Off yer bike!
Tue 01 Dec, 2009
With Dublin City Council going cycling crazy, Londoner Stephen Ginn offers a cautionary tale about the dangers – of politicised transport
Perhaps it’s the congestion charge or the increased provision of cycling lanes, or maybe we’re inspired by high profile cyclists Boris Johnson (1) and David Cameron (2), but cycling in London has risen by a staggering 70 per cent since the year 2000. (3) Corresponding with this newfound popularity, the profile of London cycling has risen dramatically and, previously, a pursuit for the foolhardy, the joys and tribulations of a daily bicycle commute are now a favorite dinner party conversation topics for the chattering classes.
One feels that the British capital’s roads would sport even more cyclists were it not for lingering concerns over safety. There has been a recent upsurge in cycle related injuries as well as collisions with pedestrians. (4) Stark reminders of the vulnerability of cyclists are the ‘ghost bikes’(5) which can be seen chained to railings at several major junctions across the city. If the amount of copy in national newspapers such as the Guardian is anything to go by, the lobbying power of cyclists is increasing and most of this is focussed on increasing safety. The majority of concerns are about careless driving and cycling organizations such as the CTC, the organisation formerly known by the rather quaint name of the Cyclists’ Touring Club, like to paint a picture of cyclists as a saintly breed, innocent victims of the negligence of others. (6) A website has recently been launched to address this issue, its title drawn from the allegedly popular excuse for a near miss: “Sorry mate I didn’t see you”. (7)
Users of the site are invited to document instances of bad driving. And yet, individual cases aside, anyone who uses London’s roads knows that this vision of cyclists as entirely innocent does not bear scrutiny. Occupying as they do a dim and ill-defined hinterland somewhere between motorised vehicles and pedestrians, strict adherence to the Highway Code seems not to have caught on. (8) High visibility clothing and lights at night are eschewed. The conscience of the average London cyclist appears untroubled by flouting traffic lights and any visiting pedestrian will quickly learn, as residents already have, that many cyclists have no intention of stopping for crossings. One feels that the true motivation for some bike commuters are not those of pursuing alternative modes of transport, but rather that they could no longer go sufficiently fast in their cars.
The current distain shown by four wheels for two and two wheels for two legs can perhaps best be understood in two ways. Firstly as a competition between different groups for road space and speed, both scarce resources in an ancient and ‘un-designed’ cities like London and Dublin. It is a neat coincidence that when sociologists talk of the propensity of a societal group to mistreat those directly below it on the social ladder they talk of the ‘bicycling reaction’, so named as just like a cyclist the group bows to those in before it and kicks those below. (10) The treatment of pedestrians by London cyclists is not so dissimilar. Secondly, some of the quasi-conflict appears to have its roots in class. Cyclists are predominantly from higher socio-economic groups who can afford to live within cycling distance of work. Conflict, then, as much about people seeking to demonstrate their difference from – and superiority to – others as it is to getting anywhere quickly.
It would be nice to see people improving their behaviour without police crackdowns or yet more Government leglisation – and before the current cycling paradigm becomes so engrained that it is part of the Londoner’s character. Cyclists will certainly get no encouragement to change from the CTC, which has written in support of cycling on pavements. (11) Many seem to think that, simply by virtue of their being likely to come off worse from collision with a motorised vehicle, cyclists occupy the moral high ground. They do not. Cycling should be encouraged, but a sober reassessment of the behaviour of cyclists rather than blind support of their rights on the road would be the most appropriate.
Cycling has much in its favour: it is quick, cheap and increases fitness. As a result there are plans for a massive increase in cycling provision across Britain, but this will only work if cyclists begin to play by the rules. (12) Boring, I know, but it also happens to be the truth.
Stephen Ginn is a psychiatrist based in London. He blogs at frontierpsychiatrist.co.uk and regularly commutes by bicycle
(1) Boris Johnson’s A to Z of cycling - A and B, Sunday Times, July 6, 2008
(2) Cameron’s bike stolen as he shops, BBC News, July 24, 2008
(3) See: Travel in London, Key trends and developments (PDF), Transport for London, 2009
(4) See: Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: Quarterly Provisional Estimates Q2 2009 9, Department for Transport, 2009
(5) See: ghostbikes.org
(6) See: CTC.org.uk
(7) See: stop-smidsy.org.uk
(8) Roughly equivalent to Ireland’s ‘Rules of the Road’. See: the Highway Code, Directgov
(9) The psychology of inquality, Centre for Confidence, undated
(10) Antisocial cycling is annoying – but not harmful, the Guardian, November 19, 2009
(11) Lord Adonis’ Transport Manifesto, speaking at Transport Times Conference, 24 June 2009
COMMENTS
This article is ridiculous… Forward thinking? I hardly see that in evidence anywhere in this recycled, stereotypical twaddle.
Show me where cyclists believe they are entirely innocent? That website was set up to document cases involving bicycles and drivers as the majority of minor incidents never get any legal scrutiny, in most cases drivers don’t even bother pulling over, or at worst, police, when called, don’t bother turning up. In the same way you say cyclists are subject to no recourse for their ‘crimes’ drivers seem to have a similar immunity when it comes to altercations with cyclists, why even killing a cyclist warrants nothing more than a slap on the wrist these days!
Cyclists are constantly being harangued for having some ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude, which I believe, and I’ll use as many facts and figures to back up my statements as you have, stems from some awful insecurities of those who appear to see it.
I have never heard of the ‘bicycling reaction’ before and frankly find it irritatingly askew. If what you say is true cyclists bow to cars and stomp on pedestrians? But wait… you say “those that came first”, so surely that means cyclists should be the top of this food chain? And you are actually trying to state that cycle commuting is a rich man’s pursuit… boy you have some imagination! The cyclist out slogging on his 10-mile commute in the rain and cold is really lording it over the BMW driver who had driven in from the countryside… seriously man, what are you talking about??? The average journey taken by car in Dublin is far under 10km. You say later in your ‘article’ that one of cycling’s benefits is that it is cheap… that doesn’t fit in with your world view of cyclist flaunting their bikes at those mugs who can only afford to pay to sit in expensive metal boxes with internal combustion engines…
“Based on petrol prices alone, the average Dublin car commute costs €1,957 annually” Quote from John Henry, director of DTO.
I am all for cyclists obeying the rules of the road and the police cracking down more, I personally find more threat from bad cyclists than drivers(excluding bus drivers, who occupy some separate universe altogether), but your article is hardly pro-active, in fact it’s not balanced at all. From someone who claims to be a regular cycling commuter I find this all very far-fetched.
As for cycling on the pavement, the majority of that happens because cyclist fear for their safety or because someone has used our ‘amazing’ cycle-lanes for their most popular use, a parking space. Statistics show that more pedestrians were killed by cars on pavements than by bicycles, see the Guardian article you referenced.
I am so tired of seeing these biased articles, and to be honest I do see more like this than praising the cycling fraternity’s ‘saintlyhood’, but really, do you honestly commute by bicycle? It’s very disheartening to read an article like this if you genuinely do.
By Graham White on 2009 12 01
“... the chattering classes.” Charming reference to people excited about cycling. And this from a shrink?
Ghastly if I do say so myself.
(Snark, ... oh my excuse me!)
By Michael on 2009 12 01
Write a new comment
