Cyclists must take some responsibility for their own safety too.

Two incidents on this Europe trip where cyclists could've been on the wrong end of a shunt with a motor vehicle caused me to ponder what was a major contributing factor to two close shaves.

Firstly a major contributor has to be the sheer vulnerability of road cycling. To even mention this reality, sends cycling fanatics into apoplexy with shouts of 'victim blaming' from them because, one thing I do know about, is their determination that everything they do is so sensible that, when it goes wrong, the other guy, usually a driver, is to blame. 

The first incident involved me as the driver. I was trying to find a residential street in a small French Hamlet and had previously passed a couple of racing style a la Wiggo Lycra clads prior to turning off the main road and into a side turning. Driving very slowly looking for a street suddenly seeing it to my left, having almost passed it, a quick check in my mirrors and as expected, nothing following, I braked and turned at the same time. As I did so the two cyclists shot past on my right gesticulating and mouthing obscenities. The question is: 'Who is to blame?'.  Like most commercial vehicles, the rear view in mine is restricted to door mirrors and there were no cyclists alongside my vehicle when I made the manoeuvre. So they must have caught up with me and were immediately behind me and out of view. Had these been normal cyclists, instead of the racing kind with about 49 different gears, they would not have caught up with me for starters. But then didn't they notice two sets of GB plates as well as a funny registration plate? Wasn't it obvious to them that this was Johnny Foreigner a bit lost and looking for somewhere? In any case, if my actions didn't actually cause an accident and they were given time to evade one too, why the gesticulation and rudeness? What is it about these Lycra Clads? They had voluntarily placed themselves behind me and indeed their speed was a contributing factor to the scenario was it not?

The second incident was a classic of a Swiss woman driver just not seeing a Lycra Racing style cyclist and pulling out in front of him. He was riding on a cycleway to my right. Bearing in mind we were driving on the right side of the road, she was clearly intending to emerge from a shopping precinct across the cycleway. The cyclist saw her and indeed raised his arm and hand as if in anticipation and acknowledgement that she was about to stop except that she didn't. She did stop in shock but not until half of her vehicle was already over the cycleway and the cyclist had managed to swerve around the back of her. How he didn't collide with the car I have no idea. But again, having seen the danger, why keep up the pace? It's as if these cyclists are totally oblivious to their fragile frame compared with machinery.

What is common to both incidents is the speed of the cyclists and the belief that, because right is on their side, self protection isn't their major consideration. Surely it is and should be? Their adversary isn't drivers, other mere mortals, but large pieces of heavy metal. It isn't drivers cyclists collide with but big machines not matter who's to blame. So it is in the interests of cyclists to take responsibility for their speed and their safety instead of assuming the infallibility of complete strangers and then being angry and noisy about it all.

The Euro Cycling Myth continues to be wrong

Now let's be clear. Being pro driver and pro tax payer and pro community isn't automatically anti cyclist Ok?

We are now well into our second fact finding roads use European tour and that is because the demands of the UK cycle lobby on UK drivers, and taxpayers alike are very large and indeed to give cyclists what they want, amounts to many billions of pounds of infrastructure change and draconian laws and liabilities against drivers.

Part of their case is how much Europe does for cycling and cyclists and indeed how predominant cyclists are there.

It is a lie. Drivers' Union has already published a page of evidence based on last year's trip. Here

Paris is totally motorised traffic and we have pictures of whole unused Boris Bike racks and no cyclists in sight. Miles of very costly and empty cycle ways with the very occasional lycra clad enthusiast. Oh yes on Sunday pelotons of them, like joggers on wheels out for some fun, but are we really being asked to uproot our whole life to satisfy some-one's fetish?

London is not like Paris. Wide boulevards everywhere with plenty of green space to lay cycle tracks except in the centre.

Here in Geneva, and so far I have only driven at night, but hiving off carriageway to create cycle lanes is crazy. Motors are infrastructure whilst cycling isn't. This is a point we must hammer into politicians.

Out on the open road, the arteries and life blood of any nation, not a cyclist to be seen in hundreds of miles. So no Europe isn't depending on cyclists either. Come and see for yourselves.    

Time to shut these amateur road safety natterers up!

Brake are at it again.

When will media learn that these shrill amateurs are simply unqualified in driving expertise, road safety, road accidents and indeed driver prosecution. So why give them the oxygen of influencing a life and death policy and driver prosecution?

Brake are by no means the only ones allowed to do this. Rod King of 20's Plenty

is another as is Edmund King of the AA
 and there are many others such as Professor Allsop of the RACF and other road safety quangos and NGOs.

One of the problems is that their prime motivation is rarely road safety but mostly anti driver or environmentalist or pro cyclist and so on. Road Transport is essential infrastructure so why support any of these people?

Here is BRAKE'S latest effort.

I have written to the paper as follows:

Why does media pay any attention to BRAKE, a charity, when discussing road safety and driving? They are one of the many charities feeding from our Insatiable lucrative Road Safety Industry who have no qualification whatsoever in the subject. (Urging drivers to put their brakes on 27/8) If anyone wants to see the list of so called road safety charities and vested interests they need only visit the Drivers Union web site. Given that, after about 300 billion driver miles a year, there's less death on our roads from all causes than from accidents in the home, one could be forgiven for asking: 'Why no home death charities?' The answer is simple; there's no money in it.

Virtually all road safety charities, are sponsored by road safety profiteers and actually have a green anti driver agenda but no expertise. They are not top road driving experts, have never dealt with accidents nor have they prosecuted after them either.

The rhetoric used by BRAKE in the article was pure wild speculation and generalisation with no evidence. They publish that 19% of drivers admit to 'speeding'. What nonsense. Anyone who says they don't ever speed is deluded so that figure is 81% out for starters.

Last year 50,000 speeders were caught in Lincolnshire and the lack of 50,000 accidents to go with them, supports the fact that speeding actually causes nothing to happen. The ladies of BRAKE would deny the physics that says 'simply exceeding a number on a pole won't cause something to happen'. Most speeding is unintentionally caused by limits set too low or a speed inducing road layout which can be corrected by the authorities. It's absolutely clear that we now have a lucrative Speeding Industry where 50,000 speeders isn't seen as a failure to be rectified but an income source to be maintained.

One thing is for sure. It's long overdue that we shut these amateur commentators down. Their costs to the community would save far more lives if spent in the NHS, Ambulance, Rescue and police services not to mention the economic benefits from sensible road safety policy too.

Wishes

Keith Peat

General Secretary Drivers' Union

www.driversunion.co

Hampshire Police 20 MPH Propaganda

Against this emotive poster, 

Hants (Fleet) Police

posted 'It's 20 for a reason' Well I know from research, interrogation and official responses that it is not for road safety reasons since most of the blanket limits are on streets where accidents simply are not happening. In fact if you go to this item you will see the bogus rationale confirmed. and also look at why any expert driver would prefer drivers focusing on the road in these busy residential congested areas than worrying about a number on a pole and points on their licence. See dangerous 20s and I challenge any expert police driver to disagree with that.

But this poster is appalling in its propaganda and assumption. For a start the figures are entirely speculative theory and not based on fact. But it misses the central point. I wouldn't like to see anyone hit by a ton of metal at 20 MPH; people can die by just falling over and bumping their head. But I would prefer that my child wasn't hit at all by drivers focusing on the street than hit by a driver at 20MPH whose mind is on his speedo in these congested areas. And so it is proving. Accidents in the areas that have adopted 20 zones are on the up, just as I predicted. And Hants police are happy with this? They could be. More money from speed awareness you see!  

A Dinosaur's Guide to Libertarianism (For drivers)

Godfrey Bloom's new book does what it says on the tin.

Like me, he knows how he is portrayed and perceived by the left leaning progressives and miserable anti people people.

From a drivers' perspective this is a must read as it contains a compelling chapter on why drivers are treated as an enemy in the UK and that their rules, safety, prosecution and general oppression is governed by a mixture of profiteering and anti driver ideology.

It is available for pre-order at Amazon and other outlets for around £10.

AA President gets bitchy with road safety & driving expert.

The following Twitter comments based on a factual statement by AA's media spokesman to a select committee see the full story here reveal that Edmund King has no patience or time for genuine road safety expertise and is reduced to silly playground rhetoric when faced with it.  Drivers E. Midlands@EastMidsDrivers @AAPresident said he wanted to see 'police prosecuting drivers first' 'Let's dish out more £100 fines' He said. bit.ly/1jHpTQN - 09 Aug

Edmund King@AAPresident @EastMidsDrivers  Oh my, do you have inferiority problems? I sense your shoulder has a large chip on it? Yes Edmund I do have a massive chip on my shoulder about profiteers in road safety, profiteers from the unnecessary prosecution of many thousands of perfectly safe drivers, public spokesmen with no background in road safety, prosecution and expert road driving, being consulted by select committees on the subject and yes I do have a chip on my shoulder when UK's drivers are not given the respect they earn and deserve.  If you and the AA don't have a chip about those things too then I advise drivers to join the RAC instead.

The cheek of Chris Boardman

In this story Boardman says it's ridiculous to build roads  He goes on to say that priority should be given to walking and cycling and that there are no 'downsides' to road cycling.

So all these deaths and injuries to road cyclists is imaginary is it? Do see the very latest list of UK fatals here.

Well, selling expensive bicycles he really does have somewhat of a vested interest in all this. I have already noted that he fooled the Transport Select Committee into demanding £10 a head from all of us, some £650,000,000 a year for road cycling - something the vast majority of us have no interest or inclination to do. See it here.

I would suggest that hard work, hard saddles, wet and wind and snow and ice are downsides to road cycling too. Boardman is a like the other peculiar minority of people who jog and thinks everyone else should. If there were no downsides Chris, how come most people don't want to do it?

Another downside is that cyclists delaying and impeding the smooth and efficient speed of essential infrastructure is of course a massive economic downside too.

But priority to cyclists over essential infrastructure? Are these people for real?

It's about time politicians admitted that the upsides to road cycling are far outweighed by the downsides.