- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
What would you say to the Institute of Advanced Motorists in response?
See https://issuu.com/immediatemediabrandedcontent/docs/iam_006_digital_comb...
- the letter titled "Cycling co-operation needed".
(If the link is dodgy, it is on page 63 as per the printed version)
I had a bit of a wobbly at the IAM for publishing this letter without editorial comment in this month's members mag. As an IAM member as well as a cyclist, I was surprised they published a letter with the rather snyde descriptions of cyclists - but also published opinions on the safety of cycle lanes contradictory to their own professional view. The real gem is that the author basically says if you get killed by not cycling in a cycle lane, then whose fault is it? The writer also does not understand bunch cycling - while claiming to be a cyclist - I believe the writer could be our very own NG!
As a member, we are taught observation, but also that the attitude we bring to driving is part and parcel of the skills. Here we have a member claiming to be an advanced driver, who does not understand how cyclists use the road, and objects to the advice he has received from the police on the matter.
I've written a stroppy complaint asking for an apology to cyclists from the Letters Editor and that they publish a suitable article in the body of the magazine addressing the issue of how cyclists use the road. We will see how far it gets!
What comments do you think I should have made? Have I over-reacted?
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- Secret_squirrel 5 min 28 sec ago
I have some sympathies with the Councillor in the first story. It's laughable that planning permission should have been granted with such a low...
- hawkinspeter 7 min 21 sec ago
I'd forgotten to reply to this comment....
- Hirsute 10 min 26 sec ago
Went to fit some easy fit mudguards earlier to find that the existing set are not easy remove. It's a 2mm or 2.5mm bolt which does not look like...
- wtjs 19 min 55 sec ago
We're approaching half way through December 24 now- any progress on the Met's hopefully will be live in December 2024, where you will be able to...
- hawkinspeter 30 min 37 sec ago
I reckon they stopped using this for the bonding:
- nappe 31 min 18 sec ago
I paid £35 for mine, AliExpress, arrived in a week. I bought it to replace an Edge 820. It's basic, but it displays all the metrics that the 820...
- hawkinspeter 32 min 13 sec ago
That little car is great - just what's needed for most single occupant journeys (maybe not so much in the rain).
- hawkinspeter 34 min 18 sec ago
I forgot to mention that I was surprised at mentions of people (presumably pro-EBLN) commenting that the anti-EBLN people should move to the...
- andystow 1 hour 34 min ago
So I don't drink, because drinking is defined as drinking water, not water mixed with ethanol.
- Surreyrider 2 hours 11 min ago
I dunno. They look kind of 80s to me so maybe DeLorean is a better comparison?
Add new comment
48 comments
Well, I nearly choked on my Rice Krispies this morning when I read the reply:
Hi Ian
Your letter has been passed to me for attention and I have also consulted with colleagues and the Magazine Editorial team.
We’ve printed a range of letters recently about cycling, and in fact the Star Letter in the Summer 2021 issue was very pro-cycling, and critical of inconsiderate drivers, which then led to the letter you have taken issue with.
In our view the Letters page is exactly the place where this sort of back-and-forth belongs – there have been various issues where members have responded to each other’s views, sometimes in support of them (Smart motorways were unanimously unpopular), or often opposed to them (we’ve had a lot of conflicting views on EVs, for instance).
All selected letters are printed without editorial comment as that is the point of that particular section of the magazine. We tend to avoid putting ‘the official IAM RoadSmart’ view after every letter as that could suggest that that’s the end of the matter, rather than encouraging members to write in with their letters of dis/agreement. It is also one of the most popular sections when we survey our readers.
We would be happy to print an edited version of your response (with your full permission and agreement to any changes of course) as a contribution to the next letters page. It is unfortunate that our magazine is only printed four times a year which does make a swift interchange of views more difficult. We are also taking a look at the Letters page layout to ensure it is clear that it conveys no endorsement by IAM RoadSmart, and are considering adding a short statement along the lines of ‘Views expressed are those of the correspondents and not IAM RoadSmart’.
I can also assure you that cycling will be featured heavily in the next few edition as we move towards the major changes in the Highway Code due to be launched in Spring 2022. These will be presented both for information and comment.
Thank you for taking the trouble to contact IAM RoadSmart.
Best wishes
Neil
I am struggling to see any acknowledgement of any inappropriate content of the Griffiths letter, yet there is implied criticism in the mischaracterisation of the prior star letter.
Not impressed.
I am sure that the IAM has many sensible members, yourself included. However, of the three letters on the page I viewed, two do not appear to respect the right of cyclistists to ride on the road and the other advocates the return of steam engines for cars. Does IAM mean the Institute of Ancient Motorists?
Reading the response I got, it appears Michael Dunn and I are not in tune with the required attitudes for membership!
Ask them kindly for a bit of driver cooperation and insist that all cars stick to the motorways - after all we did built them for cars, why can they not stay on them?
Furthermore, it's very inconsiderate for motorists to run their noisy, filthy machines on roads that people live along - why should residents have to put up with it? Keep them on the motorways that were built at great expense for them.
The use of "lycra brigade" I think demonstrates the author's views on the hierarchy of road users.
I'm alright, then: I don't wear lycra when I'm riding a bike
I can see the next angry letter featuring a complaint about the lycra brigade trying to hide themselves by not wearing any lycra.
Our local council has also done a great job with cycle lanes, if you don't want to go over 15kph and want to stop at every side road.
Chris Boardman says it best.. The problem with bike lanes is that most of them are built for the benefit of cars. Try building them for the benefit of cyclists, then they might be fit for purpose.
Another good example of privilege dressed up as reason... "Cyclists hold up traffic".
Cyclists are traffic, along with everybody else. Traffic holds up traffic and the best way to reduce it is to pick any form of transport other than a car.
Dear Nigel Griffiths FRICS,
All lanes are cycle lanes. Happy to clear that up for you. Anything else you're not sure about?
To respond to the letter writer I would express respect for any member of the IAM who would admit to having difficulty in driving around cyclists. That cannot be easy to do in the company of people who take some pride in their advanced driving qualification.
However, putting your own ego to one side, recognising your own deficiencies as a driver and obtaining further training in those areas of weakness is to be commended.
I was tempted to write an offer to pay for refresher training based on the letter!
The direct route between Wareham and Corfe is the A351, which from Streetview appears, surprise surprise, to have no cycle provision whatsoever. Nigel Goebbels and his big lie. Starts bad and gets worse.
I think he means the A351 between the A35 and Wareham. Which is basically just a pavement you're allowed to cycle on, I can understand why cyclists wouldn't want to use it.
Thanks for clarifying. Having now seen it, that farcility which gives up everywhere difficult, can't decide which side of the road it's happy on, and involves so much side road/driveway danger, means that Goebbels' fellation of his local Tory ERG MP is a bit excessive.
This is local to me and for a time formed part of my commute.
It is narrow bumpy, littered with leaves twigs and other debris. It is a shared path often used by dog walkers.
Like many cycle paths it is entirely unsuitable as a cycle path for anything other than pootling along with small children.
That section of road however is reasonably flat and sheltered from the prevailing wind and is pretty fast averaging 36kmh or I can avg 18-24kmh on the cycle path complete with stop / start and punctures. Check out the segment "sandford to organford sprint" on strava used by over 9000 cyclists.
Please push back with a clear message to these advanced motorists that they can expect to find on the road: wild animals, farm animals, pedestrians including children, cyclists, people in disabled vehicles, horse riders, skips, traffic lights, potholes, debris, tractors and broken down vehicles, in fact lots of things they probably would rather not have there. Driving with care, to the conditions is the best way to avoid any collisions if that doesnt work for them please could they return their licences to the DVLA and buy a railcard.
On the mode of transport scale of considerateness, the choice of the motorist is pretty low down the list in my view (well, unless your only consideration is yourself).
They're basically saying that cycle paths should be compulsory for cyclists to use when the Highway Code most definitely states that they are optional. That doesn't sound like an advanced driver to me if they don't even know the basics.
It always amazes me that (some) drivers' response to cyclists not using cycles lanes is "cyclists deliberately getting in my way" rather than "there must be something wrong with those lanes if cyclists aren't using them".
It seems that the Highway Design Guidance contains a lot of opt out clauses since it is common for the after-thought cycle lanes added by local councils to stop just where you need them most, at junctions, and not consider the need to be as continueous as the road is for other vehicles.
When you add in consideration of vulnerable footpath users and the speed expected, or limited, the thoughtful cyclist may well decide that it's safer overall not to use them, as a Judge has confirmed that we have the right to do.
"They're inconveniencing me, rather than using the infrastructure that was built for their safety" - making it clear that what they actually think, is that cycle lanes and shared use paths exist for the convenience of motorists.
I suspect a lot do think exactly that.
"Why aren't you riding in that eighteen inch cycle lane painted along the side of the carriageway?"
"Because until you came long there was no other traffic..."
Not always something wrong with that particular lane, but cycle lanes in general, leaving cyclists with no confidence in any unfamiliar facility.
Agree, however it doesn't follow that because someone wrote to the IAM that they are a member who has passed the required standard or exceed it (distinction). There is a significant period when aspiring associates are being observed and advised so that improvement is part of the approach.
Previously the value of knowledge about multiple modes has been an IAM working practice and is commonly affirmed by members experience.
The IAM advice feature has people bouncing ideas or questions for the valuable advice that can be had. So I'm disappointed this was just a published letter, without informed comment..
what was the piece that triggered those letters in the first place ? as it seemed like they were continuing the theme started there, rather than responding completely randomly.
the thing that disappoints me most, and its something I have felt on the road sometimes in the treatment we get, is that they are saying rather than just its a cyclist on the road and as IAM's we'll just cope with that situation in a totally safe for everyone normal manner, they are saying well cyclist, the risk for you being on this road instead of that in all likelihood rubbish cycle lane, is all yours and yours alone, be it on your own head to ride there, youll only get the bare minimum, and maybe not even that, help from us.
which seems totally the wrong attitude even from average motorists, but as members of an organisation that promotes road safety to improve driving, surely it goes against everything the organisation puports to be about.
The bit weird bit was "Cyclists should be in single file so not to hold up traffic" followed a few paragraphs later with "As advanced motorists, my wife and I give cyclists plenty of room before overtaking them, as well as a wide berth".
So we always give a wide berth but can't overtake two cyclists riding together.
https://issuu.com/immediatemediabrandedcontent/docs/iam_005_digi_combine...
Left hand side.
Basically, a mellow "star letter" saying in response to demands for harsher legislation against erant cyclists that the IAM should not become involved in widening the gulf between motorists and cyclists... so the IAM published a letter being a prime example of the sort of opinions that widen the gulf!
In that context, the reference to the prior letter is barely a reply to hang their prejudices on.
Absolutely correct. As I say, anybody with an interest in improvement can become an associate member, and over time will get advice, i.e. correction, of their beliefs. I've never met an IAM full member who didn't expect to exceed the legal minimum that the Highway Code provides, and although we await the improved version with further clarification, the previous versions are clear about the importance of due care and attention to vulnerable road users.
If only publication of that guidance was likely to have the intended effect on all road users...
depends on your definition of advanced really, you are assuming it means better educated or more highly skilled.
When it seems from the letter it means further along the patth of entitlement and aggression that is the direction for travel for drivers these days.
Pages