200 fined by police in Cambridge clampdown on law-breaking cyclists and drivers

Hoester wrote:

Good question. I'm still formulating my own personal definition, it grows and changes as I grow, and change.

I think a cyclist is someone who enthusiastically chooses to ride regularly and respectfully.

Hope that helps...

Yes, it does. My hackles just start rising a bit when people on these comments/forums start talking about cyclists vs people-on-bikes or having a go at 'nodders' (they'll be having a go at the flowers, next!).

Quote:

Take it easy.

Always (or, I try to)

Hoester wrote:

Brooksby,

Good question. I'm still formulating my own personal definition, it grows and changes as I grow, and change.

I think a cyclist is someone who enthusiastically chooses to ride regularly and respectfully.

Hope that helps, it seems like you were beginning to stumble towards the wrong conclusion there for a minute.

If you (or anyone else) don't agree with that definition, thats cool. Maybe we can all discuss it online with less acrimonious undertones, I'm open to improvements.

Take it easy.

Maybe you wouldn't have garnered such a response if your initial comments hadn't been so dismissive of those that don't quite fit YOUR criteria?

Nothing like a bit of snobbery to show a fellow up.

We're all in this together aren't we, aren't we.................I guess not?

chrisp1973 wrote:

Maybe you wouldn't have garnered such a response if your initial comments hadn't been so dismissive of those that don't quite fit YOUR criteria?

Nothing like a bit of snobbery to show a fellow up.

We're all in this together aren't we, aren't we.................I guess not?

I think you may be inferring his criteria, there was nothing in the original post about clothing, style of bike, shaven legs etc, he simply said law-breakers (although I concede that there are "cyclists" by my definition who break the law).

I think that a cyclist could be defined as someone who has an interest in cycling, be it to keep fit, as a sport or the whole deal rather than someone that just rides a bike as a mode of transport. It's like saying that you're a car driver compared to a car enthusiast or petrol head, but that's just my opinion.

sim1515 wrote:

chrisp1973 wrote:

Maybe you wouldn't have garnered such a response if your initial comments hadn't been so dismissive of those that don't quite fit YOUR criteria?

Nothing like a bit of snobbery to show a fellow up.

We're all in this together aren't we, aren't we.................I guess not?

I think you may be inferring his criteria, there was nothing in the original post about clothing, style of bike, shaven legs etc, he simply said law-breakers (although I concede that there are "cyclists" by my definition who break the law).

I think that a cyclist could be defined as someone who has an interest in cycling, be it to keep fit, as a sport or the whole deal rather than someone that just rides a bike as a mode of transport. It's like saying that you're a car driver compared to a car enthusiast or petrol head, but that's just my opinion.

"people-on-bikes (note i don't use the term 'cyclist')" - is what I was referring to however, you're quite right, the criteria appeared in his second, equally acidic post.

The point is that whether you ride a mountain bike, a hybrid or a road bike you're on a bike and so by definition a cyclist, how commited and for what reason doeasn't really matter, and shouldn't.

A bit of friendly banter is one thing but, as the saying goes "united we stand, divided we fall" we've enough to contend with without infighting because of cycle preference or misguided labelling.

chrisp1973 wrote:

sim1515 wrote:

chrisp1973 wrote:

Maybe you wouldn't have garnered such a response if your initial comments hadn't been so dismissive of those that don't quite fit YOUR criteria?

Nothing like a bit of snobbery to show a fellow up.

We're all in this together aren't we, aren't we.................I guess not?

I think you may be inferring his criteria, there was nothing in the original post about clothing, style of bike, shaven legs etc, he simply said law-breakers (although I concede that there are "cyclists" by my definition who break the law).

I think that a cyclist could be defined as someone who has an interest in cycling, be it to keep fit, as a sport or the whole deal rather than someone that just rides a bike as a mode of transport. It's like saying that you're a car driver compared to a car enthusiast or petrol head, but that's just my opinion.

"people-on-bikes (note i don't use the term 'cyclist')" - is what I was referring to however, you're quite right, the criteria appeared in his second, equally acidic post.

The point is that whether you ride a mountain bike, a hybrid or a road bike you're on a bike and so by definition a cyclist, how commited and for what reason doeasn't really matter, and shouldn't.

A bit of friendly banter is one thing but, as the saying goes "united we stand, divided we fall" we've enough to contend with without infighting because of cycle preference or misguided labelling.

I actually think there is a distinction between people on bikes and cyclists, I would say (if someone asked) that I am a cyclist, but my wife, who occasionally pops out for a short ride to a pub on a nice day, or my friend who rides a Boris bike to get from a station to work would not describe themselves as cyclists, even when they are riding a bike.

I don't care what kind of cycling you're into (road, cross, mountain etc), I think if you're into cycling, you'd probably class yourself as a cyclist, if you just ride a bike sometimes, you're probably not. But again, that's just my take on it.

Hoester wrote:

... people-on-bikes (note i don't use the term 'cyclist') ...

OK - how and when do you use the term 'cyclist'?

Is a cyclist just a person riding a bike who doesn't break the traffic laws? Or do you have to be a 'roadie' to be a 'proper' cyclist? I'd love to know.

I ride a hybrid with panniers and mudguards to and from work every working day (13-20 mile round trip, depending on the route). I am a card-carrying member of my local cycle campaign and of the CTC. I have never ridden a bike with drop handlebars, nor worn lycra in any form, in my entire life. I do occasionally ride on footpaths which are not shared spaces (and which are alongside a main road, and on which I have never yet actually met a pedestrian).

Am I a cyclist, or am I just a person-on-a-bike?

shay cycles wrote:

Glad to see them doing this,

BUT surely a couple of offences a day, or more, ought to be every day minimum if they were policing properly!

Or they were being sensible and advising minor offenders rather than hand out fines willy nilly.

You just cannot satisfy some people. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, comes to mind.

I see several serious traffic offences most days from various kinds of mobile phone use, smoking dope and at least a couple of cases of other dangerous behaviour including harassment and intimidation. None of those would be appropriate cases for advising offenders.

Proper policing means zero tolerance of the things that are serious and cause danger to others and giving advice for more minor offences where such advice is likely to lead to improved behaviour.

jmaccelari wrote:

I'm always glad to hear of the police undertaking these 'blitzes'. I'm sure London cyclists are slightly better behaved after the last one here.

Really? Can't say I've noticed any difference at all in terms of the number of annoying scrotes whizzing along the pavement.

And, far more depressingly still, the rate of cyclist deaths in London so far this year is running at almost _exactly_ the same rate as it averged in each of the last two years (a little over one a month).

If it continues as its begun we'll end up with about 14 deaths this year, just as in 2012 and 2013. So, so far, little sign the "blitz" changed anything.

An ongoing effort, concentrating most on those that pose the most danger (*cough* motorised vehicles *cough*), would perhaps achieve better results.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

jmaccelari wrote:

I'm always glad to hear of the police undertaking these 'blitzes'. I'm sure London cyclists are slightly better behaved after the last one here.

Really? Can't say I've noticed any difference at all in terms of the number of annoying scrotes whizzing along the pavement.

And, far more depressingly still, the rate of cyclist deaths in London so far this year is running at almost _exactly_ the same rate as it averged in each of the last two years (a little over one a month).

If it continues as its begun we'll end up with about 14 deaths this year, just as in 2012 and 2013. So, so far, little sign the "blitz" changed anything.

An ongoing effort, concentrating most on those that pose the most danger (*cough* motorised vehicles *cough*), would perhaps achieve better results.

A little over 1 a month you say? I'd be pissed off if I was the one, but considering the number of journeys by the number of people, and all in the massive melting pot of potholes, diesel spills and the huge diversity of different vehicles operated by people with differing abilities and attitudes to traffic law and courtesy, that average may compare quite favourably with fatality rates of other aspects of London life.

Rouboy wrote:

The more I read these comments on like subjects the road cc group as a whole or it may be the loud minority, criticise the police for doing their job and complain when they don't.

Which of the comments posted before yours are you refering to when you speak of 'criticising the police for doing their job'?

nowasps wrote:

Side Issue:

There should be a move to make more one-way streets in towns apply to motor vehicles only. It would encourage more cycling in town centres, but wouldn't have any serious negative impact on drivers. It would be relatively inexpensive as well.

There are a few in my town that have a simple bike sign painted on the road with the odd arrow, but they're not properly joined up, so you can't make sensible journeys from one part of town to the next.

Sorry, but no!
A one-way street is a one-way street. If you wish to go against the traffic flow there is only one way for you to do this legally - as a pedestrian! Where it is necessary and practicable then I (and probably every-other road user) would support the use of properly signed and marked contraflow cycle lanes.

Some car drivers can't cope with you travelling with the flow, what do you think will be the likely outcome of you willy-nilly approaching from an unexpected direction?

The one on Horseferry Rd, Limehouse, London is a good example of one that works well (by and large).

levermonkey wrote:

nowasps wrote:

Side Issue:

There should be a move to make more one-way streets in towns apply to motor vehicles only...

Sorry, but no!
A one-way street is a one-way street. If you wish to go against the traffic flow there is only one way for you to do this legally - as a pedestrian! Where it is necessary and practicable then I (and probably every-other road user) would support the use of properly signed and marked contraflow cycle lanes.

Some car drivers can't cope with you travelling with the flow, what do you think will be the likely outcome of you willy-nilly approaching from an unexpected direction?

The one on Horseferry Rd, Limehouse, London is a good example of one that works well (by and large).

I quite agree Levermonkey! Contraflow bike lanes are the way forward! Cambridge has a number of these on appropriate streets but an absurd number of people still go against the flow even where it's not allowed. Sidney Street, as mentioned by the article, is a particular culprit, it's narrow and psuedo-pedestrianised so cyclists going the wrong way cause a significant problem. By my house there a number of one way streets, one with a contraflow cycle lane, the rest without. It makes me irate the number of people I encounter cycling the wrong way up a street (often without lights) when they could do so perfectly legally just one street over.
As an aside, in Cambridge many of the cycling culprits going the wrong way, running red lights etc. appear to be the middle aged folk on city bikes (not to say that there aren't a fair share of students doing the same in the town centre).

levermonkey wrote:

nowasps wrote:

Side Issue:

There should be a move to make more one-way streets in towns apply to motor vehicles only. It would encourage more cycling in town centres, but wouldn't have any serious negative impact on drivers. It would be relatively inexpensive as well.

There are a few in my town that have a simple bike sign painted on the road with the odd arrow, but they're not properly joined up, so you can't make sensible journeys from one part of town to the next.

Sorry, but no!
A one-way street is a one-way street. If you wish to go against the traffic flow there is only one way for you to do this legally - as a pedestrian! Where it is necessary and practicable then I (and probably every-other road user) would support the use of properly signed and marked contraflow cycle lanes.

Some car drivers can't cope with you travelling with the flow, what do you think will be the likely outcome of you willy-nilly approaching from an unexpected direction?

The one on Horseferry Rd, Limehouse, London is a good example of one that works well (by and large).

Indeed, a one-way street is exactly that. General traffic rules apply to us all. Cyclists who act otherwise imperil themselves, as was shown by the fatal accident reported here within the last week: http://road.cc/content/news/116184-cyclist-killed-whitechapel-november-h...

levermonkey wrote:

nowasps wrote:

Side Issue:

There should be a move to make more one-way streets in towns apply to motor vehicles only. It would encourage more cycling in town centres, but wouldn't have any serious negative impact on drivers. It would be relatively inexpensive as well.

There are a few in my town that have a simple bike sign painted on the road with the odd arrow, but they're not properly joined up, so you can't make sensible journeys from one part of town to the next.

Sorry, but no!
A one-way street is a one-way street. If you wish to go against the traffic flow there is only one way for you to do this legally - as a pedestrian! Where it is necessary and practicable then I (and probably every-other road user) would support the use of properly signed and marked contraflow cycle lanes.

Some car drivers can't cope with you travelling with the flow, what do you think will be the likely outcome of you willy-nilly approaching from an unexpected direction?

The one on Horseferry Rd, Limehouse, London is a good example of one that works well (by and large).

Cambridge already has quite a few streets that are two-way for cycling but one way for motor traffic, and there's currently a consultation out for more. Most of them don't have contraflow cycle lanes, it's just legal to cycle in the opposite direction. Sometimes it means someone has to give way because the street is narrow, but it's not a big deal. Also plenty of streets that are two-way to all traffic but too narrow for two cars to pass each other anyway (due to car parking taking up the rest of the space).

There have not, to my knowledge, ever been any issues with legal two-way cycling on one-way streets. It opens up a network of side-streets and quiet routes for cycling, given the main road provision in Cambridge is often woeful.

I get annoyed with people cycling the wrong way down Sidney St purely for the fact that they are breaking the law, but it's never dangerous. If they changed it to two-way cycling tomorrow it would be fine.