London SE1 community website

Bicycle Enforcement

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 2 of 4
Monday 18 September 2006 1.05pm
James Hatts wrote:
Not to justify bad behaviour by cyclists, but let's remember that there are plenty of irresponsible road users of all types.


This morning I was nearly killed while on my bike on Bedale street. A large delivery truck accelerated towards me and there was only room for it on the road (parked vehicles narrowed the street). The driver saw me (in fact he was staring right at me as he put his foot down, forcing me off the road and onto the pavement). He then shouted obscenities through his window as he drove past.

Yesterday a bus driver did almost exactly the same thing near More London - again forcing me on to the pavement.

In both cases I had to move sharpish and both drivers left no room for error. If my foot had slipped off a pedal, or if I had been looking the wrong way, or if the gears slipped I would have gone under the front of the vehicle travelling at speed. I would be dead.

This is what most cyclists have to endure on the roads in SE1. It happens all the bloody time. So when I hear people moan about cyclists on the pavements or jumping red lights it simply does not affect me. I will do what I have to do to stay from going underneath a vehicle driven by a moron who either does not see, or worse, does not care what happens when he or she puts their foot down.

Yes there are some cyclists who break the law for no good reason and it annoys me too. But what I really care about is drivers who break the law and kill people - cyclists, pedestrians and other drivers. But few people on this site seem to care about that.

So go on, moan away about the cyclists. But watch out for the drivers.

Would you like to go with me?
Where?
Wherever I'm going
Are you *really* asking?
Is that your *real* answer?
Monday 18 September 2006 1.08pm
just to add my two pence worth, it didn't look like deek was complaining, just making an enquiry about being stopped and was this usual. are people not allowed to ask questions on this website?
Monday 18 September 2006 1.09pm
The other day an ice cream van accelerated towards me in the narrowest section of Montague Close by Southwark Cathedral. If he'd slowed down we could have passed quite safely, but I had to jump off and pull my bike into the gutter. It was completely unnecessary.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Monday 18 September 2006 1.46pm
Jonathan K wrote:
deek wrote:
dee dee wrote:
why didn't you get off the bike and walk?

Simply put - i didn't feel like it.



Breathtaking arrogance! Laws only apply when deek says they do!

You've admitted you broke the law so why complain?

I guess my issue with this enforcement initiative is the "breathtaking" waste of money I see.

Spend a minute looking through the pages on this site and you'll see many incidents of muggings, vandalism, and theft in SE1.

Get out for a stroll around the neighbourhood and you'll see Reebok clad welfare scum tearing up and down (and it's a one way street) Bermondsey St. on scooters.

Wander through the parks and you'll see gangs of eastern euro-trash living, drinking and sh*tting in your park.

Taxes and stealth taxes are increasing on every front. But somehow the government can pay two guys to stand at a road closure waiting for cyclists that won't dismount over 50 feet of sidewalk. The other woman I saw them stop was a pensioner who has probably never broken a law in her life.

In my view, that's a breathtakingly ridiculous waste of my tax burden.
Monday 18 September 2006 2.02pm
could you wear a T shirt that says "my name is Deek" on it,because I need to avoid you at all costs.
Monday 18 September 2006 2.20pm
Actually, Deek may have a point insofar as s/he lambasts incorrectly focussed policies and enforcement campaigns.

I wouldn't want to be drawn on Eurotrash, etc, but TfL's own statistics for the period 2001-2005 don't actually lend much support to those calling for the demonisation of cyclists. In fact they show that during that period there were 34,791 pedestrian injuries involving motor vehicles, compared with 331 involving cycles - a ratio of 100+ to 1. (The stats can be found quoted in greater detail in CTC's press release at http://www.ctc.org.uk). Against the background of a significant increase in cycling in London over the same period, it doesn't seem that cyclists are all that much of a threat to pedestrians.

Statistics, of course, count for little when a rogue cyclist has just tried to run you (and/or your small children) down. Which is why the current enforcement is, in my view, A Good Thing despite the fact that I am a cyclist, too. And why I personally don't think Deek should have got away with riding on the pavement, even if it was first offence. But we should be careful not to jump from that to a full-scale war on cyclists. The figures say that it isn't us cyclists who cause 99% or more of the carnage on London's roads, and in any event we too are frequently victims of dangerous or stupid motor vehicle drivers.
Monday 18 September 2006 2.28pm
Is what happened this morning linked to the 'Share the Road' campaign that Andrew gave details of in the other current thread on cycling on the pavement (is cycling on the pavement the #1 issue in SE1?!)?

I'm generally in favour of that campaign - it seems sensible. However I would hope that resources are being concentrated on black spots (perhaps identified through police reports or accident data) rather than places where it is easy to rack a high number of "hits".
Monday 18 September 2006 3.37pm
andrew knight wrote:

I wouldn't want to be drawn on Eurotrash, etc, but TfL's own statistics for the period 2001-2005 don't actually lend much support to those calling for the demonisation of cyclists. In fact they show that during that period there were 34,791 pedestrian injuries involving motor vehicles, compared with 331 involving cycles - a ratio of 100+ to 1. (The stats can be found quoted in greater detail in CTC's press release at http://www.ctc.org.uk).


Do the stats take into account that any accident involving a motor vehicle must be reported and those involving a cylist and pedestrain dont? Cyclists can just peddle away and with no reigistration plate they can't be traced. Genius!
Monday 18 September 2006 4.19pm
Jonathan K wrote:
Do the stats take into account that any accident involving a motor vehicle must be reported and those involving a cylist and pedestrain dont? Cyclists can just peddle away and with no reigistration plate they can't be traced. Genius!

It's a fair point to highlight the fact that there may be unreported incidents. However:

(a) reported incidents are all we have to go on;

(b) I wasn't aware that there was an exemption for cyclists to the Road Traffic law that an incident must be reported if there has been personal injury or damage to another person's property as result - in fact I honestly don't think that there is such an exemption; and

(c) allowing for the fact that the cyclist mightn't report an incident if s/he felt they could pedal off scott free, I don't think traceability is an issue in terms of reporting - the pedestrian would still report it as a hit and run, surely? Isn't is more likely that a minor incident would go unreported (by the victim) precisely because it was minor? For example, I've been 'nudged' by motor vehicles a few times over the years, as a motorist, as a cyclist and as a pedestrian. Whether or not I descend into road rage as a result, I can't see myself reporting it because it isn't worth the effort. If I got hurt it would be different. So a lot of minor incidents probably don't get reported, whether the incident involves a bicycle or a motor vehicle.

Could I persuade you to accept that fatalities would be reported, even if the perpetrator fled? If so, the following statistic may be of interest, also from the TfL numbers: between 2001-2005, there were 2197 reported pedestrian injuries arising from collisions with motor vehicles that occurred on the pavement, and of those collisions, 17 resulted in pedestrian fatalities. In contrast, just one pedestrian was killed in collision with a cyclist over the entire period, whether on the pavement or otherwise (as it happens, the pedestrian was crossing the road, not using the pavement).

In my view, even one person dead is too many, and that's an unimpeachable reason to enforce the law against cyclists who break it. But the resources aren't there to catch everyone doing something wrong every time. My concern is the policy focus may be on the wrong targets - I would rather the authorities used their limited resources to catch the killer vehicle drivers than the killer cyclists, because there seem to be so many more of the former and one might hope to save more lives as a result. However, the politicians are swayed by public perception: the perception is that cyclists are a menace, so the politicians react, and with them go the police.

Now even if the absence of reporting in some cases does cause the numbers to be biased one way or the other, is it realistic to think that non-reporting would, if rectified, reverse the key conclusion, namely that motor vehicles are - by a large number of multiples - more of a danger to pedestrians than bicycles are?

I don't want to repeat my comments in earlier posting, but none of this is intended to undermine the fact that illegal/inconsiderate cyclists can cause anything from annoyance to fear (and occasional injury as the numbers show) to pedestrians, as well as being a menace to small children in particular. I support the campaign to reign in such cyclists. I just wouldn't want cyclists generally to be demonised because I don't think they are the real threat to people's safety.
Monday 18 September 2006 6.14pm
No doubt that more people are killed or injured by motorised vehicles than by cyclists.

However, as a pedestrain I (and it seems many others) very rarely feel "threatened" by cars or lorries but do by cyclists. I cross at crossing points, wait for the green man etc so on a day to day basis cars, lorries and vans dont bother me. If they did I have the option of reporting their registration plate. Many cylists are oblivious to red lights and any other laws of the road though - surely you have noticed this? Cyclists and not car drivers can make people's walks to work an edgy 'will they-wont they collide into me/stop at the crossing' experience. Cyclists are seen as a menace, because so many of them are. Licensing and insurance would be a step in the right direction, and work against cyclists like deek who 'don't feel like' following laws that protect the rest of us.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 2 of 4

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions