Here on the live blog, we’re well used to reading articles in the national press – usually penned by lethargic, uninspired journos frantically scrabbling around, hours before their deadline, for something that will generate a few clicks and keep the editor happy – deriding cyclists, for whatever reason sprung to their tired minds first.
While there have been far too many of these paint-by-numbers ‘Cyclists are horrible’ diatribes to keep count of over the years (Jake Wallis Simons must account for at least 100 of them by now), one still manages to stick out in the mind.
Back in 2015, Metro writer Yvette Caster wrote one of the more inflammatory of the hundreds of anti-cycling articles that have littered our screens, as she cobbled together a well-worn list of cliches and bingo comments under the headline ‘Cyclists are a menace and should be banned from the roads’.
Her rather insipid piece (despite its hell for leather headline) relied on tropes based on MAMILs, Lycra, red lights, and ‘speed demons’, while claiming people on bikes are “holding up traffic, causing accidents and generally being a total liability on the modern highway”, and even inspired a satirical response on road.cc.
> Bart Chan demolishes Metro columnist's anti-cycling rant
Well, fast forward eight years, and it seems Caster – like Hank Williams before her – has seen the light.
Writing in the Guardian yesterday, she described the “caustic” backlash to her Metro article, during which “furious hordes accused me of stirring up hate, of encouraging reckless, criminal motorists and of indirectly putting cyclists in danger”.
“Cyclists who had been knocked off their bikes and people whose cycling relatives had been injured got in touch,” she wrote. “I was horrified but also convinced that most motorists were careful, sensible and well-meaning, so the accidents must have been tragic, rare, isolated incidents.
“Looking back now, I understand their rage better. I thought I’d thrown a stick on a campfire, but I’d poured petrol on an inferno. According to the Department for Transport, about 100 cyclists die on British roads every year. In 2022, 4,056 were seriously injured and 11,546 slightly injured.”
Those tight deadlines make it difficult to Google, I’ll give her that – but at least she’s found the DfT’s website now.
She continued:
When I wrote the piece, nowhere I had ever lived, which included cities across the country, seemed suited to cycling, and I, like my friends, viewed cyclists as eccentrics. I grew up in a remote country village with two buses a day: one into town, one out.
There were no pavements or bike lanes and no safe way to walk or cycle the eight miles to town – and there still isn’t. I could not understand why anyone would take the risk of cycling down windy country roads when 4x4s existed, or pedal through London, a place where everyone seemed to hate cyclists.
But my attitude changed during lockdown. There was no lightbulb moment – but suddenly the noise of the roads was gone. Cars were no longer important because we weren’t allowed to travel. In their absence, instead of traffic outside my window I heard birdsong. A strange kind of peace descended. Nature grew louder.
Caster claims her lockdown revelation inspired her, after it broke down, to give up her car and embrace public transport.
“I went from disliking cyclists to wishing there were more on the roads,” she added. “Looking at the article now, I know it was written by a thoughtless younger version of myself, putting clicks before people. I’ve come to appreciate those taking journeys that save us from pollution.
“I wish my town, and Britain, could repay cyclists’ and pedestrians’ efforts with an infrastructure to help them go everywhere, safely.
“Some friends still see cyclists as a nuisance. Others see me as odd for staying car-free… I’m even planning to try cycling. Just don’t ask me to wear Lycra.”
> We don’t need vigilante cyclists like Cycling Mikey – because “cyclists already own the roads”, says Spectator article
So is Yvette’s (somewhat) conversion enough to atone for her sins from 2015?
“I’m cynical,” says road.cc reader peted76 in the forum. “But I’ll take it and more turncoats just like her also please. A drop of goodwill towards cyclists in an ocean of hate.”
“I choose to believe the writer has in fact changed their outlook and is not simply jumping on another way of generating ‘clicks’,” added HoldingOn.
Maybe the road to Damascus was actually a cycle lane all along…
Add new comment
37 comments
That blue sign is too high up, how do they expect the sharers to know it is a shared path?
Lower down than the green man but she saw that fine...
I am a huge fan of the National Cycle Network, just like Motorways they show me exactly where I would be crazy to ride. .
Getting caught may have taught him a lesson, and for now he's not doing it
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/28/driving-while-dist...
And he's now noticing how others are very distracted.
Doesn't seem to be terribly penitent. It's more like "yeah, I got caught" followed by "there are so many distractions" and "gosh - look at all those other people driving awfully".
Baby steps though, he says he's put the phone down.
Was Yvette Caster's conversion from yet another anti-cycling journo to sense on the road to Damascus?
Hansen also claims the city is responsible for failing to make the cycle lane safe, and for failing to train its employees and contractors to properly plan, build, and maintain the bike lane and barrier.
They can't all have been British can they?
The cycle path that runs past Alverstone on the Isle of Wight is horrific for flooding.
This was posted on the CycleWight group page a couple of weeks ago, the worst I've seen
Isn't there a saying on the Isle of Wight, with regards directions: if you hit water, you've gone too far.
Clearly gone too far there...
Those kinds of shouty anti-cyclists always reminds me of Burroughs' "The Cat Inside"
As a doggist I must read that book. Yeah I'm prejudiced about dogs, some are OK, but they aren't moggies. Get over it.
Not only is that a shared use pavement, but cycling on the road is actually forbidden there too!
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZoTHuFCGvY86iWZGA
That old Brexit bag was a bit OTT (and yes, of course she voted Brexit) I had one similar to that recently though no rude words or threats. When I pointed out to the man in question it was shared use he immediately apologised and said words to the effect - my mistake, sorry.
RE “Get on the f***ing road!”: I've had this situation a few times and I'm sure others here will have too.
My overall take is "stop 'building' shared use paths already!". Not only does it lead to this (or "a bloody cyclist nearly crashed into me and then gave me a mouthful!") but it's baking in a very low limit to any growth in active travel.
Shared use spaces may seem like a win in the UK where anything at all is still a minor miracle. And pedestrians and cyclists sharing are (without having detailed statistics - which we should be collecting more carefully...) much safer than e.g. motor vehicles and cyclists sharing.
However it's not pleasant for either party once there are more than a handful of people using the space (see the differences with the gold standard e.g. NL here). The ones I make use of work in inverse proportion to the number of people using them. A sunny holiday will see a ton of people out ambling - and why not - with dog walkers, people walking three or four abreast (because they're humans). Getting about on the bike becomes a pain and I'd be the bad person.
Different modes need their own - clearly marked - spaces.
Also - while there are some people who're happy to threaten other strangers on the street - and they're the problem - this video doesn't make me smile. Once someone's lost their cool unfortunately trying to justify yourself means a zero-sum game with them. Education isn't going to take place. I hope now I'd just stay cheerful and polite but essentially ignore and move on.
Unfortunately you are talking common sense, but we are stuck with shared paths as part of our active travel infrastructure, both now and going forward.
This is an ongoing problem on the canal towpaths which I like to use and there is not usually a convenient sign to point to.
Agreed - it seems that way. It doesn't have to be though. Everything's an unrealistic pipe dream that "won't happen here". Until it's "the new thing" and shortly after that just "how it is".
People interested in having more cycling, walking and wheeling (or simply less journeys driven) should be making this point every time some council puts up a blue and white "walking and cycling" sign or even opens a "traffic free shared path" and exclaims "Look! We built cycling infra!"
I suspect ignorance is much of the reason. Most in the UK simply don't know what they don't know. Why would they? Not sure anyone alive can remember when we had mass cycling here. Those few who cycle already have accepted cycling on the roads - which the vast majority are extremely unlikely to while motor traffic there is as present. Those "I'm a cyclist myself" types who go out for a few weekend pootles on the "off road infra" in the summer won't know either.
We should copy what genuinely works. (It's best to copy something that still works well when it is sucessful - or it never will be...)
Hmm... glad you have ones that work for you. However except for not being full of motor vehicles and being flat most canal towpaths are exactly the opposite of what we need from cycle infra. Generally by design they have built in hazards (falling in, bollards of the tying-up-to kind, surfaces like cobbles and mud, people fishing) and impediments (low bridges). To this we've added barriers /gates.
They don't go directly between "places". They are normally narrow and often have zero potential for expansion (because built between buildings / see "tunnels and aqueducts") and are "historic" (more issues with development). They're also in demand by pedestrians (being flat, quiet spaces) but frequently lack social safety (see here also). A related point - they're frequently at low points in the landscape / between buildings so you can't see where you are or you're going (the "Milton Keynes cycling ditch" situation).
EDIT - Interesting article here with several different canal path users musing on this.
If we think Mrs Shouty sweary is bad just imagine what her kids might be like.
Imagine how brave would be the guy having kids with her.
I feel a little bad though, as she obviously needs some kind of help. This kind of denial and rage exceeds the not rare anti-cyclist hate.
Imagine being one of her kids if, despite the odds of genetic lottery being stacked against you, and the poor quality of your upbringing, you turned out not to be a bogan yourself.
I've had people shout at me for being on the pavement when standing next to blue 'shared-use' signs, too. But they've always been a bit less sweary…
Not been shouted at, but my main commute route you have a choice of a cycle lane aka murder strip along a dual carriageway that is often full of debris or the pavement that has been made shared use on one side.
On a local facebook group someone was moaning about cyclists using the pavement rather than the cycle lane. When I shared video of the state of it he became quite understanding. The following day he shared a photo from his walk earlier of a roadsweeper on the route. I'd like to hope our back and forth got noticed by someone on the council who felt a bit guilty!
This is part of NCN 1 in Gravesend. Liable to flood in heavy rain, liable to catch a puncture if you are not careful too. Just beyond this it is a footpath that is not much wider than your handlebars.
At the moment though, there is a diversion on the road, as for over year it has been blocked with dumped tyres on an epic scale.
Just found I had a shot of further along when flooded.
Nice
Yeah. It is a shame as further on NCN 1 goes along the Thames and Medway canal path, which while a bit rough is a nice ride. And it then joins onto NCN 179 which is a loop around the Hoo peninsula, quite a nice ride on quiet roads. When I was a bit more energetic it was my go to Sunday 35ish mile ride.
I do love a good post-apocalyptic / warzone tourism-style NCN segment. (Or not.)
Fly-tipping is not uncommon but the very fact that the Notional Cycle Network uses every narrow glass-strewn back alley / cut through wasteground covered in nettles* means this is much more likely to happen. Also much less likely to get fixed. It's not always clear who actually *owns* these spaces or who to address issues to.
* Clearly a desperate attempt to make useable routes. I'm torn between admiration that this was made to happen at all and vexation that some charity (Sustrans, hmm...) had to do this. In the UK the idea of cycle routes that would actually go fairly directly between places people want to go isn't a thing in most places. That would mean making space where the main roads go. Which would involve years of planning and consultation / actual expense (greater than paths although much less than roads) / troubling people currently using the roads.
What is frustrating here, is that there is a huge amount of development going on. This would be easy to integrate decent infrastructure from the get-go, but it just hasn't happened. The solution has been to simply slap a shared use sign on the pavements. Add to this though on the actual roads traffic calming measures have been implemented that arguable make it more dangerous for cyclists to use the road, creating pinch points and priority/giveway points that encourage close passes.
Absolutely - and often contrary to their stated policies.
It would be great if we could stealthily improve new infra (avoiding shouty conflict) with each (re)development. It's vexing we don't.
With our councils it may just be that there isn't actually really anyone in charge of the bigger picture. Just individuals in individual departments, mostly doing what they were doing before.
Is "planning" at a national level something which could help push things forward? In the unlikely event of a new government taking active travel / transport change seriously...
“You should be on the road. I don’t give a s***. Just go, just f*** off. I don’t give a f***ing s***, I’ll smash you in the face.”
sarcasm and wit not dead then
Pages