Interesting Article in the Huffington Post today

A mate of mine wrote this - Quite a debate raging in the comments section!

Cyclists, for the Sake of Progress, be Nice to Everyone

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-edwards/cyclists-behaviour_b_1929375.html

Thoughts?

I hate it when VED is brought up, people are so ignorant!

Tom Edwards is misrepresenting what Cavendish and other cycling campaigners have called for:

Sprinter Mark Cavendish has recommended a European-style system where the assumption of liability is on the driver, rather than the cyclist.

It's Presumed Liability, and it's only in civil law, not in any criminal case. We saw similar sloppy, inaccurate reporting when this change was mooted some years back. It's misrepresentation which could increase hostility on the roads, as could Mr Edward's claim that:

So what first we must first see is cyclists obeying the rules of the road.

Bad behaviour by cyclists is rarely a cause of vehicle/cyclist RTCs. Usually it is the driver at fault, not the cyclist. The trouble with claims like Mr Edward's is that it reinforces the victim mentality and suggests any cyclist hit on the road must have done something wrong. Can you see how potentially dangerous this is?

I found it really difficult to read, so didn't get through the whole thing. The font & layout don't help, and then the pompous circumlocutions with which the erstwhile correspondent has elected to indulge himself make it even harder to follow. (Oh, and "myself and the driver," near the beginning, kind of sets the tone.)

A mate of mine wrote this - Quite a debate raging in the comments section!

Cyclists, for the Sake of Progress, be Nice to Everyone

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-edwards/cyclists-behaviour_b_1929375.html

Thoughts?

Your 'mate 'wins the race to be go work for the sun-

• Poor journalism that is courting controversy nothing else.
  -Cycle lanes are bad news, giving people the impression that cycles should be in the lane. They should not, it is advise and gives rise to poor positioning.
  
• Is there anything new to be bought to this?
  

Bad behaviour by cyclists is rarely a cause of vehicle/cyclist RTCs. Usually it is the driver at fault, not the cyclist. The trouble with claims like Mr Edward's is that it reinforces the victim mentality and suggests any cyclist hit on the road must have done something wrong. Can you see how potentially dangerous this is?
He also suggest that poor cycling is an excuse for poor (and dangerous) driving.

Thoughts?
Your mate shouldn't giveup his day job just yet?

A mate of mine wrote this - Quite a debate raging in the comments section!

Cyclists, for the Sake of Progress, be Nice to Everyone

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-edwards/cyclists-behaviour_b_1929375.html

Thoughts?

I'm disapointed in my own intrigue, a wasted few minutes reading a poorly written article that starts with altercations escalating into a set too far to quickly, and ends with a non result

maybe your 'mate' should stick to Ping Pong with far greater enthusiasm.

Crap article but one very valid point

"So what first we must first see is cyclists obeying the rules of the road. "

We need to be supported and respected by other road users. Each time somebody RLJs, rides on the pavement, ignores the closed cycle lane on Tooley St thus scaring the hell out of the banksman who are trying to manouver HGVs safely we lose a tiny bit more credibility.

In an ideal world this shouldn't be a pre-requisite for change but sadly, realistically, we need to build bridges with our fellow road users (and pedestrians) otherwise we'll always be treated as bottom of the pile.

The rules of the road are there to try to ensure that everybody acts in a safe and predictable way. All road users are bound by them. When we see a car jump a red because they think it looks clear we get angry. So do drivers when they see us do it.

My argument normally receives the "its only our safety at stake" response. This is bollocks. Its pedestrians and motorists too. Cyclists are perfectly capable of sparking a chain of events.

Crap article but one very valid point

"So what first we must first see is cyclists obeying the rules of the road. "

We need to be supported and respected by other road users. Each time somebody RLJs, rides on the pavement, ignores the closed cycle lane on Tooley St thus scaring the hell out of the banksman who are trying to manouver HGVs safely we lose a tiny bit more credibility.

In an ideal world this shouldn't be a pre-requisite for change but sadly, realistically, we need to build bridges with our fellow road users (and pedestrians) otherwise we'll always be treated as bottom of the pile.

The rules of the road are there to try to ensure that everybody acts in a safe and predictable way. All road users are bound by them. When we see a car jump a red because they think it looks clear we get angry. So do drivers when they see us do it.

My argument normally receives the "its only our safety at stake" response. This is bollocks. Its pedestrians and motorists too. Cyclists are perfectly capable of sparking a chain of events.

Everyone.

Less us and them more us as road users.

I have a hard time believing this 'cyclists riding on the pavement' issue exists.

It exists in terms of that it:

1) Makes the vulnerable and the elderly feel unsafe
2) Winds pedestrians up beyond belief. The perception is that it is reckless and dangerous. It doesnt matter if it is or not. That is what a lot of non cyclists think.

Lynx: Of course all road users should obey the same rules. I just personally believe that cycling has to play catch up a bit.