You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So many things wrong in such a short article. Suggests that using the road instead of a cycle path is a crime, mentions violating the Highway Code without actually saying how, talks about cyclist not paying "road tax" and even quotes the mad bloke from the ABD.
http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/uk/reckless-cyclists-snub-dedicated-cycle-routes-1.125884
At least the comments strike a balance even if the editorial doesn't!
Not a local paper. Pretty much what you would expect from the Sunday Post, which is a bastion of all things traditional and reactionary.
[i]Fairly[/i] local - in that I've only ever seen it in central Scotland.
I think they'd struggle with Oor Wullie and The Broons in London 😀
Legitimate news report rather than Editorial would be the editor's response.
Slanted against cyclists as per usual and low on facts with no balance to the comment by ABD (can I become a member, who do they represent?). Shocking number of deaths, but have there been any on the stretches they highlight?
So the article asks a question "why aren't cyclists using the cyclepath?"
And then doesn't bother to answer it. Opens with the assumption that cyclists avoiding a cyclepath are "reckless". Plenty of pontification over non-existent forms of taxation. A token nutter from the ABD and a random middle aged woman are invited to weigh in on the subject.
"Investigative" journalism at its best
ABD (can I become a member, who do they represent?)
I've had this discussion on twitter, with the chap who runs it.
He says they represent all drivers, so everyone with a licence is a member. (He may be a loon.)
Sunday Post = Daily McMail with the Broons and Oor Wullie
Hugh Bladon, of motoring campaign group, the Alliance of British Drivers said: “Cyclists don’t know how to behave, that’s their trouble.“Some of them clearly believe the Highway Code is not for them, but it is. They then complain if they get knocked down by people in cars. It’s absurd.
“Money should not be spent on facilities like this if they are not going to be used.
“If they contributed through taxation then perhaps the money should be spent. But they don’t contribute anything to the maintenance of our roads.
“We are not anti-cyclist, we just want them to obey the rules of the road like everyone else, and they are not doing that at the moment.”
Doesn't it make you want to scream?!
So the article asks a question "why aren't cyclists using the cyclepath?"
And then doesn't bother to answer it.
I think it's pretty clear from the article that the [i]"reckless"[/i] cyclists are using the road purely to annoy motorists and leave them with [i]"little choice but to swerve into the outside lane"[/i] (aka "overtake").
I mean what other reason could there [i]possibly[/i] be?
I sympathise with the complaint though, it annoys me when cyclists don't use [i]suitable[/i] cycle paths when they are put it. Everyone's idea of what is suitable varies but the principle remains.
Perhaps they should have spoken to some cyclists to ask them the question, or would that be too balanced!
Meh.
I'll choose my own commute route, thanks. Roads are generally in better repair, quicker and more convenient than the off-road alternatives around here. Plus, they're often more than 30 metres long.
Can't even be bothered getting righteous about this numptie journo.
To be honest - you'd need to be more than a bit stupid to ride on that section of road at that time in a group of less than 20.
To be honest - you'd need to be more than a bit stupid to ride on that section of road at that time in a group of less than 20.
Not sure about that, come in at rush hour and you will be riding quicker than the traffic!
Would be nice if they factored in regular sweeping/maintenance to the cost of building dedicated cycle paths. There's a stretch near me I'd use even though it's not all that convenient to get onto it but there's always broken grass or brambles reaching out halfway across - less hassle just to keep on the road.
Some journalists win Pulitzer prizes, garner worldwide respect, and push forward human culture.
Others are this bloke.
Others are this bloke.
Training material:
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/the-terrible-journalists-guide-to-writing-an-article-about-bicycles/
I entirely agree, but is there anyone on here who knows the particular route in question in the Post article?I'll choose my own commute route, thanks. Roads are generally in better repair, quicker and more convenient than the off-road alternatives around here. Plus, they're often more than 30 metres long.
[img]
[/img]If that's genuinely representative of that particular path, I know where I'd ride!
it annoys me when cyclists don't use suitable cycle paths when they are put it. Everyone's idea of what is suitable varies but the principle remains.
As you say what's considered suitable varies.
If cyclists aren't using a cycle-path it's because they think the road is more suitable to cycle on. They're not avoiding the path for any ulterior motive such as annoying people.
I used to use that path commuting Edinburgh to Rosyth and Dunfermline and in c. 2001 it was great. But by the time I stopped working there end 2009, the greenery had started to grow in a bit, but it was still preferable to the road.
What's more interesting than this article (and what isn't?) is the underlying antagonism towards cyclists - which is something I've never really got...
...but, then, during my last 'talk' with my Dad, he casually remarked that if the bicycle had only just been invented it would not be considered safe enough to be allowed on the road... 😯
I entirely agree, but is there anyone on here who knows the particular route in question in the Post article?
Yeah I used to ride it myself out to South Queensferry or Rosyth a few years ago now.
I did use the path back then, but it wasn't great and parts of it were so narrow that you struggle to get past a bike going the other way.
Here's the Google StreetView of the junction in the Post's photo (I think).
articles like that make me sad.
my Dad, he casually remarked that if the bicycle had only just been invented it would not be considered safe enough to be allowed on the road
if cars had just been invented, you wouldn't be allowed to drive them in public
he casually remarked that if the bicycle had only just been invented it would not be considered safe enough to be allowed on the road...
And he thinks the car would??
(given that cars kills thousands a year and the bike.. erm.. doesn't!)
His reasoning is that a bike essentially is a fast and unprotected mode of transport... a car would be allowed on the principle that inbuilt safety protects the user.
it annoys me when cyclists don't use suitable cycle paths when they are put it. Everyone's idea of what is suitable varies but the principle remains.
How can you be annoyed when you're acknowledging that what you consider suitable, may not be for someone else? Not sure I understand that one, seems a bit 'doublethink'
during my last 'talk' with my Dad, he casually remarked that if the bicycle had only just been invented it would not be considered safe enough to be allowed on the road
...and cars would? I think I know which is more likely to be given the okay from the HSE (or other appropriate H&S body) for use in public areas.
I'd be pretty safe driving a JCB around a classroom
And he thinks the car would??
(given that cars kills thousands a year and the bike.. erm.. doesn't!)
and
...and cars would? I think I know which is more likely to be given the okay from the HSE (or other appropriate H&S body) for use in public areas
Following his reasoning, the car is inherently safe, to the user and other road users... provided it's driven correctly. The bike, on the other hand, is inherently unsafe because even the safest (most skilled and road aware) rider is vulnerable at all times.
It's not something I agree with, but an interesting POV.
The bike, on the other hand, is inherently unsafe because even the safest (most skilled and road aware) rider is vulnerable at all times.
But we're not. We're only vulnerable when people are driving cars near us. It's non-logic.
I'd be pretty safe driving a JCB around a classroom
Course you would, you safely ensconced inside it away from the dangers of schoolchildren!
Not sure how safe the kids would be though.
Having said all that, JCBs and the ilk are pretty speciailised and potentially very dangerous pieces of kit. Their use is a bit more strictly controlled than a normal car.
It's not something I agree with, but an interesting POV.
It's interesting that someone can hold such an opion without recognising the inherent falalcies. Mind you, my parents do something very similar! It's not an uncommon opinion...
But we're not. We're only vulnerable when people are driving cars near us. It's non-logic.
People drive cars near roadies all the time, no?
Or am I riding in the wrong places?
I stayed in Fife for 5 years and used to drive that road most days. While I agree that a bike should be allowed on the road if the rider wishes, you'd have to be batshit mental to want to cycle that road.
It's not the standstill that people think, and heading towards fife it joins with the M9 spur.
Take your life in your hand stuff
People drive cars near roadies all the time, no?
Yes, but I think the point is the "provided it's driven correctly." bit is not correct.
I think I'd also take issue with the "inherently" safe bit. Cars do seem to be a lot safer than they used to be but I wouldn't be willing to put the confidence in them that your father does!
Is the broons stories still essentially the same where one member mis-hears something about another member of the family and the hilarity that ensues or they go on holiday and all 'go up the ben' ? 🙂
think the link has disappeared or it might just be that i'm not scottish 8)
ABD I think quoting this "organisation" invalidates any attempt at reasonably balanced journalism - an organisation that doesn't publicly declare its membership but then claims to act on behalf of 33million people should be treated with the respect it deserves - as said above couldn't read the article but hope the CTC or local cycling group was asked to comment
ABD's submission on cycling for the 1998 highway code revision
6. Extra Rules for Cyclists
The Code must emphasise that it is at least as much the responsibility of vulnerable road users like cyclists to safeguard their lives and wellbeing as it is the responsibility of drivers.
6.1 Safety equipment and clothing
Being seen — New Rule. Being seen in good time by drivers of motor vehicles is an essential pre-requisite to not being hit by them. So add the following new Rule:
"Use lights whenever they would improve your visibility to other road users, for example on country roads where trees create heavy shade, on grey mornings, or if you have busy road junctions to negotiate."6.2 Cycling
Rules 192, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 209, 210. There is nothing wrong with these rules but why do many cyclists not observe them? It appears that many parents let their youngsters ride out without the slightest knowledge of the rules of the road — not even keeping to the left. Why is there no attempt to enforce these rules and educate the errant riders?Car drivers tend to be blamed for every injury on the road, yet it is the gross misbehaviour of numerous cyclists that puts them and others at risk.
Link is still live, I wouldn't bother though - they only want attention 🙂
Just remember some of the other titles in the DC Thomson/Sunday Post stable...
The Dandy & the Beano! The Dandy title closed down recently, so it looks like a journo has been redeployed from the comic to writing comic strips for the Post.
the ABD have an amazing facebook page with 879 likes!! funnily enough they are whingeing about cyclists hijacking the comments section in the sunday post responses. They also have some MP patrons! wow heavy hitters, we should all be awestruck at their prestige and influence.
oldbloke - MemberI used to use that path commuting Edinburgh to Rosyth and Dunfermline and in c. 2001 it was great. But by the time I stopped working there end 2009, the greenery had started to grow in a bit, but it was still preferable to the road.
Posted 1 hour ago #Report-Post
It's not that green now, since Jimmy of this parish did a great job of cleaning it up.
If cyclist were to 'pay' road tax (VED) we would be put into band A which is free.
On average a human produce about 30 grams per hour of CO2, well below the 100g/km of CO2 (presuming you can cycle a km in under 3 hours). Yes this rate does increase during exercise but I think it is safe to presume that the driver of the car isn't going to pay for the extra CO2 they produce when ranting at cyclists.
On average a human produce about 30 grams per hour of CO2, well below the 100g/km
And far more importantly, that is CO2 that is already part of the existing carbon cycle, rather than releasing "new" CO2 into the atmosphere that was previously trapped in fossils.
(I doubt this buys any leverage with the ABD by the way, as they don't believe in climate change either)
The bike, on the other hand, is inherently unsafe because even the safest (most skilled and road aware) rider is vulnerable at all times.But we're not. We're only vulnerable when people are driving cars near us. It's non-logic.
Well no, neither of my last bike related trips to hospital involved cars or even being on road.
the ABD have an amazing facebook page with 879 likes!! funnily enough they are whingeing about cyclists hijacking the comments section in the sunday post responses. They also have some MP patrons! wow heavy hitters, we should all be awestruck at their prestige and influence.
One of their supporters is the [url= http://www.abd.org.uk/about/patrons.htm#GodfreyBloom ]UKIP MEP[/url] who doesn't think we should give money to "Bongo Bongo Land".
My Dad mentioned the article to me yesterday and I said it was probably a load of biased uninformed bollox, written by a lazy inept journalist.
Now I've read it, I see no reason to change that opinion.
Well no, neither of my last bike related trips to hospital involved cars or even being on road.
Hmmm, bit like countering the point that travelling by foot isn't inherently dangerous by pointing out people who died while attempting to climb Everest.
Unless of course you were doing 10mph on a 'sit up and beg' bike on a well surfaced, segregated cycle path. Seeing as this is an MTB forum I'm assuming it was an 'extreme sport' type of incident.
Unless of course you were doing 10mph on a 'sit up and beg' bike on a well surfaced, segregated cycle path.
...which makes 20mph commuters and hardcore MTB-ers inherently unsafe? So. should cyclists be speed-limited on roads?
* takes cover *
Standard local paper nonsense.
My mrs and her roadie mate recently got pulled over by traffic poilce for not using a cyclepath: riding on the road not the badly-maintained (random patches of tarmac, random 10" 'sinkhole' where it goes over a railway, tree roots lifting tarmac) shared footway/cyclepath on the opposite side of the 40mph dual carriageway. (not especially busy, they were doing 25mph) 😕
A police offier stopped me once for riding on a dual carraigeway, the A470 Southbound towards Cardiff. It's got a hard shoulder as wide as a normal lane, so you are much further from the traffic than you are on a normal road. It's also really fast, I was using it because it was late and I wanted to get home. As long as you take proper care on the exits and use the non-suicide technique, It's fine.
julianwilson: In the UK? I hope she made her feelings clear to them.
If she was doing 25mph then that is far too fast for a shared use path and the road was the right place for her to be.
Graham, oh yes it was in the UK. She and her friend pointed their speed, (and the lack of impact on traffic and the guidance not to use shared use paths at that speed) out the the officer at the time but he seemed unconvinced. They both complained, (about the same incident) one girl got a really helpful response from one duty sergeant who is apparently coming to our local monthly cycling/council liaison meeting, and the other got a different sergeant who couldn't see anything wrong whatsoever with the traffic officer's view or actions. 😕
They also have some MP patrons! wow heavy hitters, we should all be awestruck at their prestige and influence.
Unfortunately they do have influence, with stupid local authorities who consult them, stupidly, on stuff (while ignoring other groups like the London Cycling Campaign)
The way lobbying reform is heading, your local authority can ignore London Cycling Campaign for a whole year before elections too (and have them prosecuted if they campaign too hard/expensively). [url= http://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2013/08/22/still-too-many-questions-around-non-party-campaigning-rules/ ]http://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2013/08/22/still-too-many-questions-around-non-party-campaigning-rules/[/url] 👿
Never mind - tonight is the night of the "Get Britain Cycling" debate.
I fully expect that tomorrow will be a bright new day and we will awake to the glorious sound of a million bicycle bells singing in joyous rapture.
Terrible article but there are far too many 'serious cyclists' who seem to think that cycle paths are beneath them. Quite a few of them post on here.
grum - Member
Terrible article but there are far too many 'serious cyclists' who seem to think that cycle paths are beneath them. Quite a few of them post on here.POSTED 12 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
And today's troll award goes to .....Grum!
I confess,the day before yesterday on the way home I deviated off the shared use path and onto the road to avoid a pedestrian deafened by headphones weaving across the generous four feet afforded to pedestrians and cyclists for that 1 mile stretch. I will now go and reflect on my actions and order an air zound.
Actually I agree with grum and I've said as much in the past too.
[i]Some[/i] folk always seem to turn their nose up at a cycle path even when it offers a better, safer and possibly even faster environment than the road. But I think that's really just a symptom of the fact that the vast majority of UK cycle paths are not fit for purpose, so that colours their view a bit.
That said, I fully support the right to ride on the road. Cyclist's should never be [i]forced[/i] off roads that they are legally entitled to use, regardless of what other options are available.
And today's troll award goes to .....Grum!
Not trolling. I'm all for cyclists being able to use roads if they prefer, but there does seem to be a culture where it's not seen as the done thing to use cycle paths if you are a 'proper' cyclist, which is daft. There are some really good ones about (and some really terrible ones).
I would suggest if they offered a better, safer and faster route than the road then we wouldn't be having this conversation as other cyclist would come to the same conclusion.
They (cyclist) don't because the cycle paths are not better, safer or faster, they are to one degree of another worse in one or more respects than using the road the difference may be subtle, including all the points mentioned in this thread and others but whatever the reasons are the message is clear they don't get used because they not the best option.
And why shouldn't I use the best option for me, it's mine paid for by my taxes, I'm using it thanks.
IanW: I'm sure people have their reasons, but I have had conversations with fellow cyclists, including people on here, who are opposed to segregated cycle paths on ideological grounds and claim that they would never consider using them, regardless of how good they may actually be, because they have the right to use the road and they will exercise that right.
Interestingly my club ride yesterday took in about 15 miles of shared use path, we slowed down a bit and passed other path users carefully and it was all good.
Many cyclists are still not using the new cycle lane from South Queensferry to Barnton in Edinurgh.
Where's this Edinurgh.
I didn't get far into the article before finding fault.
have had conversations with fellow cyclists, including people on here, who are opposed to segregated cycle paths on ideological grounds
I'm partially opposed on practical grounds. Coercion to use them would ruin my road cycling, to be honest. They are nice for tootlers, but not for fast cyclists. And I'd worry that drivers would not be expecting cyclists to be on the roads. It's not simple.
You can't make good progress on most cycleways, and even the widest best one I know (Bristol-Bath) is scarier than the roads at peak times because of the sheer numbers of cyclists and fast roadies weaving in and out at 20mph or more.
Where's this Edinurgh
I believe it's what Edinburgh was called until TJ moved in
Terrible article but there are far too many 'serious cyclists' who seem to think that cycle paths are beneath them. Quite a few of them post on here.
I agree and have posted on this before, I got flamed for it!
[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/inconsiderate-cycling-polite-rant ]http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/inconsiderate-cycling-polite-rant[/url]