So, where does a regular commuter or leisure cyclist end and a delivery rider on an illegally modified e-bike begin?
Well, that’s the question posed by a recent edition of the Glasgow Times, which featured a front page story with the headline ‘Glasgow man left scared to leave home due to cyclists on pavements’ – despite the pensioner in question singling out speeding food delivery cyclists on “very big” bikes as one of the primary reasons for his concern.
A bit of a stretch there…
“I think there are more bikes around in the area now because of people doing deliveries and they are not all using the roads,” 84-year-old Mohammed Ishaq, from Anderston, told the local paper.
“They also go too fast and annoy people. I don’t think some of those riding bikes care about their own safety or anyone else’s. Some of the bikes look very big and can be quite scary.”
However, the pensioner also claimed that road layout changes to accommodate active travel have made leaving the house “confusing”.
“There are too many barriers when going out like works going on and rubbish everywhere and people cycling on pavements,” he said.
“It’s very hard now to walk around the area safely. Even crossing the roads is strange with some roads divided into separate areas for cycling which is confusing.”
> Cyclists warned city's new e-bike ban will be "clamping down on any cases of reckless behaviour"
While Mr Ishaq focused on delivery cyclists and bike lane layouts, his son, however, was much more forthright in his criticism of people on bikes in general, claiming that those who cycle responsibly are in the “minority” and that the rest are “causing chaos” for drivers and pedestrians.
“The cycle lanes are a danger to pedestrians crossing the road because they don’t understand the layout of the cycle lanes and the fact is a lot of cyclists are not stopping when it’s a red light,” Dr Abid Ishaq told the Glasgow Times.
“There are also cyclists going through red lights even when there’s no cycle lane and basically endangering themselves and causing chaos for drivers.
“We live in a country where we should be able to walk about freely in a safe environment and there are elderly and disabled people who are finding it difficult.
“They have to walk across a pavement, and they don’t know if they’re going to get hit by a cyclist. It makes me really sad, really angry, not just with the behaviour of cyclists but also with the failure of law enforcement agencies and the council to acknowledge the problem and put measures in place to tackle it.”
> Council calms critics' concerns contraflow cycling could cause confusion and chaos
Despite the newspaper’s ambiguous headline, Police Scotland’s road policing inspector Hugh Niccolls appeared to indicate that those using illegal e-bikes or e-scooters formed the bulk of the problems encountered by Mr Ishaq.
“We have been carrying out joint patrols with officers from the local Problem Solving team in Glasgow city centre in response to complaints and incidents relating to e-bikes and e-scooters that are not road legal,” Niccolls said.
“Our focus is on educating riders on safety and legislative requirements, as well as using enforcement action where necessary. Road safety remains a priority and I would encourage anyone with information or concerns about potentially illegal e-bike or e-scooter activity to speak to officers on patrol in Glasgow City Centre or call Police Scotland on 101.”
> "E-Bikes are bicycles, not motorbikes": EU Court rules e-bikes as not capable of causing "damage comparable to motorcycles"
Meanwhile, a Glasgow City Council spokesperson added: “We are fully committed to improving the city’s environment for active travel, whether that be walking, wheeling, or cycling.
“Pedestrians are recognised as the most vulnerable road users and we are working on a wide range of initiatives that will make travel on foot as safe as possible.
“Concerns over safety are also the single biggest barrier to people cycling and this why we are currently delivering a significant expansion of the city network of cycling infrastructure. When safer, segregated cycle ways are introduced the number of people cycling along these routes has been shown to increase significantly.
“Before a cycle way can be formally opened for use, the new infrastructure will be subjected to an independent safety audit that considers the safety of all road users.
“All road users are expected to follow the Highway Code at all times to ensure the safety of themselves and others. Where rules are breached, such as cycling through a red light, cycling on the pavement, or riding an unlicensed e-motor bike, enforcement is a matter for the police.”
> Police crackdown on dangerous delivery cyclists after cycling charity urged companies to do more following cycle lane crash
While the Glasgow Times appears keen to lump e-bike using delivery riders in with every other cyclist in the city, last month we reported that Glasgow’s police responded to safety concerns from cyclists and a cycling charity about food delivery couriers riding illegal e-bikes dangerously, with the crackdown coming in the same week a cyclist said he had been left “terrified” by a crash caused by an incident which saw him hit in a cycle lane by a courier riding the wrong way at high speed.
Officers from Police Scotland seized 15 illegal e-bikes and reported more than 20 people for road traffic offences, with pictures shared by the force on social media showing high-powered or modified illegal e-bikes that can assist the rider beyond the 15.5mph (25km/h) e-bike limit and are legally distinct from the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (EAPC) requirements.
Police Scotland said it was “targeting those riding illegally modified electric bikes capable of going at high speeds”, the comments coming in the same week Cycling Scotland had called on food delivery companies to provide couriers “effective training around cycling safety” and check the bikes they ride “are legal and road worthy”.
So, not so quick next time to present cyclists as a homogenously dangerous block, eh Glasgow Times?
Add new comment
28 comments
The defence lawyer has already got charges of death from dangerous driving thrown out for this one. Their claims of tragic accident makes interesting reading.
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/defence-wo...
I'm not sure interesting is the correct word, I need to go and calm down after reading it. It's just infuriating. I hope roadcc will follow up on this up even though no cyclists were involved. If I've understood what happened correctly and the driver gets away with it we are all in deep trouble.
That the driver of the car that caused the collision is a "young girl" should be irrelevant.
She is clearly over 18 - and as such is a woman and not a "girl".
And if she is that "young", then why was she allowed to drive such a lethal peice of machinery in the first place?
I am not an expert, but having driven vehicles ranging from small cars to 75ft articulated lorries, aquaplaning is caused by driving inappropriately to the weather conditions... which should be either Careless, Reckless or Dangerous driving.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/winter-driving/understanding-aquaplan....
Age and gender are irrelevant and are only being used as a sympathy ploy
The defence barrister sums up nicely why Magistrates, judges and juries go easy on drivers in court: "There but for the grace of God go I. There but for the grace of God go us all."
Look Mum no hands! When you've cocked up so badly one hand isn't enough to say sorry.
Today's numpty behind the wheel, I thought I'd check the camera footage as there was an alarming scrubbing of tyres behind me as I pulled into a gap between parked cars to allow an oncoming supermarket delivery van past. This driver had emerged from a side road, without checking it was clear and I think was attempting to overtake me before immediately turning left.
I should add they were being profusely apologetic to the oncoming van driver. I doubt it even crossed their mind what the cyclist was thinking on hearing a car roaring up behind then screeching to a halt.
A novel way to start introducing your riders for 2024? https://www.instagram.com/p/C1BrQL9uZoS/
*Full disclosure, I created this
"Study finds drivers who cycle or understand recommended cyclist road positioning are less likely to blame bicycle riders for close passes"
Entitled drivists who don't cycle don't know anything in the HC that's cycling related? Who knew?
"Bloody cyclist shouldn't be doing the thing the HC tells them they should be doing".
There should be a full cycling section on the Driving Theory test.
I see you're still not including any mention of the petition startd by Ishaq Son that failed miserably before he found out that weaponising your Dad would get you better press coverage
https://www.change.org/p/remove-dangerous-and-underused-cycle-lanes-in-g...
...oh and this one. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-67758665
Thought I'd share this story. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-67754731
Highway Code Rule 60
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
There's no requirement or even a recommendation to wear high-viz at night in the highway code. Reflectors are probably more effective than lights, and don't run out of power. Halfords might consider checking the appropriate guidance and laws before posting about road 'safety'.
Reflectors aren't more effective as they require a light source to shine on them whereas a light can been seen from various angles with no light source. How much light is reflected back compared with the lumens output of a front light ?
Hmm... depends on *your* light also.
I've got dynamo-driven lights on all my regular rides so I never forget the lights or run out of charge. They're certainly bright enough both to see by and to be seen (if someone's looking - which is the key part...) However ...
...reflective materials can be pretty salient particularly when on the spokes or your limbs as they can be moving. Yes everything's moving but sometimes your bike lights might be on a constant bearing / decreasing range relative to a driver and thus not so noticable.
Reflectors can also have a large area compared to bike lights.
If someone's driving about without lights I'd say you're already in an "all bets are off" situation - at best that signals "driver with low awareness".
So I hope for the day when this becomes increasingly moot* but would continue to recommend reflective bits as part of a balanced "looking like a Christmas tree" "help the poor motorist and myself" strategy.
* To avoid an arms race where everyone is competing with ever brighter lights / reflective / phosphorescent clothing (like a Baskerville hound) and yet not more visible over everyone else's lights and glitter. Meanwhile the urban environment at night gives everyone migranes.
Reflective spoke straws are a cheapish, lightweight addition. And from my view of others, work very well.
Agreed - certainly expensive straws, but cheap "doing something"... Quieter than spokey dokeys too! Not up for the "flashing lights on wheels" jobs, they're cute but a little wasteful I think.
Also - cheap(ish) stick on reflective tape, think I've got a lifetime's supply (a roll). From 3M IIRC?
Outside of the direct beam, from the side or a rear angle? Quite a lot I'd say. When the battery expires? Even more.
Not really an evidential statement though. When the battery expires, I have other lights- you don't really go out with just one front and rear light surely ?
Reflectors don't really do much when a light source is not in the immediate 3d vicinity of other road users. Street lamps, and other vehicle's head lamps will not be reflected or concentrated towards anyone.
So, if a car's dipped beam headlights are off or not working, or if a cyclist is approaching from the side or rear of a vehicle, reflectors will give no aid to visibility at all.
Flourescent clothing is "charged" by UV lights however specifically in the case of yellow its brightness still emits long after darkness falls. It is just easier to detect as in low light conditions it reflects or emits more detectable photons than its surroundings - and is not a natural colour. It does still, however , require other road users to be observant.
Fluorescent material (as used in hi-viz) fluoresces under UV light, which is to say it absorbs UV and reradiates the energy at a different (visible) wavelength, hence it appears unnaturally bright. But the effect is instantaneous, it does not charge up like a watch face. Your hi-viz jacket does not continue to glow in the dark.
Rule 59 says "reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) can increase your visibility in the dark".
If you've got good lights I'm not sure it really makes any difference though.
"If" doing the work. Batteries fail, lights break, lights are not so effective side on. I've no problem with taking good advice.
That is the definition of a recommendation, not a requirement.
Any HC rules that are backed up by law will use the word MUST in them. I don't see this word anywhere in rule 59.
The hi-viz obsession in the UK is hilarious.
Doesn't hi-iz require the presence of natural UV light (stuff that tends to be absent at night) to be effective? Not sure how wearing hi-viz at night achieves much other than pandering to one of the angry motoring lobby's strawmen.
I was out for a night ride last night (working lights front & rear and reflectives on both me and the bike before you ask) & I'd add some other stuff to their list:
1 Drivers who refuse to dip their full beams / think that 20 metres away from me = "pretty much past" so just flip them back on
2 Drivers who have only discovered how to switch their sidelights on and drive around at night with them on
3 other cyclists who are a) drafting fairies and b) whose lights are angled straight at your face when you shoulder check
Merry Winterval
2) seems to be increasing, not sure if it's because driving lights are much brighter, the autolight thing is faulty or people are really that clueless.
Couldn't believe the other night, how badly people were driving on unlit country roads and close passing me, and i had lights and reflectors, even a bright yellow jacket, don't know if the dark made it a worse experience but its put me off riding at night for a bit on those roads.
Not a driver, do modern cars have automatic dipping lights?
Back in the day, running one or two specialized 2.5s, often was high beamed, when I properly upgraded to my Night Sun Tri-Light, mainly running the 12W flood middle, those that refused to dip for quite a good light would instantly dip if I used the remote to flick on the 20W spot.
Today it's the Tap on the helmet activating my Exposure Axis.
Auto dipping is typically an optional extra. I've had it on hire cars, but I'm not a fan. Sometimes it dips late, other times it dips for a reflective road sign. Usually it works OK.
My night rides are usually MTB with a very short road section. I have an offensively bright front lamp, so on the road I will step the brightness down.
Yep, modern cars have auto dipping high beam lights. They do actually work quite well.
There's also more complicated laser matrix lights, which let you have full beam on all the time, they just dim the bit around the car ahead. But when it comes to pedestrians in the road, the light system shines a brighter beam at the pedestrian. Better than not seeing them I guess!
https://youtu.be/xe66enKPLHk?feature=shared&t=34
That's why hi-viz jackets combine fluro material and retro-reflective material. Fluro does its thing under daylight, retro does its thing under headlamps.