Addison Lee drivers told to defy bus lane law (and to just say SMIDSY)

It seems to me that a lot of people are loosing perspective of what's going on here and a few are becoming contraries.

The vast majority of the people in the country learn to ride a bike at the age of only a few years because it is an easy process. We learn to drive, under instruction, and must pass a fairly rigorous testing to comply with law to be allowed to drive a car on these roads. I think we can agree that cycling is a far easier skill to learn than to drive.

If that is the case then it is the USE of the road by cyclists which is the problem being argued here. In which case I am not sure why training would be so useful when you consider (not a checked fact) that approx. 80% of London's cyclists are drivers as well, meaning the vast majority are already versed to the use of roads to at least the same level as the drivers of the cars with which they share the road.

Now I am a driver and a cyclist and I DO jump red lights on occasion. I say this not to annoy but to explain that I do this only when I consider it to be safe and is done without causing concern to drivers. When cycling around London I see others jump red lights and on almost all occasions (99.9%) I'd say it's done without causing concern to drivers as people don't jump reds and then close their eyes and pray they don't get hit.

Unlike drivers cyclists ARE aware of their vulnerability, whereas as a driver (and I vouch for this) I am not at all concerned with my vulnerability, although I personally am concerned about my car getting scratched or damaged.

I think drivers are more concerned with the speed at which cyclists move through traffic. The fact that with no warning a bike can fly past their window and give them a little scare. The idea that we move from lane to lane and pass vehicles very close by.

However this spiel about a granny dodging a pothole or the suchlike is convoluted rubbish. A driver (lets all go to the calling out bad cyclists thread) should not overtake a cyclist if there is any danger. A driver should look ahead of the cyclist to asses the obstacles they will encounter and react accordingly the way they do with other cars.

Beyond this I cannot think of any reason why every cyclist should have training to cycle on the roads. I haven't had any myself but I understand that the majority of the training is defensive-centric. Holding the road, positioning to hold future territory, etc, etc. Does this man not realise that if everybody was to follow the letter of the cycle training that his cabs would never be able to overtake a cyclist. This granny moving to avoid a pothole would never have had to move as she would have been in the centre of the lane already and this suggested overtake would never have been attempted in the first place?

Anyway, it appears that the majority of this anti-cyclist hype is based around the RLJing. As cyclists don't want to die and a fight with a car through a red light is not something a cyclist would do then the only conceivable reason for drivers anger regards RLJing is a deflected anger and jealousy that they must sit and wait while a cyclist can freely continue with very little chance of recompense.

Whatever, any time you find yourself 'understanding' his point of view or feeling any sort of sympathy you should re-read the original piece from the AL Spring magazine and realise that the words he wrote have the very real ability to be putting YOUR LIFE IN DANGER next time your on the road. Even if the piece is retracted you must remember this:

That instance when an AL car driver of less than reputable persuasion is intending to overtake you and something happens; be it a move to avoid a pothole, a forgotten signal, a chain snap, anything, that driver will in that instance have a perceived allowance to take the risk which puts you in danger because of what he read. Even if he doesn't consciously want to cause you harm that snap, subconscious second will not necessarily lead to the same decision as it would have before.