Safety on the roads, for Peds

2 months ago (4:15 PM)
To join this discussion please register or log in



I agree. The number of pedestrians who see me coming on my bicycle and think 'I will run out anyway'. It's dangerous for everyone involved. Bring back Tufty the Squirrel and his green cross code.. for everyone.. pedestrians, cyclists and motorists!


Biggest problem is that this traffic is made by people who never read driveway code, are not used to drive on left hand side and often don't even speak English. Passing driving test in UK should be mandatory for every road user.


I completely agree - even someone holding a driving licence from another country should still have to pass the UK test nefore being allowed to drive here. If they're a sensible driver then it will just be a formality, and an hour out of their day. If not, then they'll have to take some driving lessons to improve their skills to a safe level, before retaking the test, which is safer for everyone. I also think the same should apply to Londoners driving abroad in other countries.


Driveway Code should be taught at schools at it refers also to pedestrians and cyclist.
Eg. Did you know that we should walk on left hand side of the pavement? I'm so fed up by slalomming between pedestrians.


This works both ways - as a pedestrian, when I am about to cross a side-street, I look behind me to check that no traffic is about to turn into the side street, before I cross. The number of drivers that either don't bother to indicate before turning off the main road into the side street, or who indicate far too late only after they see me step off the pavement, or as they begin turning, is shocking.


I hate drivers who think that signalling is only for other cars ignoring pedestrians. But many ignore also other cars. Even worse are drivers who think that if they signal they can change the lane and everyone should let them in.

peter caton

Yesterday I drove in Central London at 6am and was amazed at the poor standard of cycling with them cycling all over the place, breaking laws on and off pavements, jumping red lights and weaving in and out of the traffic with no respect for fee paying road users, licenses should be issued to save lives and proficiency tests for cycling in our towns and cities.


Peter, re "fee paying road users": there is no fee paid to use the road.
Road tax was abolished in 1937 and roads are now paid for via general and local taxation.
Car Tax is based on the amount of CO2 emitted; it's a tax on the pollution caused by the car. Cyclists emit zero pollution so pay zero car tax.

peter caton

Amya your wrong motorists do pay handsomely for using our poorly maintained roads and get a particularly poor deal in London with access being continually reduced and congestion charge raised as further cost to them..Many will support me in saying we are sick and tired of the behaviour of some cyclists for reasons already stated in my previous comment and to save them from further injuries they should have to pass a test before being allowed to ride in London and authorities should stop them breaking the law. like riding on our pavements and jumping red lights.

Terry Vaughan

OK Peter, I'll bite. Some will support you in your unfounded victim blaming. But others will see your comment as yet another example of the tired old nonsense that fills discussion sites such as this.

All too many bike riders (and pedestrians) are hurt in collisions with motor vehicles. Police investigations show that it is usually an incompetent, careless, distracted or aggressive driver who causes them. Many motorists are incapable even of passing stationary street furniture without crashing into it, or of joining a queue of vehicles without running into the one in front.

The driving test certainly doesn't stop many of them driving on the pavement, jumping red lights, driving while drunk or drugged or with defective eyesight, or in defective or overloaded vehicles, using their mobile phones, eating their breakfast at the wheel, ignoring the highway code, parking illegally or driving uninsured. I don't know how many of those things you do when driving, but I'm pretty sure you break the speed limit on every journey, because just about all drivers do. So I'm not really clear why you think a cycling test would make any difference to cycling standards.

Cycling perfectly in accordance with the law and highway code is no guarantee of safety when so many dangerous drivers are on the road. It certainly doesn't save people from injury. If you really want to make cycling safer, which somehow seems doubtful to me, you would do better to call for separate cycle tracks to keep the bikes out of your way.

And do you really believe that motorists get such a poor deal? They are given priority over pedestrians and bike riders, allowed to clog up the streets, poison the air and force other traffic off the roads, all with impunity.

peter caton

The point I'm trying to make is that cyclists would be safer if they abide by the Highway Code and rules of the road particularly in Central London rather than weaving all over the road, in and out of the traffic without hand signals, mounting pavements endangering pedestrians and jumping lights, that's why I think they should be issued licenses to ride in our major cities and maybe councils could get back some of the money they spend on facilitating them, motorists are not getting a fair deal particularly in Central London with all the unused cycle lanes for instance causing congestion

Terry Vaughan

Peter, the original post here said "The rules of the road are there to keep EVERYONE safe. But they only work if EVERYONE (including Peds!) knows, understands, and obeys them."

But motorists too often don't. They make the roads dangerous for everyone. That's why people cycle on the pavement, and why some jump the lights to get out of the way of the traffic stream. Drivers on the pavement or going through the red, both of which you see every day, don't have that excuse.

Drivers kill and injure thousands every year. Bike riders and pedestrians, very much fewer. It's very clear to any reasonable person where the danger comes from, and that is where attention from the authorities should be directed. At present, poor driving is hardly ever penalised.

Bike riders' undoubted law breaking is rarely a factor in any incident involving them. The commonest happen when someone opens a car door in their path, a pedestrian steps off the kerb without looking, a driver overtakes a bike too closely and runs into it, a driver overtakes a bike and immediately turns across its path, a driver pulls out of or into a side road across the path of a bike, or a driver enters or leaves a roundabout across the path of a bike. In each case the bike rider had priority and could do little to avoid the collision. Contraventions of the Highway Code like those don't always result in a collision, but are completely commonplace. I've experienced them all, sometimes more than once on a single trip, and been hit by a car four times.

Congestion is caused by unnecessary motor vehicle journeys, people parking on the road, drivers blocking junctions and often by accidents. The new cycle lanes have increased road capacity for movement of people, and the number cycling has already gone up. At present, the tracks are mainly used by commuters in the rush hours, but as the network grows, you can expect to see more and more bikes, including during the day.


The amount of times cyclists have accidents of one sort or another involving pedestrians and vehicles it is about time that cyclists were insured to travel on the highway. I have to pay insurance to travel on the highway so why not cyclists. Then any cyclists who do damage to property can exchange details, instead of just riding off into the sunset and not stopping.

Terry Vaughan

Perhaps, lordlewis. It's about time all motorists actually had insurance too, as plenty don't bother. Apparently more drivers are uninsured than the total number of bike riders on the road. That's one reason why so many drivers hit and run. And pedestrians, they have a lot of accidents too, so perhaps they should have insurance. Nothing to stop them walking off into the sunset after they cause an accident. Which they often do, and lots of bike riders get hurt by it.

That doesn't invalidate your point. But many people who cycle do have insurance. It's not expensive. The reason you pay so much is that you are a much greater risk to people and property than bike riders are. And you are paying for uninsured drivers too.


Terry Vaughan, I agree with your comments. Oh, for a perfect world.


Cyclist Advanced Stop Lines - why do motorcyclists thiink they can use them? In doing so when the traffice lights are at Red risk minimum 3 points and £100 penalty. Let's see some more rigorous enforcement.


The only thing that will make London's roads safer is NARROWING roads, putting in place obstacles to either slow traffic or in shape of barriers along pavements on busy roads, with tactile crossing points installed strategically (with no barriers of course) along. Scooter riders should find a mandatory requirement to pass one (modified) single A- test, rather than being let loose on inferior scooter only tests. This includes Fast -food deliveries. Commercial (delivery) vans should be licensed with strict operating hours.
Essentially, only an intelligent traffic management scheme that puts the 'weakest' FIRST (pedestrians) and the 'strongest' LAST (ie. HGVs; supercars, vans) will successfully change the roads for better safety.

I cannot, sadly, imagine that the new Mayor will be interested for that he seems to put business ahead of ordinary people's needs. With that thinking, London will become a concreted over, grey and dirty place.