In the Gutter

When confronted with the inexplicable rage that cyclists seem to inspire in some people, I used to argue that this was all way out of proportion: after all cyclists don't actually kill people. Well, I can't say that any more.

My understanding had been that the cyclist was on the pavement. The BBC report the victim's mother as saying, "He shouted a warning. There's no need to shout a warning. He's on his bicycle, he should have veered round them but even on impact with Rhiannon, he didn't even brake. He was on the footpath, where she should have been safe." The Daily Mail, under a picture of the cyclist, says: "Jason Howard, 36, rode his bike into Rhiannon Bennett on the pavement causing her death". And here's Tuesday's Times:

A cyclist who caused a teenager fatal injuries when they collided on a pavement told her to “move, because I'm not stopping”, a court heard yesterday.

But it ain't so. As Richard Morrison in The Times reports today, she was in fact standing at the edge of the road. The cyclist was where he was supposed to be. That's why he shouted. Which is not to excuse the man, who clearly should have either braked or swerved, and comes across as a complete bastard. But it's interesting - and, if I may say so, symptomatic of a deeper malaise - that when the chance comes to put the boot into cyclists, it's seized with glee and burnished with a little massaging of the facts by the media, pandering to the idea of crazed cyclists sending pedestrians flying as they speed along the nation's pavements. Even Morrison's article is misrepresented. The cover of Times2, where it appears, has the headline "Thugs of the road - Richard Morrison reveals some uncomfortable truths about cyclists". Well, no he doesn't:

Suddenly cyclists, the most endangered species of road users in Britain, find themselves cast as the callous thugs of the highway. That's the evident reaction to the case of Jason Howard, fined £2,200 on Tuesday for dangerous cycling after he knocked over 17-year-old Rhiannon Bennett, who died of her injuries. Howard's behaviour was certainly deplorable. He shouted “move, because I'm not stopping” at youngsters standing by the road. He didn't swerve or slow down. So he ploughed into his victim at an estimated 17mph - a tortoise-like speed by motorised standards, but enough to knock her to the ground, where she struck her head on the pavement.

However, it seems that Howard may not have been riding illegally on the pavement. A police spokesman said after the trial that Rhiannon “was probably a few inches, or a foot, into the road and then she moved towards the pavement”. In other words, she may have been standing precisely where “responsible” cyclists are encouraged to ride: close to the kerb, so that cars can give them a wide berth as they overtake.

Does it matter? Well, yes. The righteous indignation that pedestrians summon up when confronted with cyclists on the pavement is never somehow matched by any concern when pedestrians stand at the side of the road, or step off the pavement without looking, straight into the path of cyclists - who, often enough, are unable to swerve because there may be a car coming up behind them.

As a cyclist himself, Morrison goes on to complain, as cyclists are wont to do, about motorists:

Even more hazardous is any attempt to turn right: the cause of my two serious biking accidents. Motorists regard a cyclist moving into the “fast” lane as an affront to some unstated rule of the road - even when the cyclist is clearly indicating a right turn. Verbal abuse, or an angry toot on the horn, is virtually de rigueur.

And few motorists seem to understand, let alone sympathise with, the chief reason why cyclists appear to swerve erratically: the potentially life-threatening ruts and potholes on many roads. Why should they understand? In the cushioned safety pod that is the modern automobile, the driver doesn't even feel the bumps.

I don't agree: I find the overwhelming majority of motorists are extremely courteous towards cyclists (I'll make an exception for white van drivers), provided you don't do anything silly, like suddenly veering out across the road for a right turn without having bothered first to check that there's nothing coming up behind you. It's the pedestrians you've got to watch out for. It's all about perceived threats. A bicycle is no threat to a car: it costs a motorist nothing to give way to a cyclist, and makes them feel good. I've been waved through, with a smile, by young dudes in VW Golfs with stereos so loud it'd make your ears bleed - who, you can be sure, would cut up any car trying to get anything over on them. But pedestrians? - whoooh. Ring a bell at them as they block the cycle path, and get ready for the language (no, not always, of course - but often enough).

What it is, I think, is that cyclists are neither motorists and pedestrians. We cyclists think of ourselves as basically pedestrians with a bit of a machine to help us go faster. That's why, in general, we tend to adopt the pedestrians' relaxed approach to traffic regulations. Motorists generally see us the same way, and tend to the same level of solicitude as they show to pedestrians (and if that seems a ridiculously generous view of those nasty drivers, who we're supposed to hate, stand at the side of any zebra crossing in London and watch the cars stop). The law, generally, sees us as motorists because we use the road, but would probably prefer to forget all about us (which, speaking for myself, suits me fine). Pedestrians, well, they're not sure. They see cyclists as different. Cars and lorries and buses are beyond their reach, with the drivers stuck inside their metal boxes. They're somehow part of the natural order of things. Cyclists are trickier beasts to classify though. and seem to bring out an entirely disproportionate resentment.

Here's Tim Teeman, for example (below Richard Morrison):

I am a pedestrian and use the pavement. I thought that was what it was for. If you don't want to cycle on the road, don't cycle. That's the choice, surely.

Yet every morning the pavements are awash with so-called responsible cyclists, kitted out in their reflective jackets and bombing along on two-wheeled versions of 4x4s.

It's not a small proportion of cyclists giving the rest a bad name. In cities and towns, a significant number of cyclists one encounters (at very close quarters) are putting the safety of pedestrians in danger - and they don't seem to care. It's their sense of entitlement and craven selfishness (besides their excessive speed) that pedestrians find so galling.

Pavements "awash with so-called responsible cyclists"; "bombing along on two-wheeled versions of 4x4s"; "craven selfishness". I'd be interested to know which pavements he uses, because they're nothing like the ones I've ever been on - but this kind of nonsense is received opinion nowadays in saloon bars across the country. And Jason Howard hasn't helped.

Comments

[DaninVan]

Bikes are just too distracting...
http://www.mtbmovies.com/gallery/nikigudex/01/big.jpg

[Mick H]

Peter - that's one of my pet peeves; cyclists listening to IPods. Cycling through London traffic with headphones clamped into their ears - Jesus Christ! To be safe you need to be alert - and that means using your ears as well as your eyes.

[Laban]

Mick - unless things are very different round your way, saloon bars disappeared not long after men stopped wearing ties on weekends.

[Zorro]

Round here there are far more bikes on the pavement than on the road. Mind you I cannot really blame them, if I got on a bike I would be too scared to ride on the roads round here too. The traffic is far too dense, fast and dangerous.