Sunday Times magazine anyone?

MadammeMarie

There was an article about cyclists in the Sunday Times magazine yesterday (Sun 13/12). Anybody read it? Opinions?

I thought it was a bit anti, though it made good points about pavement cycling.

msw

Again? There was a sort of half-arsed rant last week as well, or is that the one you mean? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 940837.ece

(To summarise: "ipod zombies, lycra, ha ha silly hippies, facts may not support the article I've been asked to write but we've all been run off the road haven't we eh? [will this do?]")

MadammeMarie

msw wrote:

Again? There was a sort of half-arsed rant last week as well, or is that the one you mean? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 940837.ece

Yes, that's the one. Was it this weekend? Sorry, got the dates wrong.

Wallace1492

I thought it was an excellent article.

Looked at the issues, highlighted dangers of cycling, and on the whole I thought it was pretty fair. Managed to even turn it to blame the bankers!!

Still, are the Bankers not to blame for global warming and the BA strike? And perhaps even the war in Afganistan?

biondino

Hmm, I'm not quite sure what to think. It's obviously not quite the knee-jerk tory-coddling anti-cycle rant we're so used to, and there's proper research in there. But a lot of the paragraphs are styled so that they are intrinsically critical of cycling. Even a diesel car with decent fuel consumption is a gas-guzzler - the guy doesn't need to own a Hummer to be contributing to pollution!

And it does mention the fact that it's the noob cyclists who ride cluelessly, jump reds, ride on the pavement "because they feel unsafe" etc who are the biggest problem, which is unusually perceptive.

owenlars

Isn't it easy? If cyclists didn't cycle on the pavement and jump red lights there wouldn't be any problem. Both are optional and both are against the law and these were the only two offences I saw mentioned in the article (even the deaths were down to cycling on the pavement). It is all an attitude, we need to behave like responsible road users and cars and lorries need to give us the same space and attention as they do other traffic. We must also recognise that there will always be a proportion of numpties on all sides and not react to the numpties as we all know that hard cases make bad law. I though it was aq good and balanced article.

fnegroni

Re: cycling on pavement.

It is against the law for anyone over 16 yo.

So is it against the law to do that when carrying my 3 yo boy?

I would guess yes.

But IME, cycling on the road is not yet safe enough.

I take my son to school at 8.50am. In a residential area.

Yet there are drivers who have barely defrosted their windows, lighting up a cigarette or chatting with the phone in their hands (probably to notify work they'll be late or rant how cold it is) and fail to see me with lights and hi viz.

I had two close calls and I don't have the option of leaving at 8.30, to walk a mile to school, with my son on the bike, so I can then cycle back home to drop the bike seat and then be at work by 10am.

So, although I usually use the road, I have occasionally used the pavement.

I have also cycled on pavement on occasions where a long queue of cars (it is the bicycles that slow traffic down, innit?! ;-) ) waiting at a busy junction fail to see me filtering at crawling speed.

Am I illegal? Hell yeah.

Am I stupid? Hell no!

Wallace1492

fnegroni wrote:

Re: cycling on pavement.

It is against the law for anyone over 16 yo.

It is against the law for anyone. Period. However, Police will rarely, if ever issue a penalty to anyone under 16.

fnegroni

Wallace1492 wrote:

fnegroni wrote:

Re: cycling on pavement.

It is against the law for anyone over 16 yo.

It is against the law for anyone. Period. However, Police will rarely, if ever issue a penalty to anyone under 16.

That's true, it is illegal for anyone, although the fixed penalty notice actually *can not* be issued to anyone under 16yo, and will be issued to anyone over 16yo at the discretion of the Police Officer, after careful consideration:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

"I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16."

See: Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004

In addition, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.

simple_salmon

fnegroni wrote:

In addition, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.

Could they be asked/told to dismount?

Tonymufc

Thought that was a good article myself. Its easy to stereotype cyclists, as it is with women drivers, boy racers and old people. Stereotypes are usually highly inaccurate except for the women driver ones.






That was a joke by the way.

SmellTheGlove

today, in cycle-mad Britain

I couldn't concentrate after that bit - the comedy got the better of me.

_Brun_

SmellTheGlove wrote:

today, in cycle-mad Britain

I couldn't concentrate after that bit - the comedy got the better of me.

Is the suggestion that cycles are driving Britain mad?