LONDON: Boris unveils plan to improve cycling safety (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)

Please, Mr Mayor, include in your campaign a section telling cyclists to think of the dangers THEY pose to pedestrians.

I'm fed up with cyclists who shoot over traffic lights before they change regardless of people crossing; of cyclists who come round corners at speed; of people who ride their bikes on the pavements, again at speed.

well said Helen, I for one am sick of these Lycra clad Nazis who seem to feel that because they are not burning petrol none of the rules of the road nor of common decency apply to them and they can do just what they like. We simply don't have a road system which supports the large number of cyclists the government, both local and national, would like to see. This is a good start, but it is no more than that. T

I am also fed up of hearing how they are going to improve safety for cyclists, when the cyclists themselves don't care about pedestrians. I was clipped by a bike yesterday as I walked across a zebra crossing. I was in the middle of the road and yet the cyclist still managed to hit me and then shouted at me. Apparently it was my fault I was hit.

Why dont they stop wasting all this money on people that dont pay for any upkeep of the roads and pavements theyre riding on?


Or just make every road 20mph & just for cyclists and let cars use them at the weekend!!!! :--/

Wow, what a classic load of cyclist-hating comments!

1. Ferdy, look at http://ipayroadtax.c
om/ Quoting from the site: "Motorists do not pay for the roads, we all do, via general taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. He didn't want motorists to think a token payment gave them ownership of the road. Road tax finally died in 1937, says DVLA. Paying Vehicle Excise Duty gives no "right to the road" for motorists (or car-owning cyclists)."

2. Jack says: "Lycra clad Nazis who seem to feel that because they are not burning petrol none of the rules of the road nor of common decency apply to them and they can do just what they like."

OK, so you've compared people who ride a bicycle to people who tried to exterminate an entire people and waged war against most of the world; how stupid, insensitive and utterly facile is that?

Meanwhile, of course, it ignores the simple truth that car, van, bus and lorry drivers all ignore the rules of the road far more than cyclists. The Evening Standard, last year, counted red light running at key junctions around London - and found per head, far cars and motorbikes more likely to run reds than cyclists.

You're only annoyed at cyclist misbehaviour because you're so used to motorist misbehaviour it doesn't even register any more.

3. Helen said "cyclists to think of the dangers THEY pose to pedestrians". Now, OK, cyclists on the pavement, cyclists who run red lights etc. are very annoying, no doubt. But they're simply, factually, not very dangerous. You're over 40 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car on the pavement than a bicycle on the pavement. Let me repeat: on the pavement. So why aren't there loads of campaigns saying "don't drive on the pavement"?

4. Ultimately, where do you think the future of the world's transport system lies? We're facing climate change and the end of cheap oil (google "Peak Oil"). So, in ten years time do you honestly think there'll be more people driving everywhere and fewer bikes or the other way round? If we want, as a society, to survive the next turbulent century, bikes are going to be a key part of what has to happen. In other words, instead of carping about cyclists, perhaps itis time you got out of your cars and became one. Cycling is overall healthier for body and mind than driving, less risky long-term and helps the planet. Plus, unlike sitting in traffic jams or crowded tubes, it's fun. Waltham Forest Council offers free adult cycle training - you might want to check it out.

I totally agree with PsiMonk that cycling is healthy and more environmentally-frie
ndly. That's not what this discussion is about.

You are in dream territory if you think that the kind of behaviours I described above are rare. I see or personally experience them occurring on a daily basis. It's true that I am unlikely (I hope) to be killed by a cyclist swinging round the corner at speed, but I could be badly injured. Ditto by a pavement cyclist or one jumping the traffic lights.

Some cyclists - and oddly enough a great many of them in the lycra-clad category - appear to think that everything and everyone should get out of their way, maybe because they believe they occupy a moral high ground. The fact is irresponsible cyclists are dangerous - and please don't try to pretend otherwise.

I totally agree with PsiMonk that cycling is healthy and more environmentally-frie
ndly. That's not what this discussion is about.

You are in dream territory if you think that the kind of behaviours I described above are rare. I see or personally experience them occurring on a daily basis. It's true that I am unlikely (I hope) to be killed by a cyclist swinging round the corner at speed, but I could be badly injured. Ditto by a pavement cyclist or one jumping the traffic lights.

Some cyclists - and oddly enough a great many of them in the lycra-clad category - appear to think that everything and everyone should get out of their way, maybe because they believe they occupy a moral high ground. The fact is irresponsible cyclists are dangerous - and please don't try to pretend otherwise.

PsiMonk wrote:
Wow, what a classic load of cyclist-hating comments! 1. Ferdy, look at http://ipayroadtax.c om/ Quoting from the site: "Motorists do not pay for the roads, we all do, via general taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. He didn't want motorists to think a token payment gave them ownership of the road. Road tax finally died in 1937, says DVLA. Paying Vehicle Excise Duty gives no "right to the road" for motorists (or car-owning cyclists)." 2. Jack says: "Lycra clad Nazis who seem to feel that because they are not burning petrol none of the rules of the road nor of common decency apply to them and they can do just what they like." OK, so you've compared people who ride a bicycle to people who tried to exterminate an entire people and waged war against most of the world; how stupid, insensitive and utterly facile is that? Meanwhile, of course, it ignores the simple truth that car, van, bus and lorry drivers all ignore the rules of the road far more than cyclists. The Evening Standard, last year, counted red light running at key junctions around London - and found per head, far cars and motorbikes more likely to run reds than cyclists. You're only annoyed at cyclist misbehaviour because you're so used to motorist misbehaviour it doesn't even register any more. 3. Helen said "cyclists to think of the dangers THEY pose to pedestrians". Now, OK, cyclists on the pavement, cyclists who run red lights etc. are very annoying, no doubt. But they're simply, factually, not very dangerous. You're over 40 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car on the pavement than a bicycle on the pavement. Let me repeat: on the pavement. So why aren't there loads of campaigns saying "don't drive on the pavement"? 4. Ultimately, where do you think the future of the world's transport system lies? We're facing climate change and the end of cheap oil (google "Peak Oil"). So, in ten years time do you honestly think there'll be more people driving everywhere and fewer bikes or the other way round? If we want, as a society, to survive the next turbulent century, bikes are going to be a key part of what has to happen. In other words, instead of carping about cyclists, perhaps itis time you got out of your cars and became one. Cycling is overall healthier for body and mind than driving, less risky long-term and helps the planet. Plus, unlike sitting in traffic jams or crowded tubes, it's fun. Waltham Forest Council offers free adult cycle training - you might want to check it out.

Can't you just accept that cyclists are unpopular with pedestrians for good reasons and not be so defensively disingenuous. Cyclists are a danger. That is a fact. There are many other dangers out there, but that does not absolve cyclists of their responsibilities to obey the law or take away the fact that cyclists maim and even kill people as well as cars and lorries.

This is a long and tired rehearsal of the same old points followed by more taxpayer funded preachyness does your cultish cause so far less good in the eyes of the public than you may think. It may be annoying to be compared with the Nazis, but lets face it, some cyclists are very unpleasant and selfish and people find the use of the word Nazi a convenient shorthand to convey that. If you don't like it, get your lycra uniformed cohorts to put their house in order. Then you may find you will get a fairer hearing fro the undoubted injusticed which cyclists also suffer at the hand sof other road users.

It would appear that psimonk & Boris Johnson have conveniently forgotten that our glorious mayor and the leader of the opposition have both been caught regularly jumping red lights, going through pedestrian crossings and going down one way streets in the opposite direction on their bikes. Boris jumped 6 red lights in 1 journey. How many motorists do that and keep their licence? No wonder cyclists are seen as arrogant or "Nazis".
If Gordon Brown & Ken Livingstone had done this in their cars I wonder what the outcome would be? p.s. I know Ken preferred public transport.

p.s. Didn't the nazis invade the sudetenland on pushbikes?
Maybe this is why the reference to nazi's is made?

"A PLAN to improve safety for cyclists has been published by the Mayor of London."

Unless the sum total of that plan is "Replace all cycle lanes with ones designed by safety experts that meet minimum guideline specifications", then this is nothing more than vote-seeking horseshit from London's worst mayor ever.