Mr agreeable said:

“The cultural attitude to motoring is still to treat it as a fundamental human right, rather than being in control of a scary bit of machinery.”

An accurate observation. And yes, I do believe I have a fundamental human right to drive and ride a motorbike. I also have a fundamental human right to cycle. When I cycle I accept that I’m on a vulnerable bit of machinery. When I mix with scary bit’s of machinery I cycle accordingly.

The problem with current cycle campaigns is that they are antagonistic and adversarial to motorists. The approach is to improve matters for cyclists at the expense of motorists. Surely the goal should be to improve the roads for ALL legal users? If approached from this stance then there would be support from motorists instead of resistance.

If cyclists organisations entertained motorists belief in their fundamental human right to drive/ride then the same would be reciprocated. After all, cyclists have no more moral or legal rights to the road than any other user.

Which campaigns are those? I haven’t seen any campaign by the established cycling organisations the that fits that description.

e.g. from the British Cycling Road Safety Manifesto:
“British Cycling’s Road Safety Manifesto aims to foster a culture of mutual respect
between cyclists and motorists to create a safer cycling environment on the roads…investment in a national ‘Think Bike’ campaign focussing on mutual respect between all road users, including the importance of cyclists riding sensibly and obeying traffic laws.

Are you seriously suggesting that the behaviour of “motorists” (aren’t most cyclists motorists anyway?) is the result of cycling organisations failing to respect their “fundamental human rights”? I could be wrong, but I don’t think the couple who shouldered me out of a lane with their 4WD recently did so because they were miffed at a CTC campaign.
I have not seen any serious cycle campaign that suggests cyclists have greater moral or legal rights? Can you demonstrate some examples?

The UK’s roads are a very safe place to be, as long as you’re in a car. Great if you want to live in a world where kids are driven to school as a matter of course, the strip of land outside your front gate is a no-go zone, or where a Tour De France winner can’t ride on the roads safely.

This simply isn’t the case with smoking. And I’m not just talking the obvious stuff like passive smoking. I watched a relative lose the best bit of 10 pretty healthy years, having to nurse her husband through a long lingering epmhacaema death

By using legislation, publicity campaigns and economic pressure, we’ve created social conditions where it’s actually quite difficult to smoke and drink, there’s less pressure to do it than ever before, and you can generally exercise the option to stay away from smokers and drunks if that’s your preference.

With driving, you can see some of these measures at work, but not to the same extent.

Tax? You’d have to be extremely ignorant to think that your £130 a year covers the costs of road building, repairs, traffic enforcement and whatnot.

Publicity? I honestly can’t remember the last time I saw a road safety campaign, unless you count the odd flashing 30 sign that every driver sets off on their way past, knowing there will be no adverse consequences.

Social conditions? I live on the edge of a major city and it’s still massively inconvenient to do anything other than drive (or cycle, but many people simply don’t see that as an option). If you apply for a job, one of the first questions is always “do you have a car?”.

It’s fear, basically.

http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/society_and_environment/cycling/Understanding_Walking_&_Cycling_Report_WEB.pdf

Hmm. I’d support them fully in that. As a cyclist using bus lanes in London their legal use by motorbikes has been a major step backwards. Being under and over-taken closely by fast moving motorbikes is highly unpleasant.

The first London trial showed an increase in danger, the second was abandoned before it was complete according to the pieces I’ve read about it.

Despite three years of trials showing increased danger, Transport for London is going ahead with its plans to allow motorbikes to permanently use red-route bus lanes

The report on the second 18-month trial, published on 21 December 2011, shows a sharp increase in both motorcyclist fatalities on red-route bus lanes and the rate of cyclist collisions with motorbikes.

Cyclist-motorcyclist collisions increased significantly, from 10 to 25, while motorcyclist deaths increased from one in the first 18-month trial to seven in the second.

Collision rates for motorcyclists didn’t improve significantly during the second trial, which included an extensive and expensive police-enforcement programme to reduce the large number of motorcyclists ignoring speed limits.

For the second trial TfL abandoned its commitment to gather enough data for robust analysis, and very few statistically significant results were obtained.

Well, yes, those things too to be honest … although we’re not supposed to like being told what we can or can’t do 😀

I (cynically) think it comes down to whether or not Goevernment earns millions(/billions?) from taxes related to it. If they didn’t, they’d be more likely to be all against it and try and ban it.

Also, people are very selfish/stupid/narrow-minded, so prefer several tens of thousands of people dying and families being ripped apart rather than not being able to ‘enjoy’ a fag and getting bladdered on a weekend.

Precisely.

I can’t think of any everyday activity that carries similar potential for risk that takes place on such a large scale……and with relatively miniscule numbers of accidents either.

It does suggest that it’s not as sensationally dangerous as some claim.

And to be fair the smartphone twiddling twonk is probably doing 50mph, not wearing his glasses and is also hungover.

There’s 6 million motorcyclists in the UK that are happy to mix with HGV’s at half a bar’s width on a mode of transport that is more dangerous than cycling.

Then there’s all those horseriders that are 20 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than the motorcyclists.

Then there’s all the smokers.

And all the people that use illicit recreational drugs.

If you took 4 images and included the probability of death or serious injury on each. one for smoking, one for horseriding, one for motorcycling and one for cycling to work. I’ve a nagging suspicion that cycling would be the safest.

I’m not convinced that reducing alledged fear of cycling would make more people commute by cycle though.

I suspect the issue isn’t fear but convenience and enjoyment.

I’m not disputing that they mentioned fear. Hardly surprising when we’re constantly being told roads are dangerous.

The fact is that some roads are both enjoyable and safe to cycle on but see little cycle use despite providing usefull links.

Scaremongering by organisations that are supposed to be encouraging cycling may be an explanation for this?

Or do you genuinely believe that 80% of people are right to be petrified of cycling roads that are safe and enjoyable for cyclists?

I wrote that the roads provided usefull links ie a network (albeit local one)

Is your expectation that the entire shared network be cycle friendly?

Agreed that unnacceptable danger should be highlighted. This is localised though, it’s not as though the entire network is unnacceptably dangerous.

I thought the Dutch let mopeds in cycle lanes and were generally pro motorbike?

Thanks. Good site.

It said that mopeds are generally allowed to use rural cycle routes. Would be great if we could get the Dutch system over here and allow mopeds (espescially electric ones) on restricted byways.

there are too many fat lazy people who see cycling as a) something other people do, b)beneath them

ask most drivers if more drivers should use public transport and most will say yes and they will say public transport should be improved, now ask them would they use it most would say no.

a colleague worked for National Express and every survey they did, went is public transport good, answer yes, should more people use it, yes; should more money be spent on it, yes; would you use it now, no, it needs work; and if we did the work? No, full of people who use public transport.

I see no difference with cycling tbh, lots of people say it is a good idea, but ask them to do it and no chance.

If cyclists organisations entertained motorists belief in their fundamental human right to drive/ride then the same would be reciprocated. After all, cyclists have no more moral or legal rights to the road than any other user.

I’m not sure which campaigns you are referring to as all the ones I’ve noticed recently have been very much the opposite, actively trying to build relations with motorists. Yet the stereotype of the militant ant-car cyclist is still constantly bandied about in an attempt to justify aggressive behaviour towards them.

There is a @driverhatred on twitter in response to @cyclehatred. They’re up to all of about 50 followers now, and it’s all a bit pathetic (don’t feed the troll by following, that’s my advice).

Their associated website is a crime against HTML, reminiscent of Geocities sites in 1998, and includes bold claims like the fact that 20mph zones encourage drivers to speed when if it was a regular 30mph zone they might actually do less than 20.

@orangetoaster, whilst i agree that you have a right to drive, in so much that you have the right to sit a test and if you can prove you are competent you should be allowed to drive. I believe that drivers should be forced to sit retests, the number of drivers i see who can’t use a roundabout, who fail to understand how to behave around horses and cyclists etc.

and the number of people who died before the introduction of licences demonstrates that drivers can’t be trusted without training, and that they pose a risk to those around them.