I regret to inform everyone… the Oxford Mail’s at it again.
Just over a week ago, the local newspaper incited one of the more bizarre rounds of anti-cycling bingo we’ve ever seen, by randomly – or at least with the sole purpose of driving some angry engagement – asking their Facebook followers, “How can cycling in Oxford be made safer?”
Of the hundreds of comments that flooded in, almost all of them exclusively engaged in classic victim-blaming, anti-cycling rhetoric, ranging from calls for cycling licences and tax, as well as measures designed to “force” people on bikes to always use cycle lanes, and claims about red lights, bright clothing, helmets, and headphones.
> Anti-cycling bingo bonanza: Drivers call for cycling to be banned to make it safer in bizarre social media exchange
And two Mail readers decided to take things a step further by arguing that the solution to making cycling safer in Oxford is simple – we should simply ban riding bikes. Easy (worryingly, those comments proved extremely popular, attracting the most ‘likes’ under the Mail’s post).
And now the paper is at it again, asking its readers: “Where would you like to see more cycle lanes in Oxford?”
Which, taken at face value, is a fair question.
Following the deaths of two cyclists, Dr Ling Felce and Ellen Moilanen, who were both fatally struck by lorry drivers in the space of three weeks in February 2022, the chair of local cycling campaign group Cyclox, Dr Alison Hill, called for more segregated cycle lanes to better protect people using bicycles to travel around the city.
Not that many of the 500 or so Facebook users who commented on the Mail’s post took that in consideration, of course.
Brace yourself for a bewildering exhibition I’m going to call Schrödinger’s Cycle Lanes, where there are – in the eyes of Oxford’s drivers – simultaneously too many bike lanes, which block up the roads, cause congestion, and aren’t used by cyclists anyway, and too few, forcing drivers to interact with cyclists and, God forbid, pass them safely.
So, where do the Oxford Mail’s readers want to see cycle lanes?
“Nowhere, most cyclist don’t use them!” wrote Sarah Needle. “Might as well take away the red traffic lights too – they don’t use those either!”
“In the middle of the Thames,” added Michael Holliday.
“ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE,” shouted Jordan Thornton. “Get rid of the existing ones for starters.”
“Blinking bikes are a nuisance, they don’t take any notice of traffic lights, half of them don’t have lights on when it’s dark, and they are dressed in black clothing so it’s difficult to see them,” said Frances Knight.
“They are definitely a law onto themselves, so no, we do not want more bike lanes. The other day we see [sic] a girl on a small skateboard in the middle of the road with a coach right behind her, my heart came up in my mouth, where was her mentally, she should have been stopped by the police. But of coarse [sic] they were nowhere around.”
Hmmm… Perhaps somebody needs to tell Frances that bikes aren’t skateboards aren’t the same…
> "One month, two dead cyclists": Oxford's cycling city sign defaced after second death
“It won’t matter as they will not use them, they just use the pavement,” wrote Billy Rankin.
“Only if cyclists have to use them, unlike the Lycra mob who seem to think, even the pre-existing wide lanes are beneath them,” said Sarah Gimigliano.
“Only other possible place you can put a cycle lane now in Oxford is the M40 as every other centimetre in Oxford is full of them,” added Ritesh Vyas. “In some cases they have taken over roads all together.”
Meanwhile, StuBoy Grizza (if that is indeed his real name) had a different take on the whole thing.
“What bike lanes? More shared roads now causing more hazard to drivers,” he said. “We’ve got the police telling us to give 1.5m space when passing a cyclist or we can get prosecuted!
“So where’s the prosecutions for cyclists who pass my car at two feet? Or those who run red lights and even knock pedestrians over on the pavement?”
Ah, the classic overtaking/filtering confusion. Top work StuBoy.
Thankfully, not everyone was piling in with nonsensical arguments against cycling infrastructure.
“Amazes me the hate on these posts!” noted Peter Haken. “First place is Eynsham to Botley, the road is extremely dangerous and let’s not even talk about the awful potholes.”
“We need to do what Amsterdam has done, what all these petrol heads don’t see is that they are the problem,” added Paul Thornton. “Nearly every car coming into Oxford in the morning has one person in it and it has hit saturation point.”
“So many places, but before they bother could they also make it a rule that they are not used as car parking spaces?” asked Tara Hurst.
“And maybe some of the haters in here could have a look at the condition of the cycle lanes – heavily potholed and cambered, barely a painted line on the road, and often ignored as drivers find them a convenient place to park.
“Possibly the same ones who then complain that cyclists don’t use the cycle lanes.”
Add new comment
36 comments
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2025-01-31/teenage-driver-who-serio...
Teenage driver who seriously injured boy, 4, in Lawrence Weston hit-and-run sentenced. The judge sentenced Doherty to two years and two months in a young offenders' institute and banned him from driving for four years and one month.
I am dubious that a broadcasters decision that only effects cycling fans in the UK and Ireland will have prompted an announcement from One Cycling. Al Jazeera is one of my news sources so whilst I am not a fan of sport's washing, I am ok with Saudi and other Arab backed broadcasting. And MyWhoosh is my chosen indoor platform too; for an obvious reason
Never use a hire bike !
https://youtu.be/Yo5mgjdw1Vo?t=289
Guardian Article - Who started the culture war between cyclists and drivers?
That's rather out of the Adrian Chiles school of money for old rope journalism, isn't it? I read it through three times trying to find a point; inasmuch as it has one it seems to be that there is an antipathy between motorists and cyclists, we can't say why it started, and it would be better if it didn't exist. All jolly good, but worthy of a column in a national newspaper?
Does rather feel like they wrote the pre-amble to the article, and then forgot to write the body of it.
The whole basis of drivers v cyclists conveniently forgetting that the majority of cyclists also drive a car.
It's really just another 'culture war' thing dreamt up by the media to turn people's petty frustrations into anger at a minority group.
It also helps distract from the 1,624 people killed and 28,087 seriously injured on the roads in 2023 (yes, twenty-eight thousand) while there were 132,977 casualties of all severities. That averages out to 364 injuries every single day of the year.
Perhaps they could instead talk to some of the relatives of the 1,6235 whose lives were brutally and needlessly cut short or the many thousands who have devastating injuries instead of trolling for clicks.
Are those numbers from the UK or are they worldwide?
"I’ve never actually met a cyclist who wants to be part of this battle."
Whilst cyclists wouldn't want to be a part of a war given the numbers involved 1: cyclists v drivers
2: the weights of each side's vehicle of choice...
I would assume that it is only a minority (hopefully) of drivers that choose to be involved.
Primarily because they are envious of
1) the fact that cyclists are showing the drivers that their cars are not getting them to their destinations significantly faster
2) the few people brave enough to venture on to the roads on bicycles and mix with the dangers presented drivers.
This "courage" being something that those few drivers feel they themselves don't have and must fight against.
More like in the sense of Bill Hicks' criticism of the War on (some) Drugs - motorists of all kinds are "winning a war" they don't even know they're fighting! (Although apparently some think they're not doing so well in a non-existent "War on the Motorist").
Having cycled Oxford a few times, I am suprised by the anger towards cyclists in this article. I used the cycle lane from near the Head of the River pub to Kennington. I thought it was really good. In the road cycle lanes, I found motorists were respectful of cyclists and allowed plenty of space when passing.
Not everyone is embroiled in the culture wars. Who knew? You couldn't tell that here.
Wow, van Aert gets more coverage of using some new tech than the whole weekend of the CX world championships.
Nothing about GB winning gold in the mixed relay?
“If you want to encourage cycling, you need infrastructure like this”
...though ideally without someone deciding it's a good place to stand to take tourist snaps.
The Oxford Mail article is a prime example of - if you are asking for a reaction, you're going to get reactionary.
The "cyclists dismount" sign should be made permanent.
My understanding is, if you cycle on the left hand side, you would be cycling 'illegally' on a footpath, and would risk a fine.
The buff coloured tactile paving and centre white line means you are only allowed to cycle on the right as shown in the picture.
A few years ago on Road.cc, there was a news item with video of a PCSO 'catching' a cyclist in London (Old Kent Road?) and the case ending up in Court supported by the cyclist defence fund.
Nope. If separate cycling provision is coming to an end, the appropriate instruction would be 'Cyclists - join main carriageway'.
Looks like that's what they did. Although they also used the "no no cycling" sign: https://maps.app.goo.gl/m3C3LwKZAwTVSrSq6
On the image above, the permanant sign shows the cycle on the left, although the path is on the right.
Around these parts we like to regularly switch which side is which, just to keep people on their toes.
Reality of what will happen - ride on the grass unless it's a total mud fest.
Fixed.
What should normally happen here is that you cycle up the right hand side which is normally cycle track.
You can't do that at the moment because of building work, which is why there are temporary barriers, the big red sign and all the orange in the distance - until the work is completed the next bit of cycle track isn't really cycle track.
I am referring to the new chicane barriers. If you do not dismount, but cycle through the U chicane, you will be cycling on the designated footway, not the cycle lane. Pay day for the Privateer Civil Enforcement mafia
Yes, and what I'm saying is that that's not a chicane, that's a 'stop here, this isn't (currently) a cycle track past this point' barrier. Hence the sign saying to get off.
It's perfectly intentional that you can't cycle through it, so the fact that you can't cycle through it without being on the footway is neither here nor there.
And you really can't treat it like a chicane, it's way too tight - you'd have a job getting through there on a unicycle.
Um - whether or not you're intended to continue cycling past it, it's still a chicane.
Also - this is a weird argument - you seem to be disagreeing with each other, while both saying the exact same thing.
It's entirely possible I'm missing the point, but AIUI 'Mr Anderson' is saying that there's a problem because you can't cycle through here without illegally crossing onto the footway, and I'm saying that isn't an issue because you can't cycle through here at all, so you're not actually being forced onto the footway.
Obviously they can answer for themselves, but I think you've misread that - I read them as saying 'there's nowhere to cycle legally beyond this point, so you shouldn't be cycling through there', which is just the same as your 'you shouldn't be cycling through there since there's nowhere legally to cycle beyond it', but the other way around.
Anyway, it's all a bit besides the point(s) that that picture was originally referring to, which was (a) the lack of consideration given to alternative cycling provision (and, as mentioned, the inappropriate direction to 'dismount'), and (b) it not being entirely clear how, if at all, temporary these barriers were intended to be (if they were meant to be temporary, they could have used, well, temporary ones, rather than ones that were concreted into the ground).
I'm mising the point here. Why are there (permanant) barriers across the cycle path. It's like a 10 foot section of road where motorists are told to get out and push.
They've been removed now (see picture August '24), as per my comment below I think they were there to guard against cyclists riding through a blind entrance to a building site.
Pages