Forum Topic

Cyclists  v. cars  v. pedestrians.

Some car drivers rant against the other two. Some cyclists rage against the other road-users. And some pedestrians complain against those on wheels.  What riles you about any of them?Having been a car driver and a pedal cyclist and a motor cyclist, I have feelings about some fellow road-users.

Gerry Tan ● 4665d140 Comments

Oh oh oh....On my way in this morning I saw a typical car driver in a silver Ford Fiesta with stripe markings in an ASL at the the junction of Hanger Lane and Uxbridge Road. Reg BU12 AAJ. It was a Police car!

Ben Owen ● 4646d

Don';t submit to your prejudices, there are plenty of lovely people on bikes out there, and plenty of aggressive people in cars!I find thinking of cyclists as people, some of whom are lovely, and some of whom are nasty, helps.BTW,using a cycle path is not mandatory and they are more often than not an afterthought that can be downright dangerous (see recent new about a girl getting killed on the super highway in East London). Picture the cycle path on Boston Manor road that "forces" people on bikes to cycle along in the door zone! I mean I don't, I'd never suggest anybody rides along in the door zone, but then you get close passed by some people in cars who think you should be in the (dangerous) cycle lane.

Paul James ● 4647d

When a cyclist riding along the pavement crashes into you (it happened to me a couple of times on King Street when I lived in Hammersmith) how are you meant to identify him (it was a him on each occasion) when you report the incident to the police? White, under 30, wearing shorts and a t-shirt. You're so surprised, they've gone before you take in any more details. Then there are the ones like the female cyclist who screamed at me to get out of her way when I was walking between the bollards to the pedestrians-only passage at the back of The Dove pub in Hammersmith. You don't report it but you end up cursing more cyclists than just the ones who won't even use a cycle path when there is one. I was a cyclist as well as a motorist for many years in Munich, another cycling city, and never experienced the degree of aggressive riding and general road use ignorance that too many cyclists here seem to suffer from. Too self-centred by half.

Sue Rowe ● 4647d

Well said Ben. I agree with all your feelings and convictions about road users - cyclists are the most careful(although there are a very few who are selfish). I have been a cyclist, a motobiker, a car user, I've driven serice lorries and tractors and I am now a pedestrian having driven on roads since the early 1950s - and my views remain the same. And well done for your cooperation with Waitrose' road safety initiatives.Incidentally, which coffee outlet in West Ealing is the best?

Gerry Tan ● 4647d

Any time Ben, I would look forward to buying you a coffee as you are doubtless correct that there are more infringements by car drivers, simply, there are more of us.The real problem is that there is no-one to enforce the infringements.I would love to see a 'swoop' on mobile phone use, drivers who text, those who throw their rubbish out of the window, those who drive with their precious children unrestrained, those who jump red lights, ignore no entry signs and, yes, the pavement riding and red light jumping cyclists.

Nigel Brooks ● 4647d

Nigel, Hanwell to Wandsworth today. One quite serious RTA. Just two cars. No cyclists. No pedestrian. No dogs.Pointless accident. Neither wanted to offer courtesy to the other driver.I bet you a cup of coffee in West Ealing we see more traffic offences / inconsiderate driving committed by cars than we do by cyclists. When do you want to meet up?

Ben Owen ● 4647d

I report buses that jump red lights.If the driver cannot obey the law then he/she shouldn't be driving for a living.

Nigel Brooks ● 4647d

>More cycling through red lights in west Ealing this morning while pedestrians crossed the road.I see people cycling through red lights a lot yes, I'll often have a word with them when I catch them up (or shut after them), but I still can't get that angry about it considering that it's very very very rare that a cyclist will hit a pedestrian on a crossing, but relatively common that a motor vehicle will.To balance this I see cars and buses jumping red lights a lot too.And let's remind ourselves of the relative risk to pedestrians that motorised transport and cyclists present.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090126/text/90126w0003.htm#09012627000041

Paul James ● 4647d

Sounds like it, stating the obvious.Could, of course have been a cyclist and then doubtless they would have sued the owner.More cycling through red lights in west Ealing this morning while pedestrians crossed the road.One day I really hope that one of this minority gets a ruddy good clout from a pedestrian. I shall stop and applaud!

Nigel Brooks ● 4647d

> Although I was not present at the time I am sure that it was not the car driver's fault and I am convinced that the driver could  not see him coming as a direct result of all the banners on the railings.So the car driver came forward at a speed high enough to cause major bruising to your dog, even though they couldn't see properly?Hmmm...

Paul James ● 4647d

Well done.I am agin all forms of dangerous practices on the road - not just those of cyclist as highlighted in this thread.Car drivers like that are a menace.Talking of Waitrose - I wonder if they quite appreciate just how dangerous their displays of plants for sale and various banners tied to the railings have made it for users of the zebra crossing on the way out of their car park?These installations have all but removed the sightlines for drivers coming out of the car park.I would have a word with the management but I feel slightly sheepish as the family dog was hit by a car there a couple of weeks ago and I worry that my observations would seem like an attempt to pass the buck when clearly the ultimate responsibility lies with the person who was in charge of him at the time.  He (the dog) has zero traffic sense and was simply intent on getting to his favoured destination on the other side of the crossing.  Of course he should not have been off the lead on a public highway anyway and ignoring shouted commands to stop and wait he just stepped out.  He was lucky to get away with severe bruising and is now fully recovered.  Although I was not present at the time I am sure that it was not the car driver's fault and I am convinced that the driver could  not see him coming as a direct result of all the banners on the railings.  Fortunately, the natural speed of vehicles at that point is very low, but what if it had been a child...?

Tony Colliver ● 4647d

BenI have admiration for anyone using the cycle lane on King Street it's a nightmare. Not only for cyclists who end up on the wrong side of the road by Dalling Road and having to ride into oncoming traffic to rejoin the carriageway but also for pedestrians who don't realise what the cycle lane is and step out into the path of cyclists. I picked up some poor sod last month when I came out of Maplin's.As to Fulham Palace Road I don't even like driving down it on my way to orthopaedics at Charing cross Hospital. The minicabs are a nightmare and have no positional 'sense'. A sweeping generalisation maybe but based on being cut-up every time I use the road by some muppet in a beat up Toyota or similar.

Nigel Brooks ● 4652d

You are absoultely right about the Waitrose event. It is mind boggling the number of cyclists that I see everyday going down the inside of lorries. On behalf of Ealing Cycling Campaign I asked Waitrose if they were up for doing an 'Exchanging Places' event where a cyclist gets to see the blind spots around a lorry from the drivers cab. They were all too glad to be involved. One cyclist afterwards said to me "ahh, I now get why you should not cycle down the inside of a lorry!"Going by what happened tonight, and the reckless behaviour of just ONE car driver, I am now in a position where I can justifably claim that if one driver is a idiot then it has to be statistically true that all car drivers are a danger to society. Along the Fulham Palace Road going towards Hammersmith a mini cab almost hits a bus as the bus was pulling into a bus stop, hoots at a cyclist (not me) for being in the middle of the road where there is a pinch point (at the Shell petrol station where the roadworks are), forces another cyclist into the kerb and then speeds to try and beat the lights. I have observed all of his erratic driving and speak to him at the lights. I said in a very calm and restrained way "Sir, impatience causes accidents. Will five seconds make any difference to your journey? Please calm down for everybody's sake" Since there was no response, I felt that the message appeared to have got through to his mindless brain. I assumed he had congratulated himself on noticing it.BUT, I was wrong. My expecations were just too excessive. Note to self: need to be firmer, utter expletives to get a response to gauge listening skills. Two minutes later in King Street, just before the junction of Cambridge Grove, this lunatic professional mini cab driver deliberately tries to do me serious harm as he tries to box me in between his car and the kerb by swerving to the left before turning right into Cambridge Grove.  (The best way to picture this is if you imagine a lorry needing to take a big swing to the left to turn right you have then got the idea). I give chase. The driver excessively speeds off down the narrow road that is Canmbridge Grove. He is so desperate to get away from me that he creeps into Glenthorne Road without giving way to oncoming traffic, and as luck would have it, a police car approaches who pulls him over! Gotcha!He almost almost got away with a caution, but before he is told to get on his way I became involved. He is given three penalty points and a £120 fine for the initial offence that the police pulled him over for plus a court appearance looming for dangerous driving once they see the CCTV evidence following my statement. Furthermore, he is likely to have his mini cab licence revoked by the Public Carriage Office. And all because of his impatience to other road users. Despite the warning, he has lost more than he bargained for. This is a daily routine that us cyclists see right across London. Drivers tend to think that it is acceptable to speed, drive dangerously, be selfish and inconsiderate to other road users provided that it does not involve an accident.

Ben Owen ● 4652d

A mother whose cyclist daughter was killed by a lorry has campaigned for better understanding of how and what happens when there is mixed traffic on the road - who can see what and where and how it can be improved.  Didn't Waitrose in Ealing run something on this.  Interesting for all road users to see and know about.As a pedestrian I don't want to be run down by anything coming towards me - particularly at speed - especially when I should have right of way with my turn to cross the lights.  I try not to just walk out in front of anyone and to see if they have noticed me before I step out!Cyclists need to be aware that many people walk because they no longer feel able to drive and that there are many people who do not have good hearing and as the population ages there will be a lot more unless some radical changes happen in the way loss of hearing and the creation of better aids and provision of them is treated.  This riding up fast behind someone and ringing the bell and just expecting them to get out of the way is completely and utterly unacceptable.It is also unacceptable the way in which cycle lanes were just sort of dumped along some roads without proper thought about how tall a cyclist on a bike is and strange changes in the routes where they suddenly stop without proper signage.I wish that all cyclists and motorists and pedestrians would do something about this so that better solutions are found.  I'm sure the users of the space can often find better solutions than those who just stick them on the roads (probably because they got a grant which had to be spent within a certain amount of time or it would be lost - that is how life seems to happen nowadays).  If something is dangerous then complain about it and draw it to other people's attention.  It is even better if you have some ideas about solutions.This website is an interesting one:  www.fixmytransport.comIf we want more people to cycle then we need it to be safer.  I think it is great to hear that so many children are offered cycle training and cycling proficiency tests at school.There are also some very small scooter riders who could do with a talking to about how fast they travel on the pavement, consideration of others using it and NOT just crossing driveways without stopping - as well as those supposedly in charge of them.

Philippa Bond ● 4653d

PS to my eternal shame I failed my Cycling Proficiency when I was 8 or so. I couldn't identity the "Stop --- Children Crossing" sign when there were no words on it. Trick question if you ask me. ;)

Andrew Mcauley ● 4653d

Endangered? No. Annoyed? Yes. Again. No Cycling. Why should I be woken from my reveries because some galoot wishes to teach his children that you only have to obey the traffic signs you wish to? And how does the cyclist know I'm not deaf in any case?On other paths which the council deem wide enough to accommdate both pedestrians AND cyclists I don't have to get out of the way. And you know why? Because they're wide enough for pedestrians and cyclists. I don't walk in cycle lanes, I don't expect cyclists in footpaths.Prosecution seems like a good start - thanks for the idea. There was a time in this country when you didn't need to pass a test to drive a car. I'm sure the rearguard complained when compulsory testing was introduced. Heck the CBT for motorcyclists was only introduced in the 90s before then anyone could just get on a small motorcycle with no training/testing whatsoever.Reminds me of another cyclist who blithely explained that the "No Cycling" sign meant "Cycle Path". AS HMHB have it  too many pyschopaths, not enough cycle paths.

Andrew Mcauley ● 4653d

I wouldn't ride along a footpath where I'm not allowed to and I'd strongly recommend others do the same.However, the entirety of Cheyne Walk in Chelsea for instance is shared use with no demarkation, so is the path across Chiswick bridge, and many bits of Ealing have shared use paths.If people on bikes striking pedestrians was such a big issue would such shared paths exist?

Paul James ● 4653d

That's a bit like saying the only way to ensure you won't get burgled is insisting that you put bars on your windows and turn your house into Fort Knox...otherwise you are fair game and it's your faulty.The main way of ensuring cyclists don't break the law by cycling on the footpath is to uphold the law.At the risk of repeating what me and several others have said,WALK your bike on the footpath by all means but you are a danger to mixed pedestrians otherwise.You need to leave earlier if this upsets your schedule.

Keith Iddon ● 4653d

We seen the sentiment expressed on this very forum (and it exist big time in attitudes I read and listen to every day) that "cyclists" don't obey the rules of the road, don't pay  road tax and ride on pavements, therefore nothing should be spent on cycling infrastructure.Thing is, as far as I can see the only way to ensure people don't feel the need to ride along the pavement is to ensure they feel safe riding on the road, which requires spending money.And there we have it, everything stays the same.

Paul James ● 4653d

Cycling proficiency compulsory?To do that you'd need to introduce some sort of licensing scheme right, like a car test?Are you going to prosecute people who cycle without having done it?Who is going to record who has done it, the DVLA? How much will that cost the taxpayer?Whilst I'd encourage everybody to get some proper training for riding a bike a compulsory scheme just ain't going to happen I'm afraid!Did you really feel endangered by the guy on the cycle?What do you do when you walk on other paths where shared use is legal?And yes, I agree, a bell on a bike should not mean get out of my way, just that I am here, just like a horn on a car.

Paul James ● 4653d

On my favourite topic :) walking along Baillie's Walk I became aware of a cyclist behind me - well I became aware of the ringing of a cycle bell - designed of course to alert other road users to their presence, not to ask them to move. Eventually I asked why they were cycling when there was a clear "No Cycling" sign on the entrance they had used."That means pedestrians have priority" replied the mid thirties man with his son on the back. I can't even get my head around that one. Whilst that isn't what it means, if I DO have priority why aren't you getting off and walking until you can safely pass me in a wider section?

Andrew Mcauley ● 4654d

I walk most places, combined with using the tube and bus. Occasionally I cycle. My main worry as a pedestrian is cars, which can be a threat to people on the pavement and probably more so than bikes. Every so often cars do end up swerving into bus stop queues or going into people's living rooms. They also go through red lights when I'm trying to use crossing points. There is also the issue of noise, air pollution and road congestion - do the drivers on this forum really want to share their roads with more drivers and sit in even longer traffic jams? More people cycling and using public transport means more space for you on the roads!

Emily Heath ● 4654d

It is about inconsiderate road and pavement users.there must be a lot of little bumps of car and car which only causes a little damage to the vehicles.Many of the people using the pavement no longer travel by car and bicycle and the damage done may not seemingly be as serious but may in fact also be life-changing and may mean the end of independence.It would be good for there to be more consideration given to those who use the pavement and who are already living fairly dangerously by just doing that.

Philippa Bond ● 4654d

E.g. this is what we should be getting angry about:"During 2007 there were 23,210 personal injury road traffic collisions reported to the police in the Greater London area. Of these collisions, 5,089 (22%) involved injury to one or more pedestrian and resulted in 5,252 pedestrian casualties."That's one YEAR!http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ped-casualties-in-greater-london-march-2009.pdf

Paul James ● 4655d

It is weird.A fair few jump lights and act like idiots.But then so do some car users.People killed by cyclists in London in past ten years, two I think.By cars, hundreds and hundreds.But you very rarely see people taking to the internet to rage about "drivers".I'd love to understand the physcology behind this.

Paul James ● 4655d

Its clear from the varied responses that there are strong sentiments against cyclists.  That's strange 'cos my observations of the pedal fraternity very much sees them as the 'white knights' of road users.  Mind you, there are a very few cyclists who send the heebeegeebies up me, as I am now a non car user and walk everywhere. But in the main, they are a sensible lot imo.

Gerry Tan ● 4655d

Mine states "motor vehicles", I suspect the definition of vehicle in yours actually means "motor vehicles" too.Regardless, always a good idea to have specific insurance for cycling, it's just never ever going to be mandatory, and those hoping it will be are just wasting their time.

Paul James ● 4655d

An 'insurance education, programme would be a good idea.The legal protection on my home insurance specifically excludes " 1.4 Any event involving a vehicle where the named policy holder is in control of the vehicle"; so worth checking.

Nigel Brooks ● 4655d

I'd argue against compulsion as it would be an administrative nightmare (any country that has had compulsory insurance for cyclists has long since scrapped it), but I would argue for greater education that getting insurance is a good idea.I happen to have specific third party insurance for cycling, it costs me £25 a year which sort of indicates what sort of a problem insurers think cyclists are.To add, many things a cyclist might need in the event of a crash, such a legal cover, are already available to cyclists under their home insurance. So, for me, no to compulsary insurance.And as we know, it's simply never going to happen anyway.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15892074

Paul James ● 4655d

PaulI still think that compulsary insurance is a good idea if only to protect the cyclist from unlimited liabilities should they cause an accident. Most policies also carry 'Legal Protection' insurance to help the cyclist recover otherwise uninsured losses and to engage legal advice should ther third party contest the cyclists claim.It was certainly very useful when the idiot who knocked my daughter's ex-fiance off his bike and then said that he had ridden into him.For around £40/year thats under 80p per week it's a great idea and I would like to see a degree of compulsion.

Nigel Brooks ● 4655d

Somebody called Paul from Ealing (not me) phoned Boris on his ask Boris  show the other day:"Boris , when are cyclists going to be made to pay road tax, have compulsory insurance and be made to obey road laws".Johnson emphatically stated cyclists will never pay road tax or be required to carry compulsory insurance, so I hope we can put these two to bed now. Not going to happen, those arguing for it are wasting their efforts.I saw two police booking a cyclist for riding along the pavement in Notting Hill the other day so we can put that one to bed too., cyclist do have to obey the law, and if they don't they are open to being stopped just like any other road user.

Paul James ● 4655d

Shook until 12 to make you aware that it was uncool to be met at the gates? :-)  You're lucky.It's either the baleful 'daaad' or being ignored that you have to get used to. it doesn't last too long as the desire for lifts to friend's houses or collection from parties soon kicks in!

Nigel Brooks ● 4657d

I've only read some of the posts here as this subject is turning into a bit of a marathon thread, but will state as a cyclist I do tend to try to follow the rules as much as possible. This includes not going through red lights, although sometimes one can feel a bit of a mug stopping at pedestrian crossing lights on red when there aren't any pedestrians and there would be no danger at all just going through. I still stop though, not for safety but as a car driver I know how irritating it can be seeing cyclists who blatantly don't stop. I have a dilemma at the moment, though, as my 12 year old daughter is now cycling from home (north Ealing) to Twyford High School. I've made it clear to her that now she's on a full size bike I'm not happy about her cycling on paths (unless its permitted), both for legal reasons and safety, so she's on the road. Currently I'm escorting her both ways, trying to drum into her the best way to cycle on the road around traffic, but she's just not safe (in my opinion, not her's!) to be left alone yet. This is largely because when she's leading, she just doesn't seem to be aware of cars behind her and where to position herself when turning etc. Also she's quite slow which doesn't help. All in all I'd prefer her to go on the path for safety but she can't, she's just going to have to stick to the roads and hopefully gain more road awareness.Now she's at high school its seemingly very "uncool" to be met by a parent at the gate, so my hope is that by insisting I do so until she gets more road aware may focus her mind!

Chris Bennett ● 4657d

Sarcasm or not, any collision or the potential damage it could cause is less likely because of the lower speeds and mass involved. Simple physics.Your suggestion to walk the bike when pavement is too crowded is common sense.Agreed on the rest, especially on that the reason why cyclists ride on the pavement is because the are too scared to use the roads.

Tom Carroll ● 4657d

Have to agree I don't like Xenon lamps but many are so poorly adjusted as to be outright dangerous.lots of drivers fit high power halogen replacements for their 'ordinary' headlamps without any thought about adjusting them which is an instant MOT failure.As to your earlier question about enforcement of ether pavement cycling or drivers using mobiles, the latter would get my vote every time. Increase the fine to £1000 and six points, it's simply bloody dangerous, no argument.

Nigel Brooks ● 4658d

It's specifically illegal to "dazzle" other road users with one's light, and yes, some of the modern LED lights are too powerful, but then I find dipped xenon headlights in cars way more powerful than anything I've seen on a bike.

Paul James ● 4658d

> Well, it might be for the person on the bikeQuite.> I ride 35 miles across London every day.You are to be applauded  but really, at this level, you are amongst a cadre of the stellar elite of ordinary cyclists and so are hardly typical - especially when it comes to having all the best kit no doubt - lights included.Here's one for you: do cyclists realise how annoying having flashing lights is?  I know it is legal now,  but to have a flashing white light catch you in the eye, well, it is almost blinding at times, especially as modern LEDs become more and more powerful.  It certainly reduces safety and causes an otherwise unnecessary reduction in speed (no doubt you will see this as a good thing :-) ) in just the same way as when confronted with poorly adjusted car headlights coming the other way.The vision of the closing driver can be compromised - sometimes to a considerable extent.It is not for nothing that camera manufacturers cause their equipment to issue a pre-flash for red eye reduction.  This causes an immediate contraction of the pupil which can last for several seconds - thus compromising the driver's vision for the same amount of time.Modern LED front lights, with their instant step change on output, have the same effect.

Tony Colliver ● 4658d

I agree with you with respect to the choices that the Police have to make.Enforcement would be great if we had the manpower but we do not.  Ultimately the police are not the answer anyway.Did enforcement of the drink-drive laws result in the sea change in the public's attitude towards this issue over the last 25 years or so?I would argue that it did not.What changed was that it became a matter of shame amongst one's peers to be found to engage in it.What is required is a heightened sense of personal responsibility and civic duty with respect to the rights of others rather than the (literally) unthinking selfishness that there is all too much of these days.And a bit more shame (personal or publicly induced) with regard to the actions of adult individuals engaged in these anti-social practices wouldn't go amiss either.Unfortunately, trendy theories seem to have banished the concept of all shame to the history books in recent years on the back of the (correct) view that an adult pouring heavy scorn on and inducing a feeling of shame in a child is a bad thing - thus almost literally proving the maxim re baby's and bathwater in the process!

Tony Colliver ● 4658d

>Riding without lights is.I ride 35 miles across London every day.99% of people on bikes I see are lit up like xmas trees, a small, tiny, minority are not. Neither is an unlit cyclist a major safety issue that it's made out to be I'm afraid. Well, it might be for the person on the bike, although any vehicle driver that hits an unlit cyclist really probably should be looking at their speed and observation skills.I see some people on bikes without lights when driving my car, but I do see them and I've never come close to hitting one.

Paul James ● 4658d

>No road user is perfect but cycling on the pavement is simply against the law. I would like to see it, and other road laws, rigidly enforced.So would I, but the police have to make a choice about what they spend their time on, and for me, pavement cycling is well down the list.E.g. Would you rather have your police officer spending time booking people for cycling on the pavement or drivers using mobile phones?

Paul James ● 4658d

There are two separate but very closely intertwined threads running together in this current topic discussion.One concerns the wilful disregard of many cyclists for the basic rules of the road and the other, far more serious, relates to the question of cyclist (and pedestrian) safety.The former causes immense annoyance.  However, at the time the cyclist concerned is usually fully aware that they are breaking a rule and are therefore super tuned-in to the possibility of another vehicle squishing them.  Consequently, though considerable annoyance is caused to other road users, the cyclist concerned is relatively safe because they would not be making the illegal manoeuvre had their own personal instant risk assessment not decided it was safe for them to do so.  Result: few injuries to cyclists in this scenario.In terms of night time conduct, dark clothing may not be advised but it is far and away not the worst issue.  Riding without lights is.I can only assume that the cyclists that engage in this one are ignorant of how they appear when doing so in the eyes of a car driver otherwise logic dictates that a simple application of the personal risk assessment as employed when jumping lights would ensure that they simply would not do it. Period.

Tony Colliver ● 4658d

"It was not the car driver's fault. However, to give backing to Emily's point, if it involved a collision with a cyclist the same life changing injuries would not have occurred. "I can only cite the elderly lady who was a good friend of my family who was knocked down on the pavement on a Sunday morning leaving my local church by a cyclist riding on the pavement.She shattered her hip and, basically, became housebound until she died. It certainly changed her life! No road user is perfect but cycling on the pavement is simply against the law. I would like to see it, and other road laws, rigidly enforced.The same applies to cars with defective lights, which really riles me as it is often an indication of the 'care and attention' paid to the rest of the vehicle. Still, it's better than no lights at all!!!

Nigel Brooks ● 4658d

Nigel,Yes there has been a fall in the number of serious injuries/ deaths involving cars, but no doubt you also know there has been a bigger percentage fall in the number of car journeys in the same period so proportionally injuries have increased.Although there has been a rise in the number of injuries sustained by (pedestrians and) cyclists, this is completely outweighed by the larger increase of number of people walking and cycle journeys, so proportionally there has been a reduction in the number of injuries sustained. Not forgetting to add the health benefits in cycling too.As it happens The Institute of Advanced Motorists are lobbying the government to force car manufacturers to make radical changes to the front of cars, so that vunerable road users get the same 5 star protection of treatment as those afforded to passengers sitting in the vehicle. As some of you will have heard an awful accident happened yesterday involving a pedestrian and a car in Greenford. Air ambulance, seven police cars and one ambulance attended. My understanding was that a man walked out into the road when the lights went green. It was not the car driver's fault. However, to give backing to Emily's point, if it involved a collision with a cyclist the same life changing injuries would not have occurred.

Ben Owen ● 4658d

"Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury"http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Paul James ● 4658d

I saw a motorcyclist with a hi viz jacket on once. IT had written on it"I'm only wearing this to cover somebody else's arse"Which about sums up my (personal) attitude to reflective  clothing.Many people drive cars too fast at night when it's more difficult to see, outwith the scope of their headlights ability to show them their surroundings.

Paul James ● 4658d

Before we start blaming people on bikes for their behaviour in relation to an increase in cycling casualties let's look at some stats that show that cyclists are rarely at fault in car on cycle crashes.http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3758677.ece

Paul James ● 4658d

I have two acquaintances who were both seriously injured by hit and run drivers in the past three years. They were cycling on the road in day time according to road rules. One of them has had their life changed forever after her leg had to be amputated.You have to ask yourself why cyclists resort to riding on pavements. Perhaps because there is not enough space for them on some roads and because there is a high risk of injury on busy roads. Both the drivers who injured my acquaintances got  to drive off with no consequences, not even stopping to look back. Pedestrians, cyclists and drivers all disobey rules sometimes. Humans are not perfect. The difference is that the pedestrians and cyclists pose little risk to drivers, whereas when a pedestrian or cyclist gets ploughed into by a huge metal machine going at speeds of 30 miles an hour plus it can change their life forever.

Emily Heath ● 4658d

The denial is about the percentage of cyclists that break the rules.Some of us are arguing that a very high percentage of cyclists ride on pavements and ignore the rules on lights - both those they should be stopping at and those they should be displaying on their cycles after dark.Tony is simply pointing out that a quick straw poll bears out those complaining about this behaviour and not those denying that it is a widespread phenomenon.

Tony Colliver ● 4658d

And through red lights and without lights at night and without reflective clothing at night.120 cyclists killed on our roads last year, the only sector with an increase in a year when the figures for deaths/serious injuries are steadily falling as the majority of road users take more care.

Nigel Brooks ● 4658d

Less likely?I don't think so.I suspect you'll find that the original "I can't figure it out" remark was intended as sarcasm.As somebody else has already stated elsewhere in this thread - if as a cyclist you are too scared to mix it with the traffic on the road then get off and *WALK*.Don't try and mix it with the pedestrians just for your own convenience.Do I support the education of drivers to ensure the safety of cyclists?Yes I do.Do I think this happy turn of events is likely any time soon?No, I don't.Maybe with the coming of autonomous motor vehicles which are controlled by computer and drive themselves, but not before - sadly.

Tony Colliver ● 4658d

What denial?Denial big river in Egypt..

Keith Iddon ● 4658d

What denial?Nobody is denying that some people cycle on the pavement where they shouldn't be.

Paul James ● 4658d

QEDCue the denial...........

Nigel Brooks ● 4658d

Well that’s one out of what 12 or 13 not a bad average. Today after reading this blog I stood on my balcony which overlooks a busy road, in the time I was there all of about 10 minutes I counted the number of cyclists that rode past 4 in total 1 on the road and 3 cycling on the foot path.  So I don’t really care for facts and figures quoted by yourself or TFL I can only rely on what I see. I don’t drive with my eyes closed I spend at least two thirds of my working day driving and I give due care and consideration to those on bikes that are actually riding on the road I have hands free fitted to all my vehicles I never text while driving and usually am aware of at least 3 vehicles ahead I have driven the outback of Australia and high density traffic in Tokyo so I think it must be you who’s blinded by your own aura that can’t see. Again while writing this I stood out on the balcony and saw another 4 cyclists 2 with front lights only 1 with front and rear 1 with none at all 3 on the path and 1 on the road .

Tony Maxey ● 4658d

A collision at 5mph on a pavement between a pedestrian and a cyclist: less likely due to lower speeds and the end result probably nothing more than a few broken bones.A collision on the road at 30mph between a motor vehicle and a cyclist: death.Hope this helps you to figure it out.

Tom Carroll ● 4658d

BTW Ben, have you been keeping up with the thread, as I believe there are at least three posts from me that provide a measure of balance by agreeing with other posters regarding the sins of other road users?Or have you been too busy out cycling?  :-)

Tony Colliver ● 4658d

You mistake my criticism of cyclists to be exclusive amongst road using groups.It is not.All other categories of road users, pedestrians included, have their own litany of sins to atone for.I condone none of them and indeed agree with your observations re car drivers.  I think it outrageous that unthinking and unseeing car drivers pose such a danger to cyclists.I rarely feel it necessary to spell them out though, as I find the cycling lobby usually does a more than adequate job of that.In answer to your question - cyclists doing the right thing at traffic lights does not annoy me.Oh, and I *NEVER* transgress on the green boxes at lights set aside for cyclists.There.  Are you feeling better now?

Tony Colliver ● 4658d

I'm not complaining that private transport is subsidised, far from it, we all need roads and transport.

Paul James ● 4658d

>Never seen a cyclist do  any of these.You must be walking round with your eyes shut then, or worse driving round with your eyes shut!You've never seen a cyclist after dark with a white light at the front and red at the rear?Seriously?

Paul James ● 4658d

Never seen a cyclist do  any of these.TfL advice to Cyclists Be aware of the driver's blind spot when passing lorries and buses. It's often safer to hang back. Pay attention to what is going on around you and be aware of what other road users might do. Try to make eye contact with drivers so that you know they have seen you. Ride assertively, away from the gutter. If the road is too narrow for vehicles to pass you safely, it may be better to ride in the middle of the lane to prevent dangerous overtaking. Ride in a straight line past parked cars, rather than dodge between them, and allow at least a full door's width between you in case the doors are suddenly opened. Wait in front of other vehicles at traffic lights. Use the advanced stop line for cyclists if there is one. Don't ride through red traffic lights. You may be fined £30. Use appropriate hand signals when making a left or right turn. Wear bright clothing in the day and reflective clothing or accessories at night. Use lights after dark; white at the front and red at the rear. You may be fined £30 if you don't have them. Consider wearing a helmet.

Tony Maxey ● 4659d

Tony, what you're doing is called bias on selection.

Paul James ● 4659d

Tony,God, I would have loved it if you had been on my stop-at-every-red-light 75 mile ride around London last Sunday. Well, twenty-eight cyclists did as we criss crossed seventeen boroughs, seven parks, one canal, one ferry, four sports stadia and wait for it: 169 traffic lights. (The Shooters Hill lights take a bloody age to change)If you had come, would you know what a cyclist should do on an approach to a red light with traffic behind them? Tony, be a sport, please can you post your answer to my question. (Here's a hint: it might annoy car drivers!)I saw a horrific accident on Hanwell Broadway on Wednesday evening outside Gold's gym. Four police cars, two ambulances in attendance caused by a car driver knocking down a pedestrian. Not a cyclist to be seen. Anywhere. We don't need reminding that all car drivers are the same. They never look; they weave in and out of traffic; go too fast and could not give a damm about anybody else. Oh, wait, they also think that the first roads were built for cars.

Ben Owen ● 4659d

When it comes to cycling and jumping red lights generalising is in reasonable order because such a high percentage of them *DO* ignore red lights.You are one of a very small minority.When I see someone like you on a bike obeying the rules of the road I am startled - delighted, but startled.

Tony Colliver ● 4659d

Yep, an accurate summary of my own position as well - just for the record.

Tony Colliver ● 4659d

Now that strikes me as rubbish.I don't have any statistics or links to back me up but honestly, to suggest that pedestrians or drivers are more at risk of head injury is a nonsense.Now, if we consider the position of each of those categories of person when involved in a collision (which I presume is what you were really trying to imply):Car hits pedestrian: yep, pedestrian comes off worse, but very few (relatively) get hit by a car.  car driver - usually unhurt.Car hits cyclist: potential for serious harm to cyclist - very high; potential for serious harm to car driver - very low indeed.But yes, I believe that cycle helmets should be a matter of choice.

Tony Colliver ● 4659d

Ditto and ditto.

Tony Colliver ● 4659d

Yes, I have.They do it because it is easier.Literally because it is easier - pavements typically present a lower rolling resistance for example - especially if their tyre pressures are poorly maintained - which may are.They also think it is okay to intimidate and endanger pedestrians because they feel intimidated and endangered by the traffic on the road.Sorry - two wrongs don't make a right.

Tony Colliver ● 4659d

Context Gerry, context.I said "often wished".I haven't actually done it.I'm sure we all occasionally wish for something we shouldn't.I did challenge a pavement rider once and his response was "I can take you!".My thoughts were that the safety of my kids, who were accompanying me at the time, still quite young and walking along the pavement that this idiot was riding on was well worth enduring a mouthful from the thoughtless 20 something who was perfectly capable of riding on the road.

Tony Colliver ● 4659d

Likewise Paul.Indeed,stop generalising.

Keith Iddon ● 4660d

I'd class myself as a cyclist and don't jump red lights and don't think he's above the law.I'm very courteous when I drive my car.Please stop generalising.

Paul James ● 4660d

Is that Mr Toad of Toad Hall Denis? I am a motorist and sorry,I have never laboured with that particular crisis of identity.

Keith Iddon ● 4660d

most motorists think they are Mr TOAD.CYCLIST IGNORE RED LIGHTS AND THINK THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW.

DENIS WILLIAM HAWKINS ● 4660d

Oh God forbid we should spend money "unknowingly" (naïve in the extreme)  on things we don't like. I subsidised an illegal war in Iraq, I subsidise air transport, I subsidise benefits for illegal immigrants.I don't like it but I have no choice.Why don't you try getting 326 'pro-cycling, let's not spend money on our transport infrastructure and see how long before the shelves are empty as you can't carry many sacks of potatoes on a bike' MP's elected.

Nigel Brooks ● 4660d

Very gracious and fair do's.

Keith Iddon ● 4660d

Yup, apologies keith, getting you mixed up with others!

Paul James ● 4660d

I have never said 'cyclists do this cyclists do that'so why the quotation marks? I have said 'cyclists who' do something which,if you had an ounce of common you would automatically know could not refer to all cyclists.

Keith Iddon ● 4660d

It is axiomatic that the research, funded by the European Cycling Federation, will be supportive of their position.I cannot find any comprehensive, peer reviewed, research that proves that helmets are a bad thing.Still, until there is legislation to the contrary, I am content that cyclists can risk serious injury through choice.It seems futile to point out the number of lives that motorcycle helmets have saved as the safety standards for cycle helmets are way lower. Perhaps this is the starting point. It would be interesting to see how many cyclists would be willing to purchase a 'proper' helmet, buy insurance and abide by all of the other rules with which other road users have to comply if it was legislated.

Nigel Brooks ● 4661d

>Fact is,if I was going to bang my head on the edge of a kerbstone at 12 mph I'd quite like to have some energy absorbing material betwixt kerb and bonce.Simply wearing a helmet can make it more likely you crash. A good rounded article here with lots of links.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmetMe? I'm strongly opposed to compulsion and strongly for freedom of choice regarding cycle helmets, but would hope as our road environment start getting more cycle friendly again we'll see less and less helmets and hi viz.

Paul James ● 4661d

I'm much more at risk from head injury as a pedestrian or driver and I don't wear a silly bit of polystyrene on my head to do those things...That said I believe it should be down to personal choice.

Paul James ● 4661d

Feel free to cycle without, it's only your head and potential catastrophic brain injury / quadriplegia after all!

Nigel Brooks ● 4661d

Actually you can make statistic prove almost anything you like.  I just Googled the numbers of UK and Danish cyclist deaths, UK in 2012= 122 Denmark in 2008= 54, population in UK approx 60 million,Denmark 5 million,thus proving (in a silly way) that it's 12 times safer to cycle in the UK.  Fact is,if I was going to bang my head on the edge of a kerbstone at 12 mph I'd quite like to have some energy absorbing material betwixt kerb and bonce.

Tony Wood ● 4661d

>Andrew Mcauley>I feel sorry for the mothers with prams and small children making their way to school along this dangerous route.Dangerous? I think it's highly unlikely there has ever been a cyclist on pedestrian crash there, or ever will be.And whilst not condoning cycling where you shouldn't, there are plenty of official shared paths in Ealing and town where cyclists and pedestrians get along fine.Again, some perspective please, let's be clear where the real dangers are (where people are killed and seriously injured) and concentrate on those please.

Paul James ● 4661d

google is your friend:http://www.ecf.com/advocary/road-safety/helmets-and-reflective-vests/http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

Paul James ● 4661d

Well, as a helmet saved my daughter's fiancé's life when a car side swiped him and the helmet left a significant dent in the 'A' pillar of the car I am a staunch advocate of helmets.What evidence is there that they "actually increase the danger to cyclists in many ways". Please quote the sources of this.

Nigel Brooks ● 4661d

Cycle helmets mandatory?No no no no no no.It would kill cycling overnight (which I'm sure is why some might like to see them made mandatory).Lots of evidence to show that helmets actually increase the danger to cyclists in many ways. Mandating helmet wearing would drastically reduce the amount of cycling, increased cycling is the main thing that's going to make it safer as more people demand a safer cycling environment.Biggest cycling nations in the world, you won't see a helmet (or hi viz).http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/mikael-of-copenhagenize-on-why-we-should-not-wear-bike-helmets.html

Paul James ● 4661d

Ok Paul, I'll accept that - but dangerous no ? Surely has to be mandatory or do you have another view ?

Bud Richards ● 4661d

>And then there are those that ride like idiots, hands off the handlebars, no helmets, poor visibility, overloaded bike with shopping, smoking, listening to music and riding on pavements to name but a few.Not wearing a helmet means you're riding like an idiot?

Paul James ● 4661d

If you don't mean all cyclist you need to be careful of the language you use."cyclists do this, cyclists do that" is VERY different from "Some cyclists do this, some cyclists do that".

Paul James ● 4661d

I DON'T repeat DON'T dislike or hate cyclists despite my 'ranting' to the contrary.I dislike any road user who breaks the law whether it is 'red light jumpers' in cars, users of handheld mobile phones or texters (actually I don't dislike them, I detest them and would impound their vehicles) or the minority of cyclists who believe that they are above the law by cycling on the pavement and through red lights.

Nigel Brooks ● 4661d

I frequently use a footpath in Ealing that the council agree is too narrow for mixed use so have cynically placed a virtually unreadable "No Cycling" sign at one entrance, a clear sign at another entrance and no signs at all at another three entrances to the footpath. I actually had to ask a PCSO to dismount a few months ago as he hadn't seen the signs - that's how hidden they are.Frequent complaints to the relevant department fall on deaf ears due to their pro-cycling agenda. In the meantime I continue to have to dodge cyclists whooshing past pell-mell.  I feel sorry for the mothers with prams and small children making their way to school along this dangerous route.

Andrew Mcauley ● 4661d

Who said anything about 'hating cyclists'? I people think I do,then I have never heard anything so daft.I dislike cyclists on footpaths.Clear now?

Keith Iddon ● 4661d

The problem with many cyclists (I am not saying the majority before some pro-cycling hippy jumps down my throat) is that they are not proficient enough to ride on the road - they're not fit enough and cannot cope with the physical demands and cause issues for other road users. Or, you have those that have no road sense whatsoever - those who will take a long bend and instead of following the kerb, will take the direct route and dangerously cut in front of a car (this happened to us this morning at the top of Castlebar Hill). And then there are those that ride like idiots, hands off the handlebars, no helmets, poor visibility, overloaded bike with shopping, smoking, listening to music and riding on pavements to name but a few.These are the ones that make it bad for the good cyclists. I'm not sure what the answer is as regulating it would be near impossible to police. I’d be interested to learn whether regular cyclists feel that regulation is the way forward ?I also believe that the roads are not wide enough in the main for 2 directional traffic, the cars parked either side of the road AND cyclists. This is not the fault of the cyclist, but the motorised vehicle will always prevail.I agree that there are some AWFUL drivers out there but they will have their time eventually and get caught. Personally, I take my hat off to cyclists as I firmly believe that anyone who chooses to commute in London on a bicycle is quite mental. Having tried it last year (I live in Hanwell, work in Central London), I was literally terrified by the experience and will not be doing it again and I feel that I can cope with the physical and mental demands required for such a ride. It's just too dangerous and I'd like to see my 50th birthday!Cheers!BR

Bud Richards ● 4661d

'People like me...'?You mean people who have similar experiences of some rude cyclists cycling on footpaths and are not afraid to enter into a discussion about it and give a pedestrians view?I was going to say fair play to you and whoever else walks their bike on the footpath,like you should but I must admit I have rarely seen this being done.And,btw,please point out where I decry ALL cyclists because it would be news to me.Please keep it civil.

Keith Iddon ● 4661d

Why do so many people seem to hate cyclists? Personally, I rather like 'em. Its the car users, many of whom are the villains, whom I detest.

Gerry Tan ● 4661d

>Breaking news...pavements are full of pedestrians.How dare they impede cyclists on the FOOTPATH.I'm just saying that the assertion that riding on a footpath is easier than riding on a road and that's why some people do it doesn't have a basis in reality.>What do you think of the idea of walking with your bike on the footpath if you don't feel safe on certain parts of the road.I think it's reasonable and considerate.Is that too much to ask?It's what I do. E.g. Notting hill at the moment is closed off, 99% of cyclists I see, including me, walk their bikes, you see the occasional one riding on the footpath, but they are in a tiny minority, but obviously stick out like a sore thumb, so apparently people like you transcribe their behaviour to ALL cyclists.

Paul James ● 4661d

See this study, it's europe wide but indicates the taxpayer subsidises the road network and motoring by quite some margin.http://www.allianz-pro-schiene.de/eng/press/press-releases/2012/13-new-study-taxpayers-unknowingly-subsidise-road-transport/

Paul James ● 4661d

Breaking news...pavements are full of pedestrians.How dare they impede cyclists on the FOOTPATH.What do you think of the idea of walking with your bike on the footpath if you don't feel safe on certain parts of the road.I think it's reasonable and considerate.Is that too much to ask?

Keith Iddon ● 4661d

>Tony Colliver>They do it (ride on the pavements) because it is easier for them.Have you thought that through?Pavements are full of lamp posts bins, broken paving, kerbs, pedestrians and all other manner of street furniture, so I'm not sure it's because it's easier.

Paul James ● 4661d

"...my arm out at face height as they approach.  (Or, failing that, thrust a hockey stick into their spokes.)"What a vicious cynical action from a bloke who is usually a kind, pleasant, affable, erudite and considerate gentleman!  What's the world coming to?

Gerry Tan ● 4661d

Agree with all those!  Also include train passengers in the last one.

Philippa Bond ● 4661d

Drivers who think they're too important to stop at zebra crossings. I quite often have four or five cars go past before one stops for me. Also, drivers who carry on through red lights whilst the green man is going and pedestrians are trying to cross. Happens surprisingly often. Motor bikers who have really noisy bikes that can be heard for miles around. Anyone who throws litter on the road. I once saw an old man on the bus throw his empty can of drink out of the window. Disgusting and dangerous. Bus/tube passengers who have a very tired bag that needs a seat of its own.

Emily Heath ● 4661d

I've been like a tiger these past few days! Just  watching, prowling, hiding in the woods, but all the time taking a keen eye on this thread. I like the fact that my cubs are having a delicious meal and getting a good feed from the gas guzzlers of Ealing! By now, I hope Paul's posts have explained that it is not mandatory to use any cycle path where one is provided, but is put there to help a cyclist if they feel less confident about using that stretch of road. I had a great ride on Friday along the A4 from Hammersmith Broadway to Sutton Court Road. It was definitely quicker and safer to use the road. Traffic was at a standstill, the footpath was busy with pedestrians and traffic was noticeably trying to rat run which would have meant that I would have had to come to a halt at every turning as a driver made a last minute decision to alter course.  Anyway, the A4 is nothing. Speed limit is only a miserly 40mph. Now let's talk about the A52 Nottingham to Grantham road. 60mph speed limit (means cars are doing 70+); HGV's up your backside every minute; foxes and foals lying dead on the road and a huge headwind. Yuk. Thirteen miles of fast moving traffic on your shoulder is not enjoyable, but it had to be done, and I am allowed to do it.

Ben Owen ● 4661d

They do it (ride on the pavements) because it is easier for them.I have often wished that I had the courage to hold my arm out at face height as they approach.  (Or, failing that, thrust a hockey stick into their spokes.)

Tony Colliver ● 4661d

Paul, come down to Boston Road any morning or evening rush hour. Loads of cyclists happy to share the road space but, sadly, more than a handful of selfish peddlers happy to weave around pedestrians.Two pinch points are by Boston Manor station where a pavement cyclist will surely be assaulted soon by someone exiting the station onto the pavement or trying to cross the road and down by Wickes where the pavement narrows as it turns the bend.Add to that those who insist on riding at night with no lights or reflective clothing and I am amazed that there are not more cycling fatalities.

Nigel Brooks ● 4661d

How many people get killed?That's not really the issue imo.I do know of one old lady who was knocked over,broke her hip and the berk on the bike carried on as if nowt had happened.She died within 6 months.If cyclists don't feel safe on certain parts of the road,get off and walk with your bike on the footpath by all means and then remount when you see a 'safe' part of the road.Or is it that their urgency is much more important than my rights as a pedestrian.Perspective in this issue works both ways Paul.

Keith Iddon ● 4661d

I know cyclists on the pavement are a pain in the bum but seriously, some perspective please. How many people killed or seriously injured on the pavement in the last 10 years by cyclists compared to motor vehicles?

Paul James ● 4661d

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/bike%2520lane%2520fence.jpg&imgrefurl=http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/bike_lanes_are_a_prominent_par.html&h=2448&w=3264&sz=4376&tbnid=z5TaUNoc5h4oxM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__Lkr1_LUvCgu8z6_8OcvmIPJuUbo=&docid=RGkuUJgaVk2lbM&sa=X&ei=-ynLUdOmOsHt0gWxioDoAQ&ved=0CEEQ9QEwAA&dur=3662#imgdii=z5TaUNoc5h4oxM%3A%3BhW0wWiL5yPdeOM%3Bz5TaUNoc5h4oxM%3A

Jim Wong ● 4661d

http://german-way.com/blog/2009/10/26/streets-of-berlin-cyclists-versus-pedestrians/

Jim Wong ● 4661d

Equally, try walking on the footpath when there's a cyclist haring around on it.

Keith Iddon ● 4661d

Try and cycle along one of these paths.They are badly designed and in some places downright dangerous, strewn with glass and debris, and large holes. You have to stop at every junction, the risk being that a car will swerve without looking, they are utterly not fit for purpose in the main.Much quicker and easier to use the road.

Paul James ● 4661d

Its part education and part physical sectioning off from the main road.

Jim Wong ● 4661d

Jim we have marked cycle paths on the A4 and cyclists still insist on 'mixing it' with the traffic.There are marked cycle lanes on Boston Road and large parts of the Uxbridge Road and cyclists can use the bus lanes but they still ride on the pavement.I can't figure it out.

Nigel Brooks ● 4661d

I'd be surprised if the fuel duty and vat on everything you have to buy and have done to your car didn't more than cover the cost Paul.

Keith Iddon ● 4661d

I think the point was they said the "Road Fund" would be used for road spending only, but it quickly became apparent it didn't cover it so they used other monies anyway.The Road Fund concept was finally canned in 1956.Lots of evidence to show that today private motoring is actually subsidised by the taxpayer if you take into account the full cost of it, including fixing people who are hurt on the roads, pollution, damage to public buildings and the roads themselves etc...

Paul James ● 4661d

In Germany both pedestrians (Inside)and Cyclists (outside) share different part of the pavement.In China there is a physical barriers/sections between motorist and Cyclists.I understand that UK roads are not wide enough to do that everywhere, but there are roads that can be.Is that too logical or common sense?

Jim Wong ● 4662d

Yep, that's right.The public was issued with the usual lie from the politicians when it was introduced though.The original idea was *supposed* to have been that the money raised was to be used for maintenance and extension of the roads network.  hence the long running confusion and understandable misunderstanding in the public's mind.Politicians - the lowest form of life on the planet (and possibly in the entire cosmos).

Tony Colliver ● 4662d

Not in this thread Gerry but please see cycling threads current and passim for a level of 'venom' and 'blinkered thinking' we, thankfully, rarely see here.

Nigel Brooks ● 4663d

Yes, good strong and robust debate, but where was the intransigence?

Gerry Tan ● 4663d

Cyclists, cars and road use ... the best red rag for almost any forum!Nigel - I'm curious - who do you think was being intransigent and why? I saw debate & disagreement, not intransigence.

Sam Salisbury ● 4663d

I agree with Susan, Ealing people are generally more polite than others, have more considered views and more balanced opinions - take a bow folks. And one learns new things on this forum - for example take Paul James' revelation that Vehicle exise duty is a tax on vehicles and doesn't fund road maintenence and road construction - I never knew that, indeed never thought about it before. So interesting, thanks Paul.

Gerry Tan ● 4663d

When I saw this topic, I thought, 'Uh, oh!' because discussions on the rights and wrongs of cyclists always degenerate into terrible rudeness and personal abuse on the Chiswick forum, compared to which, this thread has been a model of politeness and decorum. Well done.

Susan Kelly ● 4663d

>cyclists are both above the law Nonsense, who has suggested that?>and believe that they should benefit disproportionately from the roads paid for by all other tax payers.Er, cyclists are tax payers too.

Paul James ● 4663d

Keith, as we are now well aware, from the intransigent and blinkered contributions made here, cyclists are both above the law and believe that they should benefit disproportionately from the roads paid for by all other tax payers.VED and compulsory insurance for cyclists say I.

Nigel Brooks ● 4663d

Nope,that's what I said...ALL road users should pay to use the roads. As it stands, not all road users do.I don't need the link thanks.

Keith Iddon ● 4663d

Nope, you pay to operate your car on the roads, not for them, vehicle excise duty!Plenty more here about how your "VED" is not used for roads.http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/who-pays-road-tax/

Paul James ● 4663d

For got to say Paul...if I don't pay or register for ved I am not allowed to use the road so I do pay to use the roads.

Keith Iddon ● 4663d

No Paul I don't think pedestrians should be taxed because they are not using vehicles ans I would just redraw where the line is drawn.Currently it is drawn at motor vehicle road users but I would redraw it for all road users as they benefit from good quality roads.Is that clear now?

Keith Iddon ● 4663d

>Keith Iddon>Yes Rose all that is a very good idea and perhaps some form of road tax for cyclists would be a good idea to partly pay for these improvements.Do you also think pedestrians should pay pavement tax for all the pavements and crossings that are built for them, or motorists should pay road tax for all the roads built for them?Before anybody says motorists already pay road tax, they don't, motoring taxes (VED, fuel duty etc..) are not linked to spending on roads in any way shape or form; roads are funded from general and local taxation (namely our council tax for local roads).

Paul James ● 4663d

I've seen worse in the Middle East too - but that doesn't mean that we want it here!Cycling lanes were the subject of grants in the past and I don't think that enough thought was always put into where they went.There have been some really good websites where people have highlighted particularly bad and dangerous ones eg one where you could have a nasty accident because it went under a road sign which was too low.  I think it would be good to give user feedback on all these things - particularly when you encounter something for the first time.Road signage is also often not clear enough so that drivers struggle to read too many signs or having been following a sign towards somewhere are just left signless at a junction...  There are some really poor junctions between motorways too.

Philippa Bond ● 4664d

Agree with most of the road dangers you cite - but being a prolific pedestrian I observe that most people are good, safe and considerate road-users. This country has generally good behaviour on the roads.  The all time worst imo is India - Mumbai in particular and Bangkok in Thailand. Theyare really dangerous on their roads.

Gerry Tan ● 4664d

Cyclists jumping red lights (was nearly hit by a racing one overtaking the stopped cars at the lights which also has a pedestrian crossing outside the Town Hall)Cyclists on pavements and FOOTpaths riding fast and right up behind you.Motorists who are impatient and make you more uneasy at difficult junctions (just makes me take longer).Motorists who think it is their right to have your half of the road as well because there is a cyclist in front of them on their half.Motorists who swing round corners eg onto Church Lane from South Ealing Road too fast so that they're in the middle of the road. They can't see round the corner so why go so fast?Motorists (cars and motorbikes)who change lanes all the time weaving in and out the traffic like a racetrack video game that you have to brake to let in.Pedestrians who seem to think they can walk right through you - these include:Talking walking-three-abreast buggy-pushing mothers sweeping along the pavement at speed towards you;Groups of gabbling teenagers who fill the whole pavement;Mobile Phone Texters;People who don't look and make sure a driver has seen them before walking out on a zebra or across a road junction - particularly in slow traffic joggers who run up from behind and straight out (ie you haven't just passed them so noticed them).That Dean Gardens/Lido junction used to be really really bad when there was no crossing at all.  Is the problem that the crossing is not quite in the right place or that another crossing is needed as well?  There was a lot of discussion on it wasn't there? 

Philippa Bond ● 4664d

Yes Rose all that is a very good idea and perhaps some form of road tax for cyclists would be a good idea to partly pay for these improvements.In the meantime,cycling on the footpath is not the answer imo.

Keith Iddon ● 4664d

Well expressed Rosa.We've now given up driving our own cars, abandoned our cycles and still use the roads by bus, taxis and by cadging lifts from neighbours and friends. And we do much walking, which is lovely 'cos we meet and talk to many more folk and besides its good for us. Agree with Rosa's views, but must say, car drivers are the ones who cause most danger, not only 'cos there're many more of 'em but because they are the main culprits when it comes to bad and inconsiderate use of the Queen's highway.We think the most dangerous area is that at the traffic lights at Dean Gdns/The Lido junction Uxbridge Rd in West Ealing. We know several pedestrians who agree.Other opinions please?

Gerry Tan ● 4664d

The best solution is to make the road safer for them to cycle on like dedicated cycle lanes, ideally separated from the rest of traffic like they have in most countries in the rest of Europe. By the way this is the campaign that the Times is pressing on, unfortunately we are decades  behind them. Also a better, even and smooth road service will go a long way to encourage more cyclist to be on the road - and it will not only benefit them but drivers as well aS it will reduce the wear and tear on cars as well, especially that of the suspensions.  Millions are spent by Council across the country in settling claims against them for damages to cars that it will make economic sense for them to invest that money on repair and resurface roads.

Rosa Popham ● 4664d

Fine,agreed but if cyclists don't feel safe on the road they should put their bike away and walk.

Keith Iddon ● 4664d

One question to ask ourselves is why some cyclists use pavements and footpaths rather than the road. Is it because they don't feel safe on the road due to the inonsiderate behaviour of some motorist or is it because some of our roads have now become so impossible to ride on due to the state of disrepair as hardly any money has been spent on the in the last three years? this however does not excuse them to ride with no lights on at night or crossing pedestrian crossing without dismounting from their bikes or using headphones, just as much as pedestrians and motorists do.The fat is not all cyclists are bad cyclists just as not all drivers and pedestrians are bad drivers and pedestrians. we all make a determined choiice as to what mode of transport we use at any one time so let's respect averyone else choice and be kconsiderate to all other road users just as we would like them to be considerate to us.

Rosa Popham ● 4664d

Pedestrians staring zombie like at a phone screen as they cross the road, with or without headphones on.

Keith Iddon ● 4665d

Inconsiderate use of the road by motorcyclists and drivers,like weaving in and out and overtaking on the wrong side of the road as some bikers do and they also sometimes overtake me whilst I am overtaking.Middle lane hoggers and not indicating..my main bug bears with cyclists are cycling on footpaths(the clue to their usage is in the name)and ignoring zebras and red lights.

Keith Iddon ● 4665d

For car drivers Gerry I would love a really HARD clampdown on using a mobile 'phone or texting when driving. Also parking right up to junctions  to be enforced. Lastly I want the 'one eyed monsters' (cars with defective lights) impounded (as they do in Holland) until all of the defects are fixed.Only three things really rile me about cyclists, riding on the pavement, ignoring traffic signals/signs (particularly red lights) and riding with no lights at night.Just need a little more thought by ALL road users to make it a whole lot safer.

Nigel Brooks ● 4665d

Oh, and what are the most dangerous bits of road in Ealing?

Gerry Tan ● 4665d