Should drivers in London start paying for the damage, deaths and misery they cause?

[cheaperthrillz]

As a regular car driver and cyclist I personally think provisions should be made for both.

The roads are for everybody and if we all accepted this and showed a little courtesy everyone would get to their destination quicker.

Righties often argue cyclists are scum because they don't pay road tax.

Lefties often argue car drivers are scum because they destroy the planet.

They're both wrong.

We need to move away from this 'us' and 'them' divide mentality.

You are not scum for choosing to cycle and therefor pay zero tax.

Nor are you scum for choosing to drive instead of using public transport or cycle.

It's simply personal choice and everyone has the right to choose the mode of transport which suits them the best.

From both sides of the debate its nothing more than claiming moral high ground when it suits you.

[spindrift]

Peter Walker
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 November 2012

Walking and cycling should become the norm for short journeys rather than driving a car, the government's health advisory body has recommended in an attempt to tackle a national epidemic of inactivity and obesity which now causes as much harm as smoking.

In strongly-worded advice, which places significant pressure on the government to increase the extent of safe walking and cycling routes, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) urges local authorities, health bodies, workplaces and schools to do all they can to assist people in active travel.

The report notes that almost two-thirds of men and nearly three-quarters of women in England are not sufficiently active to maintain their health, with the results little better for children.


This amounts to a significant public health problem to which increased walking and cycling is a key solution, said Dr Harry Rutter, an adviser to the Department of Health-funded National Obesity Observatory, who led the Nice study.

"Only a minority of people in England get enough physical activity to improve their health," he said. "This creates a huge and often invisible burden of illness and reduced quality of life, but most people seem to be unaware of the scale of that burden. Across the population, lack of physical activity causes roughly the same level of ill-health as smoking does.

"We all face barriers in changing our lifestyles and many of us feel we don't have the time or the inclination to add regular physical activity into our lives. But walking and cycling – to work, to school, to the shops or elsewhere – can make a huge difference. It's an opportunity to make these activities part of normal, routine daily behaviour."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...h-advises-nice

I haven't said drivers are scum, I did call them fat and lazy which was rude, sorry, this thread was set up as a reaction to the hate-filled poll on cyclists so some of the language was a bit forceful, apologies.

Something has to change, the idea that one person using a vehicle with the power of a hundred horses and taking it into city centres and driving around is a sensible allocation of resources is daft. When I was a kid we all cycled to school, in fact we looked very much askance at any Little Lord Fauntleroy who had his parents driver him to school, now we are breeding a generation of car-reliant slugs, obese children and all the health risks that surround that. One child ferried around all day in a giant 4x4 that will never face anything more arduous than a Ribena slick outside Sainsburies.

[.Adam]

Originally Posted by cheaperthrillz

As a regular car driver and cyclist I personally think provisions should be made for both.

The roads are for everybody and if we all accepted this and showed a little courtesy everyone would get to their destination quicker.

Righties often argue cyclists are scum because they don't pay road tax.

Lefties often argue car drivers are scum because they destroy the planet.

They're both wrong.

We need to move away from this 'us' and 'them' divide mentality.

You are not scum for choosing to cycle and therefor pay zero tax.

Nor are you scum for choosing to drive instead of using public transport or cycle.

It's simply personal choice and everyone has the right to choose the mode of transport which suits them the best.

From both sides of the debate its nothing more than claiming moral high ground when it suits you.

Thats all very lovely, but the truth is.. cities and London especially cannot cope with the general public choosing which ever form of transport they want.
Wanting a cleaner environment, less pollution, safer streets, less congestion and less visual pollution (i.e. parked cars, yellow lines, signs etc) is not a selfish leftie attitude.
The majority of Londoners use public transport, yet our entire city is at the mercy of the selfish minority who block the roads, because of their personal choice.

[annamaria4711]

London should have sky trains...mono rails above street level, that don't stop at every junction but are used as a speedier transport system and interject with LU for more local stops..ie Mono rail stops every 4/5 stops of an LU tube, then people get off and use LU for smaller journeys....more cable cars AND more trams please... ohhhh and better tarmac the more silent type.... I think noise pollution and illnesses from that is often over looked

[spindrift]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...r-8392277.html

The latest cyclist to be killed on London’s roads was today described as “the greatest bloke in the world” by his colleagues at a sandwich delivery firm.

Javed Sumbal, 34, was on his way to work when he was knocked off his bike at the Arbour Square junction in Commercial Road at 8.20am yesterday.

Despite the efforts of a passing first aider, he was pronounced dead at the scene. The male driver of the Dutch-registered lorry which hit him has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by careless driving.

Mr Sumbal, known as Jay to colleagues, was described as “the mascot” at Darwin’s Deli, in Barnardo Street, Shadwell, where he delivered sandwiches to offices on his bike.

Area manager Ricardo Jacques said: “It was impossible not to like him. He was a big guy and larger than life in every way. He was always happy and lifted your mood.

[Gavrosh]

As a driver and a cyclist, im constantly amazed by the flouting of road laws by people on bikes in london. It might be alright to go through a red light in the home counties, its not here. There are also a very few basic laws of the road (like never being in the left hand side blindspot of a vehicle at the lights) which if learned, would save many lives a year. Of course there are many, many bad motorists out there, but there needs to be something to educate cyclists too of the dangers of interacting with a very complicated and potentially dangerous road system.

[spindrift]

That's not actually true, cyclists riding up the side of vehicles is not a major factor in rtcs.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by cheaperthrillz

We need to move away from this 'us' and 'them' divide mentality.

You are not scum for choosing to cycle and therefor pay zero tax.

Nor are you scum for choosing to drive instead of using public transport or cycle.

I agree - except for the bit about paying 'zero tax'. Lots of cyclists pay just as much tax (including road tax!) as driving commuters. Hopping on to two wheels doesn't make me tax-dodging scum, and I think that with cycling levels so low in the UK right now, the very last thing you ought to be doing is to have a bicycle tax, not least because I can't see the funds collected being enough to do anything other than run the bureaucracy that collects and enforces the tax, but also for the same reasons that we don't tax pedestrians.

[spindrift]

That a cyclist following official government advice on safe cycling is described as an "arsehole" on the locked thread suggests we've a long way to go.

[spindrift]

Trainees must position themselves where they can be seen and should not cycle in the gutter.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability/wp..._Level_TWO.pdf

(Bikeability replaced the old Cycling Proficiency Test)

This image from the Highway Code, although not stated explicitly, certainly doesn't indicate that cyclists should be in the gutter:



The Dft recommends the use of secondary (about 1 metre out) and primary (in the middle of the lane) by two means.

1) Cyclecraft by John Franklin is published by TSO as the official government guidance on safe cycling

2) Bikeability which teaches the guidance laid out in Cyclecraft

In my experience many drivers remain completely ignorant about this safe practice.

[cnapan]

I tend to choose my cycling line to keep me out of the drains without being too far out. I tend to give parked cars a bit more space because doors have a habit of opening into my path!

Out of my 10 mile cycle, there's a stretch of a mile or two where some days cars can travel at 30, and I would say that the vast majority of drivers give me reasonable space, and if there's a traffic island ahead, they'll modify their speeds to ensure they don't pass at that point, even though they could probably squeeze past.

It really is just a small percentage of people (however travelling) which make life unpleasant for the rest of us, and I'd just like to say thanks to all the drivers who do drive courteously. It's much appreciated!

[NCT]

If you need to be one whole metre away from the kurb then how are earth are you supposed to achieve anywhere near the space efficiency of this?!

image hosted on flickr


You'd only be marginally better than an car. In fact speed differential is the biggest capacity constraint so you are probably worse than a car.

No you don't quite need to be in the gutter but where the double yellow lines are is quite reasonable. It's up to you to read the road just like any other road user and upon discovering obstacles look back, signal and manoeuvre. Hogging the middle of the road is no better than middle-lane hogging on a motorway.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by NCT

If you need to be one whole metre away from the kurb then how are earth are you supposed to achieve anywhere near the space efficiency of this?!

image hosted on flickr

If roads in London were like that, then cycles and cars would have plenty of space to coexist! Alas that is not the reality lots of the time.

It's up to you to read the road just like any other road user and upon discovering obstacles look back, signal and manoeuvre.

No you're wrong here. On a single carriageway road, actually, it's the road-user executing an overtake of another road user (be it a car, a cyclist, a horse rider or pedestrian) who must ensure that it is safe to do so.

That car drivers can often safely overtake cyclists or other slower road users on many stretches of wider single carriageway road does not mean you have a right to do so.

Hogging the middle of the road is no better than middle-lane hogging on a motorway.

Of course, but I sense that you wouldn't be prepared for a cyclist to (for example) to move further out from the side if a pothole presented itself - or not without indicating and being prepared to stop, rather than continuing with the flow of traffic.

I'm not sure I'd want you driving down my road to be honest. Luckily, the vast majority of drivers are well aware that cyclists do their best to allow them to pass by sticking to the side of the road and don't deserve to be punished for this choice by being beeped at when they need to avoid a pothole or drain or parked car... it doesn't take a huge amount of observation to be able to predict that a cyclist will want to continue cycling, and the obstacles they avoid are the sorts of things a car driver is also supposed to be on the lookout for.

Honestly, when I'm driving my car, I really don't find it hard to drive with cyclists on the road. A few seconds of patience is all it takes. If there's a big queue of car drivers holding you up, then you wouldn't get annoyed at them slowing you down would you? We all have to share the roads. If we don't get from A to B quickly, it's not because of 'cyclists', but because of the general amount of traffic of all sorts.

Peace man! (and other hippy shit like that )

[NCT]

Originally Posted by cnapan

If roads in London were like that, then cycles and cars would have plenty of space to coexist! Alas that is not the reality lots of the time.

Of course, so London needs its own way of optimising road space, and promoting cycling isn't necessarily the best way.

No you're wrong here. On a single carriageway road, actually, it's the road-user executing an overtake of another road user (be it a car, a cyclist, a horse rider or pedestrian) who must ensure that it is safe to do so.

That car drivers can often safely overtake cyclists or other slower road users on many stretches of wider single carriageway road does not mean you have a right to do so.

I'm not wrong here. If you are moving more slow than the rest of the traffic you are supposed pull over and let others overtake you safely where safe to do so, as is instructed in the highway code. You should be courteous to other road users - just as cars shouldn't dangerously overtake cyclists, cyclists shouldn't make it unecessarily difficult for others to overtake them.

Of course, but I sense that you wouldn't be prepared for a cyclist to (for example) to move further out from the side if a pothole presented itself - or not without indicating and being prepared to stop, rather than continuing with the flow of traffic.

If a vehicle on the inside lane encounters a parked car and needs to use lane 2 then more often or not it would need to indicate and be prepared to stop. This is especially true for buses who almost always stop before pulling out behind a parked car in a bus lane outside its hours of operation.

Why should bikes be any different?

I'm not sure I'd want you driving down my road to be honest. Luckily, the vast majority of drivers are well aware that cyclists do their best to allow them to pass by sticking to the side of the road and don't deserve to be punished for this choice by being beeped at when they need to avoid a pothole or drain or parked car... it doesn't take a huge amount of observation to be able to predict that a cyclist will want to continue cycling, and the obstacles they avoid are the sorts of things a car driver is also supposed to be on the lookout for.

Honestly, when I'm driving my car, I really don't find it hard to drive with cyclists on the road. A few seconds of patience is all it takes. If there's a big queue of car drivers holding you up, then you wouldn't get annoyed at them slowing you down would you? We all have to share the roads. If we don't get from A to B quickly, it's not because of 'cyclists', but because of the general amount of traffic of all sorts.

Peace man! (and other hippy shit like that )

It's easy to drive around a cyclists if you are in a car than you are in a bus, and not many people realise that. Cars don't have fixed stops that buses have which means they can overtake whenever it's safe to do so. Buses on the other hand only have that 100 metres in the middle of 2 stops in which they can overtake a cyclist, so the majority of the time they have no choice but to follow the bike and step back. With upwards of 30 bus stops on a typical bus route you easily lose 15 minutes (by lose I don't mean being late - these 15 minutes are built into the timetable).

Buses suffer from a lot of car-related problems as well as problems to do with bad road design in some instances (which incidentally are often (ill) informed by cycle priorities) as they also need addressing. It shouldn't have to be just 'ah well let's all grin and bear it'. I am personally in favour for example of introducing congestion charging for up to zone 3 and even outer town centres.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by NCT

No you don't quite need to be in the gutter but where the double yellow lines are is quite reasonable.

I'll take the government's and cycling proficiency advise, riding further out means drivers see you more easily, modern vehicle design means the nearside pillar can create a blind spot where I have no intention of riding.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by spindrift

I'll take the government's and cycling proficiency advise, riding further out means drivers see you more easily, modern vehicle design means the nearside pillar can create a blind spot where I have no intention of riding.

If the only way of riding safely is being no more space efficient than a car then perhaps cycling isn't that good a mode of transport after all.

And how is filtering between traffic any safer than riding close to the kurb? You have close to no room of manoeuvre if traffic on both lanes happen to close in on you. You may assume the traffic is stationary but as soon as the light goes green vehicles either side of you will be faster than you. Talk about double standards.

[spindrift]

Out of interest, what's your background in cycle training that you can claim the official standards, Bikeability, Cyclecraft, the police, the Institute of Advanced Motorists and the instructions that are taught to children is all wrong and you're right?

When I filter, I am in charge of the bike and can easily steer away from trouble, no sensible cyclist would filter all the way to a red light, that's a straw man argument. If you ride by the kerb your are making yourself harder to see, encouraging close and fast paths and exposing yourself to all the debris, drain covers, broken asphalt and glass. Don't do it, get some training, it's often offered free of charge.

David Dansky, head of training at Cycle Training UK (CTUK), said:

"The guidance we give cyclists is to take the space they need.The potential hazard is that drivers behind might not understand what you are doing.

The courteous thing when you are riding in that assertive position is to look behind you and make eye contact. You still get drivers who don't understand, but as more and more people get on their bikes you get more understanding from drivers.

Throw frequent life-savers, rearward glances and you'll be fine, it's much safer to ride this way.

Duncan Pickering, cycling manager at road safety charity the Institute of Advanced Motoring (IAM), said:

"A bicycle is a vehicle on the road and a person riding it has the right to act like any other person on the road.We all hear of cases where someone gets too close to the left and there are very unfortunate consequences if a lorry driver doesn't see them.'Some motorists think it is a divine right to be moving at whatever speed they want and a cyclist is holding them up. I'm afraid it is tough if a cyclist holds them up. In most urban areas traffic moves slowly so a cyclist doesn't hold up traffic."

If I get an aggressive overtake I invariably catch up with the vehicle at the next lights.

Chief inspector Ian Vincent, Cycle Task Force, said:

"There is no specific Metropolitan police service guidance on cycle safety. We refer cyclists to the Highway Code and Transport for London's (TfL) cycling safely page, which recommends cyclists ride assertively, away from the gutter. If the road is too narrow for vehicles to pass you safely, it may be better to ride in the middle of the lane to prevent dangerous overtaking."

There's no debate about it as far as I'm concerned. Assertive lane-claiming is the only way to go.

[Loathing]

Spindfrift, you're unbearably annoying, not to mention almost invariably unreasonable and stubbornly wrong.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by NCT

I'm not wrong here. If you are moving more slow than the rest of the traffic you are supposed pull over and let others overtake you safely where safe to do so, as is instructed in the highway code.

Well here's the bit of the highway code that is relevant:
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-15...ing-162-to-169

Of course, if you end up holding up a queue of traffic then it's correct to let them past, but I'm specifically talking about single carriageway roads and what is reasonable positioning for a cyclist. Cyclists do not have to hug the kerb and stop and indicate if they wish to avoid a pothole - they've a right to remain in the flow of traffic (subject to the above, which is only reasonable)

You should be courteous to other road users - just as cars shouldn't dangerously overtake cyclists, cyclists shouldn't make it unecessarily difficult for others to overtake them.

Agreed

If a vehicle on the inside lane encounters a parked car and needs to use lane 2 then more often or not it would need to indicate and be prepared to stop. This is especially true for buses who almost always stop before pulling out behind a parked car in a bus lane outside its hours of operation.

Agreed, but my comments specifically related to single lanes (in each direction). On some such roads, cyclists can be safely passed without straying out of the lane. On others it's not possible, and in such circumstances, the highway code rules on overtaking apply as the cyclist is in the lane.

It's easy to drive around a cyclists if you are in a car than you are in a bus, and not many people realise that. Cars don't have fixed stops that buses have which means they can overtake whenever it's safe to do so. Buses on the other hand only have that 100 metres in the middle of 2 stops in which they can overtake a cyclist, so the majority of the time they have no choice but to follow the bike and step back. With upwards of 30 bus stops on a typical bus route you easily lose 15 minutes (by lose I don't mean being late - these 15 minutes are built into the timetable).

Whilst there might be bus routes that suffer from this, my experience of most routes into and out of London (as both cyclist, bus user and driver) is that cyclists are not a major factor in the speed of a bus journey.

Buses suffer from a lot of car-related problems as well as problems to do with bad road design in some instances (which incidentally are often (ill) informed by cycle priorities) as they also need addressing. It shouldn't have to be just 'ah well let's all grin and bear it'. I am personally in favour for example of introducing congestion charging for up to zone 3 and even outer town centres.

I really don't think there's a lot that can be done other than all of us trying a bit harder not to get too annoyed by each other! The city's choked with ever more people trying to just get around. If you did manage to improve things a little and cut journey times, it would just cause more people who had previously even dismissed the idea of travelling by road do so again. I have no idea about how many people 'would drive if it were quicker' but I bet it's quite a high number.

Anyway, to end on a positive note, I just want to reiterate that my experience behind the wheel or on a bike in London isn't as bad as some make out. Despite the frustrations, people are generally very courteous... few pay attention to that!

[JimB]

Originally Posted by cnapan

I tend to choose my cycling line to keep me out of the drains without being too far out. I tend to give parked cars a bit more space because doors have a habit of opening into my path!

Out of my 10 mile cycle, there's a stretch of a mile or two where some days cars can travel at 30, and I would say that the vast majority of drivers give me reasonable space, and if there's a traffic island ahead, they'll modify their speeds to ensure they don't pass at that point, even though they could probably squeeze past.

It really is just a small percentage of people (however travelling) which make life unpleasant for the rest of us, and I'd just like to say thanks to all the drivers who do drive courteously. It's much appreciated!

Yep. Me too. Possibly the biggest hazard to cyclists in London.