The War On Britain's Road - Drivers V Cyclists - BBC 1 9PM

I can guess how it will play. Lots and lots of footage of cyclists acting recklessly  and interviews with drivers who will justify their hatred and aggression on that basis. And because they aren't wearing helmets. And because they wear lycra/spandex.

I've given up. Drivers will never accept cyclists. They will continue to kill them. That's just the way it is and the way it always will be.

And cyclists will never accept pedestrians. Or at least the pedestrian's right to walk the pavement without being run down/impeded by some two-wheeled tossbag.

And why do so many cyclists think the red  lights at pelican crossings apply just to cars, not them?

And before you ask, I don't drive and am not that keen on motorists either. But at least they keep to the road, where they belong.

I find it astonishing how many cyclists there are (alive) in France, given the state of French driving. It seems compulsory for the latter to put on a blindfold and drink a bottle of pastis before getting into a car.

I drive, ride a bike, and am a pedestrian (and runner), so I see road use from all angles. In all honesty, they may be the most piss-poor drivers on the planet (actually no 'may be' about it), but the French do seem to respect cyclists more than most. And the cyclists here seem to respect pedestrians more. But I imagine it's just as bad in Paris as it is in London. I suspect the reason why the Côte d'Azur is so appalling in driving terms may well be its proximity to Italy, where the white lines on the road are apparently specifically for positioning your wheels either side of. But at least lunatic Italian driving has some sort of artistry to it. There are far fewer dented cars in Italy than there are here (it's around 100% here).

I don't know any cyclists who would choose to ride on the pavement. Around where I live I never see any cyclists on the pavement apart from small children. Are you in an area with a lot of small children perhaps?

The cyclist and red lights chestnut, like all good chestnuts, is never backed-up by any real figures on the accidents / deaths caused as a result. This is because there aren't any figures. It falls into the category of minor annoyance. It is telling that people choose to highlight the above rather than the weekly deaths of cyclists due to cars - ignoring the main road safety issue entirely.

Indeed it is entirely about a moral outrage at the failure to queue in the proper way. One comparison is waiting for the bus. When it pulls in with its doors not in line with the first person in the queue another person may get on first to the great huffing and puffing of the first in the queue.

Talking of cars - speeding, undertaking, talking on mobiles whilst driving, aggressive driving, drunk driving, driving under influence of drugs, SMIDSY etc

Whilst I agree French and in particular Italian driving in general is quite bad, as a cyclist the drivers are far worse in the UK.

What I find is that as cycling is a national sport in both Italy and France cyclists are treated with respect by motorists.

We have over 200,000 injuries and thousands of deaths a year on the roads in the UK. The car drivers are sadly kidding themselves if they don't think their driving is the main issue.

I am fortunate to live around the Oxford area were we have fine cycle paths along most main roads, routes between city suburbs & roads to other distant towns.

The big problem is in the city were the student bike mob can be nothing short of disgraceful. Its tempting & easy to say that many deserve all they get, but if you look carefully its the irresponsible ones that are the stand-out idiots making all the rest of the swarm appear bad.  However there is another more responsible group that do follow the rules of the road most of the time & some that are positive models of how to do it; although it seems most of these are going to work rather than to lectures.       

Bottom line is - like all road users - cyclists need to accept things have to change. Kids who think a bike is just a bigger skate board or a way of walking & crossing roads & traffic lights with wheels, as more peeps use them, as the keep-fit-go-to-work brigade peddle at a faster & faster rate to the point of breaking speed limits,  it just cannot go on like it is.  

Insurance for 3rd party damage is the one first thing that must get done - PDQ

Licencing & visible licence numbers  ?? maybe ??

Likewise car/taxi/truck drivers need to be far more responsible & the penalties for inconsiderate driving & damage & injury need looking at.  

Marky Mark,

"....and thousands of deaths a year on the roads in the UK."

Actually, a bit under 2000. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/...273/rrcgb2011-00.pdf

A large number, to be sure, but no argument is strengthened by exaggeration.

Fraser

From the much respected Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents:

Speed

Inappropriate speed contributes to around 13% of all injury collisions, 16% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions which result in a death.
Fatigue
Driver fatigue is a serious problem resulting in many thousands of road accidents each year. It is not possible to calculate the exact number of sleep related accidents but research shows that driver fatigue may be a contributory factor in up to 20% of road accidents, and up to one quarter of fatal and serious accidents.
Mobiles
A substantial body of research shows that using a hand-held or hands-free mobile phone while driving is a significant distraction, and substantially increases the risk of the driver crashing.
Drink-driving
Although the level of drinking and driving has dropped dramatically over the last three decades, around 250 people are still killed in drink drive accidents every year. It is not just the drivers who have been drinking who suffer, but often their passengers, people in other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists, and the families of everyone involved.
Cyclists
Every year in this country around 19,000 cyclists are killed or injured in reported road accidents, including around 3,000 who are killed or seriously injured.

Although not strictly an accident, to the list above one might add Obesity. An epidemic that is costing us a fortune in terms of the health service. Looking around you, there are examples of said epidemic everywhere. Often they drive everywhere and don't take any exercise.

Nothing at all which I could find re cyclists going through red lights but lets carry on pretending it is a noteworthy issue so as not to deal with the real issues.

In most years since the turn of the millennium there have been over 3,000 road deaths. In 2008 2,538 people died and nearly a quarter of a million were injured. The slight improvement since then is in large part down to the enforcement of speed limits - another thing which (as we all know) motorists throw their toys out of their prams about.

Whichever way you cut it, I don't think a debate on semantics adds any depth of understanding where there is not even consensus on the main issues.

I live in South West London. There are scores of idiots (most of them young men, but also a few older types and women) rising on the pavements.

Only yesterday:

1. My way was blocked by an elderly idiot tottering along on the pavement on his bike;

2.Walking to Sainsbury's, a teenaged turd on a bike came zooming towards me. I had to step aside to avoid him.

3. While crossing the pelican crossing, I was cut up by some wanker on a bike who obviously thought that red lights. This is not a minor annoyance - it's a great big steaming pain in the arse, it's thoughtless, ill-mannered, and potentially deadly to both pedestrian and cyclist.

The fact is, when it comes to pedestrians, cyclists - here in London at least - are almost as thoughtless as motorists.

They are not, as you seem to be implying, scrubbed angels of infinite virtue whose shit smells like Dior No. 5.

No-one is claiming they are angels of virtue.

I am saying that the real numbers show serious injuries / deaths attributable to motorists is many orders of magnitude greater than that attributable to cyclists. Your resort to anecdotal evidence only supports this simple point further.

Cycling on the pavement just isn't material to the major road safety issues we face. Nor is your previous rant about cyclists and red lights. Yes - it may be annoying from time-to-time. No - people are not dying all over the place as a result.

Your red light example above references manners. This is at the very heart of the cyclist and red-lights mythology (if it is so dangerous please show us the last ten years of data on deaths as a result). It is upset at the failure to respect the British queuing system. Oddly, motorists are particularly vociferous sticklers for this aspect of the highway code whilst themselves causing thousands of deaths and injuries by speeding, undertaking, drink-driving, using mobiles.....etc.

PS I can't abide cyclists on the pavement either. Well annoying!

Kevin, people regularly die as a result of drivers using their mobiles and not paying due care and attention to the two tonnes of metal which they are supposed to be in control of. As a Londoner you will see countless examples of this careless approach on any given day. What do you think about it?

I see loads of it. It is appalling and dangerous. It should be a prosecutable offence.

But as I said in my original post, I'm not a driver and I dislike thoughtless motorists as much as I do thoughtless cyclists. And thoughtless cyclists do exist, and they're depressingly numerous here in The Smoke.

What is your point?

Marky Mark,

Re "I don't think a debate on semantics adds any depth of understanding where there is not even consensus on the main issues."

You made a false statement. That is not an issue of semantics. It is misrepresentation.

If you had some proper figures to hand - though more up-to-date ones would have been more useful - you should surely have used them and not resorted to the emotive overstatement of "thousands". You are still citing figures from 2008, even though the 2011 figures are in the public domain.

I have no beef with your general argument, but an argument of this importance needs its statistical underpinnings to be stated accurately. To paraphrase you - "I don't think inaccurate claims add any depth of understanding where there is not even consensus on the main issues."

You have now attributed a "slight improvement" in the statistics from 2008-2011 - this including a 25% drop in fatality-rates - 'in large part' to enforcement of speed limits. No basis for this is offered. The recession has reduced miles driven substantially. Could this not be a major - maybe even the major - contributor to the startling fall in fatalities over such a short period?

Just asking.

Fraser

One of my points is that in a conversation such as this about drivers vs cyclists many will invariably choose to focus on the latter as a road safety issue when all the facts show they are many, many times more likely to be killed or injured by the former. I think it holds.

People are annoyed by thoughtless cyclists but their lives are threatened by thoughtless drivers.

I always hear about cyclists and red lights. I rarely hear about car drivers on mobiles (or countless other reckless actions). What is the reason?

Perhaps something to do with the Top Gear generation and that supposedly inalienable right to drive your car however you like and whenever you like regardless of minor issues like road safety, obesity and pollution.

Knew it would be the BBC's fault somewhere along the line. George, where are you?

Fraser

I quoted my sense of the numbers and after your pedantic post I checked them to find they were correct.

In my original post I said "we have over 200,000 injuries and thousands of deaths a year on the roads in the UK."

Upon checking the numbers we do indeed have over 200,00 injuries and deaths in the thousands which has nudged a shade under 2,000 for the first time of late but has been consistently over 3,000 for most years since the turn of the millennium. I do not research every post in advance so I think this level of accuracy is very good.

I am not sure what this pedantic sideshow seeks to gain - do you actually have a serious opinion of your own? It is always easier to sit in the gallery throwing peanuts than to offer one.

Re the drop in fatalities attributable to speed limit awareness / enforcement (which you seek to put down to the recession):

Changing driver behaviour such as lower average speeds has also put a dent in the statistics.

"There's been a huge decrease in speed this millennium," says Professor Steve Stradling of Napier University.

In 2000, some 67% exceeded 30mph in built-up areas, whereas by 2007, that proportion was down to 48%. Speeding in excess of 35mph is also down by a third.

This decrease has helped save lives and reduce injuries, says Professor Stradling, particularly in built-up areas. The picture in out-of-town areas is less encouraging.

At 32mph the survival rate of pedestrians and cyclists hit in a collision (already decreasing rapidly since 20mph) falls off the edge of a cliff.

But maybe we should let everyone speed as they please and just have more recessions? Will suit those in denial if not jobseekers.

Everyone seems to agree there are problems but not who is responsible for them. With this ambiguity in mind, how about we have a new system of penalties? One that creates and enforces a new contract between drivers and cyclists.

For those who really believe cycling through red lights is a major threat to road safety I offer up a £5,000 fine (but no pelting with rotten tomatoes) as the punishment.

• Causing death by dangerous driving or cycling = 15 years imprisonment
• Causing death by drunk driving or cycling = 15 years imprisonment
• Causing serious injury by dangerous driving or cycling = 5 years imprisonment
• Causing serious injury by drunk driving or cycling = 5 years imprisonment
• Speeding = £5,000 fine
• Using a mobile whilst driving or cycling = £5,000 fine
• Dangerous undertaking = £5,000 fine
• Driving or cycling through a red light = £5,000 fine

You could get cyclists to subscribe to this. You could never get motorists to subscribe to it. The reasons are obvious.

Seriously? This is your beef? I walk around the city here in Vancouver a lot. A lot of people (mostly couriers) spend some time riding on the sidewalk. Much the same as everywhere I have lived. Whilst a minor annoyance (mostly because I know that the practice provides justification for anti-cyclist bigots), I have never been hit or placed in any danger by the practice that I can recall. You have few worries in your life if this gets your blood pressure up.

I contrast this with my daily experience cycling on the roads where a it is rare to not be affected a couple of times a week by a motorist cutting too close, running a red light, car-dooring right-hooking me etc. You know, endangering my life.

In one section of my commute, I deliberately avoid a section of shared-use path (really just a footpath with bicycles allowed to use it) so as not inconvenience pedestrians and their (often off-leash) dogs, kids on scooters, iPlodders, joggers, random texters etc, etc. I ride instead on a section of dead-end road that sees very little traffic and has a speed limit of 30kmh. For this decision, I receive regular abuse. I don't ride down the middle of the road, I pull right off to allow the occasional cars to pass but I still get told to "get off the road, Lance!". 

Hence my comment that I have lost hope. My experience, and comments like yours in these all-to-frequent arguments leads me to my conclusion that this is a pointless battle. Motorists will justify and defend their right to kill cyclists (and each other) regardless of anything I might say or do.

I still love my cycle commute and am always sad on the few days a year when I can't ride my bike. In some ways, it defines who I am. I am a cyclist (and husband, step-dad, son, brother and friend).

Try not to let those evil toss-bag cyclists get you down too much Kevin. See you out there.

For the bazillionth time: I am not a motorist. I do not drive. I have never driven. I don't like cars. 

So point your "you are an anti-cycling bigot" finger elsewhere if you please.

I'm sorry if you get abuse from motorists but that has nothing to do with what I was saying. And all I was saying is that some cyclists behave as badly to pedestrians as motorists do to cyclists (far fewer deaths obviously, but that's no excuse for ignorance, bad manners and thinking you own the fcuking place). Cycles belong in the road or on specially-designated pathways - not on the path, which is for people who walk. Simple really.

What do you know of London? You live in Vancouver, which I've visited many times. It is a lovely city, but nothing like The Smoke, which is bigger, busier and dirtier in every conceivable sense.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that certain cyclists are as insufferable as certain motorists.

Cyclists riding on footpaths (running red lights wearing/not wearing helmets etc.) should have nothing to with my original position that motorists will continue to assert their right to kill cyclists, (regardless of what I do). But sadly, these things continue to get trotted out as some sort of justification that cyclists get what they deserve. That's my beef. It is independent of your motoring habits.

(I lived on the UK for a number of years and know London on a passing basis. I've walked around there plenty too - but never been harassed by a cyclist that I can remember.)

Insufferably yours,

Winky

Kevin, in it is in the shared interests of pedestrians and cyclists not to be killed or maimed by feckless car drivers. Plus motorists themselves are pedestrians and cyclists some days so it should be in their interests too.

I agree with Winky. It is not the things which annoy you (and sometimes me too) which we're questioning. Perception is reality after all. Its the fact they always get trotted out as excuses for the real and undeniable damage which is being done in the form of deaths and injuries.

In fact, tail up, I will now go further on the drivers v cyclists debate. I am unclear why pedestrians or cyclists should be picking up the tab for either the resultant exhaust pollution (asthma, cancers etc) or the contribution of car-drivers (clearly not all of them) to the obesity epidemic. Whilst a lack of exercise in general contributes to the latter, it is the case that the unwillingness to walk or ride a bike to get around seems considerable these days. These have always been major sources of exercise.

I know several people who are young (and could be fit) yet will not even go down the road to get a paper without having to start-up the car and 'don't like' public transport. Always sat in front of their Sky box and munching chicken-wing buckets. Never walk anywhere. Then we have to pay towards their health care. Maybe they should feck off and stop acting like they own the place instead of whingeing about cyclists at red lights?

Road-safety, obesity and pollution. In the age of irresponsibility it seems to me many motorists are living in a bygone era and need to start to offer some solutions including driving safely and reducing their own car use rather than carping on about trivialities related to others. They have had it so easy for so long that no doubt the toys will come out of the pram.

PS I drive a car from time-to-time.

Why are you being so foul?

(a) You made an emotive and inaccurate statement. 1900 casualties in 2011 is not "thousands". It is not pedantic to be accurate. The reason for being accurate is that future progress will be gauged against our current performance, not against a general statement covering the millennium overall.

(b) I haven't sought to put the entirety of the drop in fatalities down to the recession, I floated the recession as a contributor.

As you are an ill-mannered little monkey, you don't deserve a peanut - even a virtual one.

Fraser

Oh yes it is. When you round to the nearest thousand, (as using the term "thousands" surely does) you get to say that 1900 is best represented by 2 thousand i.e. "thousands". Certainly more accurate than saying 1900 is approximately 1 thousand.

Anyway, what's the point? My first post is still valid. The debate predictably quickly descended to a "cyclists deserve what they get" argument from those that are somehow annoyed by people riding bicycles.

I like your thinking.

Any evidence for this floatation?