Forum Topic

Cyclists

I know that all cyclists are not the same. As an ex-cyclist, gave up due to disability, I understand the frustration with inconsiderate motorists etc.It is the minority who give the majority a bad reputation but that minority was out in force this morning.In a short journey from Ealing Broadway to Hanwell, I witnessed.A cyclist scattering people on the pavement outside Ealing Town Hall.A cyclist jumping the lights at the junction of Uxbridge Road/Bond Street and then launching a tirade of abuse at the car driver into whom she almost rode.A cyclist jumping the lights at the Lido junction and weaving around pedestrians.The red light by BHS being ignored by a ‘procession’ of cyclists.Total disregard for the illegality of riding on the pavements by countless cyclists in Hanwell Broadway and on Boston Road.How do we get the law enforced?This is dangerous and illegal.I know there are much bigger issues but this is low level illegality which I would love to see stopped for the benefit of all road users.

Nigel Brooks ● 4948d37 Comments

Just watched the trailer on line.Oh goody, another 'chase' movie but on bikes.No doubt it will pick up some box ofice as Joseph Gordon-Levitt** is also in The Dark Knight Rises and the promising-looking Looper.**I remember him in 3rd Rock From The Sun and wondered where he had gone.

Nigel Brooks ● 4943d

Here is a must see film for all you guys who love and hate cyclists. Showing at Westfield, it's called Premium Rush. Best way to get to Westfield is, as we know, is by bike. After seeing this film you will find the ride back to Ealing exhilarating!Without wanting to spoil it for you, it's about a New York cycle courier dodging speeding cars, crazed cabbies, open doors, and eight million cranky pedestrians. Lots of riding on pavements, jumping red lights, the coppers who can't catch the super fast bike, not forgetting the receptionists who crave the kudos of going out with an eligible crazy cycle courier. Great for petrol heads to fuel (deliberate pun!) more reasons to smear cyclists. Great for carbon neutral guys to defend why it's fun and fast to go out on the bike.Go and see it and then come back to the forum with your review!

Ben Owen ● 4943d

Don't forget dog owners!  :-)(Any other minorities that we should be taking into account whilst setting the towpaths of the borough to rights? :-) )

Tony Colliver ● 4946d

Yes, of course cyclists need courtesy on the roads.Absence of this amongst *some* drivers is no excuse for them breaking the law themselves however.

Tony Colliver ● 4946d

Actually, it is adults - clearly well past teenagerhood - that seem to me to form the bulk of offenders.I favour a hockey stick in the spokes as a deterrent personally.  Sadly, I always seem to have left mine at home when I am being rundown by these wilfil disregarders of public safety.

Tony Colliver ● 4946d

I do not think it is any longer a minority that gives cyclists a bad name. Observe at any red light and it is the exception that a cyclist waits for green. Barclays Bike riders, in general, seem to be a big nuisance.The absence of any enforcement makes the problem worse and worse. A few major crackdowns at intersections where cyclists get stopped, fined, bikes seized if they can't pay, etc. would start to get a message across. The manpower exists, look at any fare-dodging crackdown operation that goes on with the buses. Do these operations frequently and regularly and it will reduce the problem, and raise some money at the same time.I am a cyclist, and feel my life is put in danger more by other cyclists than by car drivers. Especially by light jumpers but especially by slow riders who insist on being in pole position and force everyone else to overtake them at every single light.I feel cyclists should be licensed within London, and with license plates, similar to cars and motorbikes, so that cyclists can be subjected to the same form of fine enforcement as other road users.

Richard Dee ● 4946d

I like 'Mutton Jeff', sounds like a secret source of hogget in Wales, bit like "Dai the Spy".

Nigel Brooks ● 4946d

Or Mutt & Jeff even.

Keith Iddon ● 4946d

Bells are all very well but fail to take into account that many older pedestrians may be a bit mutton Jeff.

Susan Kelly ● 4946d

Tony, I do like your enthusiasm that all people are willing to be caring and sharing. And to be fair most people are.I think we have guidances and laws to mostly deal with the bell-less bike riders in society.BTW I'd make a bad dictator as I'm addicted to democracy.

Eric Alan Leach ● 4946d

Tony is quite right when he says all users need to be mindful and respectful of other users. The Canal Trust (formerly British Waterways) promotes cycling and you will see them at Hanwell Locks on some weekends handing out booklets about responsible cycling.Shared paths do work, but like he says cyclists must remember to slow down for pedestrians and pedestrians must be reminded not to attempt to push cyclists off their bikes. Doesn't The Highway Code say something like "always give way to the more vunerable road user"?Approaching pedestrians from behind they will always be given a gentle shout "Behind you, on your right / left" by me, which allows the walker enough time to look over their left or right shoulder see me and, then hopefully, move to one side. As I pass I will always thank. Whilst at it, can I put in a call for runners to be got at / screamed at now? Does anyone else notice how bad tempered they get if they have to run round you?

Ben Owen ● 4946d

Eric, you're so prone to "bannings" you'd probably make quite a good dictator.The solution on mixed use paths is for all users to be mindful of other users - so that means cyclists slowing down and making themselves known in good time, and pedestrians to take their headphones off and make room to pass. There are precious few safe routes for pedestrians or cyclists so taking away a good option for either group of users would just increase the pressure on roads that are already overcrowded and dangerous.

Tony Gould ● 4946d

I have disagreed with you many  times in the past, but not this time.The 'uninsured rate' was approaching 20% in some parts of London (source ABI) and it's not rocket science when those areas are Southall/Hayes, Hackney/Shoreditch and Tottenham/Wood Green (same source) to believe that there is a high incidence among 'overseas drivers'.I have a friend who is CEO of a commercial insurance company who, as a service to his clients, also underwrote (sic) their motor fleets. He no longer writes that business as the losses from accidents with foreign-plated uninsured vehicles was too high to sustain.Equally, it is worth noting that every one of the 'staged accident' or 'crash for cash' insurance fraud cases I can find on the web and which have been brought before the courts were led by members of the south Asian community and primarilly involved members of the same community.  On plus side at least they had insurance in order to defraud!!Search for 'cash for crash convitions' to validate this statement should you wish.

Nigel Brooks ● 4946d

The police can tell from a car numberplate if the vehicle is insured or not. Motorists are prosecuted every day for not having insurance/driving while on their mobiles/going through red lights/speeding. Cyclists never seem to be prosecuted for anything, even when in blatant breach of the law. They also seem to have as little concern for their own safety as they do for that of pedestrians. I have seen them literally charge through red lights into the path of oncoming traffic and couldn't understand how they survived.

Susan Kelly ● 4947d

Tony Gould (far too many Tonys on this thread!)The only solution to your problem is to ban bikes altogether on canal and river tow paths. Either that or ban all pedestrians. There's clearly conflict between the two communities and the paths are narrow any way.

Eric Alan Leach ● 4947d

Eric, you're obviously a self designated arbiter of local justice - maybe you should apply to be a magistrate?Aside from your threat, as someone who has been hit with a stick for the audacity of using a bell to alert a pedestrian on a tow path that I was coming I can only say it's a lose lose situation. Many canal path users listen to headphones, so even if you warn them with a bell you get a mouthful of abuse for "creeping up on them" - and the ones that do hear you often don't move out of the way in any event - the is particularly true of young people ....often the first sign that they intend to have you off your bike and steal it.

Tony Gould ● 4947d

My Eskimo mate next door reckons you're a one man League of Nations and asks if he can be your friend too? Smells like they've got blubber again tonight ;0(

Tony Wood ● 4947d

Re  London is claimed to be 8.4% or one in twelve          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx        at one time I think it was nearer 20% so maybe the purge has had some effect. The problem is basically persons from countries where insuarnce is not compulsory, or countries from where the persons have " fled " and cannot get evidence of  N C B's, even if they had one!, and thus get quoted gross premiums, coupled with the fact many are young, so the problems  mount up. And when the fine for not having insurance is for example 1/10th of the cost of insurance, the temptation is too great. I have known many who prefer to take the risk. And I know the non-disclosures that take place.Don't assume if someone has a licence,it is valid. I have just had a Chinese friend on the phone, been here for 10 years, very nice person and we are great friends, but whose licence is suspect, despite the fact he owns/ drives a 3 ltr Merc. in London. For years an Iraqi friend drove without one, in London, and eventually passed his test at the 10th attempt!. He now does mini-cabbing in a Jag. auto 4 ltr. in central London. It is another mind frame these people live  with. Other than that he has never worked in the 10 yrs he has been here, on all bens possible. The fiddles I have learned that people get up to is frightening.

Tony Price ● 4947d

There is no legal requirement for a bell, only a recommendation in the Highway Code.There is however a legal requirement for front and rear lights, amber pedal reflectors and a red rear reflector.How many would pass that? Potentially a £60 fixed penalty for each missing item, our cash-strapped government is missing a trick here.I cannot understand why ANY road user would go out with defective lights, let alone no lights at all like so many cyclists locally.

Nigel Brooks ● 4947d

Who will be the first one to push an unbelled cyclist into the canal?I must be a candidate for this.

Eric Alan Leach ● 4947d

Your are probably right Tony. Hayes is listed as one of the 'hot' spots by the MIB, although the overall rate for uninsured vehicles in London is claimed to be 8.4% or one in twelve. Ths is 'skewed' by the 'hot' spots in Hayes and Tottenham. Even these though are way behind vast tracts of Birmingham and parts of Bradford which have 16 of the top 20 places for uninsured drivers.What I don't understand is why the penalty is so low. Without insurance, you have no valid Vehicle Excise Licence nor MOT. I guess if you are getting away without one, why bother with the others.It was the case that the ANPR cameras in police vehicles would only pick up the 'untaxed'. They are now linked in to the MIB database as well. The sooner the fine is raised and more untaxed/uninsured/'un-MOT'd' cars are crushed the better.

Nigel Brooks ● 4947d

Re    1 in 10 motorists that drive without the legally required insurance              xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      I think in London it is much higher than that and there is no guarantee those who do have a certificate of insurance have a policy which backs it up due to the doctrine of " utmost good faith " ie that ALL pertinent facts must be disclosed in order for the insurance to be valid. I can well believe there is a lot on non-disclosre for one reason or another.

Tony Price ● 4947d

British Waterways, or whoever is now responsible,has a code of conduct for cyclists on canal tow paths. It is the two rings warning and notices along the Grand Union path repeat this message every so often. So no excuse for cyclists.

Martin C. Harris ● 4947d

There are two issues.The requirement for compulsory insurance.The need to enforce the law where such insurance is compulsory.There is no need for cyclists to carry insurance if you are hit by an uninsured cyclist then, largely, tough and you are reduced to the civil courts. If cyclists have insurance then great but I do doubt that those who flout the LAW about where they ride and having lights/ reflectors would be the ones that bother.Enforcement of the uninsured is becoming more effective. As I posted, over 100,000 (actually it was 141,000) cars were seized last year and over half were crushed (source ABI). The latest ABI figure puts the number of uninsured vehicle at 8.43%The law changed in 2011 and Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) is now in place. This means that there is now a requirement for all vehicles (cycles, as usual excepted) to have ‘constant’ insurance save for vehicles that have been statutorily declared off-road (SORN) This even applies to a car kept in your garage unless SORN has been declared. This has allowed the DVLA, MIB and police to liaise (unbelievably the police have only recently been given unrestricted access to the MIB database) and proactively enforce the law.The nonsense however is that fixed penalty for no insurance is only £100, less than the full cost of a parking ticket, but it’s a start and the Metropolitan Police have declared ‘war’ on uninsured motorists with regular ‘blitzes’ (often at Ealing Common) as this often uncovers other criminality.Finally, the ‘Muppets’ are indeed close to home, riding on the pavements around my area.

Nigel Brooks ● 4947d

Nigel - many of these "muppets" have insurance via their British Cycling, CTC or London Cycling Campaign memberships.Contrast this voluntary use of insurance with the 1 in 10 motorists that drive without the legally required insurance and perhaps the "muppet" here is a bit closer to home?

Tony Gould ● 4947d

My other gripe about cyclists is many of them approach walkers on the canal tow from behind  path like silent, stealth bombers and seem to almost delight in almost mowing me down. The act of having a bell or actually ringing the bell seems beneath their dignity.The only logical conclusion for those who have problems with cyclists is to not only regulate cyclists properly but to licence them. I can see it now - licence plates, MOTs for bikes, Saga competing on insurance rates with Churchill, etc ....And for that matter I don't like the way some people walk down the street and cross busy roads irresponsibly...so maybe we should licence pedestrians....

Eric Alan Leach ● 4947d

REPOSTED (to correct a confusing typo)."Just think of one moment, there are far more road contraventions done by motorists than cyclists. Is this acceptable because your vehicle is faster than a cyclist?"Not at all and I would like to see all 'phoning/ texting while driving' transgressors stopped and fined.As to (lack of) insurance, of course it's wrong and over 100,000 uninsured vehicles were seized last year but at least motorists have to have insurance; unlike the largely uninsured muppets who jump red lights and ride on the pavements on their bicycles.It's not about us and them, although I expected you to take that position, it's about OBEYING THE LAW!You quote 'Rule 139' of the Highway Code; this applies to multi-lane carriageways. You surely mean Rules 163 and 211-215. Familiarity with he current (2007) issue is a pre-requisite if you are going to (mis)quote it. That said The Highway Code is a book of Rules and NOT THE LAW.The law is what cyclists break by riding on the pavement and through red lights (The source of this is....www.bikeHub.co.uk a website by cyclists for cyclists. I only wish more law-breakers would read it!Just for your reference 'Rule 64' of the Highway Code is quite simple and clear64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]

Nigel Brooks ● 4947d

"Just think of one moment, there are far more road contraventions done by motorists than cyclists. Is this acceptable because your vehicle is faster than a cyclist?"Not at all and I would like to see all 'phoning/ texting while driving' transgressors stopped and fined.As to (lack of) insurance, of course it's wrong and over 100,000 unisured vehicles were seized last year but at least motorists have to have insurance unlike the largely uninsured muppets who jump red lights and ride on the pavements on their bicycles.It's not about us and them, although I expected you to take that position, it's about OBEYING THE LAW!You quote 'Rule 139' of the Highway Code; this applies to multi-lane carriageways. You surely mean Rules 163 and 211-215. Familiarity with he current (2007) issue is a pre-requisite if you are going to (mis)quote it. That said The Highway Code is a book of Rules and NOT THE LAW.The law is what which cyclists break by riding on the pavement and through red lights (The source of this is....www.bikeHub.co.uk a website by cyclists for cyclists. I only wish more law-breakers would read it!Just for your reference 'Rule 64' of the Highway Code is quite simple and clear64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]

Nigel Brooks ● 4947d

Nigel is discussing specific instances that he witnessed.Why don't you start your own thread about the daft things you have seen motorists do?

Keith Iddon ● 4948d

Re  in my first post were clearly adults.        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  but we ain't claivoyants and the post just made reference to  cyclists, who could be any age, and I would not regard kids on bikes/trikes with side wheels as falling within the category of cyclists. The main culprits of  fast moving cylists on pavements are those I would assess to be in the age range of 10 to say upper teens. And if they injured someone, the chances of compensation would be remote indeed, as would be their apprehension and fining. Alright in theory, just not in practice, which is what matters.

Tony Price ● 4948d

Nigel,What do you want to hear or read? The reply from me that tells you how many motorists I see daily between Hanwell and Chiswick that are on their phones? Or, as an alternative to the usual argument, how about going in hard with the number of cars and taxis that I see daily that are not roadworthy due to a rear light / brakelight being faulty or not working? Why on earth are you singling out cyclists for their stupidity yet I dont see you make any mention of motorists who speed, run red lights, talk on their mobile phones, make illegal turns (such as the one an aristocratic woman who made a no left turn from Uxbridge Road into Wood Lane - without indicating as well - that knocked me off the bike)or state the number of drivers who are driving illegally because they are uninsured. I believe it is somewhere between one and two out of 10 motorists.Just think of one moment, there are far more road contraventions done by motorists than cyclists. Is this acceptable because your vehicle is faster than a cyclist?We must change this attitude of them (motorists) against us (cyclists). A post like this is going to do nothing to help cyclists get the courtesy from motorists that we need and deserve. Rule 139 from The Highway Code will explain why.

Ben Owen ● 4948d

Hi Nigel,Interesting post.I recently started riding into work - my office is by Trafalgar Square so I have a lot to contend with. I should add at this point that I have stopped riding - why ? Well, I like life and the odds of me not getting knocked off, seriously injured or worse within a couple of months are not favourable. The Uxbridge Road is a minefield of potential injury with buses, vans and poor drivers weaving in and out.As a new commuter cyclist you get into bad habits quickly. I was by Hyde Park sitting at a red light at the front of traffic when I was joined by about 5 or 6 other cyclists who, as soon as the crossing was clear, went through the red light. I was left there on my own with a few odd looks from pedestrians and motorists alike. Cyclists do this as the push bike is not as powerful as the motor engine and they need the head start to get away. I can kind of understand this but riding through a red light when people are crossing is inexcusable and if anyone tries it with me, I will block them and deal with them. Something will have to be done at some point as more and more people are going to cycle in my view as TFL raise fares and employers fail to provide rises that keep up with cost of living expenses.

Bud Richards ● 4948d

Cycling on the pavement atracts a fixed penalty of £60 (in London, £30 elsewhere).It would only take a few of these to be issued for the message to get across. The same applies to red light jumpers.I really have no problem with kids on bikes with stablisers and the like but it's not the kids that are the main problem. All of those I mentioned in my first post were clearly adults.

Nigel Brooks ● 4948d

Re  laws that never seem to be enforced.              xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  problems being many cyclists on pavements are young, so cannot be prosecuted and if young ones let off, unfair on the older riders, such as myself sometimes in certain places, plus bikes have no identification marks so again unless physically held, not much can be done.

Tony Price ● 4948d

There are also by-laws which could be enforced by Parking Attendants.Any councillors reading this care to respond?

Nigel Brooks ● 4948d

There are a raft of laws that never seem to be enforced.How can they be when there are hardly any bobbies about?

Keith Iddon ● 4948d

benefit of all road usersAnd pavement users.

Bernadette Clover ● 4948d