Respect. That’s what missing from our roads. Nobody
respects anybody. Drivers in cycle lanes, cyclists on pavements,
pedestrians in cycle lanes, cyclists running red lights, drivers
speeding. It goes on. We’ve become a self-entitled, self-centred,
self-important society. A self society. And it’s ugly, real damn ugly.
Sure, we must look out for ourselves but at all costs? What does it
cost to look out for others? To respect and care for one another? I can
but dream. We cyclists often feel like we’re on the receiving end in
such a world, and it’s often true, yet we also ignore others in the
pursuit of the self. I count myself amongst that number.
I’ve commuted in London by bike for well over ten years. In that
time, I’ve had hundreds of pedestrians step into my path. Two of
them had the misfortune to feel steel against skin. Ouch.
Both incidents were many years ago in my (more) reckless youth. Not
that either would have been classed as my ‘fault’ in a court of law. Yet
this is beside the point. We should rarely rely on our courts, the very
same system that
fines a driver more for killing a swan than a cyclist.
Truth is, I wasn’t respecting the road as a shared space when I hit
those two people. I had adopted the attitude that pedestrians shouldn’t
have been on the road, just like car drivers who think cyclists
shouldn’t be on the road, an attitude sadly reinforced this week by the UK’s so-called transport minister (I don’t know whether to laugh or cry).
I now cycle with more care and attention, adopting what should be a worldwide philosophy, the hierarchy of the road:
Pedestrians >> Cyclists >> Motorbikes >> Motor vehicles
What does this mean for cyclists? It means pedestrians come first. It
means you have little excuse for hitting a pedestrian. It means you
give way to pedestrians crossing at junctions (just like the Highway
Code advises for cars).
It means you look out for pedestrians crossing the road in traffic
even when there is no crossing. It means you wait for pedestrians to
cross the traffic lights when the light is flashing amber (again, as the
Highway Code advises).
Even in both of my collisions, where you could legitimately argue the
pedestrians should have taken responsibility to look out for
themselves, I still believe I could have been a better cyclist and
looked out for them (as I now do).
Cyclist runs a pedestrian crossing. The clue’s in the name.
Collision #1: Pedestrian jumps off the rear of an
old Routemaster bus and straight into my path. I had no chance to
swerve, to brake, to shout, to use a bell. So what could I have done?
Simple, I could have slowed down, giving me more time to react. I could
have given the bus a wider berth when passing, allowing those exiting
the bus more space to depart.
Collision #2: Pedestrian crosses the road, filtering
through the stationary cars stuck in heavy traffic, unaware that I am
riding on the road near the curb. Pedestrian assumes it is safe to cross
because the traffic on the road is stationary and they don’t even think
there could be a cyclist coming. Out they step, right in front of me.
Wallop.
As above, I had no chance of reacting but once again, I could have
slowed down, I could have been aware that pedestrians are highly likely
to be crossing the road and may not be looking out for cyclists.
Should they be looking out for cyclists? Ideally, yes of course, but
all other road users should modify their behaviour to look out for more
vulnerable road users. So is a cyclist to blame in every
pedestrian-cyclist incident? Of course not, but slowing down and showing
more consideration would reduce the incidents, the near misses, the
intimidation.
What about taking responsibility for our own safety? Certainly,
otherwise we’d not last too long as a species. Yet where do you draw the
line? This logic is often used by drivers who believe cyclists should
wear helmets in case they are hit by the driver of a vehicle who didn’t
see them or wear hi-viz clothing because, again, the driver didn’t see
them.
Following the hierarchy of the road, a driver should be driving slow
enough to see everything (i.e. obeying the speed limit!), even a cyclist
dressed in normal clothes. If the conditions are bad, they should slow
(showing consideration for other road users) and cyclists should use a
light (showing consideration to other road users). Drivers should expect
cyclists on the road, just like I as a cyclist expect pedestrians to be
on the road. The road is a shared space. It is not the preserve of
cyclists or car drivers.
Still not convinced? Flip the scenario. Cyclist is filtering through
traffic. Using the self-responsibility rationale, the cyclist should be
looking out for drivers turning left across their path, car doors
opening, etc. Right? Yes, of course they should be looking out for
themselves, but drivers should look out for cyclists too.
It is not always possible for cyclists to leave enough space to avoid
car doors opening. Drivers should check their mirrors for cyclists when
opening their door and exiting the vehicle just as they would check for
other cars when crossing the road. They should let cyclists move off
from traffic lights and patiently wait to overtake etc. You get the
picture.
People being considerate to others? An ideal? Here in the UK, yes a
crazy dream in a country where a large majority of road users (of all
types) have a sense of self-entitlement where only they and their needs
exist.
Are there cases where the hierarchy of the road doesn’t apply? Sure.
Pavements are not shared spaces, hence no cyclists or cars should ever
be on the pavement. This is the domain of the pedestrian. Cyclists have
segregated cycle paths. These are the domain of the cyclist. They should
be respected by pedestrians as much as pavements should be respected by
cyclists.
What about the car? Well car drivers, some of you may think the road
is your domain but you my friend are incorrect. The only domain solely
for cars are motorways. That’s right. Every other road is shared
and therefore should adhere to the hierarchy of the road.
When shared spaces just don’t work
There’s many examples. A shared path for cyclists and pedestrians can
work. Cyclists must slow down to use them and use a bell. Pedestrians
must look out for cyclists and avoid walking in marked bike lanes and
look both ways when crossing them. However if the shared path is in a
very busy area, e.g. seafront boardwalk, then I’d argue that a shared
cycle-pedestrian path doesn’t work.
There’s just too many pedestrians and so cyclists would be better off
either on the road (which should always be a shared space too
remember!) or better still, on a segregated bike path. Often such shared
spaces are badly designed too, which only adds to the confusion.
Where else are shared spaces unsuitable? Busy and narrow canal
towpaths. It is unpleasant to be a pedestrian on a narrow towpath with
bikes coming through. Here the hierarchy fails, not because pedestrians
or cyclists have failed but because the space has failed as a shared
space, it makes the experience unpleasant for the most vulnerable user
of the space, i.e. the pedestrian.
Where else? Busy dual carriageways. Cyclists can legally ride on a
dual carriageway. Should they? Not if they can avoid them. Vehicles
moving at 70 mph (and over of course) and cyclists just don’t mix.
Again, even if both the driver and the pedestrian are in a shared space
observing all of the rules, the space itself is unpleasant for the most
vulnerable user of the road, i.e. the cyclist. Of course it is not
always possible for cyclists to route without hitting these horrid
roads, again because of an infrastructure fail.
Speaking
of fails, how about the common sight of the ‘National Speed Limit
Applies’ sign (70 mph / 113 kmh) on a narrow and twisty country roads in
the UK? Here madness lies.
So how do we achieve this Utopian ideal?
Consideration, nothing but an artist’s impression?
Good question. It requires a change in human behaviour, in law. The
former takes generations but can be accelerated by a change to the
latter. Changing the law is relatively easy, but what use are laws if
unenforced? 79% of US drivers say it is safe to speed,
80% of UK drivers admit to speeding,
57% of cyclists admit to having jumped a red light (14% regularly).
How to enforce laws? First you need evidence. There’s not enough
police to enforce what they perceive to be misdemeanors. Yet there’s
enough drivers and cyclists on the roads with video cameras.
Unfortunately such evidence is routinely ignored so again, you’d need
funding to create an enforcement team. Where to get funding? Fines.
You’d probably have enough revenue in a single month to fund such a team
for years.
Once caught, you need justice. Points on licenses, fines, education
courses, community service and ultimately prison. At the moment a few
points or pounds here and there is nothing, if by a miracle of
misfortune you’re caught. Should the chances of you being caught
increase, the points and pounds will soon aggregate and will make you
think twice about who could be filming.
So we all need to buy cameras and spy on each other? It’s a sorry
state of affairs for sure but if, like naughty children, we cannot be
trusted to regulate our own behavior then others must do it for us.
What’s the alternative? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts in
the comments. Self-driving cars offer hope. Programmed to obey rules,
breaking traffic laws could in theory be eliminated. Assuming the
programmers get the code right in the first place of course. Last, but
not least, we can all try to modify our own behavior and be considerate
to others no matter our choice of transport.