Justify yourself to me...

It is a strange world we live in, and only getting stranger by the day. As more of our lives seems to exist online, and the web of engagement opportunities grows, so does the audience and with that grows the number of opinions we get to see. Of course, opinions are like arseholes, everyone one has one, but for some reason some people think THEIR opinion is THE ONE! Regardless of what anyone else thinks, facts aside, they are right, and it is not up for discussion.

I have been seeing this more and more recently, especially since I started sharing videos from my cycling excursions. I like to think of myself as unbiased (I wish!) and happily share videos of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. If they do something dumb, I am happy to post it online. But what always amazes me is the angry responses you get. Regardless of which pocket of society is involved in the video, there are always VERY angry people ready to unleash on you. 

Like I say, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I am fine with that, after all this is mine I am writing right now, and I am sure to some it is also wrong already, but hey ho. The problem comes when people turn opinion into facts. Stating their opinion as if it is factually correct. In a recent blog entry I talked about a video of an incident between a van and a cyclist. From the off it was my belief the cyclist messed up, things I said in the video highlighted that, or so I thought, however some chose to interpret these words differently.

The interesting bit comes when you engage with these comments to try and understand why they think what they think. Sure it is hard to understand a situation from a short clip, get the wrong end of the stick etc. But surely when the person IN the video explains what was meant by it, you grab the right end of the stick, and it all makes a bit more sense... But no, this is not the case at all. In fact all it seems to do is enrage the complete stranger, and make them even more adamant that they are right. Relying on their biases, and using them against the facts. 

Shouting angrily that as you are a cyclist you MUST be siding with "your mate", then when you explain this is not the case, you are back tracking and trying to make excuses. The irony of this is incredible. Someone's bias against cyclists is SO strong that they accuse the other person of acting in a biased manner, when in fact sad person is doing the complete opposite. Bias blindness is a real thing, and for some, it is genuinely crippling. Preventing them from being able to have an open and rational dialogue. 

Another example of this came only last night. A very polite guy on X, discussing a video of cyclists jumping red lights, and opening with an old favourite of mine "but what harm did it do?". This is a very simple yet at the same time complex arguement, so lets take a look at my opinion on it.

Red light means stop.... If you are a road user and you come to a red light, STOP. Simple as that. Unless you are an emergency service vehicle who there is am exception for, to pass through at low speed with good observations, OR you are directed by a police officer.... RED MEANS STOP! Everyone! This applies to cyclists also if they are using the main carriageway.

Then we come to pedestrian crossings. There for the safe passage across a road. Red signal means do not cross. However this is guidance and not a legal obligation, and there is no current offence of crossing against a red signal. For my rides, when coming to a road junction controlled by traffic lights, if a red light shows, I stop. When I am on a cycle way and reach a crossing point for pedestrians and it is red, I stop. However when I reach a point where the cycleway crosses a road, and there is a cycle crossing point, if the road is clear, and I mean CLEAR, not a small gap in traffic, I will go, regardless of the colour of the cross signal. That's me. I don't expect others to do the same and would never encourage it, nor berate people for not doing it. 

Going back to the video, all three clips with cyclists showed them going through a red traffic signal, some had had people crossing, others were clear. I want to say the majority of people are inclined to be against this sort of behaviour, with a small few wanting to argue "but it was clear", an then shout down the opposing arguement of "but it was red". Now I get it, stopping at red light after red light in town, sometimes for no one to cross at all, and there to be no traffic coming through the junction is frustrating, but sadly it is the law. Cyclists and pedestrians expect cars to stop at red lights regardless because "its the law", but then when the boot is on the other foot, the line becomes blurry.

I was told last night that because the crossing was empty, the cyclists had done nothing wrong. Also citing what was the worst that could happen being hit by a 15kg bike at 15mph. Well for starters, if I am on said bike it becomes 115kg, and the force of that at 15mph is quite damaging. "A soft human" was another phrase used. Well, humans aren't all soft, and even if they were, handlebars and cassettes to name a few bits of a bicycle are NOT soft, and can inflict horrible damage when striking someone. Then there is the risk of hitting a pedestrian and slamming them into the floor, as their head hits the floor, I am pretty sure injuries will occur. In fact lets look at the fact, with the two statements of a 15kg bike and a soft human equalling no harm, how have pedestrians been killed in collisions with cyclists?

Aaah now we get to it "yeah but cars....." The relentless follow up comment from the militant cyclists when presented with the fact that a small number of pedestrians have been killed in collisions with cyclists. "Yeah but cars kill X people a day on the roads"... So does that mean it's OK and acceptable for the occasional pedestrian to be killed by a cyclist? Because it is only a few here and there. I would love one of these people to speak to the families of someone killed by a cyclist and deliver their "yeah but cars" speech and expect to leave the room in one piece. 

I was accused of finger wagging at cyclists jumping red lights, but again the irony of having a finger wagged in my face saying "yeah but cyclists" and stating the law relating to red lights and cyclists was a bad one. OK by that logic, if I think a law is a bad one, I can ignore it? So if at 2am while driving I reach a red light, I can check if the junction is clear and then just drive through it? That will be a valid and legal arguement if I get flashed by a camera. No?

Of course I can't, and the militants will jump on this straight away with the "2 ton metal box" argument, there is a big difference they say. But is there?

Ignore vehicles for a moment.... Sitting at a red light at an "unoccupied junction" is frustrating, and for some there should be allowances made to be able to proceed if safe to do so. If there are no humans, and no traffic present, why should ANYONE wait at the red light? Well, for starters, it's the law! But some argue the law is a bad one, and if a cyclist comes to a red light, and it is deemed safe to proceed (at this point I am completely unclear on who determines it is safe) then the cyclist should be allowed to proceed with caution. OK, I am kinda on board with that, but as I have said, as soon as you add grey to a black and white scenario we then fall into the what shade of grey are you spiral. Red means stop, green means go (if safe to do so)... Easy right!

But now lets say red means stop, unless it is safe to proceed, but only for bikes, not motor vehicles. Right, so all bikes can go through red lights if it is safe? Single person bikes, tandems, e-bikes, cargo bikes, e-cargo bikes, e-cargo bikes with trailers, 4 wheeled cargo bike vans. Some of the latter are  weighing in excess of 250kg, that is more than most motorbikes... So by logic of proceeding safely, then mopeds and motorcycles should also be allowed to go through a red light of safe to do so. The Citroen Ami weighs about 450kg, so if you get one of the bigger cargo bikes, with trailer, we are in the same ball park, so can the Citroen go through the red light too?

Do you see where I am going with this? Saying the law is a bad one, and needs changing is fine, but with it comes complications. What speed can they pass through the crossing or junction at? should they come to a complete stop before proceeding? Should there be a weight limit to those allowed through? Should that include the weight of the rider and cargo? This is just skimming the surface of the complexities of a change in the rules. And all this confusion and grey just for a few entitled souls who don't feel the rules are right, therefore don't apply to them.

Add to it the fact that as you approach the light you have no idea of all the variables that apply. Sure you cant see anyone on the crossing from 50ft away, but someone has just seen their bus on the others side of the road, a green signal to cross and bolts out of the shops and legs it for the bus. You didn't see that coming, and I am 99.9% sure the cyclist in this case, on striking them would exclaim "they just came out of nowhere!". Yes, but the light was green for them, and if you had only stopped at the red light. 

I know a lot of this is whataboutery, what if this happened. Liklihood low, possibility present, end of, stop at the red light. 

The nonsense of entitlement is getting stupid now. Sure if you feel something is wrong, campaign to have rules changed, it's your democratic right to do so. But in the same breath, until the rule is changed, abide by the current one. Is that too much to ask? Apparently for some it is. 

When you have this discussion, or at least begin to, it is generally not long before the names start flying, your IQ is called into question, and the whole discussion falls apart. It is not about engagement for some, more enragement! Throwing their opinions around like they are facts, berating those who do not share their ideals, and always making sure they get the final word on the matter.

The other thing that really annoys me, going back to my viral video, is had the cyclist sustained an injury due to his poor decision making, regardless of if the van driver were blamed for it, the statistics would reflect an additional person on the KSI. The Killed or Seriously Injured statistics. The statistics that so many "campaigners" love to turn to when saying cars should be banned from the roads. Yet fault doesn't register. Now I am not saying if the person makes a silly decision thet are not worthy of being recognised, of course they are. But given how many incidents are on the list, it would be better to have a breakdown of what happened. I am not going to say "who was to blame" as the National Society of Calling Out Victim Blamers  will come down on me like a ton of bricks. I am simply saying that when these statistics are released, they should be transparent into the nature of the incident. Did any party ignore a traffic signal, road sign etc. 

Anyway, I have gone on long enough about this, and am sure that most who hold the views they do will not want to engage on the matter, after all it is all to civilised eh. But I have got it out of my system, so that's good.

For now I will continue to be (to quote some of the names and titles I have recently been given) a fat, old, bald, gay, lycra fairy, do gooder, law abiding, lying bullshiter of a cyclist. Stopping at red lights junctions and crossings, and calling out ANY bad cycling, riding, walking, or driving I see on my way.

What a beautiful world we live in, where freedom of speech gives everyone the opportunity to be a better person, however some fail miserably. Stay safe out there however you travel, and remember, not everyone has the same views as you, so green signal doesn't make it safe to cross, and a green light does't mean someone won't shoot out of a junction. The rules are SO stupid! 😂

Ban roads!

After recently reading debates over Road safety for a number of reasons,  I have come to the conclusion that the best course of action would be,  BAN ROADS!
It has become quite clear to me that pedestrians are put at more and more risk on a daily basis by the drivers of these motorised monsters which tear up and down the strips of tarmac which were only ever intended for milk floats,  horse and cart,  and of course Sinclair C5's.

To combat this growing danger,  I am today launching a campaign to quite simply,  ban roads! There is no need for them,  they serve no purpose,  and society could get along fine without them.

Instead I propose that motorised vehicles are banned with immediate effect,  and all the land currently selfishly used by them be designated as stroller parking for selfish fuckin mums who want to stand three abreast while they bitch about the new mum in the group,  fucktards who wish to spend their time running around chasing imaginary friends Pikeymums or whatever they are called. And not forgetting those poor disabled folk hell bent on creating more disabled people by running people over at stupid speeds on their mobility scooters,  or in some cases "too lazy to fuckin walk"  scooters.

The time for the road is over. Who needs huge lorries delivering supplies to almost every street corner to Sainsburys,  Tescos,  Waitrose locals etc. The shops that were opened due to mankind's unwillingness to travel more than 200 metres to get their weekly shopping,  because it's their basic human rights to have a fully stocked grocery shop on the block they live on. Only to drive there anyway and park like a fuck knuckle,  because unlike the people who use the roads daily to commute and carry out their jobs,  these arseholes don't have a clue how to drive or park,  so just muddle their way through,  blaming everyone else.

Roads,  leading to other towns are no longer needed. There is a perfectly good transport system in London,  unless they are on strike,  the wrong kind of weather occurs,  or a sewer breaks! I am sure the system cheating,  address lying parents out there who do their 5 mile school run to another borough each day can just settle their kids into a local school instead,  who needs standards when you can have local and convenient. Eliminating the need for those pesky roads.

Roads are pointless now however you look at it. However I realise this cannot happen over night,  so would recommend the following measures until all roads can be resurfaced as pavements or green spaces.
1/ Traffic currently drives too close to the kerb,  which is dangerously close to the idiotic parents walking their kids along the kerb "for fun"  and are further hindered by earlier mentioned selfish arseholes parking strollers across them while they chant their spells.  A buffer zone should be drawn up with immediate effect,  placing at least 5ft between humans and cars. This is not to be confused with a generous pavement, as it would seem even with all this perfectly adequate space,  some cock wombles still manage to fall off this into the path of cars.
2/ vehicle lanes to be no more than 6ft wide. Most practical vehicles fit through a 6ft width restriction including vans.  Any vehicle bigger than this has no business being on the roads and should be banned immediately.
3/ All crossing points should be made alternate direction flow traffic, and no wider than 7ft. This will ensure that pedestrians can cross with almost complete safety,  while the remaining permitted traffic on the road they are crossing is guaranteed to be gridlocked.

I think that just about covers everything.

OK seriously now....
What I am trying to say by mocking these stereotypes is quite simple. People are getting far too self self-righteous,  and quite frankly selfish about what they feel they are entitled to.
Traffic shouldn't be allowed on MY road,  send it down theirs instead.
There should be more crossings,  because I am too fuckin lazy to walk 50ft from the station exit to the existing crossing point.
I want a pedestrian crossing with stop lights installed because I am too stupid to cross a road without one. (and even when you do put one in,  I won't use it)
School zones are dangerous.... Yes,  because parents park like that's,  put their kids safety in front of all others by parking on zig zags,  block pavements while chatting to people they haven't seen since the walk to school that day,  and generally behave like poor examples to the kids.

At the end of the day most road users use the roads because it is the best option for them. Commuting,  working,  serving the community. Delivering things we are too lazy to go to the shops and get ourselves etc. During the week there are very few people using the roads for fun. Because it's not fun.
That's not to say that some could avoid using them at peak times. School runs from 3 streets away,  lazy fucks that won't walk to the shops etc. Some journeys can be avoided of course.

The thing is,  pedestrian,  cyclist,  motorist etc,  we all have to share these spaces every single day. So instead of ranting on about you entitlement,  rights,  and how others should behave and treat you,  take a look at how YOU are behaving first,  take your OWN actions and safety seriously, then comment on others.

I walk,  run,  ride,  drive on Londons roads every day,  sure I get wound up by people's actions at times,  but my #1 concern and focus is always myself and my actions.

So cut the bullshit,  enough with the demands,  grow up,  accept the world we live in and make the most of it. And if roads and traffic REALLY worry you that much,  minimise your demands on the road network.

Dear Cycle lobbyists....

I first want to continue to have a clear stance on cyclists. I fully respect and appreciate the bravery and commitment of those who do battle with all sorts of dangers and risks involved in riding a pushbike in London, and other busy cities for that matter. I agree that motor vehicles and cycles need some form of separation and safety buffer for the cyclist, and in some cases the motorist needs educating on aspects of hazard perception....BUT... and there is a pretty big BUT.... Attitudes of some cyclists need to change too.

The reason I am even writing this follow up entry is a simple video made my TfL.
This video was made, low budget, quick produce and post moment, and was done for the benefit of any cyclists out there who have never driven a large vehicle. A simple 1 min of education to raise awareness of the blindspots in a turning lorry. Have a watch, I think for most road users its probably a bit of an eye opener.

http://youtu.be/wzL0Kyk4m-8

In response to this video, a number of cycle campaigners have decided to try and turn it on TfL and say 'And THIS is why lorries need to be kept away from bicycles...'

So a couple of points from me then.

IF you want all threats to be kept away from cyclists, who is going to be using the roads? Cyclists and motorcyclists maybe? Clearly the biggest contributors to financing the road networks there im sure!

IF you want a safety buffer between bikes and vehicles.... STOP RIDING UP THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD between cars and lorries travelling in opposite directions!

IF you want cars to use their mirrors to see you in, give cars and other vehicles a chance and stop switching sides. A vehicle turning left will check their left mirror before the turn. If you are riding to their right, then switch quickly because it suits you, they will NOT have seen you.

I realise one of the greatest appeals of cycle commuting is the freedom of the route you take, the speed you travel, and not getting caught up in traffic jams. I think its brilliant that so many are willing to battle the elements to have a cleaner and healthier approach to travel in London. Sadly however with the freedom of being something so small, comes a huge danger and vulnerability to the slightest impact with the road or its users.

So think about these things for a minute, please.

When turning at a junction. You may be ABLE to position yourself to the left or right of a car, but the driver of the cars also turning will generally ONLY be looking in the mirror to the side of the car relating to the direction they are turning. Example, a car turning right will only be looking down the right side of the vehicle. If you turn on their left, they wont have seen you, so as you enter the new road, for a moment they have NO idea there is a bike between them and the kerb, so DONT ride down the inside of them, hold back for a minute.

Slow moving traffic is one of the biggest causes of rear end shunts. That's right, the car behind another massive car for a moment has a lapse in concentration and hits a large coloured metal box in front of them, even with lights on. Concentration levels in heavy traffic FALL with motorists. Legally and sensibly right or wrong, its a simple FACT. If a driver can not see a car, they are also not going to see cyclists. Yes the motorist will be to blame, but at the same time you will probably be injured. SO what's more important, being right or being safe?

Humans don't cope well with being swarmed. Imagine a customer services rep at a station where all the trains have been delayed. Everyone wants answer, everyone is surrounding and talking. In reality its a situation the mind just cant cope with, so it shuts certain voices and faces out and focuses on others. When learning to drive, drivers are taught to watch out for cyclists, and on their lessons will come across a few here and there, and you can cope with that.
In real life rush hour situations, suddenly your car is surrounded by 10+ cyclists at a time, going at different speeds, stopping, wobbling, speeding past the left and the right. An accident waiting to happen in the disorganised unruly mess of the cycle swarm. No different to commuters in a tube station, all wanting to get to their destination, all the most important person there, and all with no interest in the people around them.

Speaking of the cycle swarm, that brings me back to the start. There is high demand for this 'more space for cyclists' at the moment, which in a perfect world would be great. If there was the room to realistically make segregated areas for cyclists even I would consider commuting by bike. But the simple fact is, there is NO more room. All these wonderful ideas of banning lorries, dedicating lanes to cyclists etc just are not going to happen.
Like it or not, cars, vans, buses and lorries all have a right and 90% a good reason to be on London's roads. Tackling the school run vehicles would see a large drop in peak time users, as the summer holidays demonstrate, but there is no quick fix there. Maybe the BILLION or so being spent on the roads with cyclists in mind should be targeted at school buses instead. Reduce the school run vehicles on the roads, free up spaces on public transport? Just a thought.

The biggest point is quite a simple one, but takes a while to make.
Most cyclists consider themselves in some way a free spirit, with freedom of the roads. Some also believe they are free of any rules and regulations. Sadly some are genuinely free.... of any common sense, and will put themselves in danger regardless of how many millions are spent, and how many miles or cycle lanes and paths are created, some will decide they want to ride differently to the rest.
You only have to look at the Cycle Superhighways that were created, huge wide lanes taking a chunk out of some of London's busiest roads, but STILL you see cyclists filtering through the other lanes of traffic, trying to beat the other cyclists in some imaginary race.
The same way barriers are put up to stop people crossing at dangerous points, so people just jump the  'inconvenient' barrier and get collected by a bus. Or DO NOT swim signs are put up around reservoirs, yet people still risk it, and drown.

It is human nature to explore, disobey and take chances in order to achieve things, so it is understandable that people want to be individual and break free of the mould. The problem sadly is, that as long as these people continue to swarm cars, ignore cycle lanes and flaunt genuine rules, your cause it lost. Change comes when it is clear and evidence can be found that the change and spending of money would have a positive impact on the situation. Unfortunately cycle lobbyists who feel that the lorry turning left is ALWAYS to blame, or one who misinterprets the rules of the road into their favour are the achillies heel in the plan.

Yesterday someone insisted that a vehicle stopped in the Advance Stop Box (ASB) or beyond the first Advanced Stop Line (ASL) was against the law, and 'illegal'. And somehow endangered the pedestrians.
Well, that is sadly just ignorant. Being stopped in the ASB or beyond the 1st ASL is not breaking the rules at all, and is far from 'illegal'. Illegal generally refers to criminal law, not the road traffic act.
Just for those unsure on the matter, allow be to quote from the Met Police.

Motorists
Do not enter the ASL box when the light is red – this space is reserved for the safety of cyclists.

Crossing the first or second ASL line when the light is red makes you liable for a £100 fixed penalty, three points on your licence, and endangers vulnerable road users.

If the traffic light changes from green to amber and you cannot safely stop before the first stop line, you may cross the line but must stop before the second stop line (Highway Code rule 178).

Cyclists
Do not cross the second stop line while the traffic signal is red. Contravening a traffic signal is against the law, and could result in a £50 fine.

Myth Busting

Myth: There’s a car in the ASL box - the driver must have committed an offence.

Not true. The offence is committed when the vehicle enters the ASL box when the light is red. If the vehicle enters the box and the light changes to red, no offence is committed

Rule 178 of the Highway Code states:
If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area.

We don’t want motorists to wrongly believe that they shouldn’t stop in the ASL box under any circumstances – this might cause someone to panic, drive through a junction and cause an accident.

Myth: Motorbikes are allowed in the ASL.

Not true. The law applies to motorbikes and scooters, too.

And TfL's stance on the matter...

Drivers caught crossing the first or second advanced stop lines when the signal is red will be liable for a £60 fixed penalty charge and three points on their licence. The only exception to this rule is if the traffic signal changes from green to amber and drivers cannot safely stop before the first stop line.

In addition to stepping up enforcement on motorists, rogue cyclists are also being targeted. While most cyclists ride responsibly - some do not, and this can anger other road users. Cyclists will be targeted for jumping red lights and issued with a £30 fine if caught doing so.

So I hope that clears up any confusion for anyone.

There is a lot of ignorance out there, a heck of a lot of arrogance, and a whole lot of me me me going on. And THAT is the problem. Not lanes, not laws, not money... Just peoples attitudes and intelligence.

Any cyclist who decides to be a lone wolf and do their own thing, any one who thinks they can just squeeze down the side of the lorry before it turns, or that red lights are only for vehicles with engines... YOU are the problem, YOU are the idiot!

Education, moderation, and just a little bit of patience go a long way to saving lives. Regardless of who's fault an accident is, a fatality means a family without a loved one, and a chain of friends with a missing link. 

Stay safe out there, everyone !

PS Tuvaaq says 'Stay Safe, Be Seen'