Dangerous cyclists

[thirdcrank]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambrid ... story.html

This begins as the latest from Julian Huppert MP (don't say you've forgotten his cycling strategy already ) For anybody with the patience to wait for it to download all the advertising crap, and who ploughs through all the ditto from Huppers, then the ditto from the highwaymen about why they will be doing nothing, scroll down to the bottom for this:

The ideas have emerged ahead of the News revealing this week that a new ‘Cycling Discretionary Scheme’ could be introduced to ‘train’ dangerous cyclists.

The scheme is being championed Sgt Ian Wood, of the city’s neighbourhood policing team.

He said: “We have seen that the diversionary courses for motorists have been well received and I hope that the forthcoming scheme for cyclists will be equally effective.”

NB It's a sergeant saying "could."

PS

I found this when I googled "Humpert bugel space handlebars." I thought they might involve an MP blowing his own trumpet

Edited to include the correct newspaper link.

[Valbrona]

Dangerous cyclists need catching and prosecuting. Oh, the forces of law enforcement are that poorly constructed in this country that is just not possible to do that so some Tory comes up with the 'fluffy-bunny idea of the year'.

[fluffybunnyuk]

did someone mention fluffy bunnies...

[beardy]

A driver is quite likely to accept a place on one of these courses in order to avoid getting points on their licence. If a cyclist is caught for a similar offence they may as well just pay the fine.

I heard talk of a similar system recently and the course was on-line! Nothing practical.

[blackbike]

Dangerous, law breaking motorists are very common so 'awareness' courses for them are presumably self-funding. The fee for a course near me is £75.

There aren't many cyclists in the UK, and dangerous ones are even rarer.

I doubt courses for cyclists would be cost effective as they'd have to be subsidised by the taxpayer and would not result in a significant reduction in deaths and injury on our roads because cyclists hardly cause any.

[gaz]

.

[thirdcrank]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambrid ... story.html

gaz

I did , and thanks for that. Obviously, I've pasted what I'd already pasted into another thread. (I've now edited my OP )

[Vorpal]

I think that dangerous cyclists ought to be offered free cycle training. Afterall, it's much less expensive than improving infrastructure enough that they don't want to ride on the pavement.

p.s. He does realise that cycle training is likely to teach them to take the lane through that stretch and hold up traffic rather than endagering pedestrians.

[ferdinand]

Dangerous cyclists need catching and prosecuting. Oh, the forces of law enforcement are that poorly constructed in this country that is just not possible to do that so some Tory comes up with the 'fluffy-bunny idea of the year'.

The last time I checked Huppert (love the "Muppert" nickname from local detractors) was a Lib Dem of the most fluffy bunny variety possible, including campaigning for medicinal use of cannabis! He even looks like a surprised OU lecturer who has just been bitten by the subject of his experiment.

You may have the chance to evaluate his contribution, since his seat is in danger for 2015.

The case in the article was of a pensioner being run down on a footpath by a cyclist, so I'd say prosecute in the Magistrates Court with ideally some training as part of the rehabilitation!

300 hours helping at Bike ability courses as part of the punishment .

Ferdinand

[TonyR]

Somethings not right with this story. The place which accords with the cycling provision description is Trumpington Road south of Brooklands Avenue. But I can't think of anywhere along there where there would be a bank for a pensioner to tumble down and if there was a parked car he tumbled into it would have been illegally parked in the bus lane since the other side of the road is a shared use pavement. Along that stretch I have never seen anyone cycling on the pavement and there are very few pedestrians walking on it.

The place where you could tumble down a bank into a parked car is Trumpington Rd north of Brooklands Avenue but there the cycle provision is two on-road painted cycle lanes in the dooring zone of the parked cars.

So the descriptions of the accident and its location don't add up.

The other thing that doesn't add up is that this has happened supposedly many times to this pensioner. The accident statistics just don't support that being credible unless he is going out of his way to get himself hit. There were three serious pedestrian-cyclist collisions and 24 minor ones in Cambridge over the two years from 2009-11. So about 13 p.a. in total for all Cambridge and of those only 6 minor injuries were on the footway/verge, the rest being pedestrians crossing the road.

So at three a year is it really credible that this pensioner is so unluckly to make up a good proportion of all cyclist pedestrian collisions?

The stats data comes from http://cottenhamcyclist.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ridge.html

[reohn2]

FWIW I've never cycled in Cambridge but I've seen lots of indiscriminate and dangerous footway cycling.
IMO such idiots give cycling a bad name and should be fined or made to pay for cycle training,in the same way I think idiotic and dangerous motorists should be made to pay for training courses for their law breaking.

Vulnerable road user consideration starts with pedestrians at the top and motorists at the bottom,or should be and any strategy to protect people and make the roads safer to use,should be structured with that in mind.
Greater power requires greater responsibility,too often that's forgotten in a land where might is all too often right.

[TonyR]

FWIW I've never cycled in Cambridge but I've seen lots of indiscriminate and dangerous footway cycling.

Yes there are some idiots and maybe it depends on where you are but I've only seen some, not lots. And its hardly dangerous. Apart from a very low rate of cyclist-pedestrian collisions, and I know tu quoque is not a good defence, there are many many times more pedestrians killed on the pavement by motor vehicles than the tiny number killed by cyclists. IMO its something that is mostly wildly exaggerated in its reporting and risk and something that is unfortunately encouraged by Government through their frequent insistence that cyclists should be off the road and on the pavement. They even tried to make it part of the Highway Code at the last revision - cycling would have been mandatory on any pavement with the appropriate bits of white paint slapped on it had the CTC not intervened.

[Valbrona]

There aren't many cyclists in the UK, and dangerous ones are even rarer.

That's a good point. Of course cyclists can pose a danger, but it is not the same as being in charge of a one-tonne heap of metal moving at far higher speeds than your average cyclist.

[thirdcrank]

... The last time I checked Huppert (love the "Muppert" nickname from local detractors) was a Lib Dem of the most fluffy bunny variety possible, including campaigning for medicinal use of cannabis! He even looks like a surprised OU lecturer who has just been bitten by the subject of his experiment. ...

Prompted by that, I found this about Huppert the Muppert....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... -dies.html

[reohn2]

FWIW I've never cycled in Cambridge but I've seen lots of indiscriminate and dangerous footway cycling.

Yes there are some idiots and maybe it depends on where you are but I've only seen some, not lots. And its hardly dangerous. Apart from a very low rate of cyclist-pedestrian collisions, and I know tu quoque is not a good defence, there are many many times more pedestrians killed on the pavement by motor vehicles than the tiny number killed by cyclists. IMO its something that is mostly wildly exaggerated in its reporting and risk and something that is unfortunately encouraged by Government through their frequent insistence that cyclists should be off the road and on the pavement. They even tried to make it part of the Highway Code at the last revision - cycling would have been mandatory on any pavement with the appropriate bits of white paint slapped on it had the CTC not intervened.

Let's not justify pavement cycling by comparing it to motorists driving on the pavement both are wrong.
It doesn't mean because there aren't any deaths or even many serious injuries,that the affect of pavement cycling isn't a negative one,especially for the old,frail and very young all of whom shouldn't need to be on the lookout for cyclists when walking on a footway.
As for being encouraged by the authorities to use the footways,we can't run with the hare and the hounds,it's either one or the other but not both.
That said,there's a couple of stretches of pavement by the side of very busy roads that I ride the pavement,I've never seen a pedestrian on either in the twenty years I've been using them,they're not designated cycle paths but to any sane person should be,these are in rural locations and also the footway surface is better than the road.
Edit