CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Do cyclists think they're above the law, and does it even matter?
(21 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
Wow, a surprisingly cyclist-friendly piece, even if it does start out a little triggersome, with a soundbite complaining about cyclists mounting the pavement (like drivers do all the time) and flouting the traffic rules by not wearing a helmet or using a mobile phone - neither of which is against any road rule.
Posted 4 years ago # -
In fairness with the helmets, there is a link to another good video about that at the end
Posted 4 years ago # -
Nuther take from the Graun;
Posted 4 years ago # -
Cyclists break the law far less with good infrastructure. (shocking no one who's thought about why people cycle on pavements )
Posted 4 years ago # -
I really liked that the Guardian video referred to ‘collisions’, not ‘accidents’. Because when they’re caused by an offence (including careless driving) they aren’t accidents.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Oh dear!
Broughton Spurtle jumping on the cyclist-hating bandwagon...
http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/blink-and-you%E2%80%99re-splatted
Posted 4 years ago # -
The article seemed pretty balanced to be honest. Not only does it explicitly refer to bad cyclists as a minority, it then goes on to complain about murderous rat-running drivers.
Posted 4 years ago # -
To be fair, it's not really cyclist-hating:
"As Edinburgh’s population grows, and the proportion of active travellers increases with it, so too grows a minority of selfish, inattentive, and downright reckless cyclists putting pedestrians at risk."
(emphasis mine)And a little more than half the article is about drivers not giving way to pedestrians at side streets.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The article describes three dangerous driving incidents by vans, two with abuse directed toward a pedestrian, and two inconsiderate cyclists whose behaviour did no worse than briefly alarm a pedestrian, but the headline and the focus is on the cyclists. I would count it as cyclist-hating, and the Twitter thread has brought out the usual anti-cyclist ranters.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I liked the tone of the video, though it did slightly amuse me when saying cyclists should be referred to as "people on bikes", but the everyone subsequently used the labels; cyclists, pedestrians, drivers, rather than 'people who....'. though the policeman did refer to 'people who drive' once.
I agree emphasis should be on drivers, that said if I wouldn't let bad cycling go if witnessed by police.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The headline refers to the van incidents (judging by the subtitles) and the focus of the article - at least by wordcount - is certainly on the vans too. What steps should they have taken during their fairly reasonable moan about an encounter with a wreckless person to avoid being called anti-cyclist? I think they've actually taken deliberate steps to be balanced - they could easily have posted the letter separately (or not at all!)
If 'bringing out the usual ranters' is going to be the threshold for what constitutes acceptable journalism then nobody had better write about cycling or transport ever again!
Posted 4 years ago # -
I like the style of the author of the letter:
"I would like to hear from your department what measures you are prepared to undertake to improve pedestrian safety in this vicinity."
Exactly how to do it. Not telling the council what to do, but asking what they propose to to do. That will fox them.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Never mind cyclists, check out the drivers...
(Warning: obligatory Neil Greig quote at foot of page).
---Record number caught cheating on driving tests
Posted 4 years ago # -
Watching Good Omens on Prime (9000 Americans have complained to Netflix about this programme [on Prime]). Terry Pritchett/NeilGaiman - 4 of the 5 episodes have been fun. The second is a bit of padding.
One character in it a modern day Witchfiner projects himself as the head of a large organisation when it is just him. IAM Roadsmart?
Posted 4 years ago # -
I'm sure tonight's programme at 9:15 on channel 5 will be a nice balanced affair!
Cyclists:Scourge Of The Streets?
Posted 4 years ago # -
I actually watched it out of curiosity, I was surprised at how balanced it actually was...
It seemed to do quite a good job of making everybody look bad, cyclists, drivers, taxi drivers, the helmet camera guy, the moaning resident. They all looked bad.
Posted 4 years ago # -
It isn't really balanced though is it, when you take into account the capacity to cause harm and damage in a 1500+kg vehicle travelling up to 70mph, versus a 80kg bike+rider travelling up to 20mph.
Yes, both cyclists and motorists break rules and do annoying things in equal amounts, but when motorists do it, it becomes extremely dangerous and life-threatening.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Not quite what I meant. By balanced, I meant they managed to find every idiot with a view and put them in a room, sort of balanced.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Oh I suspect there are many, many more idiots out there!
This program feeds the idiots on both sides of the equation. It's almost like they are trying to drive a wedge even deeper between the two.
Posted 4 years ago # -
My twitter feed now shows loads of cycling folk boasting of scourging the streets. I am such a trundler that I only lightly slap them.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
