Postby atbattersea » Mon Apr 04, 2022 4:21 pm
I write this as a cyclist, motorcyclist and driver.
It is utter ******* that a driver, or motorcyclist for that matter, cannot go within 1.5 metres of a cyclist.
You only have to think about the logic of it for a few seconds to realise that this is not what the rules on the hierarchy of road users means. For a start, it would mean that lorries and buses would always have to give way to car drivers. What are they going to do, reverse back up the road!?
The hierarchy is there to indicate, clearly, who is most exposed, and who should be most careful.
That there is a hierarchy does not mean that those at the bottom of the chain can do what they like with impunity, it just means that the burden of proof rests with those further up the hierarchy.
Everyday incidence of cyclist being with 1.5m of a car, where there is no liability for the car driver: if the car is stationary in a traffic queue and the cyclist approaches from the rear and overtakes the car (on either side), or even (not uncommon) squeezes through a narrow gap.
The same must be true if the motorist and cyclist are travelling in opposite directions (ie the car is stationary in traffic driving east and a cyclist passes riding west).
So, in the particular incidence of the long roads between the commons, the driver is only required to give way to the cyclist, not maintain the distance stated. And to be clear on that, I am saying that the driver probably has to be stationary when the cyclist passes. For example, how could the driver be liable, if they enter the road, it seems clear, and then a cyclist appears from the opposite end? Alternatively, if there is a bend in the road, or it is a long, narrow country lane?
I suspect that most people, receiving a penalty notice, will not challenge it – because it is usually more trouble that it is worth. But, that is probably the whole purpose of the scheme, to grab at the low hanging fruit and take the burden from the courts. So, evidence of accepting the penalty is not evidence of the penalty being correctly levied.
I believe that the main problem with cyclists on the road is that they are not educated as road users, or if they are (because they have motorcycle or driving licences) their use of logic goes out of the window as they are all pumped-up on the exercise induced adreniline. I have spent many years cycling from Battersea up to the West End and to London Bridge, and only once have I come close to being "doored" and only once close to being knocked off (unbelievably someone deliberately tried to run me off the road).
When on the road I find myself often cringing at what I see cyclists, scooter riders and motorcyclist do – physically put themselves in danger through lack of awareness. And, on odd occasions I see them take careful note of the road conditions, and avoid what could have been very serious accidents (while swearing under their breaths) - but the latter is much less common than the former.
I have recently objected to TfL’s proposals for “bus stop bypasses” – where cyclists are effectively diverted onto the pavement around bus stops – precisely because I have seen, over an extended period, how recklessly many of them ride. They do not know how to give way to pedestrians, and putting them in a position where they need to do so will just result in more accidents.
This poor road use by cyclists is not aided by a lack of enforcement by TfL or the police, so the situation tends to get worse, rather than better.
As to the claim that cyclist do not injure pedestrians very often. I believe that is a hollow claim, because no evidence has been put forward to support it. There have been at least two cases in London that I am aware of where cyclists have killed pedestrians. I suspect that there are many more where lesser injuries have been caused.
Perhaps the caped crusader could start collecting evidence of the indiscretions of cyclists, and urge the police to take greater enforcement action too?
