Mick Hartley

This (via David T at Harry’s Place) lends support to my theories about cycling in London:

Women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by a lorry because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver’s blind spot, according to a study.

The report by Transport for London’s road safety unit was completed last July but has been kept secret. It suggests that some cyclists who break the law by jumping red lights may be safer and that cycle feeder lanes may make the problem worse.

The Times has obtained a copy of the study, which says that 86 per cent of the women cyclists killed in London between 1999 and 2004 collided with a lorry. By contrast, lorries were involved in 47 per cent of deaths of male cyclists.

I’ve been cycling in London for years. The main change in my behaviour recently is that I’ll increasingly ignore traffic signals. I used to wait patiently at crossroads, even when the lights were green for pedestrians to cross and there were no pedestrians. Even as other cyclists would go past me. Even when every other cyclist without exception would go past me. I’d think to myself: I’m a road user; I expect other road users to obey the traffic signs, so I should do the same. I’d sigh and shake my head at the lowering standards of other riders. All it takes, I’d think, is a few renegades – probably bike couriers – to start jumping lights, and then, in a kind of moral Gresham’s Law the bad behaviour drives out the good and soon everybody’s doing it.

But then I started thinking, what’s the point of this prim legalistic correctness? Who am I trying to impress? Other cyclists no doubt thought I was being obsessively fussy, like those smug drivers who insist on keeping precisely to the speed limit and hold everybody up. Maybe – probably – I was demonstrating to the car drivers, hey, look, not all cyclists ignore the rules: we can be responsible road users as well. But of course drivers don’t give a damn what cyclists do. They don’t care if cyclists jump the lights, perform pirouettes on one wheel at the side of the road, or loudly declaim the poems of Alfred Lord Tennyson, as long as they don’t get in their way. In line with the law that allows us to smile indulgently at the peccadilloes of those less powerful than ourselves, but to rage and fume at any transgression from those just a bit more powerful (if they’re too powerful, of course, it’s a different story), it’s pedestrians – always pedestrians – who hate cyclists. Even the worst motorist (though obviously I’m excluding white van drivers here) will happily make way for a cyclist, and be all smiles and courtesy if there’s any dispute over priority or the like, but every pedestrian nurses in their heart a horror story about a cyclist whipping past them on the pavement which will be repeated and embellished as the years go by. Frankly I’ll take more notice of what pedestrians think when they never walk on cycle paths with their ipods plugged in, oblivious to bells or shouts, or start to cross the road without looking on the assumption that if they can’t hear a car there’s nothing coming, or generally jay-walk wherever and whenever they feel like it.

What’s more, it became increasingly clear to me over the years, and is now confirmed by this report, that I was safer playing by my own rules. If you can, set off before the traffic accelerates away as the lights change. That’s probably the most dangerous time, especially with lorries and buses turning left, and maybe two lanes converging into one. Even more so if there are a number of bikes, and you need to do your own thinning out and settling down into single file. Basically, to survive and enjoy London traffic, you need to be reasonably fast – I shudder when I see slow cyclists, usually women, trying to negotiate a major roundabout – confident, assertive, and, yes, flexible when it comes to obeying the traffic laws. It also helps if you know your way around the back streets, so you can avoid the main roads.

That, of course, is the reason that Transport for London hasn’t issued the report. It supports the heretical notion that a rigid following-of-rules is not in the cyclist’s best interests. It suggests that, instead of more laws, the answer may lie in the use by cyclists of their intelligence rather than their obedience. For the bureaucratic mind this is not a happy outcome. If the report was published they’d have to come up with some answers. A huge increase in cycle paths would be nice, but it’s not going to happen. They’d probably propose something like new traffic light routines: motor traffic, then cycles only, then pedestrians only. Every journey would take twice as long – more fumes, more delay, more aggravation, more frustrated drivers. Just what we don’t need. Sometimes it’s best to stick with an imperfect system that we’re all familiar with, and turn a blind eye to the corner-cutting that makes it work.