Safe Speed Forums

First it was hug a hoodie - now Cameron's joined the Lycra louts
Last updated at 21:29pm on 21st July 2007



David Cameron has been accused of joining cycling's growing army of 'Lycra louts' who openly flout the rules of the road after he was snapped riding through a red light.

The Tory leader, who sparked controversy last year with his 'hug a hoodie' speech, breached the Highway Code as he cycled home through London's Notting Hill. And although he had a helmet with him, Mr Cameron decided not to wear it - leaving it dangling from his handlebars.

The episode comes amid growing tension on the capital's streets between law-abiding motorists and a hard core of cyclists who routinely ride on pavements, ignore lights and signs and weave dangerously through traffic.

In pictures taken on Wednesday evening in Portobello Road, Mr Cameron approaches the crossroads at Westbourne Park Road with the lights signalling him to stop. Then he edges across the white line, despite the red light and, finally, crosses the yellow-box junction with the lights still on red.

Hugh Bladon, of the Association of British Drivers, said: 'All cyclists must obey the rules of the road. It does not matter who they are.'

But a Conservative spokesman commented: 'Mr Cameron was riding extremely carefully.'

What an utterly blatant example of hypocrisy from an utterly hypocritical organisation. I'm sure Mr Bladon is rigorous in his obeyance of traffic regulations...

I've said before, that there are quite a few cyclists out there who think they own the road and have no respect for other road users.

If Cameron was acting responsibly, can I jump red lights when it's safe to do so? I think not, because when I'm a motorist, I can't be trusted. Then I put on my cycle helmet, and the sun shines out of my arse. Well, in a way it does, because I'm not a lycra lout, and even when out about on my bike I've given other cyclists a ticking off for giving us a bad name.

Unlike in this case, you haven't any evidence that Mr Bladon doesn't obey the rules of the road,your comment is therefore quite pointless and worthless as a result.

There's actually no evidence in the three photos that suggested Mr Cameron rode throught he red light either.

Isn't this interesting?

On the one hand we have a senior political figure, the sort of person that one would expect to epitomize safe, responsible and socially acceptable behaviour.

On the other hand we have blatant disregard of an apparently important traffic regulation.

There's clearly a very substantial conflict between the two - but which is wrong?

- Is Mr Cameron a yob, a 'lycra lout' or an idiot?
- Are the traffic light regulations so blindly applied that their value to responsible people has been lost?

My general feeling is that when large numbers of responsible people break a regulation, then the regulation is at fault. In the case of red traffic lights, it's extremely difficult to see a way forward. Perhaps we just need to rip out thousands and thousands of traffic lights?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? There's plenty to suggest he did, like his position as well as the position of the other road users between the last two photos.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

If they break the regulation safely without posing risk then I would have to agree, especially with the ripping out of the full-time traffic lights on many roundabouts and junctions (or at least converting them for exclusive use as on-demand pedestrian crossing lights).

you mean like the big RED light. There must have been at least a few seconds of orange before it want red and he's just over the line so it's be quite obvious that he's run the red.
So mpaton, are you now going to tell us that it's perfectly safe to run red lights as long as you're not speeding when doing so?

Perhaps we should ask the BBC for a video. Oh, wait a minute, they would probably edit it to show Cameron cycling backwards.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I had an idea. And I posted it a while ago in Brainstorming but I think I concentrated on the wrong part.

Currently traffic lights have 3 states, "stop and wait even if there's nothing else about", "stop unless unsafe" and "you are allowed to proceed".

What we really need is a way of signalling "you have priority" and "you don't have priority", and possibly "you are about to loose priority".

The only time we really need an absolute "stop and wait" is in a roadworks style setup.

The legal minimum green time (7 seconds) needs to go to improve traffic flow at non-busy approaches (or at night).

_________________
Andrew.

Perhaps something like this which I just threw together:

Obviously based on the European priority diamonds, but could be retrofitted into existing traffic signals. If the top light is on you give way to others (but you can still proceed). If the bottom light is on they (should!) give way to you.

_________________
Andrew.

Yeah, I like this a lot.



I'd like it even better if the top light ('red') was replaced with a UK style 'give way' triangle in red and white. It might also be possible to use the same hardware to indicate red ('stop') on occasions to allow for pedestrian crossing (where justified).

I don't see why the 'you have priority' state shouldn't continue to be indicated by a green light.

And the amber could have a full on state (stop if safe to do so) and a triangle state ('you are about to lose priority').

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think this might well overcome a lot of the problems that mini-roundabouts have introduced. These have been introduced at a lot of junctions, some where there wer "give ways", some where there were "stop signs" and others where there were traffic lights.

In all cases, I believe accidents have increased, though rarely more than fender benders. I think Ziltros "Gimme lights" would overcome most of the problems that they have introduced. They'd have been a bloody sight cheaper to erect instead of road reprofiling too.

Isn't it true that the attitude of many cyclists to traffic lights, road signs etc is inculcated from a very young age - indeed from when they're first learning to ride?

Look at the second and third photographs again; no, not Cameron's a*se - the one on the left...on the pedestrian crossing...teaching the young child on a bike how to cross against a red light!

Ah, tu quoque, the cyclist's favourite logical fallacy

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Yep.

Basically, a prospective Prime Minister is saying IT IS OK TO BREAK A TRAFFIC LAW IF SAFE TO DO SO.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I started a new thread here about priority traffic lights, with new diagrams!

_________________
Andrew.