Cycling Mikey in court as a witness

[Ham]

A large part of the reason people are driving like this is because for the past half century or so, we've indulged them.

......and any attempt at enforcing laws rigidly is met by whines of "war on the poor motorists"

The way to stop those whines is to enforce those laws, thereby creating the expectation that if caught you will be prosecuted. In many areas of law breaking we expect to get away with it by not being caught, but in no other area do we expect that if caught we will be let off because 'everyone does it' and 'you need to do it'. 'It was only one burglary your honour, and I need to burgle to pay for my heroin addiction.' Exceptional hardship would be caused by preventing me to rob.'

Yup. Actually it has started in many places with local authorities enforcing low traffic zones etc with cameras: drivers in Newham and Waltham Forest for example are far more circumspect in those situations, but that rarely extends to traffic light enforcement or speeding (which can often be at TfL roads in any event, and is subject to legislative control).

Which government would have the cojones to do it remains to be seen. My fond dream is that they take advantage of the energy crisis to implement a firmly policed 50mph limit as back in the 70s, and that opens the way to more extensive permanent control. Here, shall I roll one for you?

[ian]

I'm on the fence but he does illustrate the utter failure of road policing. Even things like phone usage are still ubiquitous.

The war against the motorist is mostly being waged by the motorists themselves. It's them, their families, their loved ones, their friends who end up as the casualties. It's a message that simply isn't propelled.

Which makes it all the more curious that the victims are always to blame.

[Ham]

Yup. Actually it has started in many places with local authorities enforcing low traffic zones etc with cameras: drivers in Newham and Waltham Forest for example are far more circumspect in those situations, but that rarely extends to traffic light enforcement or speeding (which can often be at TfL roads in any event, and is subject to legislative control).

Which government would have the cojones to do it remains to be seen. My fond dream is that they take advantage of the energy crisis to implement a firmly policed 50mph limit as back in the 70s, and that opens the way to more extensive permanent control. Here, shall I roll one for you?

And as if on cue https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-council-wandsworth-20mph-speed-fines-b1034060.html

Visit below the line at your own peril.

[citoyen]

Visit below the line at your own peril.

Magnificent. Especially the one styling himself* OopNorth, who claims there's no legal basis for this. No doubt believes himself to be a freeman on the land.


*definitely a him

[ian]

Pretty sure speed limits are definitely a thing in Magna Carta.

[Wycombewheeler]

If a few of the motorists were like me then you might actually find the motorist complaining. Not least when his lawyer sees my brompton sat next to me in the jurors area. Lol

Seriously,  why do you think being a motorist and a cyclist is mutually exclusive? I bet even some of the judges and barristers have been known to ride a bike too

Trouble is they only need a few NOT to be like you. Doesn't matter if they get a few safety conscious ones, they only need three* significantly below average, who think what the driver was doing is OK

*maybe just one

[CrazyEnglishTriathlete]

It's not just motorists that break road rules though.  Commuting back from London yesterday, it was more likely than not that when I was stopped at a red light one or more cyclists would go flying past, ignoring the signal.  If we are going to ask the police to enforce road rules more strictly.....? 

I agree that a Range Rover is more likely to inflict serious injury than a bicycle, but at least one of those red light passes yesterday resulted in a near miss with a pedestrian, who was correctly crossing the road under a green signal.

And it is easy to say - that's cyclists not like us - but just as I view everybody in their tin box as a motorist, many of those in their tin boxes will view all cyclists as the same.

[fd3]

It's a fair point on a philosophical level, but as you point out it's not pragmatic.  If you had to prioritise road enforcing you would
1. arrest/remove all drivers driving without a license, MOT or insurance (I saw quoted at one point that this could be 20% of motorists!)
2. police driving while using a phone
3. police speed limits (e.g. active enforcement of 20mph zones so that people actually drive at 20, not 30ish)
4. police running of red lights (which motorists do so commonly that there are no stats for running alight that has turned red for less than 3 seconds).
5. police safe passing distances in overtaking
6. consider the 1% of road users who are cyclists that jump red lights or ride on the pavement.

[MikeFromLFE]

Can't argue with that list in that order. Items 3&4 are 'low hanging fruit' that can be dealt with through technology, and could be passed on to local authorities to police in the same way that local authorities now have the opportunity to fine motorists misusing box junctions.

The other items on the list do, unfortunately, require more police involvement than funds currently allow for. Even citizen reporting of mobile phone use, close passes and photos of banned drivers requires 'back office' policing and I'm not sure there is any will to put resources into the system.

[ian]

Why not just allow cyclists to ignore red lights and cycle on the pavement (half the bike paths are already pavement, so it's often de facto OK without any clear distinction)? Then we don't have to fret about it.

People driving cars kill around 1.5k people each year and seriously injure hundreds of thousands more. Worrying about cyclists going through a red light is a distraction and often a purposeful distraction. It's like all that fretting about scooters blocking the pavement when every pavement in the country is already being used as excess car parking (and for the chumpmonkeys that take picture of a badly parked scooter or bike blocking the pavement, just do what I do, and move the fucking thing out of the way – I do the same with Range Rovers if I were the Hulk, well, I'd do a lot more than move).

[Cudzoziemiec]

Why not just allow cyclists to ignore red lights and cycle on the pavement (half the bike paths are already pavement, so it's often de facto OK without any clear distinction)? Then we don't have to fret about it.

Legal in Idaho since 1982. Perhaps the B52s knew already?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

[fd3]

Wot he said

[barakta]

Wot he said

I'd agree except a crap hire bike/scooter is much harder to detect/understand/navigate round for a blind person than a wheeliebin. My blind friends say the roads were hard before with bins, pavement parking and overgrown hedges but the bikes and scooters make then 10x worse.

And this is people who have attempted with substantial support to sue the gubbishment for not banning pavement parking already.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Wot he said

I'd agree except a crap hire bike/scooter is much harder to detect/understand/navigate round for a blind person than a wheeliebin. My blind friends say the roads were hard before with bins, pavement parking and overgrown hedges but the bikes and scooters make then 10x worse.

And this is people who have attempted with substantial support to sue the gubbishment for not banning pavement parking already.

My low-vision (not blind) and wobbly friend complains most about overgrown hedges, second most about badly parked scooters.

[barakta]

I think part of it is the bikes and scooters are abandoned on otherwise wide open walkways but it's the fact the blind person suddenly staggers over them out of nowhere, or gets a handlebar to the thigh/ribs (height dependent) suddenly.

I also know a lot of visually impaired people have had negative experience with twats on bikes 'buzzing them' the cycle equivalent of a close pass. They don't know the difference between a considerate person on a bike who they probably don't notice so they're only noticing the twats. We also don't train cyclists to call out "cyclist on your left!" or "I'm a wide trike on your right can you move left a bit plz?" so people sometimes don't know what to do and muck that up.

Blind people are more likely to be pedestrians than average sighted people cos they can't spend their lives in their little metal boxes.

[ian]

I don't know the luxurious places you guys live, but we have long since stopped having enough empty pavement to cycle or abandon hire bikes and scooters. If you're visually impaired or blind you are not walking anywhere. Get the cars off them and then we can and should worry about the rest.

People in the UK are weird about bikes. I've seen the staff at Frankfurt airport zipping around on Bromptons, nipping around the crowds. No one screams, no one dies. If you ride up to a table in a central pedestrianized square in any given town in most of Europe no one care. In Britain, we'd make a TV exposé.

[fd3]

I don't know the luxurious places you guys live

Mordor, which does have enough pavements for the scooters to be a nuisance.  I do find the cars parked entirely or 50+% on the pavement worse, but then I am not blind.
I think your point on bike etiquette is valid barakta, it isn't clear how pedestrians/cyclists should inform each other and communicate.  I get about as many pedestrians telling me they didn't hear me as ones who shriek that I'm talking to them.

[Kim]

I think your point on bike etiquette is valid barakta, it isn't clear how pedestrians/cyclists should inform each other and communicate.  I get about as many pedestrians telling me they didn't hear me as ones who shriek that I'm talking to them.

It's part of the strange BRITISH attitude to bikes that ian mentions.  The rules are clear enough - you're supposed to ring your bell to make people aware of your presence and slow down and proceed with caution.  But any attempted warning is perceived as a GETOUTOFMYWAY! by a significant minority of pedestrians, so most of the time it's better not to bother.  And hence the status quo is perpetuated.

I don't like to use "on your left/right" when passing non-cyclists, because they're unlikely to be familiar with the protocol, and even if they know the difference between left and right, some will hear a direction and move that way.

My pragmatic solution (beyond riding where pedestrians usually aren't) is to make a neutral mechanical noise (or if it's dark enough, shine enough light that they can see it illuminating their surroundings), and hope they notice you and work out what to do on their own.

[Basil]

Yes.  Wot Kim sed.  Works for me. 

[Basil]

I couldn't get my bell to ring in Welsh, so I got rid of it.

[Clare]

I couldn't get my bell to ring in Welsh, so I got rid of it.

Clochty-ping?

[Wowbagger]

I find “Excuse me please!” is a very useful expression when asking a pedestrian to move over. It works very well unless said ped has loudspeakers in their ears.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Wot Wowbagger said and what Kim said, kind of, about "On your right!" The latter is a particularly useless phrase for anyone who doesn't engage in group cycling. Or for those who are at that moment cycling in a group but are not used to the jargon. What's on my right? A hazard of some sort? Oh there's a big hole on the left so that means we should all move to the right, got it.

[The Family Cyclist]

I don't think its the science of rockets

A few years ago was approaching a blind person on a wide shared use path, slowed down and a quick call off morning I'm a cyclist and passing on your.......(slight pause as nearly said the wrong side as was cycling towards their front)... right. They called back thanks and we all went happily on way

[Wowbagger]

I think the immediate reaction when you hear the word “right” is to move in that direction.