Spectator debate: Cyclists are a menace.

CiB

Interesting one - The Spectator magazine hosts various events & debates through the year; they've got one coming up on Nov 30th to debate the motion that 'Cyclists are a menace'. Hmmm.

I'd love to go to this but won't. It's in London for a start. They get some decent names to speak tho, and in the chair, Old Brillo Pad himself.

It would be a huge bonus if this were widely reported in the media, perhaps given some prominence in the press after the event with a sense of who said what [as opposed to 'former mayor Ken Livingstone said last night that cyclists get a bad press', followed by the usual round of copy & paste buffoonery on every newspaper's web site that prints it].

Anyway, thought I'd flag it up. If anyone does go say so on here and we can arm you with a million & one pithy quotes to use on the night.

Link to Spectator Event page.

£28 a ticket, Savoy Place, that there Lunnon, Nov 30th.

Speakers for the motion

Baroness Sharples
Stephen Pound
David Thomas


Speakers against the motion:

Ken Livingstone
Jon Snow
Andrew Gimson

graeme_s-2

Jon Snow speaking against the motion should be pretty good. He's very articulate, he commutes by bike and he's the President of the CTC!

number9

Was Baroness Sharples the soppy old duffer who claimed to have hit a cyclist with her handbag?


If I went I'd point out:

You're more likely to be killed by a police car on the pavement than a cyclist.

Uninsured drivers (1.7m) nearly outnumber regular cycling commuters (1.1m) by two to one.

Cyclists have the lowest "at fault" rating of any road user.

The more cyclists there are, the safer the roads become. This is called the "Virtuous Cycle". Anything that discourages cycling increases road danger.


There is a concerted effort by the motoring lobby to portray cycling as dangerous and cyclists as thugs. From Honest John's encouragement of the Perversion Of Justice in a vehicle/cyclist accident to the beebs refusal to censure Top Gear presenters for encouraging violence against cyclists.


Cyclists have pert buttocks and shaped calves.

Motorists suffer from "Picasso Arse"- where their pants are so tight and their arse so fat it looks like they have four buttocks.

Anyone think of anything else?

Porgy

Who the hell are Stephen Pound & David Thomas? :?:

biondino

If Sharples gets lairy will Snow D-lock the c***?

choirboy

Is just around the corner from my office so will try to go.

chuckcork

number9 wrote:

Anyone think of anything else?

I'd point out:

Cycling infrastructure is generally poorly designed and dangerous, which is why so many don't use it (to the annoyance of motorists), and thats where it does exist at all;

Where it is properly designed its actually not that expensive by comparison with the cost of providing roads and road repairs, the cost/benefit ratio is considerably higher than for road schemes focussed on motoring alone;

The majority of journeys are well within the range of distance a cyclist can handle, so encouragement of the use of bikes (rather than hate campaigns in the press, which almost seem to be set pieces lately) would actually reduce congestion for everybody.

The savings in costs for the NHS alone in having a healthier, more active population, (reducing the increase in diabetes, heart disease, mental health benefits etc) would more than pay for any increase in cost in providing a proper infrastructure in the manner of our EU neighbours, let alone the reduction in costs from fewer accidents and injured people to be dealt with (by the NHS, police, courts etc).

I'm sure there are plenty more but I only have so much time....

Spiny_Norman

Porgy wrote:

Who the hell are Stephen Pound & David Thomas? :?:

Stephen Pound is a rent-a-quote backbench Labour MP who loves the sound of his own voice, and manages to be vociferously wrong on just about everything. There are too many David Thomases to be able to say which one it might be.

CiB

number9 wrote:

Anyone think of anything else?

The fact that Road Tax doesn't exist, and that VED doesn't give any motorist the right to inflict injury or worse on another road user regardless of mode of transport.

That most of us regular cyclists are driven nuts by RLJing*, pavement riding etc as it legitimizes drivers' hatred of cyclists.

That a driver acting as judge, jury and sometimes executioner to some perceived transgression of the rules by a cyclist, is not a good thing.

Etc.

*Converted to the anti-RLJ cause.

Kieran_Burns

Should we hate all drivers because some speed?

So, should drivers hate all cyclists because some red light jump?

People make absolute statements based upon partial evidence - a logical transgression and the root cause of too little tolerance and patience from all parties.

number9

I've been shouted at "Get on the pavement!"

Then, when I've arrived at work, a colleague said "I hate cyclists, they cycle on the pavement!"

Headhuunter

Yeah, Sharples is the one with the handbag. It could be interesting, however at £28 a pop I think I'll leave it...

ride_whenever

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Should we hate all drivers because some speed?

I'm not sure there are any drivers who never speed. I mean i'd be glad to swallow my words, but just about everyone i know and have seen has sped at some point.

However I agree that the majority of drivers don't speed all the time, only rarely and with no consequence.

Porgy

Spiny_Norman wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Who the hell are Stephen Pound & David Thomas? :?:

Stephen Pound is a rent-a-quote backbench Labour MP who loves the sound of his own voice, and manages to be vociferously wrong on just about everything. There are too many David Thomases to be able to say which one it might be.

My wife used to work for a human rights solicitor called David Thomas - he set a precendent in somehting quite important once, i forget the details - I'm hoping it's not him because i know he rides a bike on a occasion.

Porgy

ride_whenever wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Should we hate all drivers because some speed?

I'm not sure there are any drivers who never speed. I mean i'd be glad to swallow my words, but just about everyone i know and have seen has sped at some point.

However I agree that the majority of drivers don't speed all the time, only rarely and with no consequence.

There are two of those speed indicator signs that i pass - one going up the hill between Plumstead and Welling and another on the Welling side of Shooters Hill. I've yet to see a car pass either sign at anything less than 35. So yeah - I reckon speeding is just about 100% among drivers.

MonkeyMonster

tbh, we are all menaces to the lardy arsed can't be fucked brigade. As shown by 'our' very own gb155 - its is entirely possible to make a difference merely by getting on a bike. So no doubt plastic surgeons all over the world will shake their fists at us for showing the world you don't need to spend shed loads of tummy tucks etc.

Anyway, box is free *next*

Kieran_Burns

Porgy wrote:

ride_whenever wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Should we hate all drivers because some speed?

I'm not sure there are any drivers who never speed. I mean i'd be glad to swallow my words, but just about everyone i know and have seen has sped at some point.

However I agree that the majority of drivers don't speed all the time, only rarely and with no consequence.

There are two of those speed indicator signs that i pass - one going up the hill between Plumstead and Welling and another on the Welling side of Shooters Hill. I've yet to see a car pass either sign at anything less than 35. So yeah - I reckon speeding is just about 100% among drivers.

Ironically you are doing exactly what I stated it was logically incorrect to do:

Extrapolating an absolute from a specific.

Just because you (apparently) see every driver speed on ONE section of road it does not mean that ALL drivers speed on ALL roads

(I feel like quoting Monty Python [Mr Logic] at this point: I call it crap and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical! )

However, maybe I should change the comment to:

Just because some drivers act inconsiderately should we hate all drivers....

Porgy

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Porgy wrote:

ride_whenever wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Should we hate all drivers because some speed?

I'm not sure there are any drivers who never speed. I mean i'd be glad to swallow my words, but just about everyone i know and have seen has sped at some point.

However I agree that the majority of drivers don't speed all the time, only rarely and with no consequence.

There are two of those speed indicator signs that i pass - one going up the hill between Plumstead and Welling and another on the Welling side of Shooters Hill. I've yet to see a car pass either sign at anything less than 35. So yeah - I reckon speeding is just about 100% among drivers.

Ironically you are doing exactly what I stated it was logically incorrect to do:

Extrapolating an absolute from a specific.

Just because you (apparently) see every driver speed on ONE section of road it does not mean that ALL drivers speed on ALL roads

(I feel like quoting Monty Python [Mr Logic] at this point: I call it crap and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical! )

However, maybe I should change the comment to:

Just because some drivers act inconsiderately should we hate all drivers....

Philosophy says you can't but science says you can - as long as your sample is big enough.

I could probably say with near 100% accuracy that people driving into Wellin in south east London always speed...with thousands of observations over many years.

Porgy

Kieran_Burns wrote:

(I feel like quoting Monty Python [Mr Logic] at this point: I call it crap and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical! )

Viz comic surely?

And yes I know it irritates some people - one of the reasons why i do it. :P

Wallace1492

"Most" Drivers will speed at some time or other. I know I do, but I would say that it is not very often, however, it is not very much over the limit, and in my humble opinion I always drive well within what the road conditions and weather dictates is safe. Speed will come down if there are any hazards about.

It is not always about speed though, as Kieran says, it is more inconsiderate drivers who view bikes as having no right to be on the road. Or ones that just do not see cyclists, these are much more dangerous.

More driver awareness is required.

ride_whenever

Porgy wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Porgy wrote:

ride_whenever wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Should we hate all drivers because some speed?

I'm not sure there are any drivers who never speed. I mean i'd be glad to swallow my words, but just about everyone i know and have seen has sped at some point.

However I agree that the majority of drivers don't speed all the time, only rarely and with no consequence.

There are two of those speed indicator signs that i pass - one going up the hill between Plumstead and Welling and another on the Welling side of Shooters Hill. I've yet to see a car pass either sign at anything less than 35. So yeah - I reckon speeding is just about 100% among drivers.

Ironically you are doing exactly what I stated it was logically incorrect to do:

Extrapolating an absolute from a specific.

Just because you (apparently) see every driver speed on ONE section of road it does not mean that ALL drivers speed on ALL roads

(I feel like quoting Monty Python [Mr Logic] at this point: I call it crap and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical! )

However, maybe I should change the comment to:

Just because some drivers act inconsiderately should we hate all drivers....

Philosophy says you can't but science says you can - as long as your sample is big enough.

I could probably say with near 100% accuracy that people driving into Wellin in south east London always speed...with thousands of observations over many years.

Actually no you cant, you can say in all likelihood that they will be speeding, but it only takes one person to mess up your observation. Problem with trying to prove something.

However, until someone can provide some evidence of a driver who has never sped, I will assume all drivers will speed at some point or another, either through not preparing for a drop in the limit or through willful ignorance.

Porgy

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Just because some drivers act inconsiderately should we hate all drivers....

It would be difficult for me as I drive, my wife drives, my dad and my sister both drive too.

So hate is a silly word to use.

Recognise that there are certain things that nearly all motorists do and try to fix them at the point that training is delivered, and with national public awareness campaigns, tightening of legislation and a change in the way cycle related collisions are dealt with by the police and the courts.

The worst drivers on the road can be tackled with enforcement of existing law....it just needs to be taken seriously poltically and things will change.

Porgy

ride_whenever wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Porgy wrote:

ride_whenever wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Should we hate all drivers because some speed?

I'm not sure there are any drivers who never speed. I mean i'd be glad to swallow my words, but just about everyone i know and have seen has sped at some point.

However I agree that the majority of drivers don't speed all the time, only rarely and with no consequence.

There are two of those speed indicator signs that i pass - one going up the hill between Plumstead and Welling and another on the Welling side of Shooters Hill. I've yet to see a car pass either sign at anything less than 35. So yeah - I reckon speeding is just about 100% among drivers.

Ironically you are doing exactly what I stated it was logically incorrect to do:

Extrapolating an absolute from a specific.

Just because you (apparently) see every driver speed on ONE section of road it does not mean that ALL drivers speed on ALL roads

(I feel like quoting Monty Python [Mr Logic] at this point: I call it crap and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical! )

However, maybe I should change the comment to:

Just because some drivers act inconsiderately should we hate all drivers....

Philosophy says you can't but science says you can - as long as your sample is big enough.

I could probably say with near 100% accuracy that people driving into Wellin in south east London always speed...with thousands of observations over many years.

Actually no you cant, you can say in all likelihood that they will be speeding, but it only takes one person to mess up your observation. Problem with trying to prove something. .

No - it doesn't becasue they may speed at other times and you include a margin of error - so 98% not 100%.

Are you a David Hume fan by any chance?

Headhuunter

Wallace1492 wrote:

"Most" Drivers will speed at some time or other. I know I do, but I would say that it is not very often, however, it is not very much over the limit, and in my humble opinion I always drive well within what the road conditions and weather dictates is safe. Speed will come down if there are any hazards about.

If drivers can say that they speed "not very often" and "it is not very much over the limit" then I can say that I only RLJ occasionally when roads are clear and when I think it's safe to do so. Surely the reason RLJ-ers get so much crap on this forum is because "rules is rules" and not open for debate?

Wallace1492

Headhuunter wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

"Most" Drivers will speed at some time or other. I know I do, but I would say that it is not very often, however, it is not very much over the limit, and in my humble opinion I always drive well within what the road conditions and weather dictates is safe. Speed will come down if there are any hazards about.

If drivers can say that they speed "not very often" and "it is not very much over the limit" then I can say that I only RLJ occasionally when roads are clear and when I think it's safe to do so. Surely the reason RLJ-ers get so much crap on this forum is because "rules is rules" and not open for debate?

Well, if you only RLJ when roads are clear, its safe, and presumable no-one about, then nobody would get hacked off as no-one will have witnessed your jump.

Yes, rules is rules, but breaking some is more acceptable than others. For example, a car going at 35 on a fairly big, open road, with wide pavements, and no hazards, could be considered to be much more acceptable than a cyclist shooting though a red light in a congested part of London, with pedestrians crossing.

Kieran_Burns

Headhuunter wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

"Most" Drivers will speed at some time or other. I know I do, but I would say that it is not very often, however, it is not very much over the limit, and in my humble opinion I always drive well within what the road conditions and weather dictates is safe. Speed will come down if there are any hazards about.

If drivers can say that they speed "not very often" and "it is not very much over the limit" then I can say that I only RLJ occasionally when roads are clear and when I think it's safe to do so. Surely the reason RLJ-ers get so much crap on this forum is because "rules is rules" and not open for debate?

No - because again you are extrapolating from your own experiences (which indicate that you only RLJ when the roads are empty) that differ from those that create the most ire: RLJ'ing into / across traffic / pedestrians etc etc.

I keep on with this mantra of mine (as a confirmed petrol head) it is not speed that kills, it is poor driving, just as you have a mantra of "I only RLJ when absolutely safe to do so.

However, the ire directed at anyone that RLJs is so vehement (on this board) because of the knock on effect to all of us.

Headhuunter

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

"Most" Drivers will speed at some time or other. I know I do, but I would say that it is not very often, however, it is not very much over the limit, and in my humble opinion I always drive well within what the road conditions and weather dictates is safe. Speed will come down if there are any hazards about.

If drivers can say that they speed "not very often" and "it is not very much over the limit" then I can say that I only RLJ occasionally when roads are clear and when I think it's safe to do so. Surely the reason RLJ-ers get so much crap on this forum is because "rules is rules" and not open for debate?

No - because again you are extrapolating from your own experiences (which indicate that you only RLJ when the roads are empty) that differ from those that create the most ire: RLJ'ing into / across traffic / pedestrians etc etc.

I keep on with this mantra of mine (as a confirmed petrol head) it is not speed that kills, it is poor driving, just as you have a mantra of "I only RLJ when absolutely safe to do so.

However, the ire directed at anyone that RLJs is so vehement (on this board) because of the knock on effect to all of us.

If it's not speed that kills but poor driving then IMO it's not RLJ-ing that kills, it's poor RLJ-ing. If rules are not rules and we are allowed leeway on this then just as the car driver is allowed his view on when 35mph is safe in a 30 zone then I insist on my right to be allowed to RLJ when I think it's safe.

As for the "knock on effect" on all of us, what about the knock on effect of a car driver breakin the speed limit? Why does this not raise "ire" directed at the motorist? Why should cyclists back down simply because motorists get angry that we RLJ yet somehow breaking the speed limit is accepted as OK, because motorists are somehow able to judge when 35 in a 30 zone or 50 in a 40 zone is miraculously safe?!

I believe that as a cyclist, with un paralleled view across the traffic from my raised position and without the framework of a motor vehicle obscuring what I can see AND my hearing, I am in a far better position to judge when it is safe to RLJ than a motorist is to judge when to speed.

Eau Rouge

Speed limits are arbitary, and more about defing boundaries and pleasing locals who complain to the council, whereas red lights control traffic and when they are red on one side of a junction, they will be green on the other. The two are completely different types of rule, and breaking one is nothing like breaking the other. It's very flawed logic to argue that because speed limits are treated as advisory by motorists, cyclists should treat red lights in the same fashion.

Wallace1492

Headhuunter wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

"Most" Drivers will speed at some time or other. I know I do, but I would say that it is not very often, however, it is not very much over the limit, and in my humble opinion I always drive well within what the road conditions and weather dictates is safe. Speed will come down if there are any hazards about.

If drivers can say that they speed "not very often" and "it is not very much over the limit" then I can say that I only RLJ occasionally when roads are clear and when I think it's safe to do so. Surely the reason RLJ-ers get so much crap on this forum is because "rules is rules" and not open for debate?

No - because again you are extrapolating from your own experiences (which indicate that you only RLJ when the roads are empty) that differ from those that create the most ire: RLJ'ing into / across traffic / pedestrians etc etc.

I keep on with this mantra of mine (as a confirmed petrol head) it is not speed that kills, it is poor driving, just as you have a mantra of "I only RLJ when absolutely safe to do so.

However, the ire directed at anyone that RLJs is so vehement (on this board) because of the knock on effect to all of us.

If it's not speed that kills but poor driving then IMO it's not RLJ-ing that kills, it's poor RLJ-ing. If rules are not rules and we are allowed leeway on this then just as the car driver is allowed his view on when 35mph is safe in a 30 zone then I insist on my right to be allowed to RLJ when I think it's safe.

As for the "knock on effect" on all of us, what about the knock on effect of a car driver breakin the speed limit? Why does this not raise "ire" directed at the motorist? Why should cyclists back down simply because motorists get angry that we RLJ yet somehow breaking the speed limit is accepted as OK, because motorists are somehow able to judge when 35 in a 30 zone or 50 in a 40 zone is miraculously safe?!

I believe that as a cyclist, with un paralleled view across the traffic from my raised position and without the framework of a motor vehicle obscuring what I can see AND my hearing, I am in a far better position to judge when it is safe to RLJ than a motorist is to judge when to speed.

I think both are wrong, however one is more accepted than the other.

if you want to RLJ, then go ahead, I used to but have decided not to anymore, the reason is that if I got it wrong just once then there would be severe consequences. I personally dont care if someone else does it, where I have a problem is if they interfere with other road users. (and get away from me when I am trying to scalp them!!)

Headhuunter

Eau Rouge wrote:

Speed limits are arbitary, and more about defing boundaries and pleasing locals who complain to the council, whereas red lights control traffic and when they are red on one side of a junction, they will be green on the other. The two are completely different types of rule, and breaking one is nothing like breaking the other. It's very flawed logic to argue that because speed limits are treated as advisory by motorists, cyclists should treat red lights in the same fashion.

Why? Simply because speed limits are apparently "arbitrary" and set to please locals who complain to the council why does this make them lesser rules than stopping at red lights? I think you're on very dodgy ground there! I was not aware of levels of importance of various laws of the road....

I have previously argued for RLJ-ing on this site and been told you HAVE to stop, rules is rules, well now it seems that rules are NOT rules and we have the bizarre paradox that cyclists on a cycling forum are arguing that motorists should be allowed leeway when it comes to the speed limit, yet cyclists should have to stop at red lights. Always. Even when it's 1am and nothing is come from miles around.

As has been discussed before, many have argued and posted stats that RLJ-ing is in many cases safer than waiting at red lights on busy junctions. We have also discussed that in many European cities such as Antwerp, it is perfectly acceptable for cyclists to pass through clear red lights, just as pedestrians do not have to wait for a green man in the UK. Yet you believe that motorists should be allowed to speed, yet cyclists absoluetly have to stop at every red light?

That's bizarre....

alfablue

I understand Headhunter's ire at the inconsistency here - its simple, rules is rules, whether that be speed limits or RLJ'ing. And these rules are for everyone, people who think they know best (i.e. how to speed safely, how to RLJ safely) are not excused. Trouble is, bad drivers and bad cyclists are unaware that they are bad, so those that think they can break the rules safely may well be deluded.

I do believe speeding (especially in urban or residential areas) is worse than RLJ'ng - the speeder is playing fast and loose with life and limb of myself, pedestrians, other cyclists, children. The RLJ'er is probably endangering themselves more, however, I am fiercely against both practices - the latter because of the bad press it gives, and allows us all to be similarly tarred!