Sainsbury's launches electric bike delivery in London

hawkinspeter wrote:

On the subject of zebra crossings, here's a survey showing how well informed the public is about them: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-5275147/80-Brits-dont-kn...

(TLDR: 80% don't know the rules.)

I found an interesting quote from the Metropolitan Police on a cesspit of a website: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/716255/Pedestrian-wins-showdown-with-c...

Quote:

A cyclist may pass behind a pedestrian (with due care and consideration) but must ‘accord precedence’ i.e. allow a pedestrian to cross first unless the pedestrian is on the opposite carriageway and there is a central island.

On the face of it, this rider may have intended to pass behind the pedestrian who confronted him. 

However, there was very little room to do so. This might be a prima facie case of cycling without due care or consideration (s29 Road Traffic Act 1988). 

It appears the cyclist may have failed to accord precedence to the pedestrian who was crossing from left to right.

Yup, as a pedestrian you have to first step out before you can expect a motorist to stop.  The trouble is, a fair  proportion of the time if you do so the motorist will be angry at you for doing so, and many still won't stop.

  It's quite a weird system, it seems to me - a pedestrian is legally obliged to play chicken if they wish to cross.  And there seems to be no obligation on a driver to anticipate that someone waiting at the side might actually be about to step out.   Presumably the assumption is that someone waiting there is just enjoying watching the traffic?

freespirit1 wrote:

So all those that rode across pedestrian crossings WHILST pedestrians were using them because no one was hurt that is ok is it?

 

If the police say about a close pass no one was hurt therefore they won't pursue there is normally plenty of frothing on here. Prosecute the motorists for close passes, prosecute ALL those who abuse pedestrians on crossings, that includes motorists, motorcyclists and cyclists.

I'm not attempting to excuse poor/bad riding skills, but in the scheme of things, it's a tiny blip of danger.

Comparing bad cycling to motorists performing close passes is not equivalent as bad cycling very rarely leads to an incident whereas close passing not only disuades people from cycling, but also often does result in injury or death.

The Highway Code was introduced because of motorised vehicles:

Quote:

When it was first launched in 1931 there were just 2.3 million motor vehicles in Great Britain, yet over 7,000 people were killed in road accidents each year.

So, even though there were plenty of horses, cyclists and pedestrians, it was the behaviour of motorists that caused death and carnage.

Also, try not to forget about the people choking to death on air pollution that is most certainly made worse by motorised vehicles, so I would much rather encounter someone on a bike whilst walking - even if it is on a pedestrian crossing. This is without even factoring in the cost savings to the NHS by having people cycling and improving their health and fitness levels.

Personally, I welcome anyone cycling no matter their skill or situational awareness. Poor cycling tends to self-correct after a few bumps and falls, so it's just a matter of encouraging people and explaining why certain behaviours aren't ideal.

Edit: I've just tried to find out the legality of cyclists and zebra crossings and found an interesting nugget from Sustrans: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/migrated-pd...

Quote:

Legalities
The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossing Regulations and general Directions (1997) give
direction on the regulatory frameworks surrounding crossings.

• Zebra crossings give pedestrians priority over vehicles on the carriageway
• Cyclists are vehicles and are permitted to ride on the part of a Zebra crossing that is carriageway, provided they give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross.
• It is not illegal to cycle across a Zebra crossing if there is shared-use to either side, but it is contrary to Rule 64 of the Highway Code which states that cyclists should dismount and walk across Zebra crossings. Breach of the Highway Code could be used as evidence of an offence, e.g. cycling dangerously, or of evidence of negligence in the event of a collision.
• Nearly 90% of cyclists at six sites surveyed for TfL cycled across Zebra crossings
• The Secretary of State has powers to make regulations with respect to precedence of vehicles and pedestrians respectively, and generally with respect to the movement of traffic (including pedestrians) at and in the vicinity of crossings. Presently Zebra crossing regulations only allow for pedestrians to have precedence over vehicles.

freespirit1 wrote:

So all those that rode across pedestrian crossings WHILST pedestrians were using them because no one was hurt that is ok is it?

 

If the police say about a close pass no one was hurt therefore they won't pursue there is normally plenty of frothing on here. Prosecute the motorists for close passes, prosecute ALL those who abuse pedestrians on crossings, that includes motorists, motorcyclists and cyclists.

Well, yeah, but there's no chance drivers will ever be prosecuted for doing that (nor for shouting abuse at any ped who dares attempt to use a zebra crossing as it's intended).  So if you specifiy 'prosecute ALL those who abuse pedestrians on crossings' then you do realise that means nobody will be?

Lots of motorists don't seem to know what Zebra crossings are, and resent anyone attempting to use them.  And if they do happen to obey the law, they often expect to be thanked for doing so.

  If you want cyclists to be prosecuted then you can't link it to the prosecution of motorists for the same offense, because motorists are not expected to obey laws - laws are only for others.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Passing on the left.....Look at this collection of left passers and various other stupid moves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxsOBnkKTKk&t=415s

The important take-home point from that video is that even with some incredibly poor road skills, those cyclists didn't cause any major injury or damage. We need to get all the idiots onto bikes as soon as possible.

fukawitribe wrote:

That's not an anti-cycling stance - using that actually quite sensible advice as a corporate victim-blaming stance should an incident occur is clearly wrong though. More driver instruction is almost certainly welcome for every single business that uses vehicle for distribution, but that doesn't make them anti-cyclist any more than anti-car or anti-pedestrian - prosecute the drivers who fall below standards, don't pretend every company that has a sticker on a van has an active program against one particular group.

I totally disagree as there is already law in place, there is no need to advertise the fact that cycling is dangerous due to the environment and road users, as drivers (and their employers) feel they can simply use a sticker to tell others how to behave, and woe betide them if they ignore the warning. If that isn't promoting the idea that cycling is dangerous (you might/could/will get hurt) and should be discouraged (better use the car, I can see those and you're unlikely to slip up my inside, ooer missus), I don't know what is.

There is enough victim blaming in using the blind spot argument, having these stickers just gives the drivers reinforcement that they can drive with impunity.

don simon wrote:

The one where their trucks have the victim blaming cyclist don't pass on the left or our incompetent driver will drive over you and it'll be your fault 'coz you're on a bike and we told you to be careful inspite of moving up the inside not being illegal signs plastered all over the back. That anti-ctycling stance.

"Beware of passing on the left" on a long vehicle, is not that heinous.  It's not the same as the rude and arrogant "cyclists stay back", nor the same as similar stickers on vans and such like where the driver ought to be able see cyclists if only they could be bothered to look.

(I'm assuming Sainsbury's don't use the 'stay back' ones?  Haven't noticed recently).

don simon wrote:

Doesn't this conflict with the anti-cycling, victim blaming, piss poor driving excusing "Cyclists don't pass on the left" signs that all their delivery trucks wear?

who cares? It’s progress.

ConcordeCX wrote:

don simon wrote:

Doesn't this conflict with the anti-cycling, victim blaming, piss poor driving excusing "Cyclists don't pass on the left" signs that all their delivery trucks wear?

who cares? It’s progress.

Is it really? Are they getting behind cycling or using bikes as a money making activity and not giving a fuck about cycling?

Quote:

the bikes will be able to make use of cycle lanes to avoid traffic

Call me cycnical, but I'd have thought that pushing for a proper cycling infrastructure would be progress, making their truck drivers more aware of cyclists would be progress.

Getting closer to the customer than they otherwise would with a van and dressing it up as a zero emission option isn't progress in my book.

don simon wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

don simon wrote:

Doesn't this conflict with the anti-cycling, victim blaming, piss poor driving excusing "Cyclists don't pass on the left" signs that all their delivery trucks wear?

who cares? It’s progress.

Is it really? Are they getting behind cycling or using bikes as a money making activity and not giving a fuck about cycling?

Quote:

the bikes will be able to make use of cycle lanes to avoid traffic

Call me cycnical, but I'd have thought that pushing for a proper cycling infrastructure would be progress, making their truck drivers more aware of cyclists would be progress.

Getting closer to the customer than they otherwise would with a van and dressing it up as a zero emission option isn't progress in my book.

why should they give a fuck about cycling, they're grocers? At least, until their staff, who will soon be followed by other retailers' staff, start cycling for them, and then they have a vested interest in cycling safety. 

I don't give a fuck if their motive is to make money by doing it - I might even order from them to encourage it.

This is a small step towards reducing and then eliminating the internal combustion engine from our roads and reducing congestion.

ConcordeCX wrote:

don simon wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

don simon wrote:

Doesn't this conflict with the anti-cycling, victim blaming, piss poor driving excusing "Cyclists don't pass on the left" signs that all their delivery trucks wear?

who cares? It’s progress.

Is it really? Are they getting behind cycling or using bikes as a money making activity and not giving a fuck about cycling?

Quote:

the bikes will be able to make use of cycle lanes to avoid traffic

Call me cycnical, but I'd have thought that pushing for a proper cycling infrastructure would be progress, making their truck drivers more aware of cyclists would be progress.

Getting closer to the customer than they otherwise would with a van and dressing it up as a zero emission option isn't progress in my book.

why should they give a fuck about cycling, they're grocers? At least, until their staff, who will soon be followed by other retailers' staff, start cycling for them, and then they have a vested interest in cycling safety. 

I don't give a fuck if their motive is to make money by doing it - I might even order from them to encourage it.

This is a small step towards reducing and then eliminating the internal combustion engine from our roads and reducing congestion.

 

 

Which is fine and will balance out the money I don't spend there as their anti cycling stance doesn't sit well with my conscience. I also accept that powered vehicles are here to stay, be it petrol, diesel, hybrid, LPG, veg oil or full on leccy. They're not going away unless some new, altogether different mode of transport comes along.

don simon wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

[snip]

why should they give a fuck about cycling, they're grocers? At least, until their staff, who will soon be followed by other retailers' staff, start cycling for them, and then they have a vested interest in cycling safety. 

I don't give a fuck if their motive is to make money by doing it - I might even order from them to encourage it.

This is a small step towards reducing and then eliminating the internal combustion engine from our roads and reducing congestion.

Which is fine and will balance out the money I don't spend there as their anti cycling stance doesn't sit well with my conscience.

Must have missed something - what anti-cycling stance ?

don simon wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

who cares? It’s progress.

Is it really? Are they getting behind cycling or using bikes as a money making activity and not giving a fuck about cycling?

One step at a time.

If anything is going to prick up this government's ears regarding more and better cycling infrastructure it's commercial use of it.

If cycleways become a part of how big retailers make profits (and where one supermarket goes others usually follow) they will simply tell their more than willing ministerial lapdogs to spend more on it. Then the politicos take credit for caring about cyclists, obviously.

I can (probably) handle seeing a Gove or a Johnson tell me he's acting to make my rides safer if a bi-product of the self serving bullshit is that, weirdly, it actually happens.

Simboid wrote:

One step at a time.

If anything is going to prick up this government's ears regarding more and better cycling infrastructure it's commercial use of it.

If cycleways become a part of how big retailers make profits (and where one supermarket goes others usually follow) they will simply tell their more than willing ministerial lapdogs to spend more on it. Then the politicos take credit for caring about cyclists, obviously.

I can (probably) handle seeing a Gove or a Johnson tell me he's acting to make my rides safer if a bi-product of the self serving bullshit is that, weirdly, it actually happens.

Exactly this.

If we want better cycling infrastructure that is compatible with cargo bikes who better to have in our corner than a corporation with a long history of huge political donations.

If there's one group of people politicians listen to it's their donors.