I admit I was a little stung when JamesHerring, posting on my piece last week, called into question my credentials on that topic (though, for the record, I would argue that working on Cif is worth a PhD in stress management studies any day of the week). But, by unpopular demand, I go back, chastened, to the one subject I might claim to have a little expertise on …
The Times reports an ICM poll that half of us think cyclists should have to take a cycling proficiency test in order to cut down on their antisocial behaviour and law-breaking: a quarter of respondents had heard a cyclist shout at a pedestrian, while a whopping nine out of 10 had witnessed people riding on the pavement.
The only way I’d question these findings would be to ask where the other one was looking – if you haven’t seen a cyclist riding on the pavement, I’d respectfully suggest you’re not getting out enough. Guilty, in other words, as charged.
Even I’m not stupid enough to defend the indefensible: yes, there is far too much casual disregard by cyclists of traffic regulations; yes, too many do go through red lights; yes, there is far too widespread a disregard of the priority, convenience and safety of pedestrians by cyclists. And I’d generally agree there is too little enforcement – although I am happy to report that, for instance, the City of London police (a force which has quite a few bike-mounted officers) is quite hot on collaring red light runners, and I am petty enough to get a good kick of schadenfreude when I see them pulling people over.
But is forcing cyclists to take a test the answer? Somewhat in a spirit of mischief, I have advocated something similar. (It didn’t win me many friends, let alone influence people.) And London mayor Ken Livingstone upset the cycling lobby last year when he seemed to be flirting with the idea of licensing cyclists so that their numberplates could be recorded by camera.
Any such measure would, of course, require a colossal investment in administration and enforcement. Given that police forces are too stretched to deal with the rather greater menace presented by the vast number of untaxed and/or uninsured motorists on the road, it seems unlikely that any compulsory scheme of testing cyclists could get off the ground. In any case, the powers to tackle antisocial cycling are there already; the problem is not that people don’t know the law, and need to be trained and tested not to break it, but a plain lack of enforcement.
Cyclists definitely need to put their own house in order: we need to hear the evidence from polls and surveys like this of how unpopular we are. It wouldn’t hurt for the cycling lobby to drop its instinctive defensive posture for once, admit the problem, and campaign for better compliance.
But – I bet you knew there would eventually be a “but” – riding on pavements and through traffic signals needs to be understood not as wilful misbehaviour and pure waywardness, but (however misguided) as a rational choice. It’s often not actually very convenient to ride on pavements: there are kerbs, street furniture, trees, dogs and bloody pedestrians all over the place. But the reason people do it is simple and singular: they don’t feel safe on the road. And given their size, speed and the relatively negligible threat they present to others, these cyclists feel the pavement is a more congenial environment (despite the obstacles).
In fact, more and more urban planning is exploring breaking down the barriers that segregate road users in ways that calm traffic and make streets safe for shared use. We can argue either way about whether 20mph speed limits, for instance, are the right tool, but the aim of safer, more pleasant streets is surely a no-brainer.
Cyclists riding on the pavement is universally acknowledged a nuisance. But let’s resist the impulse merely to punish them, and instead give them a reason to do the right thing and get back on the highway. It’s the road environment that really needs to change. Get that right, and cyclists will soon fall in line.
Listen /
Walking the Brexit tightrope at Labour conference – Politics Weekly
Sorry your browser does not support audio – but you can download here
and listen https://flex.acast.com/audio.guim.co.uk/2018/09/26-51111-gdn.pol.180926.podcast.mp3
Sorry your browser does not support audio – but you can download here
and listen https://flex.acast.com/audio.guim.co.uk/2018/09/26-51111-gdn.pol.180926.podcast.mp3
Source: Read Full Article