Attacked by APC Courier van

On the way home last night I was attacked by a man driving an APC courier van.

School Road in Arborfield has two traffic calming constrictions either side of a school. Traffic moving away from the school has priority. Yesterday, about 5.30pm, while cycling down School Road, I was approaching one of the constrictions where I had right of way, see below;


View Larger Map

There was an APC courier van coming the other way and he failed to give way. Instead he pulled out into my path and drove at me, causing me to make an evasive move (braking hard and swerving) to avoid a head on collision. I was pretty lucky not to come off the bike trying to avoid the collision. You can see the constriction from his point of view below;


View Larger Map

Notice the large, clear sign showing that oncoming traffic has right of way. Note the large "give way" triangle and lines painted on the road. Clearly these don't apply to everyone.

The driver had obviously seen me but either a) made an extremely poor judgement or b) decided that he didn't need to give way as he was driving a van vs my bicycle. I suspect the latter, as he yelled "Fuck Off" out of the window as he raced past.

The only (real) obstacle to Dutch style cycling in the UK

I was prompted to write this by an interesting article on the BBC. The article compares cycling in Reading and The Hague. Its a foregone conclusion that Reading isn't going to come off very well. Many people continue to debate exactly why UK towns and cities consistently fail to achieve anything like continental levels of cycling. Well, look no further, the BBC article offers a glimpse;

Objectives

Reading has a population of 225,000 in the wider urban area. The article states that one of Reading's objectives is `aiming for 2,300 daily cycle trips across the town`, so their target is 1% of the population to cycle daily? This is less than the current national average and its an objective? Is Reading's objective is to reduce cycling?* Hmm, not sure if I believe the BBC's stats here; looks like they got something wrong.

Consultation

Cycling is pretty popular, and wherever you go there are always people who are passionate about campaigning and promoting cycling. Reading is no exception with the Reading Cycle Campaign. The BBC article has a quote from the RCC's Adrian Lawson;

"We had a 'workshop' with Reading Borough Council officers, their consultants, and members of the cycle campaign. We identified a lot of simple things that would make it immeasurably better for cyclists. This was over a year ago. Not a single thing has happened. In fact we have had five workshops to look at different parts of Reading in the last two years, and there hasn't been any action arising from any of them".

Hmm, that's telling isn't it, and reminiscent of my own attempts to get Wokingham council to engage with actual people who actually cycle. Then we get a gem from Tony Page who is deputy council leader and lead councillor for strategic environment, planning and transport. Tony said he found it "irritating" that "we have historically developed a system that results in some cycle lanes just ending abruptly". Tony has served on Reading Council as a Labour councillor since 1973, without break. Well Tony, at least you acknowledge your own mistakes, maybe it might be better to actually do something about it.

Then we get to the the real reason why we'll never be cycling Dutch style in Reading. Tony says,

"Our road system is very constrained and we'd look at any suggestions, but we also have to balance the needs of all other road users - public transport as well as cars, lorries and pedestrians. There is only so much space."

Aha, the cat's out of the bag! Tony isn't prepared to put cycling at the forefront of council planning. As for "we'd look at any suggestions", what about those of the RCC? Did you look at those, seems not.

In conclusion, it seems that in the UK, "balancing the needs of other road users" means prioritising motor vehicles and until that changes we're never going to go Dutch.


* The 2008 Reading Council Local Transport Plan already puts journeys at 2100 in 2001 and 3000 in 2005/6 - see section l.3.2

Cycle insurance and licensing

There are a few proponents of mandatory insurance and tax for cyclists. This is more often than not a vaguely disguised attack on cycling in general. Largely it comes from people hostile to cycling who want to compare cyclists to other road users in an unfavourable way.

Insurance

It is a legal requirement to have insurance for a motorised vehicle on the public highway [Section 143(1)(a) RTA 1988 as amended 1991]. This law was brought about to protect against liabilities to third parties in the event of an accident. Under UK law if you damage somebody else's property you are legally liable to pay for the damage caused. This is a general rule and is not specific to motor vehicles or the Road Traffic Act. You can do a lot of damage with a car and the insurance is there to protect the interests of other people, should you cause damage that you are unable to afford to pay for.

Everyone is bound by the same law regarding third party liability, whether they are driving a car, riding a bicycle or walking down the street. If you damage somebody else's property you are legally obliged to pay for the damage. When we look at bicycles we have to consider what their potential for damage is. Clearly it is much less than a motor vehicle. Is their potential for damage so great that they must be forced to take out insurance against such damage? Almost certainly not.

Argument: Cyclists should have insurance to make them pay for any damage they cause, just like other road users.
Rebuttal: Cyclists, just like everyone else, are liable for any damage they cause under current law. If a cyclist damages your property the legal situation is no different whether they have insurance or not.

This is why you need insurance to drive a car. Once can't imagine a bicycle doing quite so much damage.

Tax

A very hot topic. Road Tax (or more correctly Vehicle Exise Duty or VED) must be paid to obtain a Tax Disc (or more correctly Vehicle Licence), which must be displayed on the vehicle. The current system of charges is based on pollution levels, specifically carbon dioxide emissions. The more polluting the vehicle the higher the charge.

Motor vehicles with low emissions (less than 100g CO2/km) are exempt from the charge but must still obtain a Vehicle Licence. As cycles have by definition zero CO2 emissions then there seems little point in arguing for mandatory tax where there isn't anything to pay.

At this point you should go and have a good look at http://ipayroadtax.com/ which contains a lot of well researched information on the subject.

Argument: Cyclists should pay for using the roads, just like cars.

Rebuttal: Bicycles already pay the same amount as a car with the same emissions; zero.

Argument: Cyclists should pay because they use the roads and should share the cost of maintenance.

Rebuttal: Roads are paid for out of general taxation, not VED. The government gets most of its tax receipts from income tax (30%), national insurance (19%) and VAT (17%)*. In fact studies show that cyclists are generally higher earners and therefore contribute more tax, meaning that cyclists already pay more towards roads that motor vehicle drivers.

* 2011 budget

Argument: Because motorists pay to use the road they should have more rights

Rebuttal: There are no privileges in the UK for paying tax. Paying tax is a duty and nobody is afforded any additional rights for any tax paid. Think about this next time you want to see your doctor, should the person who comes in after you see the doctor before you because he's a high rate tax payer? No. Paying income tax gives you no more rights to the NHS than anyone else just like paying tax for your car gives you no more right than anyone else.

In Summary

Next time you hear someone arguing for cyclists to be treated the same way as other vehicles simply ask the question "Why?". You might get a puzzled look because such claims are made as an attack without any  consideration, and are impossible to back up with reasoned argument.