Kamikaze Cyclists!

BillyMansell

And you were doing so well until the rubbish in the final paragraph.

I'll give you a C+ .

modsandmockers

BillyMansell wrote: »

And you were doing so well until the rubbish in the final paragraph.

I'll give you a C+ .

Here is the actual link, and it is hard to imagine how such a fudge was ever allowed to see the light of day -
http://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cyclists-can-ride-pavement

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Here is the text of the email which I have just sent to my MP. He, or one of of his staff, usually replies within less than a week, so I will keep you informed...

Dear Andrew, thank you once again for your help in recent times over several different issues ranging from misleading information from utilities providers through to the unsatisfactory treatment which one of my offspring has received from HMRC and DWP.

I am currently engaged in a discussion on an internet forum regarding the issue of cyclists riding on pavements. I contacted the County Cycling Officer about a particular stretch of pavement near to where I live, and was greeted with with the information that, even though biking on the pavement is still totally illegal, cyclists are no longer automatically penalised for invading pedestrian spaces if they become fearful of their self-imposed proximity to motorised vehicles.. Here is a link to a relevant government document - http://road.cc/content/news/108119-t...-ride-pavement

I would be interested to know your views about the role of a salaried County Cycling Officer - I would have expected him to show some interest in the issue which I brought to his attention, and I would have expected that he would have mentioned my concerns at one of his, presumably, regular meetings with the local police service.

As you know, I play a major part in my grandchildren's upbringing, but I am struggling to decide how to introduce them to the practicalities of cycling on the public highway.

There is a politically correct agenda which insists that cyclists should be given all sorts of preferential treatment, but in practice, very little is provided except some symbolic white lines and cyclist shapes painted onto the the tarmac. In general, I would suggest that these simple measures simply result in yet more areas of possible conflict and confrontation, and, given that there is zero government commitment to providing a realistic network of dedicated cycleways, it would be better to give up altogether with the half-hearted measures to provide a safe environment for cyclists, and give cyclists the brutal truth that they cycle entirely at their own risk.

Best wishes, KA

Unfortunately the link doesn't work on here, but so far as I can tell, it works just fine on the email which I sent to my MP.

Every MP will have one...

BillyMansell

modsandmockers wrote: »

Here is the actual link, and it is hard to imagine how such a fudge was ever allowed to see the light of day -
http://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cyclists-can-ride-pavement

I was referring to the last paragraph in your email.

Using phrases such as politically correct agenda and cyclists being given all sorts of preferential treatment just shows a wilful ignorance of the need for the move towards integrated transport policies that benefit the whole of society and offer long-term socio-economic benefits.

Saying that cyclists should be given the hard truth that they do so at their own risk shows you as nothing more than a discordant, selfish and hate-filled individual.

You recognise pedestrians as being more vulnerable than cyclists, which we all do, and the need to keep them safe yet you wilfully ignore and deny cyclists the same protections to their vulnerability from motor vehicles.

As for your grand-children, find out if your county council provide Bikeability courses which teach kids how to ride safely on the road or contact local cycling clubs as they might have a kids section as well as giving access to Sky Go Ride activities.

Marco_Panettone

modsandmockers wrote: »

As you know, I play a major part in my grandchildren's upbringing, but I am struggling to decide how to introduce them to the practicalities of cycling on the public highway.

Presumably by telling them the "brutal truth" that their proximity to motor vehicles is self-imposed and entirely at their own risk...


And that's the thing - when the proximity is genuinely self-imposed (like when filtering through traffic jams) it isn't really an issue. It's when the proximity of the motor vehicle is caused by the person driving it that it causes problems. The levels of risk are entirely different, and the person in control of the situation are entirely different.

modsandmockers wrote: »

There is a politically correct agenda which insists that cyclists should be given all sorts of preferential treatment, but in practice, very little is provided except some symbolic white lines and cyclist shapes painted onto the the tarmac. In general, I would suggest that these simple measures simply result in yet more areas of possible conflict and confrontation, and, given that there is zero government commitment to providing a realistic network of dedicated cycleways, it would be better to give up altogether with the half-hearted measures to provide a safe environment for cyclists, and give cyclists the brutal truth that they cycle entirely at their own risk.

You continue to talk about this "preferential treatment" cyclists get, but as yet you haven't actually told anyone what it is, or how it is preferential. Please, exactly what preferential treatment do people on bikes get that those on foot or those in motor vehicles get?

Strider590

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

You continue to talk about this "preferential treatment" cyclists get, but as yet you haven't actually told anyone what it is, or how it is preferential. Please, exactly what preferential treatment do people on bikes get that those on foot or those in motor vehicles get?

I'd like to know too....

Most of the cycle paths are only as a result of complaints by motorists about cyclists on the road. Hence why so many aren't fit for purpose.

Cycle paths are the motorists solution.
Tolerance and consideration is all the cyclist really wants.

Marco_Panettone

Strider590 wrote: »

I'd like to know too....

Most of the cycle paths are only as a result of complaints by motorists about cyclists on the road. Hence why so many aren't fit for purpose.

Cycle paths are the motorists solution.
Tolerance and consideration is all the cyclist really wants.

Not necessarily, but many of what we currently have certainly seem like that. When designed and built properly they provide a perfect environment for riding.

theEnd

modsandmockers wrote: »

Here is the text of the email which I have just sent to my MP

I am currently engaged in a discussion on an internet forum ...... penalised for invading pedestrian spaces if they become fearful of their self-imposed proximity to motorised vehicles...... I would have expected him to show some interest ..... As you know, I play a major part in my grandchildren's upbringing, but I am struggling to decide how to introduce them to the practicalities of cycling on the public highway..... There is a politically correct agenda which insists that cyclists should be given all sorts of preferential treatment ...... and give cyclists the brutal truth that they cycle entirely at their own risk.

You didn't really send this to your MP ??????

modsandmockers

Strider590 wrote: »

I'd like to know too....

Most of the cycle paths are only as a result of complaints by motorists about cyclists on the road. Hence why so many aren't fit for purpose.

Cycle paths are the motorists solution.
Tolerance and consideration is all the cyclist really wants.

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Not necessarily, but many of what we currently have certainly seem like that. When designed and built properly they provide a perfect environment for riding.

We are slowly edging towards a discussion rather than an argument.

The best example of the preferential treatment which cyclists receive is that they are now officially allowed to ride on the pavement if they find riding on the road a bit too scary.

Cycle paths are what militant cyclists have always been calling for, but Strider is correct in his assessment that unless the job is done properly, then there is no point in doing the job at all.

The problem for cyclists is that they are a minority group whose requirements are of no interest at all to the majority of road users.

And yet, for reasons which can only be 'political', truck manufacturers are coming under increasing pressure to modify their vehicles' rear-view systems so that cyclists can be relieved of any responsibility for their own decisions to place themselves in very obvious places of danger.

It is clearly a separate issue, but I have many times tried to engage truck drivers and cyclist campaigners in an investigation into whether or not HGV blindspots are seriously unavoidable with the current array of mirrors which are standard equipment on modern lorries. Now that my HGV licence has expired, my options are limited, but I would really enjoy an opportunity to spend a few hours trying to demonstrate that HGV blindspots are caused by damaged or incorrectly adjusted mirrors and/or by driver ignorance.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

...cyclists are no longer automatically penalised for invading pedestrian spaces if they become fearful of their self-imposed proximity to motorised vehicles..

Well, a cyclist's proximity to motor vehicles isn't "self-imposed" unless they have the option of cycling on the pavement!!! Ha ha!

The point is that, since militant motorists feel like they have the right to preferential treatment on the roads -- being so often unwilling to obey road laws (e.g. speeding, dangerous driving, jumping red lights, failing to indicate, failing to give way to pedestrians, etc.), many cyclists will feel the need to cycle on the pavement for their own safety.

Until motorists get over the idea that they own the roads, and the councils/government design space for cyclists to travel safely, these problems will always exist.

It always amuses me how angry and persecuted some drivers pretend to be on forums like this... As if they're in the minority and it's the masses of cyclists who dictate road policy in the UK.

It makes you wonder whether they are safe to be trusted behind the wheel. If forums make you angry, what the hell are you like on the roads?!