Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

'Cycling champion' knocked out by pavement cyclist calls for action against reckless riders

Incident happened as Barnes town centre manager left meeting about cycle routes

'A ‘cycling champion’ who was knocked out by a pavement cyclist who crashed into her just after she had attended a meeting about cycle routes has called on the police to get tougher on reckless riders.

Emma Robinson, who as town centre manager for Barnes in south west London has been involved in planning improvement to cycling infrastructure in the area, was left badly concussed after the collision in Twickenham in August.

Doctors have said it may take Mrs Robinson, who suffered a blackout the following day and is still affected by dizzy spells, as much as three months to fully recover., reports the London Evening Standard.

She told the newspaper that the incident has left her feeling anxious when she walks along the street.

“It was a very scary moment,” she said. “It was literally moments after I had come out of the offices and the next thing I knew I was on the ground.

“I flew through the air and hit my head which meant there was a lot of blood. When I did come to I remember I had no vision and couldn’t feel my arms and then I just remember this pain in my head.”

The cyclist stopped at the scene but on being told the police had been called, tried to make off.

According to the website Putney SW15, Steven Mindel, the chair of the Barnes Community Association, chased and caught him and police subsequently made an arrest.

Zac Goldsmith, Member of Parliament for Richmond Park, whose constituency includes Barnes, told the website: "Emma has been a champion for cyclists, as well as a brilliantly active town centre manager.”

The Conservative politician, beaten by Labour’s Sadiq Khan in the London mayoral election in May, added: “I’m pleased she has recovered, but appalled by what happened.  Clearly the police need to take a stronger stance on this sort of behaviour."

His call for police to enforce the law against those who ride recklessly and endanger others was echoed by Mrs Robinson.

“I am someone who has championed cycling provision but it does need to be balanced,” she told the Standard. “Cyclists need to respect pedestrians and follow at safe speeds. This chap clearly wasn’t.

 “I’m a great advocate of getting people on bikes and improving routes so people can get around quicker and easier but with that comes hand in hand with respecting pedestrians.

“I have an element of anxiety when I’m out and the other day as I was crossing in Barnes High Street a cyclist whizzed through a red light and in front of me. I thought it was happening again.

“I’m not sure what can be done but there doesn’t seem to be any significant penalties for cycling on the pavement or for riders who whizz through red lights. The feeling I got from police was that there was nothing they could do in my case.

“Had this man hit an elderly man or my young daughter it could have been a different story,” she added.

The charge most commonly brought against cyclists who have injured pedestrians while riding is causing bodily harm by wilful misconduct by wanton and furious driving, contrary to section 35 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

35 comments

Avatar
Dr_Lex | 7 years ago
2 likes

Having lived there, most residents of Barnes village would be more horrified by it being referred to as a town.

(agree with dottigirl- shit provision for cycling, and has been for decades. Unless you're 5 and on a tricycle on the common, it's dodging the Chelsea tractors and no.9 buses.)

Avatar
dottigirl | 7 years ago
4 likes

Cycling provision? For Barnes? Are they fucking joking???

She must be astoundingly shit at advocating cycling in Barnes, 'cos there is no fucking provision. One shitty cycle lane on Lonsdale Road which is full of parked cars, that's it - and that's a TfL route.

She's no 'Cycling champion', that's for certain.

Neither is Goldsmith, but that's already established.

Seriously, why dress her up as such? This area stands out for the lack of structure compared to other boroughs.

Avatar
Subotai replied to dottigirl | 7 years ago
2 likes
dottigirl wrote:

Cycling provision? For Barnes? Are they fucking joking???

She must be astoundingly shit at advocating cycling in Barnes, 'cos there is no fucking provision. One shitty cycle lane on Lonsdale Road which is full of parked cars, that's it - and that's a TfL route.

She's no 'Cycling champion', that's for certain.

Neither is Goldsmith, but that's already established.

Seriously, why dress her up as such? This area stands out for the lack of structure compared to other boroughs.

You've just made my day with that outburst!  Awesomely vitriolic! laugh

 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 7 years ago
3 likes

What most exasperates me are the cyclists who cycle very fast on crowded or narrow pavements. I don't mean the (usually high-viz clad) timid and apologetic slow wobblers (sometimes with their kids behind).

Its the absurd combination of sneering aggression with total cowardice of this type (I have to say, they are invariably young males) that gets me. Tough guy rebels who won't follow your rules and will swear at you or sneer if you dare to tut or fail to get out of their way - but who are at the same time apparently simply scared to death of cycling in (what is usually quite mild) traffic.

They are almost certainly the crap drivers of tomorrow anyway.

Avatar
Pub bike | 7 years ago
6 likes

We need to have penalties for councils that put cyclists and pedestrians into direct conflict by providing shared use paths that are no good for either pedestrians or cyclists.

Avatar
Chris | 7 years ago
4 likes

I had a busy spell this morning.

Horrible.

Won't do that again for a while.

Avatar
peted76 | 7 years ago
3 likes

Stereotype alert! London cyclist twat gives ALL cyclists a bad name. I wish it were 'just a few' but I see so many examples of dangerous, lawless riding in London we shouldn't kid ourselves it's 'the odd bad apple' it is a 'horde of twunts' on the roads problem. 

I don't think the argument for 'pedestrians to look where they are going' is called for either, this is simple cyclist on pavement, going to fast to stop or avoid danger. 

It's this kind of rider who will lead us all to have 'licences' or 'number plates' on our bikes. He probably has a man bun and was needing to be somewhere very important.

 

Avatar
LegalFun replied to peted76 | 7 years ago
1 like
peted76 wrote:

Stereotype alert! London cyclist twat gives ALL cyclists a bad name. I wish it were 'just a few' but I see so many examples of dangerous, lawless riding in London we shouldn't kid ourselves it's 'the odd bad apple' it is a 'horde of twunts' on the roads problem. 

 

It's not just London... we get pavement riding twunts everywhere. In my village, which has a quiet road through it, I saw someone riding on the pavement, despite the fact I hadnt seen a car for 10 minutes! Its the riders who are too scared to use the road, the chavs and eastern europeans where I live. 

Avatar
LegalFun | 7 years ago
4 likes

I cycled through a shopping area the other day, just 20 metres from the bike stand to the cycle route. Only a few pedestrians about and I went at walking pace. I have done this many times, and never had a problem.

The problem with pavement cycling comes when cyclists ride past people above walking pace, when it is busy or when it is a narrow path. Otherwise, there is no real problem. Personally I think all pavements (where possible) should be widened and turned into shared use, but obviously with pedestrians having absolute right of way. That way children, and less confident cyclists can ride on the pavement and the rest of us can cycle on the road.

Avatar
Leviathan replied to LegalFun | 7 years ago
3 likes
LegalFun wrote:

I cycled through a shopping area the other day, just 20 metres from the bike stand to the cycle route. Only a few pedestrians about and I went at walking pace. I have done this many times, and never had a problem.

The problem with pavement cycling comes when cyclists ride past people above walking pace, when it is busy or when it is a narrow path. Otherwise, there is no real problem. Personally I think all pavements (where possible) should be widened and turned into shared use, but obviously with pedestrians having absolute right of way. That way children, and less confident cyclists can ride on the pavement and the rest of us can cycle on the road.

Absolutely not! Did you not see the other thread about the driver filming cyclist in the road with his mobile. Mixed use pavements are designed to slow down cyclists and give way at every junction and side turn. They are a nightmare for the fast rider, causing all manner of blind turns and pinch spots. They might well help the young and the old, but they can already use the pavements if they are going slow enough. The problem is the presumption that cyclists MUST use them when they are there (even if the bike lane is only 10m long.) We need to get the 100kg builders on mountain bikes off the pavement, more mixed use will not help that, especially if ebikes become popular.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Leviathan | 7 years ago
3 likes
Leviathan wrote:
LegalFun wrote:

I cycled through a shopping area the other day, just 20 metres from the bike stand to the cycle route. Only a few pedestrians about and I went at walking pace. I have done this many times, and never had a problem.

The problem with pavement cycling comes when cyclists ride past people above walking pace, when it is busy or when it is a narrow path. Otherwise, there is no real problem. Personally I think all pavements (where possible) should be widened and turned into shared use, but obviously with pedestrians having absolute right of way. That way children, and less confident cyclists can ride on the pavement and the rest of us can cycle on the road.

Absolutely not! Did you not see the other thread about the driver filming cyclist in the road with his mobile. Mixed use pavements are designed to slow down cyclists and give way at every junction and side turn. They are a nightmare for the fast rider, causing all manner of blind turns and pinch spots. They might well help the young and the old, but they can already use the pavements if they are going slow enough. The problem is the presumption that cyclists MUST use them when they are there (even if the bike lane is only 10m long.) We need to get the 100kg builders on mountain bikes off the pavement, more mixed use will not help that, especially if ebikes become popular.

And, you can be riding on shared-use pavement next to a ten foot sign saying "this is shared use: be excellent to each other " and you will still get filthy looks from pedestrians who think that you're riding on *their footpath*.

Avatar
Paul_C | 7 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

“It was literally moments after I had come out of the offices and the next thing I knew I was on the ground.

so did she basically step out of the door right into his path leaving him no chance to avoid her?

Perhaps she should be calling for better infra which allows cyclists to get off the roads (where the motor vehicles scare them onto the pavements) but not mixing it with the pedestrians... stuff which the Dutch have had for years now and we know works...

Avatar
seyghal | 7 years ago
5 likes

Just finished a Bikeability lesson at a school teaching Year 6 and came across this article. It chimed. 

We're teaching the kids not to cycle on pavements, about different roads signs, rights of way etc. There's a footpath right outside the school with a very clear 'no cycling' sign, which we teach. Everyday, as we walk our bikes out to the road we are passed by adults cycling along said path. As we're teaching checking and signalling at junctions, we see adults on bikes just cycling on any side of the road and not checking at all.

Here's hoping that we're at least teaching the next generation how to do it; societal change takes time after all.

PS - Once held my ground whilst walking and an adult on a bike came towards me at speed on the pavement. He slammed on brakes at the last minute and asked 'why do you do that'? 'Use the [empty] road' I replied. 'It's dangerous!' said the man who had just nearly run me over!

Avatar
Bikebikebike replied to seyghal | 7 years ago
0 likes
seyghal wrote:

Just finished a Bikeability lesson at a school teaching Year 6 and came across this article. It chimed. 

We're teaching the kids not to cycle on pavements, about different roads signs, rights of way etc. There's a footpath right outside the school with a very clear 'no cycling' sign, which we teach. Everyday, as we walk our bikes out to the road we are passed by adults cycling along said path. As we're teaching checking and signalling at junctions, we see adults on bikes just cycling on any side of the road and not checking at all.

Here's hoping that we're at least teaching the next generation how to do it; societal change takes time after all.

Kids should be cycling on the pavement until the roads (or other infrastructure) is safe enough for them.  My kids will be taught to cycle on the pavement when their on their own.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde replied to seyghal | 7 years ago
1 like
seyghal wrote:

Just finished a Bikeability lesson at a school teaching Year 6 and came across this article. It chimed. 

We're teaching the kids not to cycle on pavements, about different roads signs, rights of way etc. There's a footpath right outside the school with a very clear 'no cycling' sign, which we teach. Everyday, as we walk our bikes out to the road we are passed by adults cycling along said path. As we're teaching checking and signalling at junctions, we see adults on bikes just cycling on any side of the road and not checking at all.

Here's hoping that we're at least teaching the next generation how to do it; societal change takes time after all.

PS - Once held my ground whilst walking and an adult on a bike came towards me at speed on the pavement. He slammed on brakes at the last minute and asked 'why do you do that'? 'Use the [empty] road' I replied. 'It's dangerous!' said the man who had just nearly run me over!

Seriously, if it happens regularly enough, you should contact the police and let them know when and where you are doing your cycling proficiency and that there are pavement cyclists. You might convince them to send an officer down there to enforce the rules in front of the children. The benefit being they reinforce the law to a whole generation of kids.

Don't forget to cycle two abreast as well...

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to seyghal | 7 years ago
1 like
seyghal wrote:

Just finished a Bikeability lesson at a school teaching Year 6 and came across this article. It chimed. 

We're teaching the kids not to cycle on pavements, about different roads signs, rights of way etc. There's a footpath right outside the school with a very clear 'no cycling' sign, which we teach. Everyday, as we walk our bikes out to the road we are passed by adults cycling along said path. As we're teaching checking and signalling at junctions, we see adults on bikes just cycling on any side of the road and not checking at all.

Here's hoping that we're at least teaching the next generation how to do it; societal change takes time after all.

PS - Once held my ground whilst walking and an adult on a bike came towards me at speed on the pavement. He slammed on brakes at the last minute and asked 'why do you do that'? 'Use the [empty] road' I replied. 'It's dangerous!' said the man who had just nearly run me over!

I know the law says no cycling on the pavement, but you are allowed to cross the pavement to access or egress from a premises. Because there is no way that I will be pushing my car out onto the road from my driveway EVERY time I use it, so why I should I need to push my bike to the road?

 

Avatar
gavrc replied to wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

I know the law says no cycling on the pavement, but you are allowed to cross the pavement to access or egress from a premises. Because there is no way that I will be pushing my car out onto the road from my driveway EVERY time I use it, so why I should I need to push my bike to the road?

Your 1st point is most important. It is against the law to cycle on the pavement (since 1835 no less). The Home Office says to ignore this unless the cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. Daft, obviously. The law applies to everyone, but under 10s are below the age of criminal responsibility and under 16s cannot be issued with a fixed penalty notice.

[Off Topic] Your second point is a bit misinformed. Your 'dropped curb' is actually called a vehicle crossing and you would have needed to obtain a licence to install this from your council, effectively changing the official usage of that stretch of tarmac. [/Off Topic]

Pushing your bike onto the road from your home seems sensibly safe to avoid pedestrians and check the state of the traffic approacing you.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to gavrc | 7 years ago
0 likes
gavrc wrote:

[Off Topic] Your second point is a bit misinformed. Your 'dropped curb' is actually called a vehicle crossing and you would have needed to obtain a licence to install this from your council, effectively changing the official usage of that stretch of tarmac. [/Off Topic]

Pushing your bike onto the road from your home seems sensibly safe to avoid pedestrians and check the state of the traffic approacing you.

Firstly - why is nothing ever done about householders who use their front garden as a parking spot but don't apply for a dropped kerb, instead just driving over the pavement till it's broken to fragments? [Hmmm, maybe I should try complaining to the council myself, I suppose!]

Secondly, as a genuine (non-rhetorical!) question - when such dropped kerbs are put in, or when a McDonalds or small supermarket puts such a kerb in for a new car-park or drive-through access, who has legal priority? There seem to be more-and-more such drive-thru arrangements across pavements and invariably drivers assume they have priority over pedestrians whether going in or out (at significant speed, usually), which makes walking an increasingly stop-start experience.
Seems to me that even if a dropped kerb or driveway has been put in, it ought to remain primarily the domain of pedestrians and motorists should expect to have to give way.

Avatar
HowardR | 7 years ago
0 likes

HouseCatHST

"Being a grumpy bugger my initial reaction to any of these errors is that they ought to be pulled from their machines & be beaten to a bloody pulp by a horde of righteous zombies – but ultimately I suspect there is a better way……"

I'm all for this as long as your extending the same rules to motorists. Fair more motorists would end up being beaten to a bloody pulp than cyclists every year. 

 

It most certainly should be applied to motorists - To something like the factor of  1/2 mv2

M = Mass

V = Velocity

 

Where are those hordes of rightous zombies when you need them!

Avatar
Housecathst | 7 years ago
4 likes

"Being a grumpy bugger my initial reaction to any of these errors is that they ought to be pulled from their machines & be beaten to a bloody pulp by a horde of righteous zombies – but ultimately I suspect there is a better way……"

I'm all for this as long as your extending the same rules to motorists. Fair more motorists would end up being beaten to a bloody pulp than cyclists every year. 

Avatar
nowasps | 7 years ago
8 likes

Could that possibly be dizzy spells?

Avatar
HowardR | 7 years ago
5 likes

p.s – Before anyone mentions victim blaming …..

Anyone who:

  • Wearing an all-black ensemble, with no visible lights, wheelies of a pavement onto a dual carriage way without looking backwards (towards to approaching traffic) – whilst wearing headphones….
  • Scoots their way up the 6-inch gap between a left signalling high sided truck & the pavement, yards from a left turn….
  • Crosses a major junction, against a red light, so lost in whatever their listening to on their headphones that their oblivious to the siren on the police bike who tries to pull them over….

Really does deserve whatever is coming to them – I just feel sorry for the poor sod who couldn’t reasonably be able to expect them.

The three examples above are just a small selection of the twattery I see on a painfully regular basis.

And…… this ‘anti-cyclist-rant’ has just been brought to you by someone who has ridden a bike for all of his adult life for pleasure, transport & commuting - & never felt the need to get himself one of those glorified invalid carriages they call 'cars'....

Avatar
HowardR | 7 years ago
10 likes

A twunt -  is a twunt  - is a twunt........Whatever their mode of locomotion.

If 'people' are to 'reclaim' the use of streets then the notion of the higher energy (faster) road user must give way & look out for the slower road user has got to become ingrained.

In the town I live in I’d estimate that the majority of people I see on bikes are chugging along the the pavements. I’d guess from their age that it’s not because mummy doesn’t allow them to play on the road with the big boys & girls it’s because of one or more of the following reasons:

  1. They don’t see a bicycle as a serious form of transport.
  2. They havn’t the ‘bottle’ to ride on the road.
  3. Their confused by the half arsed ‘shared usage’ cycle paths that flit in & out of existence around town.

Being a grumpy bugger my initial reaction to any of these errors is that they ought to be pulled from their machines & be beaten to a bloody pulp by a horde of righteous zombies – but ultimately I suspect there is a better way……

Avatar
Gourmet Shot | 7 years ago
6 likes

“I’m not sure what can be done but there doesn’t seem to be any significant penalties for cycling on the pavement or for riders who whizz through red lights. The feeling I got from police was that there was nothing they could do in my case"

So essentially the same case as a car then, when they run red lights (yes this actually happens, it's not the sole domain of cyclists) or when they routinely speed, perform dangerous manouvres, close pass a cyclist etc. etc.......i.e. nothing happens when cars do stupid stuff either...so whats the difference.  

And while we're at it can we prosecute pedestrians that cross when the lights are against them (usually transfixed staring at their phones) ?

Not supporting the cycling nobber dangerously bombing about on a pavement, but once again the behaviour of cars and pedestrians is overlooked in favour of singling out cyclists who are portrayed as habitual red light runners!!!

 

 

 

 

Avatar
freespirit1 replied to Gourmet Shot | 7 years ago
3 likes
Gourmet Shot wrote:

 

And while we're at it can we prosecute pedestrians that cross when the lights are against them (usually transfixed staring at their phones) ?

 

 

 

Pedestrians are the only road users that are under NO obligation to obey crossing signals. It is down to the users of wheeled transport to look out for them.

 

Having said that if they get twatted when looking at their phones it should be their fault but it won't be.

 

 

Avatar
CasperCCC replied to Gourmet Shot | 7 years ago
2 likes
Gourmet Shot wrote:

So essentially the same case as a car then, when they run red lights (yes this actually happens, it's not the sole domain of cyclists) or when they routinely speed, perform dangerous manouvres, close pass a cyclist etc. etc.......i.e. nothing happens when cars do stupid stuff either...so whats the difference.  

I think this is known as "whataboutery", isn't it? 

Since when was it an either/or situation? Drivers should face the consequences when they do stupid and dangerous things. So should cyclists. 

The size and speed of the vehicle means that drivers doing dangerous things are a lot more dangerous than cyclists doing dangerous things, but this guy has obviously behaved like a total dick. It seems totally fair to suggest that he should face the consequences.

I don't drive at all, so I'm firmly in the cyclist camp, but the "but what about the drivers!" knee-jerk reaction is way too predictable.

Avatar
kcr replied to CasperCCC | 7 years ago
4 likes
CasperCCC wrote:
Gourmet Shot wrote:

So essentially the same case as a car then, when they run red lights (yes this actually happens, it's not the sole domain of cyclists) or when they routinely speed, perform dangerous manouvres, close pass a cyclist etc. etc.......i.e. nothing happens when cars do stupid stuff either...so whats the difference.  

I think this is known as "whataboutery", isn't it? 

Since when was it an either/or situation? Drivers should face the consequences when they do stupid and dangerous things. So should cyclists. 

The size and speed of the vehicle means that drivers doing dangerous things are a lot more dangerous than cyclists doing dangerous things, but this guy has obviously behaved like a total dick. It seems totally fair to suggest that he should face the consequences.

I don't drive at all, so I'm firmly in the cyclist camp, but the "but what about the drivers!" knee-jerk reaction is way too predictable.

But 98% of pedestrian death and injury is caused by drivers, so i don't think we should be doing a lot of hand wringing when a rare accident caused by a cyclist occurs. There should be a lot more noise about the daily damage caused by dangerous driving, and the way drivers infringe pedestrian space. Walk through almost any town and you will see cars parked all over the pavements. That's worth ranting about.

Avatar
peted76 replied to kcr | 7 years ago
3 likes
kcr wrote:

But 98% of pedestrian death and injury is caused by drivers, so i don't think we should be doing a lot of hand wringing when a rare accident caused by a cyclist occurs. There should be a lot more noise about the daily damage caused by dangerous driving, and the way drivers infringe pedestrian space. Walk through almost any town and you will see cars parked all over the pavements. That's worth ranting about.

 

I think 'we' as cyclists should be doing a lot of hand wringing within our own community when this kind of thing happens.

This accident has nothing to do with cars, roads or infrastructure and everything to do with someone riding a bike without care, attention or within the rules of the highway code.

Avatar
kcr replied to peted76 | 7 years ago
4 likes
peted76 wrote:
kcr wrote:

But 98% of pedestrian death and injury is caused by drivers, so i don't think we should be doing a lot of hand wringing when a rare accident caused by a cyclist occurs. There should be a lot more noise about the daily damage caused by dangerous driving, and the way drivers infringe pedestrian space. Walk through almost any town and you will see cars parked all over the pavements. That's worth ranting about.

 

I think 'we' as cyclists should be doing a lot of hand wringing within our own community when this kind of thing happens.

This accident has nothing to do with cars, roads or infrastructure and everything to do with someone riding a bike without care, attention or within the rules of the highway code.

 

Why should we doing a lot of hand wringing? 'We' share no collective responsibility for the behaviour of this individual. I think we should take the opportunity to point out how rare this sort of incident is, and how safe cycling is for pedestrians and other road users. Despite the anecdotes about how many bad cyclists people see on pavements, the actual road incident statistics say that 98% of pedestrian death and injury is caused by drivers.

Wringing your hands doesn't change the attitude of people who have a problem with cycling. It just reinforces their prejudices and suggests (wrongly, in my opinion) that all road users share equally responsibility for the death and injury that occurs on our roads and pavements.

I'm not defending the behaviour of the cyclist in this case, if they cycled dangerously and injured someone, but I'm also not going to provide ammunition to those who like to use these isolated incidents as a stick to beat cyclists with.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to CasperCCC | 7 years ago
2 likes
CasperCCC wrote:
Gourmet Shot wrote:

So essentially the same case as a car then, when they run red lights (yes this actually happens, it's not the sole domain of cyclists) or when they routinely speed, perform dangerous manouvres, close pass a cyclist etc. etc.......i.e. nothing happens when cars do stupid stuff either...so whats the difference.  

I think this is known as "whataboutery", isn't it? 

Since when was it an either/or situation? Drivers should face the consequences when they do stupid and dangerous things. So should cyclists. 

The size and speed of the vehicle means that drivers doing dangerous things are a lot more dangerous than cyclists doing dangerous things, but this guy has obviously behaved like a total dick. It seems totally fair to suggest that he should face the consequences.

I don't drive at all, so I'm firmly in the cyclist camp, but the "but what about the drivers!" knee-jerk reaction is way too predictable.

It's either or, because of limited police resources, every call for a cracking down on dangerous cyclists, takespecially resources away from policing roads for the benefit of all, focusing on those that kill 1800 people a year.

I'd happily see zero tolerance and 100% enforcement for all road offence by cyclists if the same also applied to drivers.

Pages

Latest Comments