Suddenly cyclists, the most endangered species of road users in Britain, find
themselves cast as the callous thugs of the highway. That's the evident
reaction to the case of Jason Howard, fined £2,200 on Tuesday for dangerous
cycling after he knocked over 17-year-old Rhiannon Bennett, who died of her
injuries. Howard's behaviour was certainly deplorable. He shouted “move,
because I'm not stopping” at youngsters standing by the road. He didn't
swerve or slow down. So he ploughed into his victim at an estimated 17mph -
a tortoise-like speed by motorised standards, but enough to knock her to the
ground, where she struck her head on the pavement.
However, it seems that Howard may not have been riding illegally on the
pavement. A police spokesman said after the trial that Rhiannon “was
probably a few inches, or a foot, into the road and then she moved towards
the pavement”. In other words, she may have been standing precisely where
“responsible” cyclists are encouraged to ride: close to the kerb, so that
cars can give them a wide berth as they overtake.
Pedantically trying to ascertain the exact details of this tragedy may seem
macabre, and certainly insensitive to Rhiannon's family. They have already
expressed their outrage that this “arrogant and vile” cyclist wasn't charged
with “manslaughter, or perhaps even murder”.
But, as all cyclists know, tiny details can mean life or death on our frenetic
roads. A pothole at the wrong moment, a smashed bottle, the door of a parked
car contemptuously flung open, a driver misjudging his left turn, a lorry
forgetting that his wing mirror protrudes at the height of a cyclist's head
- any of these spell disaster on a bike. And disasters happen every day.
Last year 136 cyclists were killed on Britain's roads, and 2,428 seriously
injured. The number of motorists and pedestrians killed by cyclists in the
same period? One.
That doesn't excuse aggressive behaviour. But it does explain why cyclists
feel proprietorial about that vital metre between the kerb and the passing
truck. And it also explains why cyclists so dislike being forced to share
space with cars travelling at twice their speed.
I cycle from my North London home to The Times - a round trip of 22 miles.
Only four miles of that, I estimate, is along a cycle-path. Bus lanes
(relatively safe for cyclists, despite the obvious presence of buses)
account for another four miles. But that still leaves 14 miles of
heart-thumpingly dangerous pedalling alongside motorists who often emerge
from gridlocked junctions full of pent-up frustration. Or so their driving
suggests. Creep next to the kerb and you are vulnerable to left-turning
vehicles. That was made tragically clear by the case of the woman cyclist
crushed to death against a pedestrian barrier by a lorry turning left at a
traffic light. Had she cycled “irresponsibly”, and edged ahead of the lorry
while the lights were red, she would still be alive.
Even more hazardous is any attempt to turn right: the cause of my two serious
biking accidents. Motorists regard a cyclist moving into the “fast” lane as
an affront to some unstated rule of the road - even when the cyclist is
clearly indicating a right turn. Verbal abuse, or an angry toot on the horn,
is virtually de rigueur.
And few motorists seem to understand, let alone sympathise with, the chief
reason why cyclists appear to swerve erratically: the potentially
life-threatening ruts and potholes on many roads. Why should they
understand? In the cushioned safety pod that is the modern automobile, the
driver doesn't even feel the bumps.
In a country that gives such priority to motorists, is it desirable, even
possible, to cycle “responsibly”? If I added ten miles to my journey each
day, I could probably do the whole trip along quieter, meandering
backstreets. But I haven't got all day. So I commute along the quickest
route: the A-roads. Here, if I cycle “responsibly”, I will share the road
with thundering juggernauts and white-van maniacs. My metal ankle - the
result of a collision on the Brent Cross flyover - attests to the perils.
But if I switch to the pavement, which is pedestrian-free for a large
stretch of the journey, I am cycling “irresponsibly”, and liable to a £20
spot fine.
You see the dilemma. Yet I'm increasingly convinced that cyclists should
resist the temptation to break the law. Why? Simply (and cynically) because
I think the tide is turning in our favour. It's symbolic that one of the
main cycling lobby groups is called Critical Mass, because a critical mass
is exactly what cyclists are edging towards, in London at least. They
constitute a group that's now too large to be ignored.
Of course it will be years before Britain gives cyclists the protection and
priority they enjoy in, say, Amsterdam or Vienna. But more and more
politicians are arguing that we must move in this direction. And the
petrol-price rises of recent months will add to the momentum. Sooner or
later there will be a radical overhaul of the way we share our roads. It's
madness for cyclists to jeopardise what could be a huge victory in the near
future by blatantly flouting the Highway Code now.
When Ken Livingstone was Mayor of London he suggested that bicycles be
required to display number-plates. I was sceptical. Now (a little late for
Ken) I'm warming to the idea. If cyclists are going to argue successfully
for greater respect from fellow road users, they have to show common sense
and courtesy in turn. The prospect of being caught on camera might be just
the spur needed to keep the aggressive minority of Lycra loonies within the
law. Cyclists deserve a better deal. But in return, they also need to grow
up.
VIEW FROM THE CAB
They believe the rules of the road don't apply to them
I don't think there is a way to stop cyclists being so rude. It's in their
nature: they believe that the rules of the road do not apply to them.
Cyclists routinely ride the wrong way down one-way streets, and jumping lights
is so commonplace that no one even talks about it any more - almost every
cyclist does it almost every time. The problem may not be getting worse, but
it is certainly not getting better.
This leads to dangerous situations. The other day I was approaching Parliament
Square in Central London and I watched a cyclist come down from the Millbank
area and go across the top of the square against the traffic flow. He then
went into Parliament Street on the wrong side of the traffic lights. He had
driven across the square, across the lights, on the wrong side of the road -
purely for his own convenience. That's the kind of thing they do.
And then, sometimes, they are rude to you and very aggressive. Once, I passed
a bike on the North Circular, close to a traffic island. It's a very wide
road, but when I pulled up at the lights he drew alongside and started
mouthing off at me and spitting at my face. He claimed that I was too close
when I overtook.
He then sped off. Frankly, if I hadn't been sitting in traffic I would have
got out and killed him!
I think it would help if there was more police enforcement. Rarely do they
take notice of cyclists jumping traffic lights. Sometimes you have to brake
to avoid running them down.
I appreciate that it is difficult, though - it's not as if the cyclists have
registration or insurance. Perhaps adult cyclists should be required to
carry documentation.
RICHARD MASSET
The author works for the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association and is a former
London cab driver
VIEW FROM THE PAVEMENT
The selfishness of cyclists is absolutely galling
I am a pedestrian and use the pavement. I thought that was what it was for. If
you don't want to cycle on the road, don't cycle. That's the choice, surely.
Yet every morning the pavements are awash with so-called responsible cyclists,
kitted out in their reflective jackets and bombing along on two-wheeled
versions of 4x4s.
It's not a small proportion of cyclists giving the rest a bad name. In cities
and towns, a significant number of cyclists one encounters (at very close
quarters) are putting the safety of pedestrians in danger - and they don't
seem to care. It's their sense of entitlement and craven selfishness
(besides their excessive speed) that pedestrians find so galling.
They abuse you if you dare to cross the road when the green man is showing
(this symbol, and the red light, must have been reclassified to mean
“cyclists proceed, pedestrians take your chance”). It's the pedestrian who
gets the earful - “Watch where you are going!” - if you dare to use the
zebra crossing for what it is intended.
Somehow, in their scrambled helmeted heads, cyclists have reshaped the rules
of the road in their favour.
The solution? A friend shouts - or rather booms for maximum shaming - “Cycle
on the road!” at the pavement invaders. Or you could invest in the mask as
worn by the killer in the horror movie Scream. When you hear the hum of
bicycle tyres approaching from behind, put the mask on and turn around. That
should set the cyclist back on the road to righteousness.
TIM TEEMAN
Tips for safer cycling
Take care when passing pedestrians on pavement cycle tracks -
especially children or disabled people. Be prepared to stop if necessary
Cycling on standard pavements is illegal under all circumstances, with
no exemptions. Sanctions include a £30 fixed-penalty notice
Wearing light-coloured or fluorescent clothing helps other road users
to see you. Front and rear lights are a legal requirement at night
When manoeuvring, give clear hand signals to other road users to
indicate your intentions
Never cross the stop line when traffic lights are red. Some junctions
have advanced stop lines for bicycles, ahead of other traffic
Behave predictably. Sometimes actions that appear to leave you exposed
- such as moving into a central lane before turning right - are the safest,
as other road users then know your intentions
Cycle training can help both adults and children. For information about
government-subsidised courses go to www.bikeability.org.uk
At some junctions, such as roundabouts, you may feel safer moving onto
the verge or pavement. If you do so, you must walk your bicycle
TOM WHIPPLE
Source: The Highway Code, Action Wheels
