsunami of 2 wheelers who cannot tell the difference between red green and amber unless Wallpaper magazine tells them so... I take great delight in wopping them in the face with my Metro as they try to run me over on the crossings!
MrPikeBishop
7 September 2006 2:54PM
bloody whining cyclists...
George Moonbat on another thread has just recounted a horrific tale of being forced to leave a critical mass ride by a circle of demented lycra clad cyclists, tinkling their bells as they advanced on him, their self righteousness flapping in the breeze, unconstrained by bike clips or any sense of reality. And I see Nicholas Cage is currently starring in a film where he is pursued by a series three speeders identified by giant shopping wicker baskets on the front.
bloody cyclists
ChairmanMeow
7 September 2006 2:59PM
I find cyclist the worst offenders of red light jumping. On my way to work, I use five pedestrian crossings, and rarely find cyclists can be bothered to stop when they should.
Yes, cars are undoubtedly responsible for more serious accidents, but in behaving with such impunity, cyclists are still a danger. I�ve often heard cyclists justify their light jumping or going on the pavement as necessary because cars disregard their safety. They don�t seem to consider that they show the same disregard for pedestrians � sam38 seems to be an example of it.
I suspect cyclists are doing themselves no favours with this tarnishing of their image. Motorists hate them, and pedestrians are menaced by them. Surely the best way to make sure they are respected on the roads is to behave responsibly? Riding a bike doesn�t make you morally superior, and there is no excuse for breaking the rules.
bethersonton
7 September 2006 3:04PM
Sometimes, out of consideration for motorists behind, it's wise to skip a red light and get as far ahead as possible up a one way street so clogged with parked cars that traffic can't pass you without taking off a wing mirror. Have also been hit by a car while waiting in the green advance stop thingy, and recieved a broadside by someone turning left after waiting at traffic lights to do the same...ah the list goes on. Number of accidents from skipping red lights; zero.
Gareth58
7 September 2006 3:07PM
Having been knocked unconscious by a cyclist ignoring a red light, I beg to differ, woollymindedliberal. I'm sure plenty of people have been hurt worse than me but who cares we're just pedants!
CJCJC
7 September 2006 3:11PM
ChairmanMeow - good comment. Self-righteous cyclists do themselves no favours by taking this kind of approach - it will only lead to the silly number plates for cycles idea and more regulation.
Bethersonton - I'm sure your very specific example makes sense, but what does the rest of your post actually mean? I've been hit by cars so it's OK for me to risk hitting kids, oldies and others, especially as I've been lucky enough not to have done so yet??
PeteinSQ
7 September 2006 3:21PM
I totally agree with Matt. We can go on and on about how bad drivers are (and they really are bad) but that should not be used as an excuse for your own rule breaking. I personally always stop at red.
Orbeliani
7 September 2006 3:21PM
To quote another cyclists, Judge Dredd,
"We are not above the law, WE ARE THE LAW!"
The world has more important and pressing issues than people worrying about rude bicyclists. There is a class of driver psychosis of people who obsess about cyclists, sometimes those people try to run me over. I assure you I stay as far away from cars as I can on my bike. You people are crazy. ALL I HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF IS MY WITS AND A KRYPTONITE LOCK, YOU GUYS HAVE A TANK!
Typical example: In Chicago a couple of years back one of your fellow anti-cyclist activists, driving a Humvee (what else?) deliberately ran over a bike messenger, killing him. However, the dying bike messenger grabbed the rear plates of the Humvee and the driver was apprehended, for once.
Bochi
7 September 2006 3:28PM
I was knocked down on the pavement by a cyclist smashing into me from behind only a few weeks ago. I'm recovering from a knee injury and don't appreciate having that set back another few months. I frequently see cyclists, usually teenage boys, racing along the pavement trying to dodge pedestrians, or just swearing at us if we don't get out of their way.
Cycling should be encouraged, but not at the expense of pedestrians.
Minesaguinness
7 September 2006 3:33PM
We've had this discussion before, and it's clear from the repeated comments the 'love' that motorists, cyclists and pedestrians all have for each other.
The best solution is to keep them apart, as they all travel at different speeds. Instead of cycle paths painted onto the road, extend the width of the pavement and make that extension a coloured cycle path.
If you want to see a town whose transport system works, visit Stevenagein the UK. It works precisely because it keeps cars, cyclists and pedestrians apart wherever possible, removing a lot of the accidents in the process. Another benefit is that it manages to have a disproportionately low number of traffic lights, the jumping of which seems to be the main complaint of the non-cyclists on this site.
LostCause
7 September 2006 3:36PM
As someone who no longer cycles because it's too bloody dangerous (I mainly walk instead these days), I've often felt that all motorists should be forced to spend at least one month a year biking around town before being allowed to comment on such matters. Things take on a different perspective when you're constantly only a dozy, inattentive driver away from death.
That said, the solution is clearly the one mainly used in Finland. Cycle paths wherever possible. Where it's not possible, cyclists are free to use pavements, which are often divided by a line.
Of course cyclists should stop at red lights, but then, pedestrians should always wait for the little green man, and that doesn't always happen either. It's hard to claim that either of these offences are particularly serious though.
bethersonton
7 September 2006 3:42PM
CJCJC you have to make a judgement on your own safety when cycling on roads. you learn of bad spots at considerable personal risk. Skip a read light if it makes life easier. I understand your concern about being cavelier with the safety of children or pedestrians but am afraid it's nothing that sensational as usually none are around, rather neglected to mention that. If children or pedestrians are around then you let them cross in peace. If they are in the park, you slow down when passing, same with people walking dogs. Also don't agree with using the pavement you'll be pleased to hear...well once i did, to get out of the way of a doubledecker drifting into bus stop and wedging me against the kerb... i get away with that one. maybe prone to bad luck eh:)
bumpngrind
7 September 2006 3:44PM
Speaking as someone who drives, walks and cycles, I say this: cyclists should stay on the road as much as possible, and always when cycling lanes are available. Also, crossing a red light is not just illegal, but outright dangerous, for the cyclist in the first place. However:
1) Banning cyclists from riding on pavements is damn stupid: they are more vulnerable than pedestrians (who at least can stand on two parallel feet and not two in-line tyres) and more likely to get seriously hurt. Previous posters might disagree, but I'd rather be a pedestrian hit by a bike than a cyclist hitting a pedestrian and landing clumsily on my head at speed. Besides, if the aim is to reduce the total number of casualties, the evidence points to how pedestrians are less likely to be hit by bicycles than cyclists by cars. Unless, of course, people speak from the point of view that they drive and walk, but not ride a bike.
2) When cycling lanes are drawn on pavements (e.g. next to Loughborough University) pedestrians invariably walk on the side reserved to bicycles. When they are drawn on the road, you always find parked cars or cars squeezing you in as they drive along, and that's also dangerous. And cars stopping over cycle crossing lines are culpable of the same offense as cars stopping over zebra crossing: it's against the law and it's dangerous.
3) The more "safety conscious" cyclists are the worst breed: they're the ones that take more risks in the false belief that a shiny vest and a flimsy helmet gives them invulnerability, and that leads them to be extremely inconsiderate on the road. A bicycle is a mode of transport, not a statement: it takes you from A to B cheaply and relatively quickly, but an arsehole on a bike is still an arsehole. Even with a crash helmet on.
Jelley
7 September 2006 3:47PM
Sometimes I am totally bewildered by people's feelings on matters as trivial as this. For god's sake!
If you're a cyclist, go in the cycle lane or ride your bike like a normal person on the road. DON'T break the law, DON'T ride on the pavement. If you do, and something happens, it's your fault.
If you're a driver DON'T ignore cyclists. If you do and something happens, it's probably your fault.
If your're a pedestrian, DON'T walk out in front of cars (you will possibly die, DON'T walk out in front of bikes, it will hurt or cause someone else to get hurt. If you do, it's your fault.
Does anyone really give a shit? Hands up who defines themself as a cyclist or a motorist or a pedestrian? So why do people take offence when someone labels cyclists as a bit dodgy, or motorists as bloody minded? I ride a bike sometimes, and i drive sometimes, i even manage to walk around quite a lot. Does that mean im a dodgy bloody-minded pedant?
nairobiny
7 September 2006 3:50PM
IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO BOTH DRIVERS AND CYCLISTS....
There's more to driving and/or cycling than just not having an accident. If you could only bear this in mind, all other road users would have a better time of it.
CJCJC
7 September 2006 3:52PM
bumpngrind - I'm afraid I didn't follow point 3 at all. What are the "safety conscious" cyclists doing which is, in fact, risky?
bethersonton - "Also don't agree with using the pavement you'll be pleased to hear...well once i did, to get out of the way of a doubledecker drifting into bus stop and wedging me against the kerb... i get away with that one."
Heaven forfend that a cyclist should actually STOP - which I assume was the alternative course open to you?
"If they are in the park..." - is cycling permitted in said park?
Top London "blackspots" for me personally are Millennium Bridge - there is a sign saying "cyclists dismount", can you lot read? - as there is on the stretch of walkway - that's WALK-way - alongside/under the OXO building.
(I don't know if I have now to establish my anti-car credentials, but as I live in central London I don't have a car.)
CityBoy2006
7 September 2006 3:56PM
Obviously some cyclists are worse than others but it really bothers me that in peak rush hour in London so many cyclists behave with such abandon when frankly the dangers on the road (i.e. gridlocked traffic) really don�t justify the response.
There should be a ban o cycling on pavements, I am sorry but if you choose to cycle you have to accept the dangers that involve cycling on the roads, with roads there is a clearly defined (and consistently observed) space for cyclists, whereas on pavements it is a free for all between cyclists, joggers, push chairs and people meandering along.
Someone travelling at 15 � 16 miles per hour in a space where others are only travelling at 2-3 miles an hour is obviously dangerous, the fact that many of these free wheeling crazies dart in and out of crowds and take delight in intimidating as many as possible is by the by.
One other thing, the argument that you are reducing emissions etc and therefore should have carte blanche to cycle at will is rubbish. In London there is a huge array of public transport to choose from and any cyclist is invariably someone who chooses that method of transport out of convenience or health.
WoollyMindedLiberal
7 September 2006 2:39PM
We should not only make it legal to cycle on the pavements like they do in Germany but actively encourage cyclists to use the pavement.
Has anyone ever been killed by a cyclist on a footpath or sneaking over a red light? Plenty of people have been killed by cars doing both.
Cyclists who don't want to wait at a red light could always dismount and convert themselves into pedestrians before mounting up a few seconds later on the other side and pedalling off. This should keep the pedants happy.