Westminster hates cyclists

[Cab]

Or, at least, thats the message I take home from this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6946724.ece

Comments such as this:

A council determined to make them obey the Highway Code is to deploy enforcers in a hunt for so-called “Lycra louts” as they whizz through red lights or ride listening to iPods
...
“So many people are frustrated with it. We’re always getting little old ladies who are knocked down and abused by a cyclist, who leaves them on the ground as they ride away.”

Yet another example of the kind of coverage of cycling we always see in British media. The article also says that 'up to 1 in 5' break the law, which means that more than 80% obey the law. Doesn't sound much, but its lower than the 82% of motorists who admit to breaking the speed limit...

I doubt whether anyone would seriously argue that cyclists who endanger others should not be penalised. But that kind of emotive drivel above there is endlessly used to justify what is basically prejudice against cyclists, who aren't the ones hospitalising people by the thousand anyway.

And now we see said prejudice possibly getting a sharper edge by a council lowering the standard required of those who can give out fixed penalty notices to cyclists. To allow council officers (not Police officers) to issue such notices sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[numbnuts]

it's a good job we don't all don't live in london then

 

[Cab]

it's a good job we don't all don't live in london then

I'm concerned that if we see this start in Westminster, it could easily spread elsewhere.

 

[John the Monkey]

I think cab has a point - the news agenda is fundamentally set by those living in the capital. If the cycling backlash begins there, it will spread.

 

[adscrim]

I'm concerned that if we see this start in Westminster, it could easily spread elsewhere.

I don't have a problem with the idea. On the whole, we shouldn't be riding on the pavement or jumping red lights. It does seem to ignore the motorised traffic that speeds, jumps red lights and parks on the pavement...

It won't work though. Any authority given is unlikely to be recognised by the type of hardline criminals they are targeting.

 

[John the Monkey]

I don't have a problem with the idea. On the whole, we shouldn't be riding on the pavement or jumping red lights.

I don't have a problem with that either.

What troubles me is the way these things are reported.

You're still, as a pedestrian, several times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a motor vehicle while you're on the pavement. And the sort of inconsiderate road use mentioned in the article has much more serious consequences when it's done by motor traffic than by bicycles and their riders.

 

[Crackle]

The last paragraph is the only one that makes sense and offers any kind of insight into the reasons it might happen.

Personally I'm against devolving powers to 'officials', whether it be cycling or otherwise.

 

[dellzeqq]

Westminster has sought legal powers to crack down on cyclists who do things they don't like. They wish to remove bikes chained to railings. They want to stop people cycling on pavements. On the other hand they installed loads of cycle stands - which have filled up. The pavements in Westminster are crowded with pedestrians.

The reporting may be juvenile, but Westminster knows that cyclists are here to stay, and, being a council that is, by nature, interventionist, they have decided to make people cycling in Westminster behave themselves. This interventionism isn't confined to cyclists - woe betide the restauranteur who puts a table on to the City of Westminster's pavement without a permit.

 

[Cab]

I don't have a problem with that either.

What troubles me is the way these things are reported.

You're still, as a pedestrian, several times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a motor vehicle while you're on the pavement. And the sort of inconsiderate road use mentioned in the article has much more serious consequences when it's done by motor traffic than by bicycles and their riders.

Precisely. Cyclists aren't statistically more likely to break the law than motorists, and the consequences of doing so are nothing like as serious. Yet see ever more attention paid to cyclists.

Enforcement of rules of the road on cyclists is fair enough; disproportionate effort to enforce said rules cannot be justified based on risk or cost.

 

[John the Monkey]

Here's a blog I read from time to time.

http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/

Look at the lack of consideration on display here.

http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/2009/12/paveparking-its-greener-you-know.html

Why does no one give a shoot about this? Is it really because the malefactors use motor transport to commit their offences?

 

[Norm]

You're still, as a pedestrian, several times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a motor vehicle while you're on the pavement.

What bothers me about this oft-repeated argument is that peds dying on pavements as a result of motor vehicles are nearly always caught up in someone else's accident. What I mean by that is that the vehicle has already lost control and mounts the pavement because pavements run alongside roads. My impression is that the vast majority of drivers who kill someone on a pavement did not intend to be on the pavement.

Cycling on the pavement, however, is nearly always intentional, which, to me, means that the cyclist has ignored legislation and basic safety considerations.

Enforcement of rules of the road on cyclists is fair enough; disproportionate effort to enforce said rules cannot be justified based on risk or cost.

This is the important point for me. Why single out cyclists, why not announce to the world that they are putting people at junctions to stop everyone who RLJs or drives / parks / rides on a pavement. If they catch more cyclists, that's all well and dandy but they should be targeting the behaviour, not the mode of transport.

And now we see said prejudice possibly getting a sharper edge by a council lowering the standard required of those who can give out fixed penalty notices to cyclists. To allow council officers (not Police officers) to issue such notices sets a dangerous precedent.

Scary stuff. Given their inabilities to run councils, why give them even broader powers to be pseudo-coppers as well?

 

[John the Monkey]

What bothers me about this oft-repeated argument is that peds dying on pavements as a result of motor vehicles are nearly always caught up in someone else's accident. What I mean by that is that the vehicle has already lost control and mounts the pavement because pavements run alongside roads. My impression is that the vast majority of drivers who kill someone on a pavement did not intend to be on the pavement.

I'm not sure - I know that where I live, I see a lot of people deliberately mount the pavement to get around queueing traffic. The Crewe Road/Weston Road roundabout is especially bad for this - as drivers tend to be watching the vehicle they're passing at this point (very important not to scratch the paintwork, don't cha know) pedestrians tend to be low on their lost of things to look out for (as evidenced by the quick avoiding action sometimes needed). See also;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8393532.stm

I'd be interested in any numbers regarding that point though.

Cycling on the pavement, however, is nearly always intentional, which, to me, means that the cyclist has ignored legislation and basic safety considerations.

Fair point.

If they catch more cyclists, that's all well and dandy but they should be targeting the behaviour, not the mode of transport.

Definitely.

There is a study (done in some areas of Belgium, as I recall) that links stricter enforcement of traffic law directly to an impressive increase in road safety for all road users. It was referenced on Tom Vanderbilt's "Traffic" blog recently. Fundamentally it's about motor traffic though, like it or not, as its capacity for wreaking havoc is very much greater than that of the pedestrian or cyclist.

 

[Norm]

I'm not sure - I know that where I live, I see a lot of people deliberately mount the pavement to get around queueing traffic.

As I said, it was just my impression. I don't think I've seen anyone driving on a pavement like that in a while. That film is, as it says 'Absolutely ridiculous' though. WTF has happened or not happened to let that situation develop?

What I do see quite a lot is people turning into or out of private driveways who seem to think that the road continues across the pavement so they believe that they have priority. That is another case where existing laws need to be enforced rather than needing anything new.

 

[joolsybools]

Perhaps the powers that be would like to focus on stopping the ammunt of vehicles that jump red lights in Westminster at the same time? I fully welcome them clamping down on numpties cycling on pavements but would very much welcome some proper driving enforcement, not just the quick win parking tickets.