Mick Hartley

The Times are running a Save our cyclists campaign (£).

A number of ideas are being bandied about. Among the letters to the editor today there's the obvious point that cyclists shouldn't wear headphones. It amazes me how many idiots pedal through busy traffic listening to music on their i-pods. Then there's this, from Jamie Crick:

Sir, I am an experienced cyclist who almost daily makes a 9-mile journey to work at Classic FM. Twice now I’ve not made the programme, ending up in the back of an ambulance and spending a few hours in casualty.

I don’t jump lights; most cyclists do not. Most of us hate the ones who do as much as drivers and pedestrians. However, sometimes I envy the light jumpers who get ahead of the traffic into open road where they can choose their road position and be seen.

Too often road junctions force cyclists into narrow lanes alongside vans and lorries. Often drivers — and especially black cabs — drive into the cycle safe box at junctions, removing the area supposedly reserved for us to make ourselves seen…

For a start I disagree that most cyclists don't jump lights, and hate the ones who do. He's just setting himself up as the nice guy. The overwhelming majority of cyclists, in the right circumstances – say when the lights are green for pedestrians – will jump a red light. That's because, as Crick goes on to say, light jumpers are at an advantage, and in particular miss out on the grid start when the lights go green and drivers won't be too concerned about leaving space for bikes. Some, particularly lorries, may turn left without even seeing that there's a cyclist inside of them. That's the most frequent cause of fatalities. 

So yes, going through a red light on a busy junction, when the lights are green for pedestrians, makes absolute sense for a cyclist. I used not to do it; feeling a little smug, and hoping that the car drivers would see that not all cyclists broke the rules. But to hell with that. Now I, and most other cyclists, put my safety (and yes, OK, the speed to my destination) ahead of being Mr. Nice. The key point, though, is that if you're doing that you have to give priority to pedestrians. Let them go – and then you cycle through. Cyclists understand that.

So would it be a good idea to make that official? To incorporate a little green cycle alongside the little green man? I'd back it, yes. I think it would make cycling safer; in London, anyway, where there are plenty of potentially dangerous junctions where the traffic's halted for pedestrians. Yes, make that for cyclists as well. 

The thing is, though, it would only work if pedestrians were given priority. You couldn't have pedestrians starting to cross the road only for cyclists to come charging through, ringing bells and shouting. The relationship between cyclists and pedestrians is fraught enough already. It's easy to imagine that (some) cyclists would abuse the new set-up and cut pedestrians off. Which is why, in a way, the current situation with pedestrian crossing only, but with cyclists who cross knowing they're being a bit naughty and therefore giving pedestrians priority, might turn out to be preferable. It's worth a try though, I think. It could save lives. Add that little green bike to the little green man, with maybe a sign: "Cyclists: give priority to pedestrians". See how it goes. The alternative, of pedestrian green lights, then separate cycle green lights, might delight the official mind but would be a major pain-in-the-arse.

That relationship with pedestrians is interesting. The Times are using Copenhagen as their comparison; as a city which is bike-friendly. I don't know Copenahgen, but I know Belgium well, particularly Antwerp. That's certainly a bike-friendly city. The Times emphasis is on bikes and traffic: how they don't mix, and how we need to find a way to resolve that, with bike lanes and so on. Well yes, fine, but in Antwerp, although there are some dedicated bike lanes on roads, the majority are on pavements. The outside of the pavement will be paved differently; there may be a small line between the bike part and the rest; but basically it's bikes mixing with pedestrians, and pedestrians being happy to give way to bikes.

We have plenty of wide pavements here in London, but very few (I can think of a stretch on Chelsea embankment and there's a small section near where I live on Stroud Green Road) bike lanes on pavements. Why not? Well, mainly because pedestrians here, for whatever reason, are encouraged to hate bikes. It's a generally accepted urban myth among Londoners that lycra-clad hooligan cyclists regularly speed down pavements shouting abuse at poor pedestrians who have to scatter out of their way. As a sometime pedestrian myself I have to say that it's not a phenomenon I'm familiar with, but there you go. Times columnist Matthew Parris was happy a while back to suggest that piano wires should be strung across roads to catch cyclist scum, and seemed quite surprised when forced to apologise (tongue-in-cheek, ha ha, just my little joke). But that's the culture we live in.

It may be that car drivers in Belgium, and in Denmark, are generally more tolerant of cyclists. Frankly I don't think that British drivers – always excepting white vans – are that bad. It's the pedestrians we need to get on our side.

In other words: in Britain we have pedestrians, and then we have road traffic – cars, lorries, bikes, buses. Problems? Hey, sort it out among yourselves. In bike-friendly countries they have people who get about on foot, people who get about on bikes, and then road traffic – cars, lorries, buses.