Was cycling fine necessary?

“Dave - I agree with Chris. Cycling on the pavement is "highly dangerous" and I don't think I need any figures to back this up. In the same way that I don't need figures to tell me that walking in the middle of the road is highly dangerous.”

“Tim Beadle - you seem to have a bad dose of Confirmation Bias. Have you ever thought that maybe you do both activities badly?”

“Chris - have you unilaterally decided that cycling on the pavement is 'highly dangerous', or do you have some figures to back that up, in the context of road and pedestrian casualties as a whole? I'd love to see those figures.”

“Julie - It looks like the comment Chris refers to below have been removed. Can you please post them again to give context to Chris's reply?”

“Bravo Julie,

I could not agree with you more.

It is well overdue that this totally anti social and highly dangerous behaviour of the few though not insignificant number of members of the Cycling Lobby is brought to an expeditious end.

It is with regret that I note the absence of a response by Inspector Mildren to the letter from Christopher Warren to which you refer.

If he had replied then Inspector Mildren could have clarified his position since if his comments are taken literally this will be seen to only promulgate the continuation of the anti social behaviour to which HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Denis O'Connor has spoken in a review published today.

He has stressed that such behaviour really matters to most people but it has unacceptably been put on the back burner in terms of police priorities.

Illegal cycling is certainly amongst this abhorrent behaviour.”

“Laurence,

You're probably familiar with the line from the song "The Boxer" by Simon & Garfunkel:

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Well, that's got a name: Confirmation Bias. People do it all the time.

What I'm about to say probably falls into the same category, but here goes:

*I am a better driver because I cycle and a better cyclist because I drive.*

I'm not the only one to have said this, but it comes down to simple empathy: because I cycle, I know how to drive around bikes; because I drive, I know how best to cycle amongst cars etc. (though I much prefer cycling in motor-traffic-free situations).

Most cyclists also drive, but most drivers do not also cycle. There's a massive empathy imbalance, as witnessed in the recent DfT report that reveals many of the prejudices that cyclists face daily, like "cyclists don't belong on the roads".
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/researchreport/”

“It seems to me that the cyclists who also drive cars are the offenders here.
They choose to ignor rules for cycling on pavements and no doubt choose to ignore any rules that do not suit them whilst driving.
The traffic offenders they see are no doubt cyclist who are trying to drive a car for a day.
Meanwhile all the people who stick to four wheels stick to the rules of the road.”

“Tom - You're mistaken. I do not "campaign exclusively against cyclists".

I'm simply trying to get to the truth of the motives behind those, like you, who regularly post that pavement cyclists only exist because of dangerous drivers, who may then be excused their behaviour because the police are not prepared to do anything about dangerous driving in the first place.

This leads to a conclusion that there's a campaign by a minority whose mission is to break established laws because it's felt those laws do not serve them very well, either individually or collectively. It's a mission based on an entirely false premise that the police are to blame for a prevalence of dangerous or careless drivers. This then provides the 'reasonable excuse' to neither ride on roads nor engage with police to ensure everyone is as safe as they can be, whether on roads or pavements, because pavement cyclists know best.

If I'm seen to be campaigning it's only against the kind of dishonesty this self-perpetuating justification represents. All behaviour that threatens the safety of others should always be reported to the police, with supporting evidence wherever possible.

There are no excuses Tom.”

“@Gary P - "Next time you have an experience that endangers your wellbeing or compromises your safety, record the licence plate of the offending driver and report them to the police citing 'driving without due care and attention' or any other appropriate infraction that might lead to a justified result, similar to that described by CG in the story above."

You've tried that, then? Go knock yourself out.

It's entirely dissimilar to CG's experience above, where the police officers witnessed the infraction. If I tell a police officer I've seen a car jump a red light, or cut me up, or throw something at me, or whatever, I might as well tell them I've seen Lord Lucan for all the good it'll do. Believe me, I've tried. You clearly haven't, or you'd know :-)”

“@Gary P. I frequently mention Lower Bristol Road in these discussions. It has a pavement. So I talk about road safety, including safety on the pavements. I'm sorry if that confuses you.

When a police person tells me that there's nothing I can do (and that in fact there's nothing that she could do either) when for instance witnessing a driver jumping a red light, then yes: I really do believe it's pointless to report such an incident. I was presumably reliably informed by her that the police cannot do anything about the offence I saw, and I don't think that burdening them with more paperwork would in the public interest.

I obviously shan't attempts answer your final rhetorical question, but will just say that fining the cyclist under the circumstances as described won't make the pavements safer for pedestrians. The schadenfreude exhibited here seems tio me to be in stark contrast to the regular tragical deaths of pedestrians and cyclists (as well as drivers, of course) reported elsewhere in The Chronicle, and seemingly never commented upon by the anti-cyclist brigade.

Perhaps you could answer one genuinely simple question in return: is there any reason why you (and others, such as Chris) exclusively campaign against cyclists in your quest to make pavements safer?”