Cyclists don't count as road users

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

Cyclists don't count as road users, argues transport secretary

The transport secretary, Chris Grayling, has been accused of showing “an astonishing lack of knowledge” of his brief after arguing in the House of Commons that cyclists do not count as road users.

Grayling, shown in a video last month knocking a rider off his bike by suddenly opening the door to his ministerial car outside Westminster, made the comment on Thursday morning.

Grayling was questioned by the Labour MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) Daniel Zeichner about an interview he gave late last year warning that London’s new protected cycle lanes “perhaps cause too much of a problem for road users”. Were cyclists not also road users, Zeichner asked.

“What I would say to him, of course, is where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes,” Grayling responded. “And there’s a road alongside – motorists are the road users, the users of the roads. It’s fairly straightforward, to be honest.”

Full article: The Guardian

[eightf48544]

Cycle lanes means cycle lanes, roads means roads. Obvious.

[ChrisB]

Probably seen all those cyclists on the pavements.....

[Western Pathfinder]

A long long time ago when I was learning to ride a bike I took part in a training programe which was called https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_Proficiency_Test
Which I learn has been scraped
Apart from bike control the instructors spent most of the time ramming home the fact that people who ride bikes are Very Soft and Easy to Kill when they get hit by a road vehicle
Perhaps it's time that a lot of bike riders remembered this fact ?.

[trainer]

...people who ride bikes are Very Soft and Easy to Kill when they get hit by a road vehicle

I try very hard to remember that when I encounter a cyclist while driving a car.

[chrisr_75]

...people who ride bikes are Very Soft and Easy to Kill when they get hit by a road vehicle

I try very hard to remember that when I encounter a cyclist while driving a car.

Sadly not many cyclists (most of whom, of course, will also drive cars) care to remember this when cycling on a road also occupied by cars, lorries etc. The overall standards of driving and riding on our roads is pretty abysmal in terms of what it is possible to achieve with regards to observation, anticipation, vehicle handling (including push bikes) and consideration for other road users. Cyclists like to prefer the indignant self-righteous approach, but they're just as bad as any other road users and it's not really going to help you once you're converted to a nasty stain under a 44t HGV...

[grahame]

We have all this lot passing our place ... sharing a main roadway and a pavement:
* Pederstrians
* Cyclists
* Mobility scooterists
* Motor Cyclists
* Equestrians
* Private Cars and their drivers
* Taxis and their drivers
* Vans and their drivers
* Public service passenger vehicles and their drivers
* Private coaches and their drivers
* Lorries and their drivers
and there seems to be an unwritten rule that the bigger and stronger your mode of trasport, the more right you have to bully other road users ... until you reach an honourable number of real "gentlemen" (be they male or female ones) amongst professional drivers. And while anyone in my list after the pedestrian is going to be less than professional in how they behave, you're going to have issues about sharing and the stronger bullying the weaker.

[ellendune]

Cycling UK^▸ (United Kingdom) tweeted this image of an extract from the Local Government Act 1888 to demonstrate that cycles are carriages within the meaning of the law and therefore uses of the carriageway, or to put it another way they are legally road users.

[didcotdean]

Cycling UK^▸ (United Kingdom) tweeted this image of an extract from the Local Government Act 1888 to demonstrate that cycles are carriages within the meaning of the law and therefore uses of the carriageway, or to put it another way they are legally road users.

Also is why they aren't permitted on footpaths.

[TaplowGreen]

If cyclists wish to be treated the same as other road users then they should be responsible enough to do what is compulsory for all other road users and take out insurance.

[Bob_Blakey]

Probably seen all those cyclists on the pavements.....

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in and around Exeter you are much more likely to see a variety of motor vehicles on the pavements. Apparently it is much cheaper and/or more convenient that using a properly designated parking area.

[TaplowGreen]

Probably seen all those cyclists on the pavements.....

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in and around Exeter you are much more likely to see a variety of motor vehicles on the pavements. Apparently it is much cheaper and/or more convenient that using a properly designated parking area.

It's an Exeter thing, they're not particularly bright around there 

[chrisr_75]

If cyclists wish to be treated the same as other road users then they should be responsible enough to do what is compulsory for all other road users and take out insurance.

I don't think horse riders are required to take out third party insurance either, just motor vehicles. Plenty car owners don't bother to invest insurance which bothers me much more!

[JayMac]

Probably seen all those cyclists on the pavements.....

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in and around Exeter you are much more likely to see a variety of motor vehicles on the pavements. Apparently it is much cheaper and/or more convenient that using a properly designated parking area.

It's an Exeter thing, they're not particularly bright around there 

It's a national thing. When my nephew was still using a pushchair I could guarantee that on every day I was looking after him there would be at least one instance where our path was hindered or blocked by vehicles parked on pavements. I'd make a point of 'accidentally' walking into wing mirrors on such occasions. If they broke then good. 

I'm re-entering the world of motoring at the moment (perhaps steer clear of South Somerset while I'm on the L plates!). I'm confident the 25 odd years of being a pedestrian, cyclist and public transport user has instilled in me a tolerance of all road users. Excepting those that park like a **** though.

Where I live there can be a difficulty finding on-street parking space. Just yesterday I had a friend delivering my car and I ensured she did not park it on the pavement. It did mean the car was further from the front door, but if that means the elderly, disabled, or those with pushchairs are not hindered, then so be it.

[Tim]

If cyclists wish to be treated the same as other road users then they should be responsible enough to do what is compulsory for all other road users and take out insurance.

I often hear the "cyclists should have compulsory insurance" argument but I have never heard an argument as to why.  Having insurance doesn't make anyone any more responsible or improve the safety of anyone on its own. 

The reason that motor vehicles must have third party insurance is because they cause a significant amount of damage to third parties (both people and property) and that the monetary compensation recoverable under the law for that damage is very often much more than the driver is in a position to pay.   Without compulsory motor insurance, a significant number of people would be harmed and would receive no compensation of that harm and a significant number of drivers would be ruined by bankruptcy after being sued by their victims.

Surely the amount of damage caused to third parties by cyclists, or pedestrians or horse riders (or dogs, or lawnmowers or surfboarders or kite flyers or football players or whatever other group of people) whilst not zero is several orders of magnitude less than the damage caused by motor vehicle drivers, both in the number of incidents resulting in damage significant enough for legal recovery to be worthwhile and the quantum of damage (ie the typical damage caused by a public footballer might be a broken window or by a cyclist a broken arm damages awarded for that sort of damage might well be recoverable without bankrupting the liable party, whereas in a motor vehicle it is quite easy to cause multiple deaths and/or demolish a building and/or write off hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of other motor vehicles)

Just taking damage to signposts and lampposts as an example, local authorities suffer millions of pounds worth of damage to those assets per year and compulsory insurance allows the recovery of a great deal of it.  Do you really think that horse riders and cyclists are demolishing millions of pounds worth of lampposts every year and that the absence of insurance of those people is meaning that the council tax payer has to pick up the tab?  Is Network Rail being frustrated at its lack of ability to recover compensation for all their bridges damaged by cyclists crashing into them?   

You could say that everyone should have compulsory insurance for liability of any sort to third parties. But the law has only made it compulsory for certain groups (ie motorists, employers to employee etc).  To change the law to include cyclists in that group I think you ought to have to demonstrate that there is a significant evil which the law needs to remedy.