Sir Bradley Wiggins says London cyclists need to stick to the law

crazy-legs wrote:

The point is that bad infrastructure encourages bad behaviour. Why do you think people jump red lights? Or walk across the road against the red man? It's because the infrastructure and environment areweighted against the cyclist or pedestrian, people get fed up of waiting, it's safe and convenient to just nip across so they do.

If you build a continuous segregated cycle path, you remove all of that. No red lights to jump, no junctions, the cyclist is out of the way of all the vehicles so everyone behaves. You should see it in London on the new paths, it's a pleasure to ride on them. Get back onto the main road and it's straight back to being the alpha user, having to claim road space, having to match the speed of the traffic, having to place yourself in a visible position or having to break the law to avoid all the vehicles (the drivers of which are also breaking the law by speeding, using mobile phones, stopping in the ASL, RLJing, parking in cycle lanes etc).

Bradley Wiggins is about as relevant to transport cycling as Lewis Hamilton is relevent to your drive to the shops.

Bez has written a very good column about it:

http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2016/03/the-rise-of-the-idiots/

 

I get your point about the difference when riding in a cycle lane and on the road.  It is safer and sure, you have to take less risks to stay safe.

But there are plenty of intersections, where cyclist are in no danger and simply jump the light. It is simply impatience. We would all be upset if a car did the same thing. And in fact, on Queens Circus, which now has new cycle lanes,  red lights to allow pedestrians to cross are still ignored. It is that sort of behaviour that gets up the publics noses and why this is surprising or even unreasonable to some, makes me wonder. 

bluemoonday wrote:

So, a gold medal and grand tour winning cyclist knows nothing about social cycling and therefore should shut up.  According to those, who believe improving cycling standards will not change the publics perception of cyclists?! That must be 0-0 then!

It sometimes feels like some cycling advocates embrace 'the public hates cyclist and nothing will change that', which is a stereotype in itself. The poor, beaten down, social crusader, fighting the man and trying to save the world one white bike at a time.

Can we not have both worlds, where we improve cycling standards and cycling infrastructure and other changes that will help make cycling safer and more enjoyable in this country. Does it have to be us and them? Or is that what some people want I wonder?

If we choose not to discourage anti social cyclists, are we not making it harder to become more significant within the social and political structure? Or do we want our role and image to be that actual stereotype - even if it is not correct?

Not for me. I hate it when another cyclist goes through a red light. You can almost feel the car body language as you set off, being influenced by that selfish persons decision. Maybe I am wrong and it has no affect what so ever, how we behave around other road uses, but it seems pretty fanciful to me. It is just behaviour after all, where people treat you accordingly.

 

er, you must be new on here?!   

..coming round here with your rational and reasoned pragmatism. How dare you!

Good points well made of course but you'll be banging your head against a brick wall before too long!

700c wrote:

bluemoonday wrote:

So, a gold medal and grand tour winning cyclist knows nothing about social cycling and therefore should shut up.  According to those, who believe improving cycling standards will not change the publics perception of cyclists?! That must be 0-0 then!

It sometimes feels like some cycling advocates embrace 'the public hates cyclist and nothing will change that', which is a stereotype in itself. The poor, beaten down, social crusader, fighting the man and trying to save the world one white bike at a time.

Can we not have both worlds, where we improve cycling standards and cycling infrastructure and other changes that will help make cycling safer and more enjoyable in this country. Does it have to be us and them? Or is that what some people want I wonder?

If we choose not to discourage anti social cyclists, are we not making it harder to become more significant within the social and political structure? Or do we want our role and image to be that actual stereotype - even if it is not correct?

Not for me. I hate it when another cyclist goes through a red light. You can almost feel the car body language as you set off, being influenced by that selfish persons decision. Maybe I am wrong and it has no affect what so ever, how we behave around other road uses, but it seems pretty fanciful to me. It is just behaviour after all, where people treat you accordingly.

 

..coming round here with your rational and reasoned pragmatism. How dare you!

Indeed - why resort to argument weighted against evidence when you can have opinion, ideology and victim-blaming...

hawkinspeter wrote:

Please, just stop running us over first and then we can discuss our behaviour.

Well put.

atgni wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Please, just stop running us over first and then we can discuss our behaviour.

 

Well put.

Not really. Excusing poor road-user behaviour in this way just perpetuates conflict.

Surely its not such a difficult task to accept the need to obey the law AND campaign for infrastructure improvements and action to reduce the dangers cars pose to vulnerable road users.

This article is click bait designed to raise the ire of militant cyclists and so many of you fell for it!

700c wrote:

atgni wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Please, just stop running us over first and then we can discuss our behaviour.

 

Well put.

Not really. Excusing poor road-user behaviour in this way just perpetuates conflict. Surely its not such a difficult task to accept the need to obey the law AND campaign for infrastructure improvements and action to reduce the dangers cars pose to vulnerable road users. This article is click bait designed to raise the ire of militant cyclists and so many of you fell for it!

Fair point, but you could just as easily counter with "This article is click bait designed to suck apologies out of victim blamers and so many of you fell for it!"

Again, nobody above has said that antisocial/illegal cycling isn't a problem that doesn't need addressing, and there wouldn't be an article if Brad wasn't banging the wrong drum.

700c wrote:

atgni wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Please, just stop running us over first and then we can discuss our behaviour.

 

Well put.

Not really. Excusing poor road-user behaviour in this way just perpetuates conflict.

Surely its not such a difficult task to accept the need to obey the law AND campaign for infrastructure improvements and action to reduce the dangers cars pose to vulnerable road users.

This article is click bait designed to raise the ire of militant cyclists and so many of you fell for it!

There's nothing 'militant' about acknowledging reality - which is that our car-culture is a major public health problem. On the contrary, its those who refuse to face up to that who are the militants.
And the article is merely reporting something that has been reported elsewhere, where it serves to encourage the attitudes of the militant petrolheads in thinking its everyone else who is the problem.

hawkinspeter wrote:

What an asshat. How about we concentrate on reducing deaths on the roads first and then we can start worrying about the perception of cyclists? If cars/trucks can run people over and it's acknowledged as "a moment of inattention", then I'll be damned if I should care about the rules of the road. I'll also be damned if I care about what other cyclists do in case that'll colour the perception of motorists.

Please, just stop running us over first and then we can discuss our behaviour.

And with that kind of crappy attitude you will be damned, and what's worse you will damn the rest of us to suffer legislation in the form of licencing, helmet rules and other guff imposed in the name of our best interests. Your attitude creates an environment of conflict between road users. You are the problem. I truly hope you don't drive a car with the same sense of entitlement and hostility.

Simply put, if you cannot sign up to obeying the highway code and respecting the rules that apply to cyclists when using the public highway then you have no place on it. And absolutely yes the same applies to all other road users. Because your argument is as stupid as saying 'Cyclists jump red lights, so I don't see why I shouldn't use my phone while driving'

Mungecrundle wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

What an asshat. How about we concentrate on reducing deaths on the roads first and then we can start worrying about the perception of cyclists? If cars/trucks can run people over and it's acknowledged as "a moment of inattention", then I'll be damned if I should care about the rules of the road. I'll also be damned if I care about what other cyclists do in case that'll colour the perception of motorists.

Please, just stop running us over first and then we can discuss our behaviour.

 

And with that kind of crappy attitude you will be damned, and what's worse you will damn the rest of us to suffer legislation in the form of licencing, helmet rules and other guff imposed in the name of our best interests. Your attitude creates an environment of conflict between road users. You are the problem. I truly hope you don't drive a car with the same sense of entitlement and hostility.

Simply put, if you cannot sign up to obeying the highway code and respecting the rules that apply to cyclists when using the public highway then you have no place on it. And absolutely yes the same applies to all other road users. Because your argument is as stupid as saying 'Cyclists jump red lights, so I don't see why I shouldn't use my phone while driving'

Obviously, I disagree with you.

I think you're getting it back to front about my attitude creating an environment of conflict. It's more the environment of conflict (e.g. car users shouting at me for not using the not-fit-for-purpose bike lanes) that engenders my attitude. (I don't drive a car, so you can rest easy on that count.) If you think that licencing and helmet laws are a rational response to the numbers of deaths on the roads, then you are most gravely mistaken. They are just political posturing to gain favour with the motorised majority and I take no responsibility for them despite your words.

I have never been found guilty of any kind of road traffic incident, yet I fail to see why I should respect rules that were introduced for unruly motorists. Your 'cyclists jump red lights, so I don't see why I shouldn't use my phone while driving' completely ignores the scale of the problems. Phone using drivers kill lots (sorry, I don't know the numbers) of people, whereas cyclist RLJers do not (cue the anecdotes).

Rules of law are supposed to be used to the service of society to protect people's safety and well-being, but the dire situation of lack-of-enforcement means that I see many, many drivers jumping red lights on a daily basis. I refuse to blindly follow laws that I see flouted every day and instead, I judge for myself when it is safe to go through a red light and when not to. I appreciate that you don't want me on the roads, but tough, I am a cyclist and I am very often on the roads.

In my defence, I do not endanger other people and I try to be polite to all pedestrians and other road users (except when drivers endanger me and I get angry - nothing like swearing and gesticulating to blow off some steam).

Mungecrundle wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

What an asshat. How about we concentrate on reducing deaths on the roads first and then we can start worrying about the perception of cyclists? If cars/trucks can run people over and it's acknowledged as "a moment of inattention", then I'll be damned if I should care about the rules of the road. I'll also be damned if I care about what other cyclists do in case that'll colour the perception of motorists.

Please, just stop running us over first and then we can discuss our behaviour.

 

 Your attitude creates an environment of conflict between road users. You are the problem.

Woah there. People drive cars into other people due to incompetence or downright illegal behaviour and kill them on a daily basis. People drive cars too close to more vulnerable users on a much more regular basis - several times each way on my cycle commute.

And the problem is that the vulnerable users are getting pissed off about it?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

So are people saying that Wiggins has no right to talk? That we shouldn't follow the rules? Or that we shouldn't care what other people think or do?

All of the above is rot and really what Wiggins says is mostly common sense.

as a result of wiggins speaking up not 1 law breaking cyclist will change their behaviour.

BUT THE PERCEPTION OF CYCLISTS WILL GET EVEN WORSE THAN IT CURRENTLY IS - IE VERY BAD DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT STATES THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF CYCLISTS BREAK THE LAW AS MOTORISTS

I put it in capitals to spell things out. The people commenting on here are probably not the ones doing the red light jumping etc, but they'll get the extra abuse arising from this and other ignorant media crap anyway.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

So are people saying that Wiggins has no right to talk? That we shouldn't follow the rules? Or that we shouldn't care what other people think or do?

I don't  know what 'people'are saying. What I would say is that yes, cyclists should 'follow the rules', but the notion that following the rules will, alone, keep us safe, or make drivers treat cyclists with respect, is plainly pish. His words are focussed on the minor problem, the cyclists, and ignore the major one, the people whose vehicles kill, pollute and congest. 

oldstrath wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

So are people saying that Wiggins has no right to talk? That we shouldn't follow the rules? Or that we shouldn't care what other people think or do?

I don't  know what 'people'are saying. What I would say is that yes, cyclists should 'follow the rules', but the notion that following the rules will, alone, keep us safe, or make drivers treat cyclists with respect, is plainly pish. His words are focussed on the minor problem, the cyclists, and ignore the major one, the people whose vehicles kill, pollute and congest. 

 

 

Meanwhile the attention, column inches and comments on pages like this one are devoted to something fairly trivial and debating amongst ourselves.

Nobody's saying cyclists shouldn't obey the rules. Nobody's saying all cyclists are perfect.

Some people are saying that cyclists RLJing and cycling with ipods etc is an insignificant road problem, and that if someone in Wiggo's position feels they have a duty to speak out about something, they could pick many more worthy issues as the subject - and that, if he's doing so as some sort of cycling spokesman, he might want to do some research.

oldstrath wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

So are people saying that Wiggins has no right to talk? That we shouldn't follow the rules? Or that we shouldn't care what other people think or do?

I don't  know what 'people'are saying. What I would say is that yes, cyclists should 'follow the rules', but the notion that following the rules will, alone, keep us safe, or make drivers treat cyclists with respect, is plainly pish. His words are focussed on the minor problem, the cyclists, and ignore the major one, the people whose vehicles kill, pollute and congest. 

I don't think it is pish. It's not going to stop every dickhead, but your comments imply that every public service campaign is useless, which they clearly are not. People in vehicles will always kill and maim, but if you didn't have campaigns which force you to get a drivers license, that highlight drink driving, or think bike it does start to have an effect. I think it would be silly to expect driving to clean up its act before cycling does....and you'll just end up pointing fingers and calling each other 'hypocrite' if you do.

I can see the opposite effect that happens with your attitude. Cyclists that break every red light, and others who are persuaded to do likewise by example. Cyclists that pay no regard to other road users and are actually disrespectful and dangerous to other road users, and what is worse about it is that some, if not all do not understand the ramifications (being a danger to themselves and pedestrians, upsetting other road users who may then seek their own form of justice - I had some pedestrian knock me off my bike because he was fed up of other cyclists ignoring road rules - rough justice for me because I was obeying them but his prejudice had been built up by others). Pedestrians become scared for themselves and look down on us. If there was a qualification that you need to have (and could be taken away) before you cycled would mean that poor behaviour could be punished and that cyclists attain a minimum standard, as it is the road is filled with guys who don't even know if their breaks work throwing their bike at pedestrian, cyclist and car alike.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

So are people saying that Wiggins has no right to talk? That we shouldn't follow the rules? Or that we shouldn't care what other people think or do?

I don't  know what 'people'are saying. What I would say is that yes, cyclists should 'follow the rules', but the notion that following the rules will, alone, keep us safe, or make drivers treat cyclists with respect, is plainly pish. His words are focussed on the minor problem, the cyclists, and ignore the major one, the people whose vehicles kill, pollute and congest. 

I don't think it is pish. It's not going to stop every dickhead, but your comments imply that every public service campaign is useless, which they clearly are not. People in vehicles will always kill and maim, but if you didn't have campaigns which force you to get a drivers license, that highlight drink driving, or think bike it does start to have an effect. I think it would be silly to expect driving to clean up its act before cycling does....and you'll just end up pointing fingers and calling each other 'hypocrite' if you do.

I can see the opposite effect that happens with your attitude. Cyclists that break every red light, and others who are persuaded to do likewise by example. Cyclists that pay no regard to other road users and are actually disrespectful and dangerous to other road users, and what is worse about it is that some, if not all do not understand the ramifications (being a danger to themselves and pedestrians, upsetting other road users who may then seek their own form of justice - I had some pedestrian knock me off my bike because he was fed up of other cyclists ignoring road rules - rough justice for me because I was obeying them but his prejudice had been built up by others). Pedestrians become scared for themselves and look down on us. If there was a qualification that you need to have (and could be taken away) before you cycled would mean that poor behaviour could be punished and that cyclists attain a minimum standard, as it is the road is filled with guys who don't even know if their breaks work throwing their bike at pedestrian, cyclist and car alike.

I always knew London were reet weird, but streets filled with cyclists throwing themselves at cars! That's proper weird, that is. Clearly you exaggerate a little the danger posed by cyclists, but back in the real world, no,  it is not 'silly' to expect the major objective danger (the motor vehicles ) to be fixed first. 

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I think it would be silly to expect driving to clean up its act before cycling does...

And yet, as we are constantly reminded, there are far more cars and other motor vehicles on the roads than bicycles; so why shouldn't the majority in their one-tonne-plus of motor-driven-sitting-room (I wish English had the same ability for portmanteau words as other languages) be expected to behave?

After all, most of the time if a cyclist breaks the road laws then they are at risk; if a motorist breaks the road laws everyone else is.

OK - how's about we 'share' the cleaning up our act? The HGVs that shouldn't be on the road due to maintenance issues and urban visibility issues, the diesel- (and bile-) spewing taxis, the 'internet-of-things'-connected cars that are practically a moving sitting room: they can all start cleaning up their act too.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I think it would be silly to expect driving to clean up its act before cycling does....

Sorry, what?

You're suggesting bad cycling and bad driving are equivalent: they're really not.

Approximately 1,800 deaths occur on roads each year. Over 20,000 serious injuries. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-gre...

And the vast majority of those, and minor injury, road accidents are caused by driver error. http://www.iam.org.uk/images/stories/policy-research/licensetoskill.PDF

Given the disparity here, why is anyone  focusing on antisocial cycling as a problem of any scale, or suggesting it and murderous driving are worthy of similar treatment?

The effect of cycling 'cleaning up its act' will be to give Daily Mail readers fewer things to complain about. The effect of driving 'cleaning up its act' could be thousands of friends and families not losing loved ones this year.

Can someone please explain why these should be given similar effort? Or why the words Bradley Wiggins shouldn't be preceded by 'Moton Apologist Rentagob' henceforth in cycling publications?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

So are people saying that Wiggins has no right to talk? That we shouldn't follow the rules? Or that we shouldn't care what other people think or do?

All of the above is rot and really what Wiggins says is mostly common sense.

Who said he had no right to talk? Personally I just don't get why the media pays so much attention to what he says about subjects he has no particular expertise on.

The 'red light' bit is particularly annoying as I've had the following experience three times in the last month:

Crossing a road on a green man, car at the front of traffic stopped OK , only for another car to come roaring up behind at high speed, swerve onto the wrong side of the road to over take the stopped car, and jump the red just as I'm half-way across the road, before shooting across the junction against the lights.

A significant subset of drivers just seem to whizz around constantly at high-speed, ignoring lights , zebra-crossings and give-way lines and expecting pedestrians to leap out of their way. Can we get lewis hamilton telling London drivers to obey the law, please?