A car passed so close that the air buffeted me towards the pavement. It was an urban road, but had two lanes. There was someone on the outside lane and clearly they couldn’t be bothered to wait a few seconds until there was room to pass and so just thought they’d squeeze through anyway. Cheers.

I thought I’d catch up with them at the next lights and give them an evil stare. And surprise, surprise, the driver had a mobile phone glued to his ear. He couldn’t have changed down a gear earlier as he needed his one remaining hand to steer.

I’m not sure why this annoyed me more than normal. Last night someone drove straight at me, trying to turn into a road that I was passing. Even a group of pedestrians were audibly shocked at the lack of care (and attention), but I was ale to deftly swerve the car and continue on my way. I was a little shook up for a minute, but not that bothered: it happens every day. But this one this morning was worse. I think that they could have killed or seriously hurt me and only because they couldn’t be bothered to pause for a second. The arrogance only compounded by the fact that they were on their fucking phone.

Seriously, people moaning about red-light jumping… it’s NOTHING in comparison to dumb-ass self-centered SOBs who would rather risk someone’s life than put their phone down and change gears.

There is a guy who straps a camera to his helmet every day and records these incidents and posts them on YouTube. I can see where he is coming from, although I’ve always thought it probably winds people up more than educates them. But sometimes, just sometimes, I wish I’d recorded what happened today, or last night.

1. A jogger waiting for the traffic lights to go green, “running on the spot”. Just take a break, maybe do some stretches. It doesn’t really help running on the spot and it just makes it look like you really need the loo.

2. It’s still August, but some of the leaves are turning brown. Is that normal?

I wrote about the heart-breaking incident when a child, Sajjad Bilgrami, was killed by an HGV at the end of last year. The boy’s father actually commented on my entry. At the time I had written to my MP, my local authority and Transport for London asking that they consider whether allowing a person balancing on a piece of steel to share the same space as a multi-tonne steel killing machine was sensible. Wandsworth Council’s response was that they were “not convinced of the logic” of banning HGVs during times of the day when people were most likely to be cycling between home and school.

Think about it…. how much time, money and hassle do we spend on protecting us from the threat of terrorism in London? Anyone care to make a guess? I have no idea, but I’m guessing it’s a lot. How many people have actually been killed by terrorists in the last year in London? I’m not sure, but my guess is none. Just goes to show how effective they are being at preventing it doesn’t it? But whilst we are happy giving away our civil liberties in the name of preventing terrorism, why is there “no logic” in doing something about people actually properly getting killed by HGVs as they cycle to work? It’s not just the threat of HGV death we’re talking about, here.

Maybe I’m being trite to equate terrorism with cycle deaths – but it has to be within our collective wit to prevent this from happening. It’s not acceptable to shrug shoulders and say “we can’t see the logic” in something when people continue to die at a rate of about 1 a month. Wake up London!!

Just cycling along and came to a pedestrian crossing. Stopped to allow pedestrians to cross, then started up again. A few metres (like 10 metres) beyond the pedestrian crossing a man stepped off the pavement. I thought he was doing that thing where you see a vehicle moving towards you and you predict its path and walk up towards it so you can quickly nip across when it’s gone past you.

But no, not in this case. He either thought that the pedestrian crossing pretty much takes up the whole street and so he had right of way, or just couldn’t give a fuck one way or the other. As I got closer I thought he was cutting it a bit fine but still assumed he would pause to let me past, but he just kept on walking so that in the end my shoulder smacked into the side of his. What a moron. He was trying to prove some point but I couldn’t work out what it was or really be bothered to find out. I didn’t even look back and just carried on.He definitely saw me though. He had headphones on and was looking directly at me. I was pondering it afterwards though – I mean even if we were both walking you wouldn’t just walk into someone, would you? Even if you thought that someone had walked in front of you, you wouldn’t just collide with them. And it’s a lot easier to stop when you are walking at 2mph than when you are cycling at 10mph.

What an idiot, though. Really dangerous to walk into a moving vehicle no matter how justified you feel your cause is.

Anyway – whatever it is, it shows that there is a real need and benefit for everyone in getting more people to cycle.

The report I have been reading came from the Local Government Information Unit http://www.lgiu.gov.uk/. It really is quite interesting – the figure above is calculated on the savings drawn from reduced medical bills, congestion and pollution. I’ve no idea how this is even calculable, but I’m prepared to believe it.

It goes on to debunk a few myths about cycling, too, one point is about the perceived risk of cycling:

“The evidence shows that an increase in cycling can increase road safety, with a doubling of cycle rates leading to a 34 per cent reduction in the risk of injury faced by each cyclist2. A theory supported by evidence across Europe. Despite these figures, there is a disproportionate perception that cycling is too dangerous. This is stopping people getting on their bikes and encouraging their family and friends to do the same. They need to believe that they are going to be safe on a bike.”

The point I have made a few times now is that there is a kind of tipping point where enough people cycling essentially makes it safer for everyone as bikes are perceived as a constant rather than an individual obstacle. The more it is perceived to be safe, the more people will cycle. If there were no cars on the road who wouldn’t want to cycle? It’s much more pleasant plus you get a workout. But right now, you feel like you take your life in your hands each time you go out.

Anyway check the site out and download the pdf and have a read.

I didn’t want to start 2009 with a rant, but you really notice it when the schools go back! The last few weeks have been a joy for me as a cyclist and for the wider road using community I would imagine as the streets are much more free-moving first thing in the morning.

I live in a road that has a primary school at the end of it and if I leave at a certain time it’s anarchy out there. Cars not only double-parked but actually blocking the end of the junction. If you’re going in the other direction to a mummy hell-bent on getting her little darling to school then you’d better get out of the way, cos she’s not moving over for anyone.

And therein, I think, lies the problem: it’s like having small kids gives you some sort of licence to be incredibly selfish. Yes, your kids are your priority, but don’t expect them to be everyone else’s too.

So this morning I was cycling up a hill with a dedicated cycle path. Got to the top and there was a junction to my left and a woman in a massive Volvo waiting for a gap to pull out. Realising that little Fenella is going to be late for her hand painting class, she decides to stick her nose into the oncoming traffic and RIGHT across the bike lane. This forced me to brake hard (just as I was picking up some momentum on the flat) then swerve in front of her.

I didn’t lose my temper… just pulled a “great, thanks very much” expression. She just stared at me – no change of expression on her face, no acknowledgment…. she either didn’t notice me, or felt that I was so insignificant that me nearly riding into her side was no concern of hers (given the fortess-like protection she had invested in for her brood).

On a positive note…. I bought a Bern helmet for my wife from the very nice people at  www.cyclechic.co.uk which was the wrong size. They’ve been nothing but helpful in changing it and not charging me any extra for postage. They also have some quite cool stuff there (not really for boys), but I like their style.

1. Poor behaviour of some cyclists

2. Anger about the fact that cyclists appear unaccountable, don’t have number plates, don’t have insurance, don’t pay Vehicle Excise Duty etc

3. When drivers are able to move faster than cyclists: frustration that they are being held up

4. When drivers are stuck in slow-moving traffic: jealousy that cyclists leave them standing

5. Perception of cyclists being an “other” group

Poor cyclist behaviour

I’d say the most commonly-used reason for antipathy towards cyclists falls in 1 and 2 – but 3 to 5 are probably more likley to be the real reasons why they get so angry. Why do I think that? Well numbers 1 and 2 don’t really impact on drivers. I mean, if a cyclist jumps a red light then that’s just stupid. But no car-driver has been killed by a cyclist jumping a red light that I am aware of. Granted, for the pedestrian, red-light jumping is a menace – and to be honest as a cyclist it pisses me off when cyclists jump red lights. Firstly because I can almost feel the resentment around me from all the other road users and feel that some of that is directed my way, but secondly I get that sense of injustice that I have stopped and will need to push off again from a standing start, so why the hell shouldn’t everyone else? It feels a bit like someone pushing in front of you in a queue – it’s not REALLY going to effect me, but it gets to me nevertheless.

Cyclists being rude and aggressive: well yes, nobody would like to be on the receiving end of any rudeness or aggression. But I don’t think you can reasonably argue that the only rude and aggressive people on the roads are cyclists. If you claim to hate cyclists for that reason you may as well hate them for having two legs or being called Nigel. (“The thing about cyclists that really makes me mad is that there is a minority of them that are rude, arrogant, bi-peds called Nigel”). It’s a non-sequitor because all of those characteristics are likely to be shared amongst every group of road users.

What no road tax?

The no number plates, no insurance no tax argument again is a bit nonsensical. I mean it is and isn’t – because it doesn’t have an impact on people’s lives on a daily basis and in fact is it a flawed argument anyway. The number plates thing is so people can get caught for jumping red lights or riding on pavements or riding the wrong way down a one-way street (seriously, I see these accusations rolled out every time cycling and road safety is mentioned – I NEVER do these things. I genuinely never ever do. I know some people do, but I just do not and would not). Insurance I think isn’t a bad thing in theory – but again, on a daily basis you are far more likely to get shafted by another motorist without insurance, than by a cyclist. In any case, as a motorist if you have a an accident involving a cyclist, the blame is more than three times likely to lie with you than with the cyclist. So in reality any anger about insurance is disproportional: we should all be angry with drivers without insurance – not only are they more likely to be at fault for any accident, but they are likely to cause much more damage than insurance-less cyclists.

The tax argument is often banded about. Unfortunately this one IS nonsense on so many levels:

1. Roads are funded by central taxation and local authorities. This in turn is paid for by all of us via council tax and the other taxes we are subject to every day. In other words, when you buy your tax disc, that money isn’t somehow ploughed directly into road building or maintenance.

2. The “road tax” one pays is in actual fact a Vehicle Excise Duty where vehicles are taxed based on their environmental impact. Cars that output less than 100g/km of CO2 are classed as being in Band A and are exempt from the tax. As a bicycle emits 0g/km of CO2, they too would surely be exempt from the tax were they to be included in the scheme.

3. I own a car so I actually do pay the VED – I just choose to leave it in my driveway when I take my bike out, so it’s causing less damage to the roads and environment and reducing congestion to the tune of one vehicle.

Get out of my way!

Cyclists holding people up is almost certainly a frustration but there is no justification in the Highway Code for this causing people to be angry – so as an “argument” against cyclists it’s a bit of a lame one because it’s just demonstrating that you are an impatient and arrogant road hog who believes that they have more of a right to be there than any other vehicle. As anyone with a brain knows, there isn’t supposed to be any hierarchy of “rights” to use the road. Although I think I read somewhere that we should all give way to pedestrians.

Who the hell do they think they are?

I also think that cyclists piss motorists off because it’s a natural side-effect of being stuck in traffic jams. I know what it’s like.. you’re sat in slow-moving traffic and some selfish bastard pushes in or nips down the bus lane or hard shoulder, you hope they get caught or stuck and have to wait their turn. Cyclists weaving in and out of the traffic is probably infuriating if you see it all the time. I don’t drive that much and as a cyclist am empathetic to other cyclists, but if I weren’t I think this might get my goat. At that point all you need is one small excuse: stupid clothes, dangerous manoeuvre, knocking a wing mirror, undertaking, red-light-jumping: and your irrational fury at being left standing by a cyclist is suddenly given validity.

This also gives rise to the whole “they” when referring to cyclists – as if we are an organised group who all behave in a certain way rather than people who behave in a variety of ways depending on our own personalities. It’s always easy to dislike a group that you don’t belong to: it’s how wars are started or racial hatred develops.

So in conclusion, I think the crap that people usually bang on about when justifying their hatred towards cyclists is actually based on the things that don’t really impact on them (red light jumping, not paying tax) – but they instead serve to justify a less rational set of frustrations (holding me up or moving quicker than me through the traffic).

I’ve thought about this a lot recently. Cyclists are regularly accused of being abusive and inconsiderate. I guess if you’re on the receiving end of any abuse, the natural thing is to feel that you’ve been treated unfairly. A feeling of injustice is what makes most of us angry, whether you are a car driver or a cyclist. I think the whole road-rage thing happens because you are disconnected to any bad behaviour or allegations of bad behaviour (ie someone cuts you up, or someone beeps their horn at you because you did something to them) and not being able to reason or defend yourself throws you into a rage.

People say that cyclists are rude, but motorists are rude to each other too. Possibly if someone cuts you up and you are in your car, you can can shout “you stupid fucker” and you’ll feel better and chances are the other person won’t hear you. How often do you see motorists shaking their heads to themselves apparently in disbelief at the stupidity of other road users?

But when it comes to cyclists, somehow it’s worse. I think because from the motorists’ perspective, the cyclist is another breed. You can get angry with another car driver, but better to be angry at a bus driver, or a lorry driver or a cyclist because they represent something ‘other’. From a cyclist’s perspective, being on the receiving end of a someone’s aggression when you are balancing unprotected on a flimsy collection of tubing and the other person is bearing down on you with several tons of machinery is unpleasant. It makes it hard not to react – especially when you feel you’ve been unjustly judged.

And now to the proper rant…

OK, so I was riding along a two-way road (one lane each way). Not massively busy, as usual I pull away first from the traffic lights and get about 40 or 50 metres when the traffic starts to catch me up. Cars over-take me, some pretty tightly because there is traffic going the other way, but I’m used to that. Anyway, there is a road up ahead to my right that I need to turn down. So I’m on the left-hand side of the road (I’m in the UK) but I need to move into the middle of the road so I can wait, if necessary, and take a right turn. But the cars are coming out on my outside – that’s right they are overtaking me. If I were in a car, I would indicate right and move over to the centre of the road, halting if needs be until it was safe to cross the carriage way and make my turn. I think that on a bike I should be able to do the same thing. So I indicate that I’m turning right, the first car just overtakes me and I start to move over to the centre of the road. But the car behind me doesn’t like that. This driver wanted to overtake me too and so he (or she) blares out their horn. I continue to move to the centre of the road, change my right-hand signal to a sarcastic thumbs up and make the turn.

Did I do anything wrong?

Clearly what he thought I should do was pull over to the left, wait until he had overtaken (and presumably every other car behind him) and then make the right turn? But why the fuck should I? There aren’t two lanes, there is one lane and he is overtaking another vehicle that is making a right turn.

But I am a road user and am subject to the Highway Code like anyone else. If I was in a car and wanted to turn right and indicated and a car decided to overtake me as I was about to make the turn, then that would be dangerous driving on his part, wouldn’t it? In fact, the first car ignoring my right signal and overtaking me was breaking the law surely?

I am 100% sure I’m right here and have even found some mention of it in the Highway Code:

167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

• when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled

But no doubt, along with his horn blaring, he went off cursing me and cycle-kind as the menaces that we are. He won’t for a second have thought that he was driving like an idiot and could have caused an accident that would have been his fault. And THAT’s what makes cyclists angry I think. It’s the assumption from other road users that we’re a bit like a pedestrian but a bit faster. We should get the fuck out of their way and not impede their journey or inconvenience them in anyway whatsoever. And if we dare to behave like any other vehicle then we deserve to be on the receiving end of their wrath. It’s wrong and it’s ignorant.

Lambeth Council traffic enforcement, parked illegally

Not really bike related, but I’ve also had a few tickets from parking mistakes I’ve made in the past and like most people, object to the over-zealous use of parking regulations which have become a licence for local authorities to boost their coffers. Actually, it’s local authorities I hate, isn’t it? They don’t care about me unless they can fleece me for a few extra quid.

Anyway – this was both funny and annoying. As you can see, this traffic enforcement vehicle (which incidentally sits there with the engine running and two people sat inside operating the camera) is regularly parked in Silverthorne Road, SW8. It is there basically to catch motorists out so they can be fined. It surely isn’t there as a deterrent or because poor parking is a menace to other road users. If it were, it wouldn’t be parked on a double yellow line.

I am going to send this photo to Lambeth Council asking them to make sure that they issue a Penalty Notice against themselves. It’s not right is it? Parking on a double yellow can only be wrong if it’s wrong for everybody. If Lambeth Council flout the parking laws, then they shouldn’t penalise anyone else for doing the same thing.

Who’s watching the watchers?

In a nutshell, JoAnne (what  kind of pretentious spelling is that?) Good, was ranting about cyclists on her morning radio show. She was basically coming out with the ususal shit about “most cyclists this” and “I hate cyclists because of that” bla bla bla.

Anyway a few people, myself included, took exception to what she was saying and wrote to complain. This is what we all got back from the BBC’s complaints department:

Regular listeners to the Breakfast programme know that Jo has an issue with cyclists in London who ignore traffic lights, ride on pavements and use abusive language or hand gestures.

So overall, the programme is fair as Jo’s views on cyclists are adequately balanced by listeners, contributors and by her co-presenter.

What irks me is that this is just as bad as her misguided comments: it’s not backed up by anything. “Many cyclists take unnecessary risks” – what does that mean? This statement is based on nothing but the jaundiced views of someone who watches the world from behind their steering wheel.

My point is that BBC presenters should check their facts before making sweeping generalisations.  If she could back her statements up with facts it might make what she has to say worth broadcasting, but her made-up assertions  only fuels antagonism towards a group of people that find themselves being abused on a daily basis anyway.

Perhaps, before she goes off on her next tirade against cyclists, someone should show her the City of London’s report on Casualties in the City (19.11.2007) involving cyclists. In the report, of all cycle-related collisions in the city, the ‘blame’ is allocated as follows:
Bicycle 28%
Car 25%
Goods/HGV 18%
Taxi 12%
PSV 6%
Motorbike 5%
Pedestrian 5%
Other 1%

Surely she should be having a go at motorised road users? Clearly, they are far more of a menace than cyclists?

Yes – she’s entitled to a view, but as a presenter surely it has to be based on reality not on prejudice?