UPDATED: Daily Mail 'exposes' Jon Snow as serial rule-breaker

For those that think stereotyping or "one tribe" bucketing doesn't matter I have to question whether you are regularly out there on a bike commuting. I have lost count of the times when I have been lawfully making my way and been cut up, forced off the road or had to take rapid evasive action from criminally sub standard driving to be met with abuse along the lines of "you lot don't stop/jump lights/ride on pavements have got it coming/shut your face hypocrite" etc. I'd like to know in what way stereotyping isn't reinforcing contempt from some of the most dangerous road users against the more vulnerable?
I rarely see car drivers out there policing each other and am not sure why the same is expected of "people on bicycles".

Re. chris-grays-inn-road's long piece, I think the responses are fair, and suggest that pavement cyclists, while a real issue for some people, get disproportionate exposure. I'm afraid there are idiots and selfish people in all walks of life and they aren't going to change.

London appears to me to be an alien place. It's the only city I've been to where addressing a stranger, however fleetingly, is seen as odd or unwelcome. I'd happily never go there again. How anyone could prefer living there over anywhere else is beyond me.

Shared paths are fine if you want to amble along at walking pace. For anyone trying to get from A to B more than 5mph they're literally (physically) hard work. Irresponsible dog owners with retractable dog leads, in particular, but I don't see the point of writing on Dog Owner forums about someone whose stupidity could have had me off my bike. I'd prefer those paths to be segregated by a kerb or similar clear demarcation; a line of white paint down the middle obviously means nothing to most people.

martin - part of the problem on routes like that for me is that when there are clearly defined pedestrian and cyclist bits everyone's too busy worrying about their 'rights' to think about their responsibilities.

the least stressful shared spaces are the ones that are properly shared. the canal path is a case in point: i might not agree with the way that other people use the path, but in the end that's neither here nor there. if there was a dedicated cycling bit and people walking in it i might feel the need to exercise my 'right' to be there, as it is everyone just has to get along. there's still some idiots, but it works pretty well. the bristol-bath is the same. with a few more idiots.

the concept of sharing transport space is alien to people who solely use motor vehicles, as the road system is based on rigid priorities and control, rather than mutual respect. people will speed up in their car to close off a gap and sit in a queue, stopping other cars from entering the queue, because it's their 'right of way'. I've seen someone deliberately crash into another vehicle to prove a point.

In Japan cyclists share the pavement with pedestrians. But there is concern about the number of pedestrian + cyclist accidents, and people cycle slowly, and the culture of politeness is very different to London!

what would people say if bikes *were* allowed on the pavements but strict liability was enforced, ie cyclists were always held at fault for collisions with pedestrians?

Discuss...

Quote:

No doubt I will get the usual abuse or attempts at sophistry in response but I have a lot of sympathy for the dangers that cyclists face upon the road, and I am happy for my taxes to be spent to make them safer for cyclists, but riding cycles on the pavement will only serve to endanger pedestrians – any claim otherwise is sophistry and selfishness.

i doubt you'll get much abuse on here - there's not many serious cyclists who don't lament the way some people behave on a bike. anyone that abuses pedestrians in any way – be it on the pavement or on the road – needs to be brought to task.

i don't agree with your statement that cyclists and pedestrians can't use shared space, though. they can, and do, all over the world, all the time. part of my commute is on a shared path. it's really not that hard, all that's needed is a bit of mutual respect and to slow down a bit. mine's on a canal path: kids totter along it, dogs run out of bushes, adults walk 3 abreast blocking the whole thing. so long as you're courteous and ride at a speed where you can deal with any unforseen situation without injuring someone/something, everyone will be fine. though i did run over a duck the other day.

the same applies in town: i use a shared path alongside the river that's no wider or narrower than a pavement, but everyone gets along just fine, most of the time. There's been a few near misses over the years but i've not had or seen a collision yet.

Quote:

one injury or death is too many

if we applied that logic to all forms of transport, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

I'm off up to London this afternoon (look out for an article on Rapha's Autumn/Winter 2010/11 range coming very soon to road.cc) and although I'm not taking my bike, I'm wondering after reading handlebarcam's post whether I should at least take my helmet

100% agree with you. Cyclists should not ride on pavements. And just because cars kill thousands of people per year, that doesn't mean cyclists have any right to risk anyone else's life or well-being for their own convenience or safety.

The one thing I would say is that those shocking experiences you recount, and most other examples quoted in the press, did take place in London. So we know two things about the perpetrators: (1) they were riding a bike, hence for want of a better word are "cyclists" and (2) they were in London, hence for want of a better word are "Londoners". The question that always occurs to me is: membership of which demographic is most contributory to their behaviour? I've known hundreds of cyclists and hundreds of Londoners in my time, and the bigger proportion of selfish ass****s I found to be in the latter group. Cycling does give one a sense of speed and power, a fraction of that experienced by motorist, but still enough to go to some people's heads. And someone already predisposed to careless or arrogant acts could be drawn to using a bicycle because it affords them a means of escape. But living or working in London has its negative effects too. To quote Alexander Herzen, "There is no town in the world which is more adapted for training one away from people and training one into solitude than London. The manner of life, the distances, the climate, the very multitude of the population in which the individual is lost, all this together with the absence of Continental diversions conduces to the same effect." And that was in 1852!

You may well disagree with me, and you are absolutely right to post on cyclists forums such as these, to tell any pavement riding cyclists who might be reading your side. But do you also post on London forums, if there are such things, asking your fellow Londoners not to rush about the place without a care for other people, regardless of which mode of transport they choose? And sadly the London-based press will never print headlines such as "Beware Pedestrians: Rogue Londoners are a Menace!" accompanied by tales of the countless times each and every day in London that frail people are jostled, barged into, knocked over, and left without an apology - by joggers, skateboarders, cyclists, car drivers, or people just walking at speed while talking on a phone and consulting their filofaxes. I've seen examples of all of these, when I lived and worked in London and other major cities (although as you can see from my reference to 80s/90s technology, it was a while ago. You literally couldn't pay me enough to move back to London now.)

" "In the first picture I am leaving the hoops I had parked on. In the other pavement shot I am arriving at railings to which the photographer would have seen me secure the bike – you can see the top of my leg swinging over the saddle preparatory to parking."

Mr Snow..if you are implying, by the above, that you do not cycle on the pavement then I am disappointed in you.

You see, as someone who lives off Grays Inn Road, I can tell you that it is a common site to see you cycle on the pavement, as you make your way up said road, towards the ITN offices. If you are trying to imply that you do not cycle on the pavements then you must have a double!

As a disabled pedestrian I am getting rather tired of having my day ruined by cyclists riding on the pavements or shooting through crossings. I have been hit several times and even the near misses cause me severe pain as the start or jolt impacts upon my damaged hip. I have of course been told that this is all my fault – if only you didn’t walk so erratically – commented a cyclist who had just run into me as he tried to sway around other pedestrians. I have been spat on, had abuse thrown at me all for having the audacity to use the pavement. And when you, as cyclists, do decide to come back to have words with me for having pointed out that you have just missed me and it is illegal to ride your cycle on the pavement – please don’t use your cycle to block me against a wall as you direct your tirade against me.

No doubt I will get the usual abuse or attempts at sophistry in response but I have a lot of sympathy for the dangers that cyclists face upon the road, and I am happy for my taxes to be spent to make them safer for cyclists, but riding cycles on the pavement will only serve to endanger pedestrians – any claim otherwise is sophistry and selfishness. After all – making the pavements more dangerous will not make the roads safer.

I know that not all cyclists cycle on the pavement but many do and it causes problems. You think that you are safe cyclists, you will not be the one to cause an accident, but many drivers think of themselves as safe - yet you don't seem to want to put your trust in their abilities - but you are asking pedestrians to do just that with you. Saying that the number of injuries or deaths are higher with cars doesn't justify the risk you impose and is no mitigation - one injury or death is too many.

So please - I beg of you - If you find yourself having to use the pavement; dismount and walk your bike – you do not need to ride it.

Just the sort of shite you'd expect from newspaper reporter scum.

Just the sort of shite you'd expect from newspaper reporter scum.

This may be relevant -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

I have never met a Daily Mail reader I like.

“It is alas NOT illegal to use a mobile on a bike (but should be!)"

Why?? How many people have been killed by cyclists using mobile phones? This shows the total failure of some people to understand just how dangerous driving is. The reason the use of hand held mobile phones by drivers was banned was because of a number of fatalities. Some people really need to get a sense of proportion.

You have to keep in mind that this is aimed at daily mail readers. The whole newspaper is predominantly negative and full of scaremongers.
More worrying is that they believe what they read.

Apparently, the Police sieze ~500 vehicles per day in the UK because they have no insurance! A proportion of those have no insurance, because the drivers have no valid driving licence! [from one of those TV programmes about the Police]

This kind of factually incorrect bile is just the thing the Daily Hate Mail specialises in. Some people call it a "newspaper", which makes me laugh (but not in a nice way).

The people who write and approve this crap must have such dreadful lives, we ought to really feel sorry for them.

What struck me was that I saw last week there are still 1.5 MILLION people driving around without insurance (link). Apparently we should be pleased because it's down from the 1.8 million doing it five years ago.

My favourite is when he 'raises the ire' of a pedestrian on a crossing, and the pic is just of a man looking at jon snow on a bike. way to twist the facts, DM

He might not jump the lights but he jumps the queue at Condor cycles.

One Daily Mail reader/page starer commented "He wants to strangle the arteries of the nation, through which the life blood of the economy is trying to flow"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1297559/Drivers-beware-How-...

Could someone perhaps follow the van driver featured in the BBC piece and check-out his driving?

Alternatively has anyone observed the driving of the editorial hierarchy of the Daily Mail.

Expect at least one offence under s.72 of the Highways Act 1835 (very apt as this is largely what they gripe about cyclists doing) and strong potential for a Section 170 offence if they cause a injury or damage due to the presence of their vehicle (note that no impact is necessary). It would also be interesting to see how well they observe Rule 170 fo the Highway Code.

I don't care what anyone who writes for or reads the Daily Mail thinks about cycling. In fact, much like the BNP I don't think other publications should give them the 'oxygen of publicity' to use a cliche.

Ignore them and let them get on with it in their own little writer/reader bubble. All the while, more and more people start to cycle, the tide turns and they all get ulcers from the impotent rage and die.

Its just a matter of time. Sorted.