Cyclists don't count as road users, argues Chris Grayling transport secretary

[NorthernDave]

Question: on the Leeds - Bradford Cycle Superhighway, there are sections where the pre-existing cycle lane has been left in place the side of the road and a new segregated cycleway has been installed adjacent taking some of the room previously occupied by the footpath / verge.
Which one does Mr Grayling prefer that I use? I'd hate to incur the wrath of his 4x4 door if I got it wrong...

(The actual answer is that I'd stay on the road for virtually all of it as it's significantly quicker and I have as much right as anyone to be there.)

 

[jonny jeez]

I wonder if cyclists in Holland or Copenhagen are classed as road users by their transport secs?

From my personal experience, they are classed as people.

The tribalism between cars and bikes just doesn't exist. Out of town some segregation exists but in the old centres its a free for all...in the literal sense.

 

[Drago]

Chris Grayling, yesterday.

 

[spen666]

He's the guy who thought prisoners shouldn't have access to books, I think. And look how prisons have thrived since.....

He was right - when have prisoners got time to read the books. They are too busy rioting these days!!!!


Seriously, if the reported remarks are true, then he should be removed as transport secretary. How can the minister responsible for road use not know who can use the roads

 

[mjr]

From my personal experience, they are classed as people.

The tribalism between cars and bikes just doesn't exist. Out of town some segregation exists but in the old centres its a free for all...in the literal sense.

Yes and that's where we need to get to. In my experience, I'd say protected spaces often start as soon as you get to the edge of town and yes, it does often become actual segregation out of town, with cycles required to use the round-signed cycle tracks unless there's a "schlecte ..." plate (to denote it's damaged or substandard) ... and it mostly works there IMO because government there aren't such nobbers to cyclists and build cycle tracks properly, like mini roads - because some elected members will probably use them - not as an afterthought to be squeezed in if there's space left after the carriageways and landscaping and street lights and litter bins and phone cabinets and whatever other junk English highway authorities like to put in the cycle tracks.

 

[jefmcg]

I think we are missing the big worry here. He makes policy. If he thinks that cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the main carriageway if there is a bicycle lane, he could end up introducing legislation to that effect. They have such rules in other countries (New York and Melbourne do, for instance)

 

[User16625]

I was going to say, someone shoot him, but that's not a reasoned, responsible comment.

And I will add my own disresponsible and unreasonable comment; I really want to smack that mofu, wouldn care if I got arrested it would be worth it. Hope his tiny todger turns into a tumour.

 

[bonsaibilly]

I think we are missing the big worry here. He makes policy. If he thinks that cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the main carriageway if there is a bicycle lane, he could end up introducing legislation to that effect. They have such rules in other countries (New York and Melbourne do, for instance)

Those are cities, not countries.

What are the danger statistics in those cities as a result of the rules?

 

[jefmcg]

Those are cities, not countries.

Really? I know they are cities. They are cities in other countries. So the laws exist in other countries. Many other countries don't have national laws for things like this. Technically the Melbourne law is Victorian legislation but I don't expect people in the UK to know the names of Australian states, so saying Melbourne is useful short hand, especially as 3/4 of the state's population and most of the bicycle lanes are there. As for the New York law, I don't know anything about it, except for this amusing video.

What are the danger statistics in those cities as a result of the rules?

I have no idea what that question means. I don't think the law was introduced for safety reasons, but to get cyclists out of the way of drivers. And it wasn't safety that would concern me, it's getting into arguments with drivers and police who have a different opinion on what "not practical" means.

"If there’s a bicycle lane on the road heading in the same direction as you, you must use this when riding a bike (unless it’s not practical to do so)."

OK, so there is no indication that they are about to introduce this legislation but I am still concerned that Grayling would likely think it was a good idea.

 

[Profpointy]

Those are cities, not countries.

What are the danger statistics in those cities as a result of the rules?

Well you'll concede both New York and Melbourne are in foreign counties. I dare say you might concede both are in anti cycling countries and that the intention is to get cyclists off the road and out of the way. I half recall a tale of someone in Melbourne being fined for cycling on the roads despite his claim he was on the road to avoid the tin tack campaign on said cycle lanes

 

[mjr]

They have such rules in other countries (New York and Melbourne do, for instance)

Does New York now? It didn't five years ago, at the time of this famous film, although that didn't stop a nobber fining the videoer:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

 

[jefmcg]

Does New York now? It didn't five years ago, at the time of this famous film, although that didn't stop a nobber fining the videoer:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

You liked my post, but didn't read it.

As for the New York law, I don't know anything about it, except for this amusing video.

OK, so I only (off hand) know one city where cycling not in the bike lane is illegal.

 

[mjr]

You liked my post, but didn't read it.

You cited the video as evidence of a law, but hadn't watched the "not illegal" bit?

 

[jefmcg]

You cited the video as evidence of a law, but hadn't watched the "not illegal" bit?

I didn't rewatch it, obviously, so remembered it incorrectly. And not really "evidence", more admission of the paucity of my sources. I double checked the Melbourne rules before I posted, because it seemed important to know the law existed in at least one place.

Ignore all that. The guy on the radio on the video is wrong. You are required by law to use a cycle lane if you can, in NY and Melbourne.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/biketips.shtml

NYC Biking Laws
[...]

• Use marked bike lanes or paths when available, except when making turns or when it is unsafe to do so. If the road is too narrow for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side, you have the right to ride in the middle of the travel lane. Bicycling is permitted on all main and local streets throughout the City, even when no designated route exists.

 

[mjr]

Ignore all that. The guy on the radio on the video is wrong. You are required by law to use a cycle lane if you can, in NY and Melbourne.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/biketips.shtml

Looking more, I think both are sort-of right because the guy in the video shouldn't have been ticketed for leaving the lane to avoid a double-parked car making it unsafe. That website oversimplifies the law: 4-12(p) in this PDF. Basically the "when it is unsafe" includes loads of stuff - even when there's another bike in it... but some police seem to ticket any time you leave the lane, which is a mess and a nuisance. This is why I don't like relying on such exceptions and don't think any such law should exist.

If you want obnoxious anti-cycling laws, some states have one that when there's no bike lane, you must ride at the extreme right-hand edge of the road.