- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
OPINION
London cargo bike mum who was victim of social media pile-on for cycling on pavement explains why she does it
Fri, Jun 11, 2021 15:01
85
riders - picture courtesy Sophie GauthereauA London cargo bike user and cycling campaigner who was this week subjected to a social media pile-on after pictures of her riding on the pavement, with her daughter in the cargo box, were shared to a local Facebook group and other platforms, has given a detailed explanation of why she avoids riding on the road at the location in question.
In an opinion piece for road.cc Sylvia Gauthereau, who is a trustee of London Cycling Campaign and co-chairs its policy forum, outlines why she uses “that pavement and that crossing at that location consciously, deliberately, and regularly, for my own and my children’s safety,” and highlights that “The real issue here is the complete lack of safe cycling provision on the A5 and the lack of connectivity to the side streets.”
It’s a post that clearly expresses why inadequate provision of safe routes in many parts of the capital, and other cities in the UK, leads many cyclists to adapt their riding to cope with the hazards found at a particular location, and also explores some of the specific issues women face while cycling and on social media.
So, over to Sylvia …
I am THAT cargo bike mum and cycling campaigner, and this is why I cycle briefly on that pavement.
I am a busy working mum who cycles everywhere. I already had a lot on this week and could have done without being in the middle of a nasty social media pile on. At least it was good to know people do see me on my cycle.
Cycling on the pavement or using a pedestrian crossing would never be my first choice, but I do it out of necessity at that specific location where I have been photographed, in an attempt to be ‘shamed’. It is not a lapse in judgement. I use that pavement and that crossing at that location consciously, deliberately, and regularly, for my own and my children’s safety. I do so with due consideration to others and within the spirit of relevant regulation. Given the weight and size of my cargo bike, I ride across because it is more manoeuvrable that way, I need to keep momentum to aim at the uphill dropped kerb between four bollards on the other side.
The alternative would be to continue straight ahead, move from the left to the right (on a major road) and wait for a gap in traffic further along between a lane of moving traffic including buses and trucks on my left, and on the right, one lane of moving traffic and a bus lane. It is barely possible for even the most skilled and experienced solo cyclist, and I often have my kids on board.
The A-road running through my neighbourhood is utterly hostile to cyclists and pedestrians, and no one is taking responsibility for it. Whenever I use this turn on rare occasions, my entire body is lit up with alarm bells, signalling to my brain: get out of here! And I also have to time it right with pedestrians potentially crossing the side street, so I don’t risk ending up yielding to them in the way of an incoming bus or vehicle. At that precise moment, I am the only person in the entire world who can evaluate the levels within which I feel safe, the threshold of tolerance I can manage from the anxiety of danger around me. No one else can.
I also found myself on several occasions prevented from positioning myself on the right, to wait for that gap in traffic. Despite putting my hand up well in advance, some drivers just go ahead regardless. When I do it too early, I get beeped. This caused me to miss that turn and I had to cycle to the next side street, turn left to do a u-turn, wait some more to have drivers letting me across, back on the A road. It’s just insane.
The real issue here is the complete lack of safe cycling provision on the A5 and the lack of connectivity to the side streets. Cycling provision in outer London boroughs is appalling and very neglected. Actual cycling infrastructure is patchy to non-existent, below design standards, scary, uninviting, and exclusive, despite a huge and well evidenced appetite for cycling, healthier lives, and better air quality. So, what do we do then to stay safe? Well, we do what we can and when you add a child into the mix, even more so. So, it means going on the pavement at some point.
I started cycling out of necessity – to embed the school run in my work commute, to free up two hours per day in my life. Women cycling have interestingly different patterns from many men who ride; we do more quick short trips, from school to playground, to dentist/optician appointments, after-school club, errands, and other caring related work (we can have the debate about sharing the caring load another day).
I am a practical person. When I see a problem, I try to find a solution. Am I a traffic engineer? No. Am I a local elected politician with the powers to solve this? No. So campaigning was the solution to this specific problem, and I became a cycling campaigner because I started cycling. For me, for you, for my friends and for my two children, neither of whom has been able to cycle to school regularly so far. When they do cycle with me, it is mentally exhausting, there is far too much risk. You have to constantly calculate all the different scenarios that could unfold and think of the matching manoeuvres to prevent any potentially dangerous situation turning into an horrific one.
Covid has sharpened feelings about quality of life, about caring for our neighbours, and about our future. After what we have all been through, why are we now wavering over Low Traffic Neighbourhoods for example, which are one of the best ways of giving people the chance to cut back on sedentary lifestyles, get out and about walking or cycling for short local journeys, with a great knock on effect for physical activity levels and mental health? The choices made over transport affect our quality of life and have implications for everyone from the youngest to the oldest. It is unforgivable to keep avoiding this conversation.
This recent harassment of me and my family is not about cycling on pavements or danger to pedestrians; it is about revenge. Revenge for me standing up and publicly voicing an opinion, with an added special layer reserved for women where the basic decency seems to be even more acceptable to forgo. Cycling as a woman in London has exposed me to comments on the way I look, what I wear or not wear, a free for all to comment on my parenting and mansplaining on what type of cycle I use. Sharing an identifiable photograph of my child to hurt me says far more about the author of this social media post than it does about me.
I became a campaigner because of my lived experiences, and I can tell you that London is changing. I can see it and smell it. I can see the change in driving behaviour too, I can see more drivers giving me more space when overtaking, I can see more eye contact and basic courtesy, I can see all the other parents cycling with a child seat on the rear carrier, I can see the wider variety of cycles and all the different types of people cycling, including more children cycling to school. I see you and I applaud you.
So, if you too want to stand up to those who want to bully us off the road, join your local cycling group, email your councillors and demand better now.
More Opinion
Latest Comments
- Simon E 1 sec ago
£115 per litre sounds expensive, though if an application lasts twice as long as Green Oil then that is worthwhile (in practical terms as well as...
- ChasP 47 min 31 sec ago
The descriptions of articles from China are often inaccurate due to translation. They're not going to be made from natural rubber, they will be...
- henryb 48 min 56 sec ago
As there's a rule that the bikes must be available to buy by the general public, has any Olympic team ever gone out and bought a load of bikes...
- dreamlx10 1 hour 26 min ago
Lest we forget
- brooksby 2 hours 19 min ago
Local papers is a bit of a misnomer: most of them don't even have local offices eg IIRC there's one desk which covers everything south of...
- marmotte27 3 hours 30 min ago
Laurent Fignon died 14 years ago, I doubt he ever compared Pogacar to anything or -one.
- Matsea 3 hours 37 min ago
What's a good camera that is not expensive for recording motorists behaviour for a cyclists safety?
- DylanmMackayv 10 hours 18 min ago
During breaks in the Roadcc game, some players might get bored, while others might use the time for a quick break or to chat with fellow players....
Add new comment
70 comments
IMO part of the problem is how so many motorists appear to think that if a parent has their child with them, then it is somehow the parent's fault for putting the child in harm's way regardless of whether it is the motorist who is causing or threatening to cause harm.
I found that when I had a child seat on my bike I tended to get given a lot more space - even when I was only using it to carry a rucksack. That said, I see quite a few secondary school kids riding school on my morning commute and they get treated like shit by motorists. The only school kids that are given any space on the road the road by motorists are the ones that ride in packs pulling wheelies. I have also been mom-splained* for being irresponsible enough to tow my daughter on a tag-along on the road.
*mom-splainer being a mother (and it always is) who feels (and is unable to resist) the urge to critize the parenting of people she doesn't know.
"Speaking as a mutherrrr..."
The mum's and her child's lives are at stake, but the law prohibits cycling on the pavement (for the purposes of this discussion at least)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma
...unless you are riding on the pavement out of fear of the roads (the Boateng exception, IIRC).
(edited) I meant 'exception', but typed 'exemption'
...hence my parentheses.
The latest iteration I can find is in here
https://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cycli...
Well, except for the 'using a mobile phone' offence, but, hey...
He was using his phone while the engine was running...pretty sure that's breaking the law, happy to be corrected! Please provide a reference.
Also quit it with the group responsibility nonsense.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/mobile-phone-laws/
Hands-free phone use: the law
There are two things to remember here:
You cannot hold your phone when behind the wheel, even momentarily (this includes when supervising a learner driver).
Nice try but you said
"He didn't commit an offence with his mobile phone, but, hey if you want to make up that he did..."
He did commit an offence but they did not prosecute but you didn't make that claim.
Currently
https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law
It’s illegal to hold a phone or sat nav while driving or riding a motorcycle. You must have hands-free access, such as:
a bluetooth headset
voice command
a dashboard holder or mat
a windscreen mount
a built-in sat nav
The device must not block your view of the road and traffic ahead.
You must stay in full control of your vehicle at all times. The police can stop you if they think you’re not in control because you’re distracted and you can be prosecuted.
The law still applies to you if you’re:
stopped at traffic lights
queuing in traffic
supervising a learner driver
So no, "and it isn't illegal to simply pick up an object in a stationary car" doesn't hold.
edit: and it was still illegal to use it to make calls back then which is what he was doing.
That RAC article you linked to shows that merely holding a phone whilst driving, was not an offence at the time of the recording - i.e. it was before the loophole was fixed in April this year.
That said, I don't have much pity for him, it is the same Chris Eubank who was convicted of careless driving which resulted in a man's death - and was fined the princely sum of £250. Of course, these days it would have been at least death by careless driving - but these days, there probably would have been a scene investigation that would have blown a double decker bus sized hole in his story that he lost control whilst travelling at 58 mph in the 'fast lane' of the A23 - and as the person he hit wasn't on a bicycle, he might have got jail time for death by dangerous driving. To be fair, given the amount of blows to the head he's suffered, theres a good chance he was being honest (to the best of his ability) and confused 85 for 58 - it's not like professional boxers wear helmets.
In the body of the text it says
It’s illegal to hold a mobile phone while driving (correct as of April 2021)1
The law was tightened up but was to do with photos and videos. If you listen to the sound track, he is having a phone conversation which was covered back then.
Did that loophole actually get closed? I can see it was widely discussed, but I can't find any legislation in force that actually does so.
I appreciate the gov.uk website suggests it is always illegal to hold a mobile phone when driving, but in my experience gov.uk always over-simplifies things just enough to make sure that the "advice" given is technically incorrect. And, very unhelpfully, it never references any actual legislation when making bald assertions about the law (cf. the highway code which links you directly to the relevant section of legislation).
(Although you are correct that making a phone call would be covered anyway).
It is supposed to update this
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/contents/made
but that doesn't even have para 110 in it from 2003, so who knows if it has been closed
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regulation/2/made
but this event was covered by amendment 4
Didn't see a seatbelt being worn, but hey, perhaps he has an exemption or is working as a local delivery driver in the Rolls. And if that wasn't an offence with his phone, it would only be because he was not making a call - a particularly crappy loophole.
This cargo biker is also being "hassled and bamboozled", but on a daily basis, and taking rather more risk to life and limb than officer Eubank in his big heavy car. She is also acting within the spirit of the law.
She is campaigning for improved infrastructure, and perhaps Mr Eubank was doing the same with his phone when spotted, let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
I suppose he could have signed on with UberEats to supplement his retirement income.
He wasn't convicted for a mobile phone offence, but that's not to say he didn't commit one. The law on mobile phone use is unfortunately quite specific (https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-mobile-phones) which means it is hard to secure a conviction unless you can demonstrate what the person was doing with their phone. You do not commit an offence under S41D* if you are using internal features of the phone; only if you use it for interactive communication. So playing music already downloaded onto your phone is allowed; streaming music is not (even though on modern phones thse two functions are often pretty interchangable).
* For clarity, you could still be committing an offence under other sections of the RTA such as driving without due care and consideration.
Jeez Nige, it's fine for a mum and child to be harassed and intimidated cos mikey? Fack me, you really are getting better at this trolling biz.....
Not fine but perfectly understandable? Gotcha!
So if I was to retype that -
" it's perfectly understandable for a mum and child to be harassed and intimidated cos mikey!"
MMmnyeah, still doesn't seem to work Nige. Still seems that Mikey is irrelevant to this topic...
I think the point Nigel Garrage is making is that if you stoke a conflict then there are casualties on both sides. It's not about agreeing with one or the other, even if one is "in the right" (as here, obviously 🙄). Some die hard motorists will be piqued by the likes of "Cycling" Mikey, and will get their satisfaction where they can. It's the rules of the playground, and many never get beyond that.
Aah. Now I got it!
Don't witness or report lawbreaking or the mum and kid gets it!
It has a certain pragmatism about it I suppose.... Can't help thinking it still doesn't feel quite right....
Nige I'm hurt, I'm not deliberately misconstruing you. I'm trying to understand your point.
Weirdly you've brought in the difficulties that Chris Eubank has in controlling his vehicle safely, into a conversation about a mother and child being harrassed on the road, and then on SM
You've then tried to make out that bullying women and children is a reasonable response to another unrelated member of the public assisting the police.
You see, I am a member of the public. And a driver, who probably drives more than he cycles. And I get no violent feelings from Mikey's activities. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Why would it? it's not illegal, immoral, antisocial (except to those who think the word "grass" is an insult), and it affects me not one iota. So I don't really buy that as a reasonable, or even inevitable response
Now of course you might say, that irritating as his activities may be to some, he wouldn't (couldn't in fact) do it were it not for those law-breaking dangerous drivers.
So by extension, the fault of the physical bullying, intimidation on teh road, and SM pile-on of a woman and her child lies with, wait for it.... dangerous entitled, bullying drivers. That's actually what I'd say.
PS I am teasing you a smidge, I do understand your point. It's just completely wrong, on all levels.
It's been confirmed multiple times with different posters that he was committing at least 2 offences
The only one saying it isn't is you and you don't offer any support for your claim.
Yes and he was in breach of that and hence committing an offence.
He was also not wearing a seat belt but you ignore that as it doesn't fit your narrative
It's worth remembering that driving whilst distracted is an offence in itself that carries points. Note that it's the responsibility for drivers not to be distracted - it isn't mitigation for other offences.
In addition, unless you know Eubank, I don't really think that you are in a position to say that he only commits offences in the presence of Mikey, although I know you like to blame mikey for poor drivers.
If only Eubank had enlisted the help of St Freeman of the Long Handles, he could have got off on a technicality....
In which parallel universe is the correct reaction to distraction to drive off through a red traffic signal? That's nothing to do with distraction. He wanted to leave the scene as he'd been caught bang to rights and realized that further appearance in the video (sorry, Capt B) would incriminate him further.
I try to be considerate and courteous on these forums and 99% of the time...
Which of those is the reason for your irrational, strong dislike of him? And he is dutch not zimbabwean.
110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;
Hence guilty of an offence.
Boo is trying to state that he wasn't charged with anything so wasn't supposedly commiting an offence with the phone. However you could argue if he hadn't of picked it up and looked like he was committing an offence, then he wouldn't have had cycling mikey stop and query him. So abit chicken and egg at the start and still doesn't justify him driving through a red light as proven by the Police prosecuting him on that offence at least.
Boo is trying to state that he wasn't charged with anything so wasn't supposedly committing an offence with the phone.
Crikey! On that basis, Lancashire drivers are the most law abiding in the world, because they're hardly ever charged with anything no matter what the evidence.
Pages