Own The Road
Archive
Reader Jonathan Chandler alerted me to a potentially life-threatening attack, presumably undertaken by followers of M. Parris. To call them parrisians risks defamation by association of the citizens of Île-de-France. The correct term is parrisites.
Rope ‘sabotages’ Hamsterley Forest track
8 February 2012A cyclist was “lucky to be alive” after he was knocked off his bike by a rope stretched across a County Durham woodland trail.
Lukasz Sikorski was travelling at 20mph when he hit the cord, which was tied between two trees in Hamsterley Forest.
The mountain biking organisation, Descend Hamsterley, said he was lucky not to be seriously or fatally injured.
It has offered a reward for help in finding the person responsible. Durham Police are also investigating
If I cut your head off will it laugh?
Somebody – yes Matthew that does mean you – needs to explain to Durham Police that it’s meant to be a joke and tell Mr. Sikorski to lighten up.
The Times’ turnaround since 2007 was also noted by David Hembrow who I rode with back in the Twentieth Century, and more recently competed against in funny bike racing. Those events are about 36 hours too short for me, but I do prefer a sport where anyone – with a cycle – can ride the World Championships without need to qualify.
I took advantage of our coincidental posts to contact David. There’s a favourite statistic, I’ve been pedalling for at least twenty years, that needs updating and – since it concerns travel in the Netherlands from whence David broadcasts to the World – I hoped he could help.
“One in four bicycle journeys in the Netherlands is made by a female pensioner” is what I’ve told anyone willing to listen since before the internet was open. Turns out it’s bollox. What might be true – and probably explains where my garbled version came from - is that one in four journeys made by a female pensioner, in the Netherlands, is on a bicycle. Which begs the question how do those indestructible old ladies make the other 75 percent of their trips? Skateboard? Motorcycle, now that’s really dangerous? Or maybe in those crazy flying-squirrel suits. Once again – when it comes to social science - it turns out that the only reliable figure is that 82.4 percent of statistics are made up on the spot.
David also dismisses my suggestion that presumed liability is a “glaring omission” from the Times’ campaign.
“In the Netherlands it’s an obscure part of the law ( “art. 185 WVW” ) and there is no catchy phrase for it. People don’t realise that liability here is different from elsewhere, and they don’t realise that it’s in any way controversial elsewhere. This was simply a small change to the law which was brought in to ensure that financial responsibility in crashes was directed in the most sensible direction. It has nothing at all to do with laying blame and it mainly acts to protect those aged under 14 years of age.”
I’m inclined to agree that it’s not a glaring omission. There are other important things missing. I also wonder if David under-estimates it’s significance? Dutch people don’t know about the legal context of crashes between pedestrians and vehicles, or between vehicles of different categories. Fish don’t know about water.
Jim Davis, chair of the bombastically-named and interesting ‘Cycling Embassy of Great Britain’, the only national cycle campaign born in the age we live in, testifies to a journey in the Netherlands to visit David.
“Where cycle path and road met, motorists stopped for us, even when we didn’t have priority.”
Infrastructure design and planning in the Netherlands are interesting subjects from which we can take wisdom and local solutions, but finally danger – and therefore safety – only comes from people. Even if David’s correct and the legal context is not relevant to conditions for cycling and walking in the Netherlands it doesn’t mean that campaigning for a change in the UK is not a useful thing to do. Argument over presumed liability once started can – in the current climate – gather it’s own momentum.
Go Go Go Go Go Dutch?
Without consensus a net of rad-weg, joining every address in this country, could still be rendered impassable to the nervous by parrisitic hoons on motor-cycles. Amongst the current enthusiasm for all things Dutch don’t forget that there – as in Germany – sales of new utility bikes have lately collapsed against those of battery machines.
Might a national conversation on childrens’ freedom of movement, exactly who does own the roads and where danger actually comes from, help all the people who currently, perversely, don’t travel by cycle?
We may hypothesise that some of these are timid pre-cyclists just waiting for physical conditions to change so they can fulfill their ambition for motor-free travel, that others are hard-hearted parrrisites itching to slaughter the self-righteous scum who dare ride ought-to-be-humble pedal-cycles on roads meant for cars? Might these notional categories overlap? They’re certainly projected onto the same population. Human motivation is complicated. You can’t change the way people behave without changing the way they think.
2 Comments
Hi Patrick, thanks for the mention. I’ve been in longer events over here, but still about 30 hours too short for you.
I’m not against “strict liability” as it exists in the Netherlands, and think it’d be a fine thing for the UK as well. However, in my view it’s almost impossible to explain why it’s a good idea to people who don’t cycle. Rather, any time that it is brought up you’ll get Daily Mail style lurid headlines about how “everyone’s” insurance is going to go up to defend “scoff law” cyclists. As such, I think this sensible change to the law has to wait until it becomes something that the majority see as sensible. Remember that this law didn’t come into force in the Netherlands until a good 20 years after there was a real change in policy as a result of a much more popular and wider reaching campaign.
Pensioners on bike ? This is something that really surprised us. Cycling is absolutely enormous amongst the retired over here. As for the other journeys, well they walk, use buses, trains and of course also drive cars.
That, I think, is what leads to the behaviour that Jim noticed. When almost the entire population cycles, people have empathy for cyclists. They know that slowing down and having to start again is a nuisance, and they know that riding into the rain with a headwind is “challenging”. This is why they give way when they sometimes shouldn’t. It can be quite annoying on occasion if you’ve adjusted your speed so that you’ll miss in time anyway, and both parties end up slowing down to give way to each other. However, I’m not actually complaining as I’ll take this over aggression any day.
Actually, though, cyclists have priority over motor vehicles at very many junctions where cycle-paths and side-roads meet. As a result, drivers expect cyclists to have priority and cyclists expect cyclists to have priority. Because both parties try to obey the law, which is much what happens most of the time in any other country, this results in priority for cyclists. The difference is that cyclists really do have priority here so often that it becomes the expectation.
For instance, between here and Groningen (a 30 km inter-city route that I know well) almost all junctions give cyclists priority and the only traffic light I used to meet on my commute in that direction defaults to green for bikes. The result was usually no stops at all on a journey out of one city, through the countryside and into another city.
Oh, and don’t worry too much about electric bikes. Sales of non-assisted bikes have not collapsed at all, and electric bikes actually remain very much the minority. The statistics show that electric bikes are still bought and ridden predominantly by older people, and quite right too. Perhaps when I’m 101 I’ll consider one too.
If I get too old for a pedal bike I think I’ll get a chemical energy m/c. Electricity isn’t a source of energy it’s a means of storing energy. But there are grounds for optimism.