As I’m sure you all know by now, the issue of ‘dangerous cyclists’ – you know, the ones who sprint with Cavendish-esque precision around the streets of central London at 52mph (don’t worry, we’ll have more on that head scratching Telegraph article later) – has been a prominent one in the national press this week, culminating in the government’s plans to back tougher legislation to prosecute people on bikes who kill or injure through dangerous or careless cycling.
So, as if to underline the point that cyclists pose the gravest threat on our roads (making them all “death traps”, according to the Telegraph), this happened on London’s Stoke Newington Road yesterday:
Apparently, the BMW driver, after his rather spectacular landing on a cycle stand and a poor unsuspecting bike, fled the scene without taking his missing wheel with him, while no-one was reported to have been injured (which is a miracle, really).
And needless to say, the rather striking images conjured up by yet another display of reckless driving on the UK’s roads sparked quite a few sarcastic (and some extremely serious) responses from “bloody” cyclists on social media, keen to highlight the irony of the government’s current road safety rhetoric.
“Very irresponsible, dangerous cycling clearly at fault here,” wrote Richard, while Simon said: “Meanwhile, we’re all being told to argue about floating bus-stops and dangerous cycling laws.”
“That new dangerous cycling law can’t come soon enough,” proclaimed Stuart.
“We need more enforcement of dangerous cyclists,” agreed the Berkshire Cyclist group, before Steve asked: “What speed was this bike doing to cause this?”
Meanwhile, AZB helpfully reported: “We’re getting word from Iain Duncan Smith that the cycle rack jumped out in front of the BMW and it’s also the cycle rack’s fault for being exactly where a speeding BMW would want to mount the pavement.”
Depressingly, that doesn’t sound too far-fetched at all from this current crop in power…
On the more serious side of things, AZB also wrote: “I don’t see how having a licence, insurance, and a reg plate helped prevent this collision? It’s almost as if those things don’t prevent dangerous drivers.”
“Without the cycling stands this could have been multiple fatalities,” added cycling campaigner Harry Gray. “When will Mark Harper do anything about this?”
> "30,000 people are killed or seriously injured on our roads every year, less than three involving a cyclist": Chris Boardman on dangerous cycling
In many ways, yesterday’s scene on the Stoke Newington Road underlines the point made by Chris Boardman on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, and covered on yesterday’s live blog.
“There are over 1,700 deaths caused by, or involved in, vehicles every year, 30,000 killed or seriously injured. It’s important that we say that because there are three involving, not necessarily caused by, but three or less involving a bike rider,” Boardman said.
“And as the Secretary of State [Mark Harper] said, this is such a tiny minority. More people are killed by lightning, or cows. And that same thing [cycling] is joyous. It’s good for society.
“And we put the focus on this minuscule, negative thing. Absolutely, everybody should obey the laws of the road. But is this really the best use of our time to be talking about this now?”
Add new comment
50 comments
The worst thing about this is that it's splashed on the front page of the print copy in a giant font. The recklessness of reporting clearly spurious Strava segments (52mph along the Chelsea embankment, really?!) as fact in order to stir up hatred against cyclists is breathtaking. It's journalism at its very worst.
On some of the faster segments in London, someone found that the 2nd and 3rd in the list were achieved during Ride London.
A bit like claiming that someone was speeding at 200mph in Monaco, and it turning out that it was the F1 GP.
They've done a couple of pre British GP events on London streets with F1 cars clearly breaking the speed limits,driving in bus lanes and none of them even bothered to stop at traffic lights.
We need to buy a lot more EVs to hit climate targets
I don't have the energy to complain, but this BBC article rankled. OK, it's primarily an economic article focused on the market in EVs, rather than a critique of how we can achieve net zero, but it includes the following headlines without any suggestion that there may be alternatives like you know, reducing travel, public transport and active travel:
"we need to buy a lot more EVs to hit climate targets"; "buoyant electric car sales are a must if we're to hit our climate targets".
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/ca...
This BBC article is pure auto industry propaganda which seems to assume people HAVE to buy a brand new car and then from there assumes that electric cars are a better choice.
But we have to drive...
I think unfortunately there may be a very low limit to top-down change - not to "what's possible" but "what is politically possible". It's not even really "what's economically possible" - before we *actually* start dropping dead from hunger in the streets or all the lights go off "people will have a word" and those trying to implement the more rapid change will back down or be out*.
And "build / buy a new thing to fix the problem" wins out every time over e.g. "fewer people driving and less far, less often".
There is a possible improvement to be had - see e.g. NL - but that will almost certainly still involve lots of people owning cars (and quite a lot of driving) - just a change in the pattern of their use.
* They even managed to get rid of Liz Truss. That wasn't the "deep state" though - it was her own party being horrified at what it was doing for their electoral prospects / popularity / future jobs in parliament.
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands...
(Interesting formulation they've used, a bit like "reduce, reuse, recycle" - "verminderen, verschonen, veranderen" which apparently is "reducing, cleaning up, and changing" - reducing car journeys, cleaning up emissions, changing traffic patterns and mode use).
Clevedon seafront
Everyone remembers how motorists in North Somerset threw their toys out of their prams when North Somerset Council decided to make significant changes to Clevedon seafront. Creating a separated cycle lane, making the road one-way, changing the parking from nose-in (so you can park up and see the sea) to parallel.
It occurred to me that there aren't really any good photos out there of what this radical change looks like once it went live. Lots of photos of 'under construction', but nothing of how it is actually used…
So here y'go.
Complete radical change - not a car to be seen
(Oh yeah, and the seafront cafes were all absolutely heaving, so so much for "We'll all go bust if you remove parking spaces!")
.
What's with the bollards in the middle of the bike lane? The Fietsersbond (cyclists union more or less) here in NL is actively campaigning to get them all removed here as they do cause a good number of crashes.
It doesn't make sense. I can see the intention is the buff high friction surface areas are designed for pedestrian access to vehicles. There's a dropped kerb where the bollards are, but it's neither marked as a shared use area or a zebra crossing, there's just a 'warning pedestrians' sign.
Bizarre design IMO. They ought to have put zebra crossings in, or more realistically, just left the cycle lane continuous black tarmac as I can imagine most pedestrians are going to exit their vehicle and just walk across the black surface area of the cycle lane anyway.
As it stands, priority is given to cyclists on the cycle lane, but that might not be clear to pedestrians and those bollards are a collision hazard to cyclists.
This reminded me, I have been trying to work out the status of this arrangement in Hyde Park: https://maps.app.goo.gl/akPnsoYN5gCuyisQA
Roadway. Bi-directional segregated cycle lane. Separate footpaths. Raised speed table. Warning signs on either side of roadway say "raised pedestrian crossing" but no zebra markings. Warning signs are also only on the road-side of the cycleway (and not easily visible in one direction). Do pedestrians have priority to cross road and/or cycleway?
I don't really know either. I assume the deliberate ambiguity is part of the plan?
I walk, run and cycle a bit through Hyde Park and these aren't great for anyone. Pedestrians don't know if they can confidently cross, cyclists don't know to give way or not, drivers see ambiguity and assume might is right.
When cycling I give way at those raised, unmarked crossings, especially since I finally saw the "Raised Pedestrian Crossing" sign - but it took me ages (which might also reflect on me!) to notice that as it's on the other side of the road and when cycling it just looks like something for drivers!
Maybe someone more enlightened can help...
Or also, not having roads through the middle of a park would also help.
Well, no idea really... (possibly the designers don't have either). Could just be "working with what's there already and what the budget will stretch to"? Or maybe working around rules which make it more effort to do things in some ways - I am not a civil engineer but perhaps if you don't paint the zebra you don't have to apply for certain changes / put in belishas etc.?
On the "meta" it is definitely a UK thing where we're all concerned about exactly the rights and wrongs of "priority" (letter of law) while missing out the intent. That should always be to a) ensure people don't crash or b) impede each other and c) ultimately facilitate everyone getting efficiently from A to B - not just a prestige mode. (And following things like the Downs Thompson paradox space-inefficient motor vehicles end up impeding each other in urban areas at some point - law of diminishing returns again).
And in the UK the result of course becomes "might is right" anyway, with many vulnerable road users still being (rightly) cautious even after waiting (for time...) at signalised crossings.
So - yes, there should be clarity, and yes, people should have their own spaces (more so than currently) - see "sustainable safety" and "homogeneity of mass speed and direction". However when it's just cyclists and pedestrians, or cyclists/pedestrians and a very few cars going very slowly* it can "just work" without the fussy signage.
Sadly that's a loooong way from the UK understanding. So perhaps we'll need a generation or two more of tons more paint and unnecessary peevish / fearful / aggressive interactions...
* Which aren't trying to get through a place e.g. just residents getting to and from their home on an estate / LTN.
Although it's quite rare for me to see a pedestrian cross here, when I do often the drivers do stop - which then makes me (cycling) look evil as I had not interpreted this as a crossing and carried on
Same!
.
I don't know, I can see how some people might have found it challenging to understand how it works when everything's been turned through 90 degrees
Wall of death.
Ah - so that's the reason for all those "speeding" cyclists! They're just trying not to fall off.
Pages