Letter in Reading Evening Post

A letter in the Reading Evening Post (editorial at
reading-epost.co.uk):

Having read the letter to your newspaper by Zak Boutell (Post,
Wednesday October 12), I feel that this gentleman does not appreciate
that without roads, and the vehicles that use them, he would not have
many items that he undoubtedly owns.

As a road user myself, form bicycles to heavy trucks, I would points
out to him that the cyclists who he undoubtedly supports are the most
frequent law breakers in terms of traffic offences.

* They are allowed on roads without licenses, tests or tuition, age
restrictions or experience.

* Most have no rear-view aid.

* They overtake on the inside of traffic.

* They frequently go form pavement to road and back (via the nearest
dropped kerb) with no regard for other road or pavement users.

* They ignore traffic lights.

* They hold races on the public highway.

We all have a duty of care to each other, but we seem to have lost
sight of the fact that when a moving object comes into contact with a
human being, some pain will result no matter the speed involved, which
is why roads were made for vehicles and pavements for pedestrians.

I do agree with his point of alcohol levels, but on every other issue
I believe he shuld really take a much more balanced view.

F Reynolds

-------------

My reply (and yes I forgot to note that four of the six supposed
"offences" are pefectly legal, and that bikes are vehicles, and that
the roads are there partly due to the campaigning of CTC, and that
probably the majority of roads in the UK by distance have no footway):

Sir,

I wonder if F Reynolds has any evidence to back his assertion that
cyclists are "the most frequent law-breakers"? Or is this just
another example of what TRL documented in their report 549, a motorist
criticising cyclists regardless while justifying their own behaviour,
consistent with the psychological targeting of an out group[1]? So
much for a "balanced view"!

It is undeniable that two of the problems mentioned, use of the
pavement and running red lights, are *not* confined to cyclists. You
are about 200 times as likely to be killed by a motor vehicle on the
pavement as by a bike[2], and if you ask the council to name the
leading cause of pavement damage they will tell you it is motor
vehicles. Why else there are there bollards by the lights in Prospect
Street? An RAC survey of red light jumping found one in ten car and
one in five bus drivers ran red lights - and they didn't even bother
to count those who went through in the first three seconds! Speeding
is so widespread as to cause outrage at the very idea the law might be
enforced at all, and this in turn accounts for a tiny minority of the
five million traffic convictions last year, including 100,000 failed
breath tests and nearly 200,000 offences of dangerous driving[3].

It is also the case that in the vast majority of cyclist injury
collisions[4], a motor driver is at fault. This compares with a ratio
of about 50/50 for pedestrians.

But I don't suggest that cyclists are blameless. In fact I'd go so
far as to suggest that there is probably no group of vehicle users,
powered or unpowered, that makes more than a minority of journeys
without breaking at least one law. And the only reason pedestrians
don't is because they are subject to so few laws! Face it, as a
road-using nation we are a rabble.

A couple of specific points:

* Cyclists are not unusual in being able to use the road without
license, test or age restrictions. The exception is actually drivers:
everyone else uses the road by right, motor drivers alone are
licensed, because the consequences of their crashes are much more
severe. Motor vehicles account for 10% of hospitalised child injuries
but half of fatalities, the largest cause of preventable child death
in the UK.

* Cyclists are indeed at greater risk on the pavement, mainly when
crossing or rejoining the main carriageway. This is independent of
whether the pavement is "shared use" (and we are bemused by the fact
that on one road we are lambasted for riding on the pavement, while on
another we are shouted at for not doing so!). Why do cyclists ride on
the pavement? They are intimidated by the behaviour of motorists.

* Cyclists need no rear view aid. We are not enclosed and have no
noisy engines. Those who can't hear or look over their shoulders, buy
mirrors. I used to park HGVs in a yard full of brand-new Porsches and
Jaguars, I can use mirrors with the best of them, but I don't need one
on my Brompton! Being hit from behind is rare in any case. Most
cyclist injuries occur at junctions and roundabouts.

* Overtaking on the inside of other traffic is indeed dangerous,
crushing by left-turning goods vehicles is said to be the most common
source of cyclist fatalities in London. If drivers keep well to the
left to allow two-wheelers (pedal and motor) to pass, this dangerous
behaviour will be deterred. A call to action for you there.

* Cycle races on public roads are heavily regulated, just like car
rallies on public roads, and massed starts are not allowed. Perhaps F
Reynolds prefers the informal races between young lads in "hot
hatches" which do so much to popularise "Police, Camera, Action" and
occasionally give our hospitals and coroners some much-needed work?


So: what about that balanced view? My car weighs two tonnes, can
accelerate to lethal speeds in the blink of an eye and is capable of
around 140mph - a tremendous potential to harm: energy is mass x
velocity squared. Drivers like me (like us) kill over 3,000 people in
the UK every year, and injure tens of thousands more - and the
majority of drivers who kill and injure consider themselves safe
drivers.

I have absolutely no problem with the additional regulation imposed on
me when driving.

Equally, I am enthusiastically in favour of high quality cycle
training. If the Post wants to press the council to facilitate adult
cycle training to the new national standards administered by Cycling
England they would be doing cyclists a real service. Perhaps
attendance could even be made mandatory for those who commit offences.

Now there's a campaign for you!


[1] "A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on
the scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was
criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made
between the cyclist’s behaviour and any external influences that could
be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments
indicated that they thought the cyclist’s actions were inherent and
dispositional behaviours. In contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours
were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As
this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual
depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group
dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. [...] This aligns
with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out
group’" - TRL report 549, 2003

[2] Figures from Hansard and DfT for 1999-2002; of 186 fatalities on
the footway one was caused by a cyclist the balance by motor drivers.
Most years see between 60 and 100 pedestrian fatalities on the footway
and about the same on crossings, of which in some rare years one might
be due to a cyclist.

[3] DfT Transport Statistics:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ge/037791.hcsp

[4] between 67% (RoSPA) and 85% (Oxford study) motorist fault.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
A letter in the Reading Evening Post (editorial at

An outstandingly good letter but I suspect an ulterior motive.

I used to park HGVs in a yard full of brand-new Porsches and
Jaguars, I can use mirrors with the best of them, but I don't need one
on my Brompton!

Did any know that Guy has a Brompton ?
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

John_Kane whizzed past me shouting

An outstandingly good letter but I suspect an ulterior motive.

I used to park HGVs in a yard full of brand-new Porsches and
Jaguars, I can use mirrors with the best of them, but I don't need one
on my Brompton!

Did any know that Guy has a Brompton ?

Yeah, is there anyone else he hasn't shown it to?

As a Reading resident, I feel a ride-to-rule phase coming on.
In urban conditions if you keep to the rules you obstruct motor-thingies
a lot more than if you don't. Consequently, you get more aggression
from them if you keep to the law, though you feel smugger which partly
makes up for it.

BTW the purpose of traffic lights is to prevent motors from blocking
each others' paths and causing gridlock - they aren't there for safety,
and in particular they aren't there for our safety. And it shows!

--
Sue ];(

La liberté individuelle s’arrête lÃ* où commence celle des autres

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Speeding
is so widespread as to cause outrage at the very idea the law might be
enforced at all, and this in turn accounts for a tiny minority of the
five million traffic convictions last year, including 100,000 failed
breath tests and nearly 200,000 offences of dangerous driving[3].

I agree with the sentiment of the letter, and apologies if I've missed
something, but I can't reconcile the figures you've quoted with those in
Ref [3] (presumably
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ats_609914.pdf,
or http://tinyurl.com/d7fdh if you prefer?)

My understanding is that for the most recent year for which data is
listed, 2003, speeding convictions accounted for over 42% of the 5M+
offences. I'd hardly call that a 'tiny minority'.

Also, 2003 figures for drunk, dangerous & "careless etc" driving total
177k, which is less than your combined total of 300k for dangerous
driving and failed breath tests.

I'm not trying to pick holes, but it would be a shame to let a few
ambiguities undermine your argument.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

* Overtaking on the inside of other traffic is indeed dangerous,
crushing by left-turning goods vehicles is said to be the most common
source of cyclist fatalities in London. If drivers keep well to the
left to allow two-wheelers (pedal and motor) to pass, this dangerous
behaviour will be deterred. A call to action for you there.

As a driver, I don't hug the crown of the road, and I don't run my nearside
wheels in the gutter - I position myself in the middle of the lane. Why
should drivers keep well to the left? Nobody is forcing cyclists to overtake
on the inside - they are in control of the handlebars and pedals, and it is
they who choose the routes that they take. The reason they duck up the
inside is because it's quicker and more convenient for them - same reason
motorcyclists weave between traffic queues.

Isn't overtaking on the inside illegal in the majority of situations? How
about squeezing between queues of traffic - effectively overtaking vehicles
on the inside while occupying the same lane? Isn't that illegal?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:50 GMT, "Wally" wrote:

Isn't overtaking on the inside illegal in the majority of situations? How
about squeezing between queues of traffic - effectively overtaking vehicles
on the inside while occupying the same lane? Isn't that illegal?

Like Police motorcyclists do?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington ALL HTML e-mail rejected -
- mailtohttp://w3.z-add.co.uk/ -

Wally wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:


* Overtaking on the inside of other traffic is indeed dangerous,
crushing by left-turning goods vehicles is said to be the most common
source of cyclist fatalities in London. If drivers keep well to the
left to allow two-wheelers (pedal and motor) to pass, this dangerous
behaviour will be deterred. A call to action for you there.


As a driver, I don't hug the crown of the road, and I don't run my nearside
wheels in the gutter - I position myself in the middle of the lane. Why
should drivers keep well to the left? Nobody is forcing cyclists to overtake
on the inside - they are in control of the handlebars and pedals, and it is
they who choose the routes that they take. The reason they duck up the
inside is because it's quicker and more convenient for them - same reason
motorcyclists weave between traffic queues.

Isn't overtaking on the inside illegal in the majority of situations? How
about squeezing between queues of traffic - effectively overtaking vehicles
on the inside while occupying the same lane? Isn't that illegal?

No, thats filtering, perfectly acceptable for motorbike and cyclists to do.

Wally wrote:
Isn't overtaking on the inside illegal in the majority of situations? How
about squeezing between queues of traffic - effectively overtaking vehicles
on the inside while occupying the same lane? Isn't that illegal?

Only when the traffic is not slow moving or stationary; The two
circumstances when cyclists are most likely to filter.

I would rather not encourage drivers to promote best practice amongst
cyclists as this gives them licence to propagate their ideas as to where
cyclists should be.

Jon

Wally wrote:

Isn't overtaking on the inside illegal in the majority of situations? How
about squeezing between queues of traffic - effectively overtaking vehicles
on the inside while occupying the same lane? Isn't that illegal?


Maybe in your town but not in the rest of the UK. Maybe you should read
a copy of Cyclecraft.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 06:59:23 +0000, Mike Hibbert wrote:


No, thats filtering, perfectly acceptable for motorbike and cyclists to
do.
Yes.
However, I've recently been driving along the Embankment in London in the
evenings.
There is a tendency for motorcyclists to overtake long queues of traffic
by driving outside the white lines, basically on the other side of the
road. I have no problem giving them room - plenty of room on the road, and
we should show mutual respect to all road users.
However I must admit that this makes me uneasy - all it takes is for some
idiot not to give way to the motorcyclist, or not see him in the dark
(OK - that's difficult as they all have lights on).