Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Should bicycles have number plates?
my wife told me that our youngest son was nearly hit by a
cyclist crossing Green Lanes at the St Ann's junction, an
elderly resident was hit a year or so ago, on the same crossing,
if you wait long enough at this junction it is a frequent occurrance.
There are many cyclists who do obey road rules, but being
patient at the lights could save a life, whether it be the cyclist
or a pedestrian, road safety seems to not be a priority for
policing, and there seems always an excuse not to do so by
the safer neibourhoods team, I'd understand if it wasn't their
remit. Benefits from cyclist registration system would be insurance
for cyclists, and possibly make bike theft more difficult to get away
with. Cyclist reg. may be another tax, the introduction costs should
be nominal as not to discourage the growth of cycling in London.
It could be argued that cyclists shouldn't pay anything, that the
GLA stump up for a registration system for the contribution cyclists
bring to the environment. Cycling is about freedom of movement
so greater regulation maybe seen as an affront, but more timely
policing is definitely required as part of regular duties.
I'd be interested on views on this either way.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by AndrewAW1 on
-
There are lots of anecdotes on this thread but, unless Harringay is significantly different to the national average then cyclists aren't really the dangerous ones.
When you adjust for miles travelled, pedestrians are more than twice as likely to be killed by a car, eighteen times more likely to be killed by a bus or twelve times more likely to be killed by a HGV.
There are large gaps between perception and reality. For instance, for all that people view cycling as dangerous it's actually slightly safer than walking when you adjust the rates for distance travelled. That's why knee-jerk reactions after seeing someone jump the lights on Green Lanes isn't a sensible way to make policy.
-
Permalink Reply by Madeline on
-
There should be some sort of registration to allow cyclists to be recognised and held accountable for their actions. I believe that the majority of bad cyclists do their bad deeds precisely because they know that they are unlikely to be caught. They are deaf, dumb and blind to the needs of others that are out there using the same paths and roads that they do. They seem to think that they have a God given right to ride anywhere they want. My dog, for example, doesn't understand what that bell means when she's rambling along the Parkland Walk. Neither does a toddler yet the cyclists still barrel down there as if it's a cycle motorway and not a walk. (and yes, I do know that it's also marked as a cycle way)
Some of them though are a danger to themselves as well as to pedestrians and other road users. I happen to ride a small motorcycle and even with an engine I would not pull alongside a lorry or other large vehicle at lights. Those one or two extra seconds earned by being in that spot are just not worth it.
Then there's drink driving. As a motorcyclist, insured, MOT'd and taxed I can easily be identified and banned from driving if I were to be caught drinking and driving. Not so the cyclists. My local pub is one of the top ten most popular pubs in Nth London and this weather especially brings in the cyclists in their droves. Standing outside the other evening and I counted 32 bikes chained to the school railings and cycle bars. I have seen these riders leave the pub yet still try and ride their bike home whilst obviously the worst for where. When I challenged a couple who were riding on the pavement their explanation was that they knew they were drunk and therefore it was too dangerous for them to ride on the road, safer on the pavement. But safer for who? Two cyclists on the pavement, side by side, drunk versus a mother and child or an unsteady on their feet OAP?
PS. My motorbikes tax class is bicycle. Does that mean I can get away with with breaking the highway code rules too? I think not.
-
-
Cyclists are very accountable for their actions. When we get it wrong, we die.
Cyclists are very accountable for drivers' actions, as are pedestrians and motorcyclists. When they get it wrong, we die.
Anti social cycling is annoying, rude and yes, sometimes dangerous. But it is nothing in comparison to the danger of motor vehicles. So by all means tell people they are out of order, or laugh at them, or tut, or write a strongly worded letter to the Daily Mail. Tell your friends who cycle about your experiences on the motorcycle. Advocate cycle training and how valuable it is. Tell your friends who complain about cyclists slowing down traffic why 6 inches from the kerb is rarely a safe place to be, and tell your friends who ride bikes that riding on pavements or over active pedestrian crossings is as frightening for pedestrians as close passes on the road are to bikes.
Help them understand that learning to ride safely on the roads is far less hassle than trying to ride on pavements designed for pedestrians, and that there are few things less dignified than grown adults jumping lights.
But please don't create a climate where road safety resources and attention are focused on imagined dangers instead of the real ones, because you will be increasing the dangers for all of us.
-
-
I am almost just as vulnerable as a cyclist. Mine is only a small M/B, 90cc, and also not big enough to argue with large metal boxes on four wheels. I too have to avoid the littered gutters pedestrians stepping out, cars cutting across the bus lane I'm travelling along, indeed most of the hazards that cyclists encounter. But I had to be taught to ride safely and take a test to prove it. (the CBT test all new motorcyclists have to take before being allowed on the road stands for Compulsory Bike Training and teaches road safety and etiquette) Being licensed I can be held accountable for my actions. And I expect other road users to use the roads in a safe and responsible manner. Yes, there are good and bad riders/drivers every where but at least with a M/B, car lorry etc you have some sort of redress is something goes wrong.
All said and done, it's the bad drivers or riders that stick in your memory. The good ones are the unsung heroes of our roads and are ignored.
-
-
Actually you are more vulnerable than a cyclist, because of the increased speed and more miles travelled. You are also more dangerous, because of the speed and the weight. The training and license are a reflection of the danger you bring, not the danger you are in.
I would love to see it socially (rather than just legally) accepted that people on bikes are full road users, which means both the right to road space and safety, and the obligation to obey road laws and conventions. But I don't think adding extra laws and barriers to use on top of one of the safest, cleanest, healthiest vehicles we have is going to get us there, because fundamentally the problem is not legal but social.
As long as bicycles are seen as somehow "less" than a full road vehicle, some cyclists will feel the road rules do not fully apply to them. Ironically the feral cyclists and anti-bike drivers actually have a very similar view of where bicycles fit in the road hierarchy, and so each by their actions reinforces behaviour they profess to despise.
Every time someone says "cyclists don't stick to the rules", they add weight to the social belief that cyclists don't stick to the rules. And when people pick up a bike and start cycling, what do they "know" about cycling? Cyclists don't stick to the rules! So that's what they do too.
It's like speeding or driving on the phone: drivers know it is illegal but "everyone does it". The problem isn't the law, it's that society is saying "this law doesn't matter".
Cameras and licenses don't stop speeding and phone use because people just don't take those laws seriously, to the point where if they are caught the first reaction is not "fair cop I was out of order" but genuine outrage. "It's not fair! No one really expects us to stick to speed limits, the police are just money-grabbing"
I have no problem with the police arresting a cyclist who breaks the law in front of them. I wish they would, and the same for drivers too. But diverting resources specifically to police cyclists is just gesture politics. It won't have the effect you want and it may well make other things worse.
Let's face it, as a motorcyclist, if you had a magic wand that made one class of road users fully safety aware and law abiding, would it really be pedal bicycles?
-
-
This long, fairly thoughtful and well mannered discussion (compared to most on the topic of cyclists) ultimately shows only that a lout is a lout, whether on a bike or behind the wheel of a car.
However, it should be remembered that the Highway Code was largely created to regulate and control motorised vehicles, which are inherently dangerous, and beyond the capacity of most drivers to control in a crisis. While I don't condone breaking the existing rules, we need new rules that take into account the varied needs of different road users, and that reflect the real risks and potential damage. Just think how different the Code would be if it were designed from scratch for pedestrians and cyclists, and motor vehicles had to conform to it, rather than the other way round. Too many drivers think they have a divine right to drive as fast as their engines allow in built-up environments. A more sensible policy, with ALL urban traffic limited to 20mph, would create a safer, more equitable and relaxed city.
On a lighter note, see this spoof of the fixie urban warrior in action:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/video/2013/ju...
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
