Forum Topic

Cycling news

Quite unusually both BBC London and ITV London carried items about the danger cyclists pose to pedestrians. BBC reported on floating bus stops, ITV on speeding cyclists in Regents Park.The floating bus stop piece highlighted the dangers to particularly vulnerable groups such as the visually impaired when getting on and off buses. The footage showed lots of cyclists not slowing down at the designated pedestrian crossing and recorded one collision.The Regents Park item recorded lots of cyclists exceeding the 20moh speed limit, with one recorded at 32mph. This was in relation to the recent court case where a cyclist was not prosecuted despite causing the death of an elderly lady crossing the road in the park when he hit her at 28mph on his bike.The LCC spokesperson in the ITV piece says there’s no need for a change in the law as ‘cyclists are already covered by existing laws’. Except they are not, as the Regents Park case clearly showed. He had no response to that other than a lot of bluster.The BBC wheeled out Simon Munk, who admitted there are some idiots on bikes (that’s a first from an LCC member). But he was clearly more concerned about those in two wheels rather than those on two feet, simply saying there needs to be more education.What’s clearly emerging now is that there needs to be better regulation and policing of cyclists who flout the rules of the road. It’s happening a lot but often goes unreported.

Simon Hayes ● 259d115 Comments

Are you certain that you fully agree, Nigel? Your petition on Change.Org suggests that using a mobile phone with a cheap hands-free kit should be the norm. It is absolutely not acceptable - I cannot overstate this. Read the research and you might switch your phone off next time you get into your car.  It is not my job to enforce the law but it does not matter to me whether you are driving, riding a horse, cycling, riding an e-scooter or even a tricycle, it is illegal to use your phone when out on a public road. If someone gets caught and fined then fantastic! That is my position and it will not change. The charity is called Roadpeace. And yes, I did raise cycle training for motorists with them yesterday. They do agree with me that there needs to be a greater awareness and consideration shown from drivers towards people who cycle. If this is a stance that concerns you, then I suggest you get in touch with Rebecca, their Head of Comms, (apologies, cannot remember her surname) and not moan to me about their policies and campaigns. However, right now, there are higher priorities for Roadpeace to tackle so I would not expect to see anything come of it in the short term.For the research look up Dr Helen Wells, from Keele University.  Here's one link to her research: https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/top-road-safety-figures-back-research-into-dangers-of-hands-free/

Ben Owen ● 195d

Fully agree, time to ban cyclists from using mobile phones, fiddling with navigation devices and wearing headphones while riding as well. I am sure that you agree Hen and we'll leave it to you to raise this with Roadsense.

N V Brooks ● 196d

Maybe you should campaign to ban mobile phones full stop. They seem to be at the root of all modern evils.Your post has nothing to do with the origins of this thread, of course, unless you are also going to campaign for cyclists to be banned from having hands free phones or even music played through headphones, both of which distract from the concentration required to navigate the road safely. But you won’t.

Simon Hayes ● 196d

Great webinar today from Roadpeace, the road safety charity,  where I managed to ask the question of "why are you not calling for a ban on all hands-free phones, they are just as distracting?" which was answered with a "yes, totally agree with you, we are taking this forward and calling for change."There is research from Dr Helen Wells - no, not a nom de plume for Rachel Aldred! -, which shows that drivers using hands-free phones are four times more likely to be involved in a collision than those who aren't. This is because drivers often fail to notice hazards—even when they appear directly ahead of them—and take longer to react to any hazards they do notice when on an hands free call. Find a summary of the research here:  https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-02-urges-police-dangers-drivers-free.htmlUsing a phone, whether held to your ear or through an earpiece, is completely different from having a conversation or an argument with a fellow passenger. This is because you have another set of eyes detecting hazards when looking out of the windscreen.Helen Wells' research proves precisely my point of why I did not sign your petition, Nigel. Please look again at your petition and consider deleting it, as I now hope that you will recognise how irresponsible it is to campaign for hands-free phones when research shows that they are four times more likely to be involved in a collision than if you are not using one. (To find Nigel's comment look around the 29th May.) Other things that came out of the webinar discussion: 1.Roadpeace campaigners want to see all drive-thru's on motorway service stations banned, because it encourages eating at the wheel, distractions, blocked views and more. 2. Their Touchscreen campaign: From January 2026 new rules will require vehicles to have physical controls for basic functions to obtain a 5* safety rating. No more of this digital screen nonsense where you have to look away from the road and touch a screen to do the most basic of functions.3. Roadpeace will use kids in their tv campaigns to make mums and dads think about not using their phones at all when in a car. Look out for it, I can't remember when it will be rolled out. Research proves that an adult is more likely to listen to a 11-year-old!4. It is more dangerous for a person under the age of 26 to drive a car than it is to smoke. We all knew that didn't we?Consider turning off your phone when you get into your car, please, it is not going to kill you turning it off but it might if you leave it on. Is it really worth it?

Ben Owen ● 196d

No, there is a collective absence of common sense among many sectors of society. The worst are the phone zombies glued to their screens and oblivious to everything around them.

N V Brooks ● 232d

Well I do think that pedestrians need to take a test too - they definitely need to revise their Green Cross Code (or whatever it was called before that) and why isn't that more obvious on TV or advertised?  They seem to have forgotten about walking facing the oncoming traffic and looking both ways before they cross the road and looking where they are going...  Has that been privatised too?

Philippa Bond ● 232d

The article also neglects to mention that there is not a single TfL docking station within the London Borough of Ealing the nearest being Hammersmith or Shepherd's Bush. That's said, TfL bikes have to be returned to a docking station not dumped anywhere like the Lime bikes are in Ealing.

N V Brooks ● 233d

Now isn’t it strange that the article about Santander bikes on the front page of this site omits one key fact? Usage of the scheme dropped by a whopping 33 percent last year following the hike of subscription fees to £120 a year. Usage is at its lowest in a decade.Why leave out such a crucial bit of information, unless it’s to try and put a positive spin on the scheme. Considering that London taxpayers, through TfL, provide a hefty subsidy for the scheme they ought to be a bit more forthcoming with the truth. The idea that it will be self-funding is a long way off.What’s clear is that the biggest obstacle to increasing cycling is actually the cost to the user. Those Lime bikes are expensive too.

Simon Hayes ● 233d

Of course, as any fool would know, The Enviro with that registration exclusively runs the 350 route from Hayes to Heathrow going nowhere near the Gyratory. Are you taking the same medication that makes Paul Hames hallucinate?

N V Brooks ● 233d

Ben, you are a sad muppet. Do be careful when cycling, you seem a bit stupid and therefore probably a danger on the road!If you don’t understand the concept of personal responsibility then you really are as thick as you come across. Posting nonsense as you just did simply underlines that.

Simon Hayes ● 233d

So pleased for you, Simon. Last week I saw a lorry had flipped over on its side at the Hangar Lane Gyratory. So what? And you won’t believe what happened when I was there. I saw a bus with the registration plate SN17 MSU. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of registration plates in London, what was the chance that I would see that particular one? Amazing!Share this:

Ben Owen ● 233d

What Ben probably doesn’t notice when pedaling about is how many pedestrians don’t pay attention to what’s around them. Headphones in, eyes glued to phones, in a world of their own.Ironically there was a pedestrian code that was drummed into children for decades, the Green Cross Code. Common sense, but seemingly not applicable now.But the original point of this thread is that cyclists need more education and regulation to obey traffic laws and reduce the risk to themselves and others. Just this morning on Chiswick roundabout an electric bike rider raced through a red light at a pedestrian crossing, even though all other traffic had stopped. He would have had no reaction time to avoid a pedestrian who was just setting out to cross if it had been a second or two later.

Simon Hayes ● 233d

More people die sitting in chairs than skydiving. Do you therefore advocate a 'use of a chair' theory test.Quit while your'e behind, Ben.

N V Brooks ● 233d

> "More people walk than cycle so, statistically of course you are more likely to die when walking."If you are statistically more likely to die walking than cycling then to cut those numbers we definitely should have testing!

Ben Owen ● 233d

Straw clutching again. More people walk than cycle so, statistically of course you are more likely to die when walking. Sound of an empty vessel Ben.

N V Brooks ● 233d

Thread 100. Why has the point been missed that people are more likely to die during a mile of walking than a mile of cycling, so does this mean we also need a pedestrian test?

Ben Owen ● 233d

When, not if, that happens I shall simply 'tutt' loudly.  So sad that they refuse to take responsibility for their own safety and that of other road users.

N V Brooks ● 234d

Well, if cyclists continue to be killed on our roads then it’s too bad.

Simon Hayes ● 234d

Campaign started which you refused to sign because it didn't meet you totalitarian view of cycling. Pathetic!And you wonder why people dismiss your posts as simply the sound of a fart blowing across an empty bottle.

N V Brooks ● 234d

Start a campaign on Change.org but do something positive to invigorate the change you seek. Instead you whine and whinge on here to seek oxygen for your opinions that are as strong as a candle blowing in the wind, which is why nothing will ever be done. The UK will not be the first to initiate this test so live with it.

Ben Owen ● 234d

You are changing the argument yet again. The point has always been that there is an element of cyclists who are reckless and lacking in awareness or consideration of others when out and about. There are lots of examples, and they were highlighted in the television reports mentioned in my original post.It seems to a problem for both Ben and Paul to accept that a sizeable number of their pedalling pals might not be perfect. Nobody is arguing that vehicle drivers are perfect, but there are plenty of sanctions for those who transgress the law.If more people cycled you’d end up with more people demonstrating reckless, careless or dangerous cycling.

Simon Hayes ● 234d

My parents would not let me ride a bicycle on the road until I had passed the cycling proficiency test. Isn't  it a shame that current cyclists' parents care so little about their offspring that they are willing to allow them to do so without any formal training?

N V Brooks ● 234d

Indeed it is. An idiot with no training is not only a danger to themselves but also to other road users should they cause an accident by their carelessness. All users, and I stress all, should be subject to the same level of scrutiny

N V Brooks ● 234d

Utterly utterly hypocritical all of you. Go back to when you first learned to ride a bike and then go back to the time you first rode your bike on the road, at the time had you even thought of taking a test to cycle on the road? I doubt it.Look at the world. Is there one country in the world where, on a public road, you can drive a car without taking a driving test. No.  Now, is there one country in the world where you cannot cycle on the road unless you have taken some form of a test? No. Why do you think that is?But there is one more point to make. Study after study has shown that cyclists make for better drivers with results showing that cyclist-drivers are significantly faster than non-cyclists drivers at identifying changes. In the study I read it demonstrated the effect being largest for sign changes. I constantly say that if more people cycled, then driving behaviour and attitudes towards road safety would drastically improve. Google something along the lines of 'cyclists make for better drivers' , or similar, and your will find some papers for yourself.

Ben Owen ● 234d

>Any idiot can jump on a bike without a minute of training and put themselves and other road users at risk. The same risk, or even anywhere near it, that somebody jumping into a car, HGV or jetliner without a minute of training?>Wow Paul, talk about clutching at straws.I'm not clutching at straws, I'm challenging the suggestion that all road users should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and regulation.

Paul James ● 234d

Wow Paul, talk about clutching at straws. Pilots have to undergo extensive training before they even get a PPL. Motorists take two tests, both theory and practical, before they can drive unaccompanied. Any idiot can jump on a bike without a minute of training and put themselves and other road users at risk. You are correct Paul, it is inequitable and I await your posts promoting mandatory training for cyclists

N V Brooks ● 235d

PC James says motorists are not held to the same level of account as HGV drivers or Jetliners..Agreed , the degree of training for those groups & regulations are quite rightly much stricter, with severe penalties for infringements.The fact remains cyclists are not.As many posters witness, cyclists jump red lights, speed, cycle wrong way down roads etc etc, with impunity.Unidentifiable, motorists, HGV, jetliners are regulated

Peter Yale ● 235d

Nice subject change there Paul.The idea behind the proposed law change, which will probably not happen now, was to increase the sanction for cyclists who cause death or injury through their actions. The current laws are wholly inadequate. Just because someone rides a bike doesn’t make them clever or better than anyone else you know?You should welcome more education and regulation of cyclists because it will improve safety, at considerably less cost than new infrastructure. As Raymond Havelock points out in his excellent post, a lot of cyclists seem wholly ignorant or the laws and rules governing their pastime, putting themselves and others at risk.Simply saying other road users are more dangerous is a non argument, but one you LCC types seem to trot out at every opportunity.

Simon Hayes ● 236d

"The worst was local ( Not Ealing )where the instructor and chaperone encouraged repeatedly confronting car drivers......"My exact same experience Mr Havelock when I attended a Course some years ago. I, like you, was astonished by their aggressive attitude encouraging confrontations with car drivers. I said to the "Instructor" would you rather be in the "right", and in hospital, or dead. Or, in the "wrong", but uninjured and alive?

Rosco White ● 236d

>Let the same rules, laws be applied with the strenuous vigour to cyclists, as they are to motoristsExcept they are not in any way shape or form the same.For instance, do you think motorists are subject to similar levels of laws and vigour in application as pilots of jetliners? Even drivers of cars compared to drivers of HGVs?

Paul James ● 236d

Free training.  Pointless without being tested for proficiency and competence.And what are the credentials of the trainers.I've done 3 courses in the last 10 years. the best being run by Camden council based on Urban riding and was all around Kings Cross , Grays Inn Rd and Holborn.It was excellent and as a refresher and updater and how to get the right balance with other road users and pedestrians. The worst was local ( Not Ealing )where the instructor and chaperone encouraged repeatedly confronting car drivers, performing unsafe moves contrary to road regulations and insisting on photocalls. Presumably to tick boxes for funding.The other was led by an instructor who could not ride one handed, or knew how to stand her bike using the pedal and the kerb.Can it really be a bridge too far to have mandatory and recordable cycling proficiency testing run by the best possible authority with safe diligent and impartial instructors of demonstrable ability.I'm certain near 50 years of almost daily riding with very few incidents and no accidents is down to that test at 12 years old.  That transfers to my equally proud driving record and my passing of an HGV and Advance driving test.I've stayed safe for myself and towards others.  What is wrong with that being the norm for every road user?

Raymond Havelock ● 237d

Exactly Mr Brooks, policing.Let the same rules, laws be applied with the strenuous vigour to cyclists, as they are to motorists.After all, cyclists demand & use as much road as everyone

Peter Yale ● 239d

It simply needs policing Philippa. A motorist jumping the lights or exceeding the speed limit can be instantly identified by their vehicle registration plate. Accepting that There is unlikely to be support for cyclist registration then there has to be roadside intervention to punish these criminals

N V Brooks ● 240d

Both some drivers AND some cyclists still drive or cycle too fast exceeding the maximum speed limit even in good road conditions on many of the roads. (Just as Nigel predicted.)  Probably most don't.Well we were sitting at a junction on Saturday on the Uxbridge Road and saw quite a few cyclists go through the red lights - because they just ignore them.  The Lime bike riders are often the ones that do sail through as if there was no junction at all.  There are also quite a few riding others - some of those fat tyred ones which I think are probably illegal ebikes and some of them were delivery bikes. We weren't in a position to see how many drivers ran the lights although I suspect many will have as they don't ever seem to slow down in anticipation of the lights changing against them.  You would need to be in front or behind them to hear the ones in ICE vehicles who put their foot on the accelerator to try and get through the lights - not as we were.  That happened very noticeably to me when walking through a road narrowed with cones not long ago.There are most definitely many cyclists who seem don't know the rules of the road.  Delivery companies should be ensuring that their riders do!  And any arrogant cyclist who speeds past a line of larger stopped traffic just because he/she can is in dire need of training or re-training.  There is always something on offer - check out free training:https://www.ealing.gov.uk/cycling

Philippa Bond ● 240d

SHOCK HORROR! CYCLIST PUNCHES INNOCENT PEDESTRIAN! AND IT MAKES THE NEWS!https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/seb-dance-punched-in-face-for-confronting-dangerous-cyclist/#:~:text=Leading%20Britain's%20Conversation.-,Sadiq%20Khan's%20'cycling%20tsar'%20punched%20in%20the%20face%20by%20cyclist,not%20stopping%20at%20zebra%20crossing&text=The%20deputy%20London%20mayor%20for,pedestrians%20at%20a%20zebra%20crossing.

Simon Hayes ● 241d

So basically you post b******* and then when challenged use the standard cyclist diversion tactic. Enjoy the sunshine Ben

N V Brooks ● 241d

Er, well that’s not true. There are plenty of bad drivers, and they usually get caught and sanctioned. The speed cameras and those on box junctions are particularly effective in that respect.Cyclists get away with dangerous and reckless riding all the time, usually with little iron sanction. There are stupid people everywhere Ben, but you seem to think they are exclusive to car drivers.As has been asked if you before, do please produce the road accident statistics for Ealing in recent years, with a breakdown of vehicle type and injury. That should keep you busy on this lovely afternoon when you really ought to be out on your bike.Spending your time whingjng on here isn’t very productive is it?

Simon Hayes ● 241d

All we hear about from drivers in cars is that cyclists go through red lights, cycle on the pavement and blah blah blah. Never do we hear from a driver that drivers do actually go through red lights too and when they do a serious injury is much more likely to come from it.

Ben Owen ● 241d

Using the same totally flawed logic to forecast law breaker numbers that you used Ben, then in the five minutes I was outside my front door when three cyclists, all adult, rode post on the pavement, that would equate to 36 cyclists breaking the law per hour and let's be generous and base it on a 12-hour day, 432 lawbreakers per day or a little under 3000 per week.Stupid when you forecast things in that fashion isn't it Ben?

N V Brooks ● 241d

You need to be very careful Ben.If you did not see a single motorbike, cyclist or scooter rider break the Highway Code then you must have been walking wround with your eyes shut which, I have to tell you is unsafe.

N V Brooks ● 241d

Well clearly banning luxury German cars is the answer then. Not closing every road.

Simon Hayes ● 241d

Yesterday, on The Broadway, outside the Ealing Broadway Shopping Centre, I spent just over 30 minutes counting cars and scooters going through the pedestrian red lights. In that time I saw one car jump a red light. I did not see any motorbikes or bicycles break The Highway Code. It was also interesting to note that the car speeded up as it approached the lights rather than slowing down to anticipate the change to a red light. Pedestrians had a choice to make: either wait for the grey Porsche SUV to jump the red light or get killed. How safe are our roads? So can we now assume that every 30 minutes one car, with a different driver, built with 3 tonnes of metal surrounding him/her, is speeding towards a red light as their car approaches the light all set to jump it? Or is that too much of a generalisation?  As an aside, I read an interesting article recently about people that drive luxury high end cars. The argument was that people who drove these types of vehicles are more prone to be inconsiderate/dangerous drivers. The article was based on a study. Nigel and Simon will call for evidence. The research was from the University of Helsinki, Professor Jan-Erik Lönnqvist. His research even said “I had noticed that the ones most likely to run a red light, not give way to pedestrians and generally drive recklessly and too fast were often the ones driving fast German cars.”

Ben Owen ● 241d

Ben, your LCC tropes are repetitive and boring. Unfortunately for you the LCC publishes its nonsense online for all to see. You don’t know that? Very silly man then.There are plenty of alternative routes away from vehicles for cyclists. Many don’t help themselves by riding badly or recklessly. I saw one idiot on the pavement this afternoon taking his dog out on a lead. Not legal and not safe.Oh, and signs and signals are for all road users. You carry on with your one-eyed idiocy if you like. But that must make it difficult for you to see what’s around you when cycling.

Simon Hayes ● 245d

Boardman is an hypocrite, I don't read the twaddle he writes.

N V Brooks ● 245d

From The Standard yesterday:https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/killer-cyclists-regents-park-london-car-deaths-b1160094.html

Ben Owen ● 245d

Sad that you won't sign Ben, but I have to balance that with those who will and take a more reasoned approach

N V Brooks ● 245d

Well done Nigel for going live with it. However, unless you revise the petition I will not be putting my name to it, as I have never encouraged the use of hands free calls or texts. When you get into a car switch the phone off. State that and I will sign.

Ben Owen ● 245d

As soon as I have the data Ben, I want to word it so that it garners as kuch support as possible, I reckon a couple of days

N V Brooks ● 245d

Man of my word Ben, it was easier to get the source data than I thought, please sign and share.https://chng.it/r6GtvFbkH2

N V Brooks ● 245d

Did you not tell them to exercise caution? Flying Motorcycles are at work!

Ben Owen ● 245d

One driver sitting in front of such a sign asked me as I cycled by on Montague Road, "can I drive through here?". I had to explain when the sign meant, but they clearly thought it might mean that as they were stopped in front of it.I said if you've got the permit, or a blue badge and an exemption they could drive through it, but it was clear they had neither. Then they got angry and drove through it anyway!

Paul James ● 245d

When can we expect to see your petition on Change, Nigel?

Ben Owen ● 245d

I've seen drivers driving through those no motor vehicles signs.  What I find baffling is that they apparently don't see, don't want to see or just don't understand what they mean - they ought to.  I think there is room for us all to improve our awareness and consideration for others.

Philippa Bond ● 245d

I'll start with a change petition but need to research properly the statistics. Not pushing for a ban but a significant increase in penalties to make it equivalent of driving without due care and attention which can carry nine points and a fine of up to £5000.

N V Brooks ● 245d

I'll ask againWhere and when did I say a skip lorry chased me?I said many are driven like rally cars, because many are.

Paul James ● 245d

Nigel, I will support your campaign. What one thing are you going to do to make your idea of increased penalties for holding a phone actually happen? By the way I also think hands free calls/texting should be banned because they are equally as distracting.

Ben Owen ● 245d

The road signs Ben are for the benefit of ALL road users.I have a positive suggestion, why don't we all, drivers, pedestrian, cyclist lobby to get the use of handheld devices and headphone banned while driving with significantly increased penalties? An almost instant contribution to road safety and no sane road user could advocate their use.

N V Brooks ● 245d

Yet more fantasy Paul, you boasted about your helmet cam but are unable to provide a simgle piece of evidential footage, so sorry, bullshit.If you cannot remember what you typed bout skip lorries on Lower Boston Road, that it not my problem. "often driven like rally cars" again where's the proof apart from your paranoia?

N V Brooks ● 245d

I have seen drivers drive through these signs Nigel, I've tried to help a few to suggest they don't do it, but most just carried on.Where did I say a skio lorry chased me? I said they are often driven like rally cars, and they are.

Paul James ● 245d

Simon, you are so comfortable with your LCC tripe. So predictable, so dull, so repetitive, so full of the same tosh. You do not like the idea that people who enjoy cycling have an absolute right to feel safe on the road. Full stop. Yet, you do not notice that councils spend millions and millions on installing road signs and road markings at intersections to keep drivers safe. It has never crossed your mind that no objection is ever made of this by anyone?

Ben Owen ● 245d

Ben. Answering your points, such as they are, isn’t ranting. I suggest you go back to your LCC meetings to hear how ranting really sounds. You aren’t covering yourself in glory here.Horses aren’t a major problem in Ealing are they? Not many fatalities or injuries. So unfortunately your deflection fails there.And your task for this evening is to provide all the accudebtvdara, month by month, with full accident reports, for all cycling fatalities in the borough of Ealing for the past 6 years. Won’t take you long. Get to it.

Simon Hayes ● 245d

Most haws owners I know subscribe to both the pony club and the roadwise theory and practical tests before they take their horses out on the road. This teaches them roadcraft and how to be safe in and around traffic. They all, to my knowledge, have comprehensive insurance. Can you say that the majority of cyclists are the same?

N V Brooks ● 245d

Paul, you said "I  see drivers drive past no motor vehicle signs" then you quote council fines. You've never seen it yourself, a bit like all the skip lorries that 'chased you'. More than a whiff of fantasy and bullshit once again from you Mr James.

N V Brooks ● 245d

Simon instead of ranting could you answer the following questions:Will you be asking for a horse riding test next for all those who are lucky enough to own a horse and dare to ride their horse on the road? If not, why not?I am searching for an answer why this anomaly is constantly overlooked? Can you answer?Do you agree that people should not be allowed to drive on a motorway unless they have been taught specific driving skills for a motorway? If no, why not?Probably the biggest gain to be had is if drivers start becoming more accepting of people who cycle. In a stroke that would make cycling a hell of a lot safer.

Ben Owen ● 246d

Not cyclist though, eh Paul? Apart from those driving their cars the way they ride their bikes.You do like digging yourself into a hole and then not being able to find your way out.If the roads were as dangerous as you and others always claim they would be littered with dead and dying bodies. But they aren’t and haven’t been. Even British Cycling admit as much. It’s only the hardcore LCC numbskulls who over exaggerate things to bolster their cause, and supine politicians fall for it all too often.Yes, there are bad drivers of all vehicles, including bikes which are often claimed to be vehicles by the LCC despite the obvious fact that they aren’t regulated. The problem, Paul, is people. Acting irresponsibly, which is a human trait since time immemorial. Simply pointing at ‘cars’ as the problem isn’t correct. It’s people. It’s unlikely to change.

Simon Hayes ● 246d

Nigel, councils issue thousands of pounds in fines to people driving past such signs.

Paul James ● 246d

Cyclist doing time trial laps of Regents Park hits pedestrian crossing road at 30mph. She subsequently dies. Cyclist gets off as speeding laws don’t apply to him. Pedestrian said to have stepped into road without looking.That’s victim blaming Paul.

Simon Hayes ● 246d

I would throw the bloody book at thos who use a hand held device while driving. £1000 fine and six points. Second offence within three years £1000 fine six points which, under totting up would mean no licence for 12 months and a retest.The same though should apply to cyclists or scooter riders who wear headphones, blissfully unaware of anything going on around them.

N V Brooks ● 246d

With all your helmet cams you can't post a sigle piece of evidential footage here of "I see drivers drive past no motor vehicle signs" are simply, as best fantasy or, more likely total bullshit.

N V Brooks ● 246d

So boringly predictable Ben. Boringly predictable.You go and brush up your highway code and what it says about lights. Then ask yourself why cyclists might get knocked off when riding in the dark on a main road with no lights or any reflective wear. I don’t advocate licensing cyclists or number plates for their machines, but a problem exists with anti-social types on two wheels. You might even be one of them.Chuck in horses, why don’t you? Anything to avoid the points being made. Throw in the generalizations about motorists too, for good measure.What you cycling zealots really don’t get is that there is a very large proportion of the country who don’t like cycling, and certainly wouldn’t choose it as their preferred method of getting about. In London far more people walk, which is why acre travel lumps walking and cycling together to boost the figures, yet pavements and other walking infrastructure are routinely left to deteriorate or become slippery from wer leaves left to rot.Put all the cycling infrastructure in if you want, but it will only ever be a minority pastime, a leisure pursuit for most.

Simon Hayes ● 246d

At one time I used to promote that free cycle training that all the local Councils provide.  I wish it was more obvious to all people who buy cycles.  Anything is better than some of the awful accidents when vulnerable cyclists lose their lives.There used to by Cycling Proficiency for all school children - some of this has been reintroduced but it no longer seems to be something that is taken seriously enough by parents or their children.Some good points Ben. 

Philippa Bond ● 246d

Cycling is not in the same category of danger as driving is, which is why there are no compulsory tests to take, nor is there any need for one.Will you be asking for a horse riding test next for all those who are lucky enough to own a horse and dare to ride their horse on the road? Why is this anomaly always overlooked? Horses leave their dung on the road for others to clean up, but not a spiteful word is ever said of a horse rider.Do you argue that people should not be allowed to drive on a motorway unless they have been taught specific driving skills for a motorway? If not, why not?We could improve the driving test by making it mandatory for a learner driver to ride a bike for an hour in an urban environment, if only to be used as part of an awareness training exercise.We could make learning how to drive on a motorway a compulsory part of a driving course and be then tested on it before being given a licence.We could make the test massively harder to pass, by including small things like when to hold back for an oncoming vehicle to have enough room to easily pass.We need to make cycling more accessible to encourage people onto bikes and not put in deterrents, such as the ones commonly suggested by the likes of  Raymond, Simon, Nigel and Peter.To achieve this we have to make and have more friendly cycling infrastructure to support the less confident.Yes to encourage training, but councils already do this by providing free cycle training.We should make it mandatory for all drivers to use the terminology of 'vulnerable road user' when describing someone who pedals a bicycle. That phrase etched into someone's mind might make some less aggressive and far more considerate.I find it extremely ironic when drivers are caught out by using their phone whilst driving, other drivers will jump to the driver's defence by saying something along the lines of 'have you got nothing better to do with your life?'This remark from drivers suggests that the dangers of driving with a hand held phone are massively overstated. They are not.Probably the biggest gain to be had is if drivers start becoming more accepting of people who cycle. In a stroke that would make cycling a hell of a lot safer.

Ben Owen ● 246d

Too many cyclists. A danger to other road users and themselves ;)Ironic that a large proportion of cyclists are also car drivers. I wonder if the constant complaints about dangerous driving is because those cyclists take their bad habits on two wheels with them when they get in their cars? Entirely possible.

Simon Hayes ● 246d

>If you show disrespect to others please don't complain when they respond in kindI'd ask again for examples of me doing this to yourself or anybody else on this board nigel, but like last time, I suspect you'll ignore me.As opposed to a long list of posts of you calling me names etc...

Paul James ● 246d

Victim blaming still I see Eric.

Paul James ● 246d

>Sorry Paul, but they are the only people I see cycling past the signs!I see drivers drive past no motor vehicle signs, but I'd never write:"And why don't drivers understand and adhere to the round red-rimmed No motor vehicle signs?  Because it's not all drivers.This is why I said your comment was a silly generalisation, because, with respect, it is!

Paul James ● 246d

Correct Peter.

N V Brooks ● 246d

Any scheme is only as good as those who use them. And that is assuming the schemes are well designed clearly signed and do not have blind spots.  Far too many are a complete exercise in ticking boxes and underlined by riders who clearly have never taken nor passed a proficiency test pontificating without diligence. And not much credit to those receptive but gullible career chasers not savvy enough to understand the gap between what computer design can do and the reality of practicality.  ( Turning left from Little Ealing Lane into Windmill Rd is a clear example of stupidity of design with shrubs completely obscuring a crossing and the pavement area and cyclists who use the pavement and ride across the crossing. Only HGVs have a clear view. )Far too many of the cycling initiatives are equally hazardous and it is noticeable that diligent and able cyclists are amongst those who don't use them. They know when their own safety is compromised out of their control.It is still incredulous, that on a daily basis out on my bike I still see riders cycle up the inside of HGVs, ride within the blind spots of vehicles, not have a bell or mudguards on their bike ( which is a pain for other cyclists in the wet) worst of all those who guide children not even complying with the most fundamental of road regulations.Smooth pothole roads, clear markings and proper enforcement of those who have no sense or respect at all would go a massive way to making cycling better.Rather than daft and pointless money burning schemes, sorting out decades of street neglect from months of wet rotted leaves to potholes and poor surfaces and signage would be far better.And mandatory training and a Pass on a proficiency test before any child can ride on a live road. It might not be so Cool for a photocall the usual types and not so high profile, but those who do use a bike will notice.With a few exceptions riding locally is not as safe or as easy as it was over the last 40 years of riding locally ( when it was far busier and traffic a mix of congested or faster moving )  I am still very much a local rider and was never able to do long distances. Yet ironically, was able to run 5 and 10,000m cross country races!Never worked that out, purely down to physique.

Raymond Havelock ● 246d

Maybe if more people would threaten to step in front of or otherwise inconvenience cyclists going the wrong way up roads or on pavements, they might be discouraged from doing it. As it is, if we all take such care to avoid them, we're just encouraging them in their illegal acts.Having said that, if I understand the Boston Road situation correctly, it must be tiresome to cycle all the way down the slope to the Uxbridge Road, turn right and then climb all the way back up again instead of going straight on against all comers, so maybe a contraflow cycle lane would help.  Hang on though! I see that there is indeed a contraflow facility for cyclists along Westminster Road, which is just few yards further on and runs parallel to south-bound only Boston Road.  So there really is no excuse.

Peter Evans ● 246d

The best bit of advice I was given by my driving instructor was to assume that everyone else on the road is an idiot, be they behind the wheel of a vehicle, on a bike or on foot. Expect the unexpected and you’ll generally be okay. Quite why people don’t utilize all their faculties when out and about is a mystery. The green Cross Code for pedestrians, cycling proficiency for bikes and obviously driving tests for the others.Now it seems acceptable to not look before stepping into the road, ride a bike without obeying traffic signs and signals, failing to signal or adhere to traffic regulations if in a vehicle.

Simon Hayes ● 246d

No, but I am talking about Hanwell not crossing roads while abroad. It makes sense to be cautious but why should the disabled and/or elderly expect the unexpected solely due to the activities of a few moronic cyclists/'scooterists'?

N V Brooks ● 246d

Sorry I have to come in here. The death at Lido Junction was of an ex-police woman on her bike which she positioned in the narrow gap between a big Iceland truck and the pedestrian railings on the south east of the junction. On green, the truck took off west and moved left into the inside lane lane by Dean Gardens and the cyclist was tragically killed. The Police took no action against the lorry driver.As for the TfL £8.6 million LiveWestEaling scheme, Singapore Road will be made one way east to west for vehicular traffic and Leeland Terrace will be made one way west to east for vehicular traffic. Now the Monty Python element - there will be dedicated cycle lanes on each road travelling in the opposite direction of the vehicular traffic. Surely bonkers.

Eric Alan Leach ● 246d

I didn't say anything about an expectation.  It just makes sense to take the precaution.  And what if you to abroad?  It's better to not automatically look just one way then!

Philippa Bond ● 247d

Philippa, a case in point is Boston Road in Hanwell. It is a one way street with NO contraflow cycle lane, from the juction with Uxbridge Road to a poin where the road becomes two way just after the new Tesco Metro/ McCanns pub.There are very clear No Entry signs to prevent ALL traffic from prceeding northbound against the flow of traffi and One Way signs whereMaunder and Jessamine Roads join.This does not however stop flagrant lawbreaking by cyclists and scooter users riding in the 'wrong' direction. I capturethem on dashcam and submit the footage to the MPS at least a couple of times each month.Pedestrians take normal care when crossing but there should not be an expectation that some idiot will be on the carriageway or, even worse, the pavement riding against the flow.

N V Brooks ● 247d

"As a pedestrian, in streets I know to be one way, I see no reason nor need to ‘look both ways’."Well that would be exceedingly daft and kamikaze of you. Have you never seen a motorised vehicle reverse?  Or never seen any changes in road signs?  Change happens.  Far better and safer to keep to those old and well tried and rusted rules for crossing the road - look BOTH WAYS.  Right, left and right again! It is not that long since someone sadly died in West Ealing following such an accident.

Philippa Bond ● 247d

‘There ARE some One Way streets that cyclists can ride against the Motorised traffic on.’But these have a sign at the ‘open’ end to warn cars of possible oncoming cyclists and might even have a narrow painted contra flow cycle lane.  As a pedestrian, in streets I know to be one way, I see no reason nor need to ‘look both ways’. Nobody should be coming that way and, as they’ll have ridden past one of the most obvious road signs in the catalogue, they’ll know perfectly well they shouldn’t, and worse, are relying on pedestrians to take evasive action and collaborate with their illegality!

Peter Evans ● 247d

Motorists are not supposed to cut across cyclists at roundabouts.https://bookinstructor.co.uk/highway-code-the-important-changes-you-may-have-missed/?gad_source=5&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjfe12firhgMVnrxoCR0GcgS2EAAYAyAAEgI_ZvD_BwE

Philippa Bond ● 248d

There ARE some One Way streets that cyclists can ride against the Motorised traffic on.

Philippa Bond ● 248d

I think for many cyclists, signs and rules are an irrelevance. A bicycle is a remarkably flexible vehicle, able to go almost anywhere with ease,  so anything that artificially restricts that freedom is regarded by many cyclists as a needless imposition.  That means education and enforcement is all the more important but sadly lacking. This isn’t helped by a recent case of a pedestrian being charged with manslaughter for remonstrating with a cyclist on the pavement and causing them to wobble into the path of a passing vehicle.  That suggests the obligation is on pedestrians to get out of the way of errant cyclists rather than standing firm and explaining the error of their ways.  And by the way, you stop at that red light even if there’s nothing coming the other way.  And you stop at that zebra crossing if someone’s trying to cross it rather than riding round them.  And you shouldn’t be riding the wrong way down this one way street even if it is quicker.  And…?

Peter Evans ● 248d

And the key phrase applicable to silly little fantasists;"If you show disrespect to others please don't complain when they respond in kind"

N V Brooks ● 248d

As a cyclist you are allowed to cycle on some pavements - that's why they are shared cycle and pedestrian pavements.As a cyclist you are allowed to cycle against the flow on some One Way roads.  That's why they have signs allowing that.WHY can't motorists get the hang of the fact that they have to give priority to pedestrians and cyclists now in many situations?  And that speed limits are a maximum when the conditions are good? And give cyclists plenty of space when overtaking!?  And if there isn't enough safe space - MOTORISTS have to slow down and not intimidate cyclists?!!!

Philippa Bond ● 248d

Sorry Paul, but they are the only people I see cycling past the signs!I seriously wonder if the signs are good enough for people who may not drive and may not have passed any type of road test at all.If you were to go somewhere else you would find that things that you aren't allowed to do have a black line struck through them.  What do you think?  Could they be clearer?

Philippa Bond ● 248d

Paul, do you have stock responses to every thread?Your MO is always  to post some nonsense claim. Always unsupported by any evidence. Then when you get called out on it you play the victim card. If you really want to take part in these things you need to bring something more to the table than your prejudice.

Simon Hayes ● 248d

>Mr James, if the kitchen gets too hot, remove yourself from itAnd here's the Forum code of conduct for your reference.https://appasp.ealingtoday.co.uk/server/app/forum/conduct.htm

Paul James ● 248d

Pot kettle? Can you show me where I have been abusive and nasty on here like Simon Hayes is?

Paul James ● 248d

I particularly like........Rule 64You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

Rosco White ● 250d

I see the usual suspects are whining away on the front page about cycle lanes. Perhaps they could provide some facts about accidents rather than clutching their pearls.Any argument should be supported by facts rather than opinion.

Simon Hayes ● 250d

For your information Paul, here’s the relevant section of the Highway Code covering cycling. Do please familiarise yourself with it and circulate it with your LCC chums.https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

Simon Hayes ● 250d

Don’t post on a public forum then, delicate flower.

Simon Hayes ● 250d

Mr James, if the kitchen gets too hot, remove yourself from it.Pot/Kettle, Glass Houses, If You Can't Take It, and all that .......

Rosco White ● 250d

I've asked you to leave me alone,  you're abusive and nasty, leave me alone please.

Paul James ● 250d

Coming from the king of generalisations that’s hilarious.You don’t have to look too hard to see plenty of cyclists flouting the law around Ealing. Paul, do please remind us of the Highway Code rules on cycling on the pavement and stopping at junctions. I’m sure an expert like you can enlighten us all.

Simon Hayes ● 250d

>And why don't Cyclists understand and adhere to the round red-rimmed No Cycling signs?Disappointed with this silly generalisation from you Philippa!

Paul James ● 250d

Don't you think parents should have licences too?  Too many don't seem to be capable of teaching their little darlings to look where they are going when they are racing down hills - instead they keep looking back to check their parents or siblings are watching!

Philippa Bond ● 250d

Yes & some kind of license or registration for cyclists who flout regulations. Especially those slaloming down the road & pavement

Peter Yale ● 250d

As Pedestrians we need to be aware that there are some pavements which are dual use and they are marked as such - but not on the pavement but on a sign which when many of us are looking at the state of the pavement so as not to trip on any rocking or broken ones (often due to cars and lorries and vans pulling up onto them) is a big danger.Also there are one way roads which Cyclists are allowed to ride down against the flow of the traffic.  As Pedestrians we must never ever only look one way when crossing the road.  We have to maintain what we learnt when crossing many years ago as it will keep us in good stead because changes do happen.  Remember drivers can also carelessly reverse without looking  properly and sometimes do this at speed in order to move from a parking space to a place on the main carriageway. Buses can and should inform passengers that there is a floating bus stop and that they should be careful when they alight.  If they are not doing this then please contact TfL.Obviously not everybody pays attention or can hear well enough but there are some safeguards we can try to take as we get older.Cyclists need to read the Highway Code but so do Pedestrians - ie all Road Users need to keep up to date.  Drivers should not be passing Cyclists as close as many do and Cyclists should not be passing passing Pedestrians as close as many do.  More of them could and should use a bell to make a little noise (not make the Pedestrian jump out of their skin).  Remember that by a road what little noise a cycle may make can be drowned out by traffic. As we age we also find it harder to jump out of the way!The Highway Code is there for all of us and it would be better for us ALL if everyone also paid attention to the MAXIMUM speeds permitted in good conditions!And why don't Cyclists understand and adhere to the round red-rimmed No Cycling signs?  I think a survey of the general public is needed on that one!

Philippa Bond ● 250d

I have recently noticed an increasing number of people cycling on pavements. Quite unnerving as I can't hear them if they're coming up behind me.

bela cunha ● 251d

A MASSIVE Lefty Swerve by Mr Owen - outstanding!Now, after a blatantly obvious attempt to switch the focus, which is a total insult to our collective intelligence if you thought for a nanosecond that it would actually work, back to the subject you are squirming away from Mr Owen......

Rosco White ● 257d

Oh dear Ben. Very predictable.The laws concerning motor vehicles, not just cars, are very well established and used. I’ve no problem with bad drivers being penalized and sanctioned. I’d like to see driving standards improved.But this law isn’t about that, is it? It’s about closing a loophole that’s been left open too long. The police, judiciary and politicians of all parties have agreed that this is long overdue. If it’s very difficult to prosecute a cyclist for reckless or dangerous riding then clearly it needed to be addressed. You see examples of very dangerous riding every day across London and elsewhere.Trying to deflect the argument isn’t going to work. One of the key things you cycling campaigners bleat on about is safety, yet you are blind to the dangers that your behaviour often poses to pedestrians. The BBC report on Wednesday illustrated that. Maybe too many cyclists are ignorant of the rules of the road. Maybe they are just ignorant.If it’s difficult for you to understand another viewpoint then perhaps you need to do what one LCC spokesman said and get yourself better educated.I’m not interested in your stats because they are irrelevant. This is about improving road safety for all. If you don’t like it, that’s tough.

Simon Hayes ● 257d

I should have also added that out of the 400 pedestrian deaths caused by road collisions, only about 2 of those involved a bicycle.

Ben Owen ● 257d

People on bikes do stupid things, says Simon Munk. 100% agree with him - some people on bikes do stupid things. But what you are up against is that 99% of pedestrian collision deaths do involve a car or a lorry. That is because some drivers, not all drivers, do stupid things. A dangerous driving law doesn’t change a thing. A dangerous cycling law won't solve your problem. Last time I looked at any stats it was something in the region of 400 deaths a year were caused by motorised vehicles - and I am not even counting pollution here. With a growing number of vehicles on the road it is probably more than that now. So let's just take stock and get a sense of perspective here. Even you, Simon, would surely agree that a car stands a better chance of (unintentionally) killing a person than someone peddling a bicycle. If it helps, on a good day I might manage 17mph on the flat on my bike. Only yesterday a Land Rover killed a child in a church car park. It was probably not going fast, possibly reversing, but it would have been the 3 tonnes of mass that caused the child's death. Ask any kids charity, elderly charities, The AA or RAC or residents up and down the country whether cars stop kids playing out and curb people from walking or cycling and they will all most likely say yes.  It would be really helpful to everyone if you could restrain yourself from being blind to how dangerous cars can be.

Ben Owen ● 257d

A quite typical performance from Chris Boardman in the media today. Rather than accept that there are cyclists who ride recklessly and/or dangerously he tried to deflect by claiming more people are killed by other things, such as lightning and cows. Of course, lightning strikes are an act of God and not subject to any laws save those of the Almighty. And one rarely sees herds of cattle on the Uxbridge Road trampling the innocent pedestrians to death.It seems the committed cyclists are rather nasty, selfish people. These new laws are designed to act as a deterrent to improve road safety for all, yet the true zealots simply cannot accept that there’s a need.Ask any reasonable person whether someone should be brought to trial for causing death or serious injury and you’d get a resounding yes. Not even cyclists should be above the law.

Simon Hayes ● 258d

It is indeed becoming law, causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling, or kill through reckless cycling. No doubt the likes of Paul James will claim existing laws are sufficient but as the Regents Park tragedy showed there is a clear lack of legislation covering this.https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-laws-to-be-introduced-to-prosecute-dangerous-cyclists#:~:text=The%20government%20has%20today%20(15,and%20motorcyclists%20who%20do%20so.

Simon Hayes ● 258d

I also understand that there is a proposal for an offence causing death by dangerous cycling.

Peter Chadburn ● 258d

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear, that will NOT go down well with one or more of our readers......... 😂

Rosco White ● 259d