Survey reveals just how many cyclists break the rules of the road

On 15/08/2012 21:10, DavidR wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

researchers spotted 976 cyclists between 7.30am and 9.30am on a Monday
morning at Highbury Corner in Islington, North London, 719 of which
committed offences. In total, 3,140 cars passed during the same time
period, with 380 caught breaking road rules.

So what? It is very likely that 719 cyclists were causing no danger and 380
drivers were. There is absolutely no possibility that 719 cyclists were
causing danger and 380 drivers were not.


So it's perfectly acceptable for me to drive at 70mph in a 30mph limit,
provided I have decided that I'm not causing any danger?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote
On 15/08/2012 21:10, DavidR wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

researchers spotted 976 cyclists between 7.30am and 9.30am on a Monday
morning at Highbury Corner in Islington, North London, 719 of which
committed offences. In total, 3,140 cars passed during the same time
period, with 380 caught breaking road rules.

So what? It is very likely that 719 cyclists were causing no danger and
380
drivers were. There is absolutely no possibility that 719 cyclists were
causing danger and 380 drivers were not.

So it's perfectly acceptable for me to drive at 70mph in a 30mph limit,
provided I have decided that I'm not causing any danger?

No. See above.

On 16/08/2012 23:36, DavidR wrote:
"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote
On 15/08/2012 21:10, DavidR wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

researchers spotted 976 cyclists between 7.30am and 9.30am on a Monday
morning at Highbury Corner in Islington, North London, 719 of which
committed offences. In total, 3,140 cars passed during the same time
period, with 380 caught breaking road rules.

So what? It is very likely that 719 cyclists were causing no danger and
380
drivers were. There is absolutely no possibility that 719 cyclists were
causing danger and 380 drivers were not.

So it's perfectly acceptable for me to drive at 70mph in a 30mph limit,
provided I have decided that I'm not causing any danger?

No. See above.


See what above?



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On Aug 15, 3:29*pm, "John Benn" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

...

researchers spotted 976 cyclists between 7.30am and 9.30am on a Monday
morning at Highbury Corner in Islington, North London, 719 of which
committed offences. In total, 3,140 cars passed during the same time
period, with 380 caught breaking road rules.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...34/cyclists-br...

That's an interesting survey. *It confirms what most people believe anyway.

Yes most people would believe that the motorists who conducted the
survey are hardly unbiased and were blind to most of the offences that
they themselves commit everyday and which are far more dangerous
anyway than offences committed by cyclists.

Next time produce a survey from a neutral source please.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On Aug 15, 3:29 pm, "John Benn" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

...

researchers spotted 976 cyclists between 7.30am and 9.30am on a
Monday morning at Highbury Corner in Islington, North London, 719
of which committed offences. In total, 3,140 cars passed during the
same time period, with 380 caught breaking road rules.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...34/cyclists-br...

That's an interesting survey. It confirms what most people believe
anyway.

Yes most people would believe that the motorists who conducted the
survey are hardly unbiased and were blind to most of the offences that
they themselves commit everyday and which are far more dangerous
anyway than offences committed by cyclists.

Next time produce a survey from a neutral source please.

-- .

according to you there is no such thing.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Aug 15, 3:29 pm, "John Benn" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

...

researchers spotted 976 cyclists between 7.30am and 9.30am on a Monday
morning at Highbury Corner in Islington, North London, 719 of which
committed offences. In total, 3,140 cars passed during the same time
period, with 380 caught breaking road rules.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...34/cyclists-br...

That's an interesting survey. It confirms what most people believe
anyway.

Yes most people would believe that the motorists who conducted the
survey are hardly unbiased and were blind to most of the offences that
they themselves commit everyday and which are far more dangerous
anyway than offences committed by cyclists.

Next time produce a survey from a neutral source please.

Would a survey from Indymedia be acceptable?

On Aug 17, 9:40*am, "John Benn" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...









On Aug 15, 3:29 pm, "John Benn" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

...

researchers spotted 976 cyclists between 7.30am and 9.30am on a Monday
morning at Highbury Corner in Islington, North London, 719 of which
committed offences. In total, 3,140 cars passed during the same time
period, with 380 caught breaking road rules.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...34/cyclists-br....

That's an interesting survey. *It confirms what most people believe
anyway.

Yes most people would believe that the motorists who conducted the
survey are hardly unbiased and were blind to most of the offences that
they themselves commit everyday and which are far more dangerous
anyway than offences committed by cyclists.

Next time produce a survey from a neutral source please.

Would a survey from Indymedia be acceptable?

How about just reading the comments below the article from
motorists?:-

"What idiotic irresponsible inflammatory nonsense. No wonder most of
the comments below are highly critical.
As mentioned it is the potential consequences of breaking rules, the
fact that clearly cars and bikes are not the same, the almost
unrecordable number of deaths caused by cyclists, that matter. No
mention of that in your article above, however.
And I say that as both a petrolhead and a person who cycles to work
everyday and disapproves of poor cycling behaviour. Our problem in the
UK revolves around the constant antagonism between drivers, cyclists
and pedestrians. It stems from a failure to get road users and
pedestrians to rub along together, recognise the differences in modes
of transport and behave with courtesy to each other. Well done for
making it worse, because there will be some idiot drivers who read
this and think 'yeah, bloody cyclists, deserve everything they get'
and you have just perpetuated the problem

Troll journalism.
If you're stationary, you won't see all the parking laws that are
broken, will you? You're unlikely to see a huge number of possible
offences, just the limited number that are possible within the
confines of the piece of road viewed -which may or may not be typical
of all the roads in the country. Fail.
Sitting in my house, more airliners break the law than cyclists (and
believe me, I do see them breaking the law but that's another story).
Correct observation, but meaningless.
When judging any survey or research, the first question is nothing to
do with the result, it's: what is the motivation (ie. who is trying to
prove what, and who's paying for it). In this case, the answer to that
pretty well dismisses any results alleged to have been obtained. Fail.

Shock result: biased, half-@ssed survey finds results that confirm
prejudices -Fail.
Completely pointless study.
The number of road deaths last year 1,901 the number killed or
seriously injured 25,023, the number of pedestrians killed 453, a
quarter of which were children, the average number of people killed by
cyclists averages less than 1. So what is this half baked study trying
to prove? It proves that its easy to stoke selfish motorists into
saying things like cyclists should pay road tax and have a
registration plate. I look forward to the day I have to retrofit a
license plate on my 5 year olds Raleigh Budgie so she can ride on the
quiet Cul de sac I live on. Idiots.

What a pointless report. Shameful.
What you should be concentrating on is how to improve driver - cyclist
behaviour and teaching both that the need to respect each other on the
road is a critical, and often life saving action.
As a cyclist i am constantly being bullied into kerbs by cars who do
not want to wait for a safe place to overtake. Cars that shoot past a
bike and need to slam on the brakes to prevent themselves driving into
the back of a bike in front is part and parcel of cycling on the
road.

Motorists (and i am one) seem to foget the devastation that is caused
when a car / bike collission occurs. It isnt a case of a week in a
loan car while a few dents are smoothed out. it is more likely weeks
or months in hospital with your body being put back into shape
followed by extensive physio before you can function properly again,
if ever.
Even the act of pushing through a gap and shaking the cyclist can mean
they are picking themselves up from the kerb, frequently with broken
arms and wrists, cut faces and emotional scars that see them off the
road for months.
So please, instead of spouting pointless journalistic diatribe on
cyclists, use your platform for something good.
And don't alienate the majority of cyclists, who also happen to drive
cars.

Unfortunately the article doesn't address the key issue here which is
the CONSEQUENCES of such actions. I can guarantee you that thousands
more people are injured and killed every year as a result of breaking
the rules of the road in a car then on a bike!
Which leads us onto what exactly is the point of this article other
than to stoke a portion of the road users population who already hate
'cyclists' (I hate this term btw, I'm a motorist AND I use a bike, the
terms are not mutually exclusive!)? Fact is we all need to live with
each other, get over it. Another lame article.
Well said. By giving justification to those already unsuited to drive,
AE becomes a factor in the casualty figures.
Perhaps the hack who wrote the article is after a job in the Daily
Wail.

I'd be interested to see precisely which rules were being monitored.
Whilst I am unsurprised (albeit saddened) by the number of cyclists
who do jump red lights or ride unsafely on pavements, a vast majority
of cars also break the rules in terms of speed limits, or safe
passing, or even (still) mobile phone usage. Some of these are not as
evident in rush hour traffic - can't exactly exceed 30mph in the
crawl....
Of course if they had done the test on the M1 90% of drivers would be
exceeding the speed limit. Its meaningless twaddle both cyclists and
car drivers break the law and both should be pulled up for it.

I absolutely agree with all of this posting. The only problem is that
cyclists never ever get pulled up for their sins. (My own closest
calls as a pedestrian were caused by errant cyclists)

That's not true. I have seen many cyclists pulled over for breaking
traffic laws. In fact, I've seen more cyclists pulled over than
motorists (though I doubt that is the case generally). I've never had
a close call with a cyclist, but many due to motorists... perhaps your
own experience isn't indicative of the norm.
Julie, you are a true idiot.

What a load of crap... It is lazy journalism like this which is
increasing the tension between motorists and cyclists. Motorists
should be encouraging more of their own to cycle, there will be less
cars on the road, more parking spaces at their destination and if it
is significant enough, demand for fuel might even decrease which could
help as at the pumps. Not to mention the benefits of a healthier
population.
Grow up and do something useful.

What an inflammatory ignorant article. If you properly researched the
subject, you would conclude that the most dangerous thing cyclists
could
do, would be to all leave their 10 kilogram vehicle at home and take
their 6 foot wide 1.5 tonne vehicle instead.

What a phenomenally bad piece of journalism. If you want me to
continue reading your news articles (and the accompanying adverts)
you'd better raise your standards dramatically, Auto Express!

Two blindingly obvious flaws (amongst innumerable minor ones).
1. BY-AND-LARGE, bad driving kills, maims and injures pedestrians and
other road users.
BY-AND-LARGE, bad cycling kills, maims and injures the said cyclist.
2. The survey was over a single, two hour period at Highbury Corner.
Anyone with more than two brain cells knows that surveys must be
repeated at different times and places to get meaningful results. Take
this same survey in, say, a residential (20MPH) area and you would get
dramatically different results.

Cycling is fantastic! A lot more people, myself included, should cycle
more. Also people saying cyclists should pay tax is ridiculous.
However....... that doesn't mean cyclists should be immune from
critisism. The number of cyclists I've seen go straight through a red
light is scary, I've seen some mount kerbs to avoid traffic and the
amount you still see on the roads at night with poor lighting and no
reflective clothing on beggars belief. Just to be clear, just having
flashing lights on your bike is absolutely not enough.
No road user is perfect, including cyclists, so I think some of you
need to take your rose tinted glasses off. Arguments about being
green, easing congestion, easing demand at the pumps, health benefits
etc. don't alter the fact the you should obey the rules of the road
and stay off the pavement.

Thanks for all your comments. This is only a snapshot of our survey,
and should be considered in that context. Our 15 August issue carries
our report in full, and points out that we believe standards need to
be better in both camps. Improving road safety for everyone is the
priority.
Thanks again,
Auto Express

Please don't insult our intelligence. If you want to publish some
dishonest research please at least make an effort to make the results
convincing. Lying about 'offences' is feeble - it is not an offence
not to wear a helmet on a cycle. Nor is it an offence not to wear
fluorescent clothing (though how the 'researchers' could tell what
clothing was fluorescent and what was not assuming the 'survey' was
carried out in daylight I don't know. Reflective markings often just
look like dull off white stripes in daylight. Or is the reporter
confusing reflective with hi viz yellow - a completely different
thing?) So pretending that 719 offences have been commited by cyclists
for the benefit of a misleading headline when you know perfectly well
it isn't true is poor journalism indeed.
If you remove the offences that aren't offences at all, and you remove
the 'offences' that are likely to be affected by the reporters obvious
bias (eg the almost causing collisions) you end up with the 719
dropping to 181. And, as the article is called 'Cyclists break more
rules than motorists' where are the categories for 1) no current MOT,
2) no current tax, 3) no current insurance, 4) defects that would
render a car unroadworthy irrespective of MOT etc. I know that these
can't be measured so easily but if the article was meant to be honest
and unbiased and intelligent, then this would have been considered
(research from the police for example would have provided the stats).

Surely Auto Express can afford brighter and more responsible staff
than this? You could have done something useful here. I am a cyclist
and a driver and I enjoy both. When I'm in my car, I am sometimes
annoyed by cyclists and when I'm on my bike I am sometimes annoyed by
drivers but I find the vast majority of both riders and drivers to be
courteous and thoughtful of each others presence on the road.
Inflammatory crap like this doesn't help anyone.
I had not intended to add further to this correspondence. But!!
As reported, Bradley Wiggins' comments on cyclists as road users
sounded spot on. Paraphrased they were something like "show cyclists
more respect but in order to get such respect they have to be
respectable". That means lights day and night (like motorcycles)
reflective clothing, obeying crossings, traffic lights, one ways etc.
Something of this sea change has happened in the horse riding
fraternity. Riders I know say that cars do still cut them up but you
see plenty who treat horses with great consideration. This may be
because whilst 25 years ago one saw plenty of horses being ridden on
roads without saddles by people with no form of protective clothing,
nowadays this is virtually unknown. Driver who slow down and pass wide
invariably receive a hand raised in thanks. In other words riders take
care to be responsible road users.
As for cyclists, the word I would use, with plenty of honourable
exceptions, is "chippy". Some of the reactions to this admittedly
rather superficial article in AE make this point more eloquently than
I can. This recent instance will illustrate what I mean. Near where I
live is a longish bridge which has been kitted out fairly recently
with cycle paths on either side at some expense. On this occasion it
was a time of light traffic but on approaching the bridge, the traffic
was moving at a crawl. This was caused by a shirtless tattooed (living
up to the stereotype!) character who was too idle/thoughtless/chippy
to move 60cm out of his direct route onto the reserved cycleway. As
all the motorists reacted correctly to this totally unnecessary
dangerous situation, the result was a needless holdup.
Please cyclists, emulate the horse riders and listen to Mr. Wiggins.

This has got to be one of the worst pieces of "journalism" I have ever
read!! Since when have reflective clothing and helmets been required
by law?Thats 380 of your so called "offences" straight out of the
stats!! Did the author of this drivel actually do any research as to
the legalities of any of the so called "offences"?
PS with regards to "Road Tax" - ie Vehicle Excise Duty, which seems to
be forever rolled out as an argument to be levied on cyclists, thats
fine. I'll pay the rate based on the emissions of my bicycle - which
puts it in band A (up to 100g/km) and so £0.00

At the base of this conflict is cyclists as a growing number of road
users. If they were taxed at a nominal fee (£50 / year) and have to
carry insurance for injury / damage caused plus take a Cycling
Proficiency Test like we did at school then I believe a) it would
increase the skill levels and b) increase appreciation that they want
to be taken seriously as road users.. I also see no reason why a small
rego plate cant be fitted below the saddle. And before I get a tumult
of replies saying they are already paying road tax as a car user -
tough, in this day and age, user pays so if you use more, you pay
more.

Taken serioulsy as road users, user pays. Such ignorance is
exasperating. There is no such thing as road tax, you pay for a tax
disk, if your car requires one paying, which simply goes into the
treasury's pot of general taxation. Or perhaps you are actually
advocating a system where by rich cyclists who pay more in tax overall
than poor motorist have greater rights to be on the road. Cyclists
have been around a lot longer than cars on the roads, cause a minute
amount of injuries, road wear, congestion and damage to the
environment, that is perhaps why the idea of having them pay to use
the roads setting up a costly system of registration is simply a
risible. It also seems based on the assumption cyclists aren't liable
for any damage, of course they are, just like car users its just the
damage they would likely caused is neglible so insurance would be a
waste.
So because I decide to use my bike to go to work one day a week rather
than my car I should pay additional road fund licence? Being penalised
for trying to do something positive for my health and the environment,
smart!
And as for “being taken seriously as a road user”, I’m guessing that
you struggle to be taken seriously full stop…

Paul Redding "...in this day and age, user pays so if you use more,
you pay more."
That dog don't hunt.

What do you expect when the police do not do any thing about the
cyclists. They run on through traffic lights,over crossings that are
on green,they ride on pavements,go the wrong way down No Entry
streets. Worse they use their mobile 'phones whilst riding!
If car drivers are fined why not the cyclists....the police have
cyclists to catch the people carrying out the bad practice....should
be brought out all through the counrty...starting with
Manchester...where cyclist AND drivers seam to get away with murder!"

This debate doesn't seem to have interested Mrscheerless. Not one-
sided enough, I guess.

Squashme wrote:
On Aug 17, 9:40 am, "John Benn" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...









On Aug 15, 3:29 pm, "John Benn" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

...

researchers spotted 976 cyclists between 7.30am and 9.30am on a
Monday morning at Highbury Corner in Islington, North London, 719
of which committed offences. In total, 3,140 cars passed during
the same time period, with 380 caught breaking road rules.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...34/cyclists-br...

That's an interesting survey. It confirms what most people believe
anyway.

Yes most people would believe that the motorists who conducted the
survey are hardly unbiased and were blind to most of the offences
that they themselves commit everyday and which are far more
dangerous anyway than offences committed by cyclists.

Next time produce a survey from a neutral source please.

Would a survey from Indymedia be acceptable?

How about just reading the comments below the article from
motorists?:-

"What idiotic irresponsible inflammatory nonsense. No wonder most of
the comments below are highly critical.
As mentioned it is the potential consequences of breaking rules, the
fact that clearly cars and bikes are not the same, the almost
unrecordable number of deaths caused by cyclists, that matter. No
mention of that in your article above, however.
And I say that as both a petrolhead and a person who cycles to work
everyday and disapproves of poor cycling behaviour. Our problem in the
UK revolves around the constant antagonism between drivers, cyclists
and pedestrians. It stems from a failure to get road users and
pedestrians to rub along together, recognise the differences in modes
of transport and behave with courtesy to each other. Well done for
making it worse, because there will be some idiot drivers who read
this and think 'yeah, bloody cyclists, deserve everything they get'
and you have just perpetuated the problem

Troll journalism.
If you're stationary, you won't see all the parking laws that are
broken, will you? You're unlikely to see a huge number of possible
offences, just the limited number that are possible within the
confines of the piece of road viewed -which may or may not be typical
of all the roads in the country. Fail.
Sitting in my house, more airliners break the law than cyclists (and
believe me, I do see them breaking the law but that's another story).
Correct observation, but meaningless.
When judging any survey or research, the first question is nothing to
do with the result, it's: what is the motivation (ie. who is trying to
prove what, and who's paying for it). In this case, the answer to that
pretty well dismisses any results alleged to have been obtained. Fail.

Shock result: biased, half-@ssed survey finds results that confirm
prejudices -Fail.
Completely pointless study.
The number of road deaths last year 1,901 the number killed or
seriously injured 25,023, the number of pedestrians killed 453, a
quarter of which were children, the average number of people killed by
cyclists averages less than 1. So what is this half baked study trying
to prove? It proves that its easy to stoke selfish motorists into
saying things like cyclists should pay road tax and have a
registration plate. I look forward to the day I have to retrofit a
license plate on my 5 year olds Raleigh Budgie so she can ride on the
quiet Cul de sac I live on. Idiots.

What a pointless report. Shameful.
What you should be concentrating on is how to improve driver - cyclist
behaviour and teaching both that the need to respect each other on the
road is a critical, and often life saving action.
As a cyclist i am constantly being bullied into kerbs by cars who do
not want to wait for a safe place to overtake. Cars that shoot past a
bike and need to slam on the brakes to prevent themselves driving into
the back of a bike in front is part and parcel of cycling on the
road.

Motorists (and i am one) seem to foget the devastation that is caused
when a car / bike collission occurs. It isnt a case of a week in a
loan car while a few dents are smoothed out. it is more likely weeks
or months in hospital with your body being put back into shape
followed by extensive physio before you can function properly again,
if ever.
Even the act of pushing through a gap and shaking the cyclist can mean
they are picking themselves up from the kerb, frequently with broken
arms and wrists, cut faces and emotional scars that see them off the
road for months.
So please, instead of spouting pointless journalistic diatribe on
cyclists, use your platform for something good.
And don't alienate the majority of cyclists, who also happen to drive
cars.

Unfortunately the article doesn't address the key issue here which is
the CONSEQUENCES of such actions. I can guarantee you that thousands
more people are injured and killed every year as a result of breaking
the rules of the road in a car then on a bike!
Which leads us onto what exactly is the point of this article other
than to stoke a portion of the road users population who already hate
'cyclists' (I hate this term btw, I'm a motorist AND I use a bike, the
terms are not mutually exclusive!)? Fact is we all need to live with
each other, get over it. Another lame article.
Well said. By giving justification to those already unsuited to drive,
AE becomes a factor in the casualty figures.
Perhaps the hack who wrote the article is after a job in the Daily
Wail.

I'd be interested to see precisely which rules were being monitored.
Whilst I am unsurprised (albeit saddened) by the number of cyclists
who do jump red lights or ride unsafely on pavements, a vast majority
of cars also break the rules in terms of speed limits, or safe
passing, or even (still) mobile phone usage. Some of these are not as
evident in rush hour traffic - can't exactly exceed 30mph in the
crawl....
Of course if they had done the test on the M1 90% of drivers would be
exceeding the speed limit. Its meaningless twaddle both cyclists and
car drivers break the law and both should be pulled up for it.

I absolutely agree with all of this posting. The only problem is that
cyclists never ever get pulled up for their sins. (My own closest
calls as a pedestrian were caused by errant cyclists)

That's not true. I have seen many cyclists pulled over for breaking
traffic laws. In fact, I've seen more cyclists pulled over than
motorists (though I doubt that is the case generally). I've never had
a close call with a cyclist, but many due to motorists... perhaps your
own experience isn't indicative of the norm.
Julie, you are a true idiot.

What a load of crap... It is lazy journalism like this which is
increasing the tension between motorists and cyclists. Motorists
should be encouraging more of their own to cycle, there will be less
cars on the road, more parking spaces at their destination and if it
is significant enough, demand for fuel might even decrease which could
help as at the pumps. Not to mention the benefits of a healthier
population.
Grow up and do something useful.

What an inflammatory ignorant article. If you properly researched the
subject, you would conclude that the most dangerous thing cyclists
could
do, would be to all leave their 10 kilogram vehicle at home and take
their 6 foot wide 1.5 tonne vehicle instead.

What a phenomenally bad piece of journalism. If you want me to
continue reading your news articles (and the accompanying adverts)
you'd better raise your standards dramatically, Auto Express!

Two blindingly obvious flaws (amongst innumerable minor ones).
1. BY-AND-LARGE, bad driving kills, maims and injures pedestrians and
other road users.
BY-AND-LARGE, bad cycling kills, maims and injures the said cyclist.
2. The survey was over a single, two hour period at Highbury Corner.
Anyone with more than two brain cells knows that surveys must be
repeated at different times and places to get meaningful results. Take
this same survey in, say, a residential (20MPH) area and you would get
dramatically different results.

Cycling is fantastic! A lot more people, myself included, should cycle
more. Also people saying cyclists should pay tax is ridiculous.
However....... that doesn't mean cyclists should be immune from
critisism. The number of cyclists I've seen go straight through a red
light is scary, I've seen some mount kerbs to avoid traffic and the
amount you still see on the roads at night with poor lighting and no
reflective clothing on beggars belief. Just to be clear, just having
flashing lights on your bike is absolutely not enough.
No road user is perfect, including cyclists, so I think some of you
need to take your rose tinted glasses off. Arguments about being
green, easing congestion, easing demand at the pumps, health benefits
etc. don't alter the fact the you should obey the rules of the road
and stay off the pavement.

Thanks for all your comments. This is only a snapshot of our survey,
and should be considered in that context. Our 15 August issue carries
our report in full, and points out that we believe standards need to
be better in both camps. Improving road safety for everyone is the
priority.
Thanks again,
Auto Express

Please don't insult our intelligence. If you want to publish some
dishonest research please at least make an effort to make the results
convincing. Lying about 'offences' is feeble - it is not an offence
not to wear a helmet on a cycle. Nor is it an offence not to wear
fluorescent clothing (though how the 'researchers' could tell what
clothing was fluorescent and what was not assuming the 'survey' was
carried out in daylight I don't know. Reflective markings often just
look like dull off white stripes in daylight. Or is the reporter
confusing reflective with hi viz yellow - a completely different
thing?) So pretending that 719 offences have been commited by cyclists
for the benefit of a misleading headline when you know perfectly well
it isn't true is poor journalism indeed.
If you remove the offences that aren't offences at all, and you remove
the 'offences' that are likely to be affected by the reporters obvious
bias (eg the almost causing collisions) you end up with the 719
dropping to 181. And, as the article is called 'Cyclists break more
rules than motorists' where are the categories for 1) no current MOT,
2) no current tax, 3) no current insurance, 4) defects that would
render a car unroadworthy irrespective of MOT etc. I know that these
can't be measured so easily but if the article was meant to be honest
and unbiased and intelligent, then this would have been considered
(research from the police for example would have provided the stats).

Surely Auto Express can afford brighter and more responsible staff
than this? You could have done something useful here. I am a cyclist
and a driver and I enjoy both. When I'm in my car, I am sometimes
annoyed by cyclists and when I'm on my bike I am sometimes annoyed by
drivers but I find the vast majority of both riders and drivers to be
courteous and thoughtful of each others presence on the road.
Inflammatory crap like this doesn't help anyone.
I had not intended to add further to this correspondence. But!!
As reported, Bradley Wiggins' comments on cyclists as road users
sounded spot on. Paraphrased they were something like "show cyclists
more respect but in order to get such respect they have to be
respectable". That means lights day and night (like motorcycles)
reflective clothing, obeying crossings, traffic lights, one ways etc.
Something of this sea change has happened in the horse riding
fraternity. Riders I know say that cars do still cut them up but you
see plenty who treat horses with great consideration. This may be
because whilst 25 years ago one saw plenty of horses being ridden on
roads without saddles by people with no form of protective clothing,
nowadays this is virtually unknown. Driver who slow down and pass wide
invariably receive a hand raised in thanks. In other words riders take
care to be responsible road users.
As for cyclists, the word I would use, with plenty of honourable
exceptions, is "chippy". Some of the reactions to this admittedly
rather superficial article in AE make this point more eloquently than
I can. This recent instance will illustrate what I mean. Near where I
live is a longish bridge which has been kitted out fairly recently
with cycle paths on either side at some expense. On this occasion it
was a time of light traffic but on approaching the bridge, the traffic
was moving at a crawl. This was caused by a shirtless tattooed (living
up to the stereotype!) character who was too idle/thoughtless/chippy
to move 60cm out of his direct route onto the reserved cycleway. As
all the motorists reacted correctly to this totally unnecessary
dangerous situation, the result was a needless holdup.
Please cyclists, emulate the horse riders and listen to Mr. Wiggins.

This has got to be one of the worst pieces of "journalism" I have ever
read!! Since when have reflective clothing and helmets been required
by law?Thats 380 of your so called "offences" straight out of the
stats!! Did the author of this drivel actually do any research as to
the legalities of any of the so called "offences"?
PS with regards to "Road Tax" - ie Vehicle Excise Duty, which seems to
be forever rolled out as an argument to be levied on cyclists, thats
fine. I'll pay the rate based on the emissions of my bicycle - which
puts it in band A (up to 100g/km) and so £0.00

At the base of this conflict is cyclists as a growing number of road
users. If they were taxed at a nominal fee (£50 / year) and have to
carry insurance for injury / damage caused plus take a Cycling
Proficiency Test like we did at school then I believe a) it would
increase the skill levels and b) increase appreciation that they want
to be taken seriously as road users.. I also see no reason why a small
rego plate cant be fitted below the saddle. And before I get a tumult
of replies saying they are already paying road tax as a car user -
tough, in this day and age, user pays so if you use more, you pay
more.

Taken serioulsy as road users, user pays. Such ignorance is
exasperating. There is no such thing as road tax, you pay for a tax
disk, if your car requires one paying, which simply goes into the
treasury's pot of general taxation. Or perhaps you are actually
advocating a system where by rich cyclists who pay more in tax overall
than poor motorist have greater rights to be on the road. Cyclists
have been around a lot longer than cars on the roads, cause a minute
amount of injuries, road wear, congestion and damage to the
environment, that is perhaps why the idea of having them pay to use
the roads setting up a costly system of registration is simply a
risible. It also seems based on the assumption cyclists aren't liable
for any damage, of course they are, just like car users its just the
damage they would likely caused is neglible so insurance would be a
waste.
So because I decide to use my bike to go to work one day a week rather
than my car I should pay additional road fund licence? Being penalised
for trying to do something positive for my health and the environment,
smart!
And as for “being taken seriously as a road user”, I’m guessing that
you struggle to be taken seriously full stop…

Paul Redding "...in this day and age, user pays so if you use more,
you pay more."
That dog don't hunt.

What do you expect when the police do not do any thing about the
cyclists. They run on through traffic lights,over crossings that are
on green,they ride on pavements,go the wrong way down No Entry
streets. Worse they use their mobile 'phones whilst riding!
If car drivers are fined why not the cyclists....the police have
cyclists to catch the people carrying out the bad practice....should
be brought out all through the counrty...starting with
Manchester...where cyclist AND drivers seam to get away with murder!"

This debate doesn't seem to have interested Mrscheerless. Not one-
sided enough, I guess.

I didn't even see any comments, perhaps that were none at the time.

On 15/08/2012 14:58, Mrcheerful wrote:
researchers spotted 976 cyclists between 7.30am and 9.30am on a Monday
morning at Highbury Corner in Islington, North London, 719 of which
committed offences. In total, 3,140 cars passed during the same time period,
with 380 caught breaking road rules.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...ules-motorists


Does that mean one in eight highly trained motorists are breaking the
law? Refresher courses may be the solution!

On Aug 16, 8:48*am, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
On 15/08/2012 21:10, DavidR wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote

researchers spotted 976 cyclists between 7.30am and 9.30am on a Monday
morning at Highbury Corner in Islington, North London, 719 of which
committed offences. In total, 3,140 cars passed during the same time
period, with 380 caught breaking road rules.

So what? It is very likely that 719 cyclists were causing no danger and 380
drivers were. There is absolutely no possibility that 719 cyclists were
causing danger and 380 drivers were not.

So it's perfectly acceptable for me to drive at 70mph in a 30mph limit,
provided I have decided that I'm not causing any danger?

As a driver of a registered vehicle you have agreed to operate under
commercial license and are bound to that agreement with the issuer of
those licences, UK Corporation. You are bound to the legislation you
have agreed to by license.