MP thinks cyclists should get out the way?

mick_cornick

I thought we had the crapiest MP in parliament!

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/1578326 ... tal_crash/

elbowloh

Mick Cornick wrote:

I thought we had the crapiest MP in parliament!

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/1578326 ... tal_crash/

Unfortunately, there's quite of lot of competition for that title.

I still think that the desire to become an MP should automatically bar you from becoming one. Maybe we should just have a lottery system, like jury duty and you're name just gets picked out of a hat... (half tongue in cheek).

rower63

elbowloh wrote:

...I still think that the desire to become an MP should automatically bar you from becoming one. Maybe we should just have a lottery system, like jury duty and you're name just gets picked out of a hat... (half tongue in cheek).

how funny, never heard that expressed before outside my own head. I think more or less the same about any position of power or authority.

greenamex2

"He feels that “the risk factor involved when cyclists use busy roads is greater compared to using country lanes”."

Clearly this person has never ridden a cycle on public roads in his entire life.

fenix

Interestingly most of the comments on the paper support cycling.

And bizarrely - the MP used to own a bike shop...

slowbike

If you actually look at what (is quoted that) he said

Mr Smith said: “Sometimes cyclists must use their judgement and try and stick to routes that have cycle lanes on them.

“Some roads have been made and improved to ensure cycle access is better and the roads are wider, but we have to acknowledge that it’s dangerous for cyclists on certain roads and that they may need to consider when and where they cycle.

“The cycling lobby won’t like this but we have to do something to make the roads safer.

“We’re moving towards fewer cars on the roads and getting towards automated car improvement, but as of today there are 35 million registered cars on our roads.

“Until this gets lower, considerations need to be made.”

That makes more sense. It isn't a "Don't cycle on that road" ... it's a "Please consider where you cycle".

There are roads around here that I'm legally entitled to ride on - but I won't - because the traffic speed &/or density makes it too dangerous (IMHO). My wife used to lead (slow) group rides - and there were more roads that whilst we'd ride on them individually, she'd avoid as a group because it wasn't worth the grief and there were quieter alternatives.

I've google street viewed Portsmouth Road, Woolston and found the Cricketers Arms - there is a cycle path on one side, the road does look narrow - but it's (I believe) a 30 limit - I don't think I'd have any issue riding there ... If Royston Smith is referring to this road when asking cyclists to consider where they're riding then he needs to think carefully about what he's suggesting.

bompington

The only logical explanation is that Royston Smith is, obviously enough, not real at all but a character from the League of Gentlemen.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Another example of why I did a Calculon (from Futurama) "Nooooooooooooooooooo!" when he kept his seat by 31 votes this past summer, always coming out with crazy comments that an MP should be ashamed of. I really don't take pride in Royston being my MP... And that was before this latest gaff!

Steve-XcT

The problem is its a binary perspective.

Colin Macqueen, co-founder of Clean Air Southampton, said that Mr Smith’s remarks were “nonsense”.
He said: “A bicycle is a vehicle on the road, not causing the problem. Bad driving is the root of the problem.

I and anyone else (voters) see a whole load of bad and dangerous cycling... (and pedestrians and....)
Unless a balanced view is taken then many of those (voters) who see bad cycling will take the side of the "cyclists should be more careful" ... whilst pro cycling blames cars... and

However, cycling campaigners have condemned the Southampton Itchen MP’s comments as “complete nonsense” and said “we should be encouraging more people to use the roads, not less”.

Encouraging more people to use the roads sounds like complete nonsense to me.... but I suppose they mean more cyclists.
The problem is a lot of those (new) cyclists won't have a clue about their own safety.

wolfsbane2k

Oh dear lord.
I wish he'd lost his seat.

Isn't this the same MP that got fined for not wearing his seatbelt and driving without insurance?

Edit: Googlefu, yes.

Turns out he also wanted the plan for cycle paths to be cancelled and the money used elsewhere.
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cyclis ... ull/022441

slowbike

hmm - seems my benefit of the doubt was ill-founded then ...

milemuncher1

I know Royston, he’s often in a couple of restaurants / bars at the same time as I am. I’ll have to see if he’s been misquoted, or whether he said that after leaving the bar.

He’s not a complete turd normally. He did grab a rifle from a mad man ( one of the crew ) who was shooting up a submarine and killing his CO in the process a couple of years back.

wolfsbane2k

Milemuncher1 wrote:

I know Royston, he’s often in a couple of restaurants / bars at the same time as I am. I’ll have to see if he’s been misquoted, or whether he said that after leaving the bar.

He's admitted that's exactly what he said on twitter. I'm avoiding trying to tear him a new one via the twitter medium, seems a number of others already are.

milemuncher1

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

I know Royston, he’s often in a couple of restaurants / bars at the same time as I am. I’ll have to see if he’s been misquoted, or whether he said that after leaving the bar.

He's admitted that's exactly what he said on twitter. I'm avoiding trying to tear him a new one via the twitter medium, seems a number of others already are.

The whole ‘grabbing the rifle off of a mad man on a murder rampage on a submarine’ thing, still says he’s not all bad though.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

The problem is, that one good deed of Royston's (back around 2012?), does not make him a saint until the ends of time!

The only things I've had through the letterbox from him this year are his relief/celebration of being re-elected by 31 votes and wanting to moan about broadband prices.

BelgianBeerGeek

Wasn't Royston the head of Southampton City Council for ages? So any failures in cycling infrastructure in the city he must take some of the blame for.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Wasn't Royston the head of Southampton City Council for ages? So any failures in cycling infrastructure in the city he must take some of the blame for.

He was indeed until the 2013(?) General Election, when he stood and somehow won the Itchen constituency, first time not Labour in decades.

What I wasn't aware of until earlier is that apparently he had something to do with ownership of a bike shop near Bitterne Triangle! :shock:

milemuncher1

He also owned the bike shop in Bitterne triangle, ironically.

mrfpb

1. Looking at the extended quote above, he seems to be saying cyclists have rights, but are responsible for decisions about their personal safety. Why do so many cyclists have a problem with this.
2. Many people on these forums quote the "cycling in the wet and/or cold makes you a badass" line. Well not compared to a guy who, though unarmed, took on a nutter with a gun shooting innocent people. Respect is due, whatever his tweets say.
3. Royston Vasey (in the League of Gentlemen) is the real name of a (in)famous entertainer. He occasionally appears as the Mayor of his titular town.

hopkinb

mrfpb wrote:

1. Looking at the extended quote above, he seems to be saying cyclists have rights, but are responsible for decisions about their personal safety. Why do so many cyclists have a problem with this.
2. Many people on these forums quote the "cycling in the wet and/or cold makes you a badass" line. Well not compared to a guy who, though unarmed, took on a nutter with a gun shooting innocent people. Respect is due, whatever his tweets say.
3. Royston Vasey (in the League of Gentlemen) is the real name of a (in)famous entertainer. He occasionally appears as the Mayor of his titular town.

Hi Royston.

wolfsbane2k

mrfpb wrote:

1. Looking at the extended quote above, he seems to be saying cyclists have rights, but are responsible for decisions about their personal safety. Why do so many cyclists have a problem with this.

The problem is he's said this the day after a cyclist got killed by an hgv on the exit of one of the 4 bridges that cross the river, and the itchen bridge and surrounding layout has been modified to encourage cycling, just as this cyclist was doing; it then dumps you at this roundabout which has zero cycling infra.

So he's saying, given the context of the article is explicitly related to the death of the cyclist, is basically that cyclists be using that road/bridge, or given the traffic volumes, any of the other bridges.

And that's after being the leader of the town where he refused a number of times to support provision of viable alternative cycling infrastructure.

IE, in essence, get off my roads.

awavey

mrfpb wrote:

1. Looking at the extended quote above, he seems to be saying cyclists have rights, but are responsible for decisions about their personal safety. Why do so many cyclists have a problem with this.

because its victim blaming, and the victim he is blaming just died, the roads arent unsafe because cyclists are using them "unwisely", in the same way the pavements arent unsafe because a pedestrian might walk on one and get stabbed by hoody gang members on mopeds, or a woman walking home at night gets raped

they are unsafe because we let people like this complete loony, or that martial arts nutter in Essex,or they other crazy driver in Colchester (Im really thinking of avoiding cycling round East Anglia at the moment) think its perfectly ok to drive around like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england ... er-on-a140

and the real problem he should be addressing is why the f*** do we just accept that as if its perfectly ok and just one of those things

mrfpb

hopkinb wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

1. Looking at the extended quote above, he seems to be saying cyclists have rights, but are responsible for decisions about their personal safety. Why do so many cyclists have a problem with this.
2. Many people on these forums quote the "cycling in the wet and/or cold makes you a badass" line. Well not compared to a guy who, though unarmed, took on a nutter with a gun shooting innocent people. Respect is due, whatever his tweets say.
3. Royston Vasey (in the League of Gentlemen) is the real name of a (in)famous entertainer. He occasionally appears as the Mayor of his titular town.

Hi Royston.

Which one?

hopkinb

mrfpb wrote:

hopkinb wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

1. Looking at the extended quote above, he seems to be saying cyclists have rights, but are responsible for decisions about their personal safety. Why do so many cyclists have a problem with this.
2. Many people on these forums quote the "cycling in the wet and/or cold makes you a badass" line. Well not compared to a guy who, though unarmed, took on a nutter with a gun shooting innocent people. Respect is due, whatever his tweets say.
3. Royston Vasey (in the League of Gentlemen) is the real name of a (in)famous entertainer. He occasionally appears as the Mayor of his titular town.

Hi Royston.

Which one?

I know who Roy Chubby Brown is. Your points 1 and 2 would suggest you are Royston Smith. Well done for taking a gun off a nutter, now let's see if you can make the roads safer for cyclists and save hundreds more avoidable deaths.

slowbike

mrfpb wrote:

1. Looking at the extended quote above, he seems to be saying cyclists have rights, but are responsible for decisions about their personal safety. Why do so many cyclists have a problem with this.

Absolutely - of course we are responsible for the risks we take that affect our own safety. If he'd said that in general, without referring to this particular accident where a cyclist was knocked off his bike in a 30 limit - then I'd agree with him. What he's inferring is that it isn't safe to ride the roads around there and he said cyclists should stick to places where there is cycle infrastructure - infrastructure he's refused to fund. I appreciate council funds are limited and we can't have everything right now - but instead of sticking up for the cyclists rights to ride there - he blamed the cyclist for the lorry hitting him.

mrfpb wrote:

2. Many people on these forums quote the "cycling in the wet and/or cold makes you a badass" line. Well not compared to a guy who, though unarmed, took on a nutter with a gun shooting innocent people. Respect is due, whatever his tweets say.

Having never been in a situation like that, and never intend to be - I have no idea what it took to disarm the nutter - or what his alternatives were. He can have respect for that particular incident - but that doesn't mean he has cart blanche to spout out any nonsense ... respect is earned and can be lost far easier...

elbowloh

I would have thought the sensible thing to do if roads are dangerous, is to remove or reduce the hazards on those roads i.e. remove lorries or mitigate their risk to other road users, not remove the bikes which are minimal danger to anyone.

wolfsbane2k

It gets worse.

He's still not asked for people to drive carefully around cyclists. FFS.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/1578629 ... ted_quot_/

wolfsbane2k

elbowloh wrote:

I would have thought the sensible thing to do if roads are dangerous, is to remove or reduce the hazards on those roads i.e. remove lorries or mitigate their risk to other road users, not remove the bikes which are minimal danger to anyone.

☝

cycleclinic

The problem is cycling is not really dangerous and it is not known the circumtances of the cyclists death that this MP is refering to so it is is entirely possible the MP is making generalisations based on assumptions. Assumption makes an ass out of the assumer.

pblakeney

thecycleclinic wrote:

The problem is cycling is not really dangerous and it is not known the circumtances of the cyclists death that this MP is refering to so it is is entirely possible the MP is making generalisations based on assumptions. Assumption makes an ass out of the assumer.

When you assume you make an ass out of you and me.
Ass - u - me. Don't blame me, but that's the saying.

Steve-XcT

awavey wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

1. Looking at the extended quote above, he seems to be saying cyclists have rights, but are responsible for decisions about their personal safety. Why do so many cyclists have a problem with this.

because its victim blaming, and the victim he is blaming just died, the roads arent unsafe because cyclists are using them "unwisely", in the same way the pavements arent unsafe because a pedestrian might walk on one and get stabbed by hoody gang members on mopeds, or a woman walking home at night gets raped

Victim blaming is usually a proxy for removing common sense.
I have no idea if this cyclist was a victim or not.... I have however seen lot of cyclists doing their best to become victims.

It's become popular to blame the toothpick manufacturer for not explicitly saying they shouldn't be stabbed into your eyeball.. and when they protest that this is common sense and chimps use toothpicks without stabbing them into their eyes they are accused of victim blaming.