I READ with interest your coverage of cycling and safety ("Scheme aims to change behaviour on roads", The Herald, July 29, and Letters, July 30, 30 & August 1).
Having just returned from Berlin, a city in which "almost all motorists are cyclists" in the words of one local resident, it is clear that Glasgow falls far short of the standards of a modern European city.
Hiring a bike and cycling on busy, unfamiliar roads in the German capital, I felt far safer than I have ever felt on the familiar roads of Glasgow. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians there generally treat each other with respect and courtesy.
Segregation of motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, with adequate provision of space for each mode of transport, reduces conflict and antagonism between road users. A system of well-designed traffic signals, with separate lanes and signals for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, with priority for more vulnerable road users, encourages respect for rules of the road that are lacking here.
Underpinning the infrastructure, strict liability laws protect cyclists from motorists and pedestrians from all other road users, whether on the road or the pavement. With barely a helmet or item of high-visibility clothing in sight, in a well designed environment it is a pleasure to see parents happily carrying children on the backs of their bikes, or cycling alongside their children rather than ensconcing them in motor vehicles.
Returning to Glasgow, I am ashamed to imagine how any Berliner must view our city's transport infrastructure. City planners here have utterly failed to provide a safe environment for all road users. The council and Scottish Government should commit to implementing proper infrastructure for the city and planners should visit Berlin (or Amsterdam or Copenhagen) to learn how a modern city should be designed.
Dr Geraint Bevan,
3e Grovepark Gardens, Glasgow.
I HAVE followed the passionate - and sometimes shrill - debate on cycling safety in The Herald with interest. Nowhere, though, have I seen any recognition by the cycling lobby that it needs to put its own house in order before loading strict liability on to drivers.
In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does", and my guess is that there is the same proportion of dim-witted and reckless cyclists out there as there are motorists. (Topping the list of the latter's offences is driving without dipped headlights in anything less than perfect visibility.)
It is folly for cyclists to venture on to our crowded and inadequate roads without high-visibility clothing (or belt or bandolier), effective lights and a bell. On country roads in particular, cyclists without the first two dice with injury or death. They are effectively invisible and put an unfair onus on drivers, who are right to reject strict liability until cyclists accept more responsibility for their own safety.
I have tried to persuade the Scottish Government to legislate on visibility, lights and bells, so far without success, but any forward-looking local authority could surely initiate its own campaign at modest cost.
David Roche,
1 Alder Grove,
Scone.
AS a non-car-owner, my main means of getting about are walking and cycling. While I think identifying bicycles is problematic (Letters, August 1), I do think cyclists should have to have either a bell or a horn (and use it when coming up behind pedestrians.) I regularly use Route 7 of the National Cycle Network for walking or jogging, and I am frequently overtaken without any auditory warning by speeding bikes. One false step to the side could mean a serious injury to both myself and the cyclist, and damage to the bike. Like one of your correspondents, any suggestion to "use your bell" is usually met with a mouthful of abuse.
Rose Harvie,
Afton Cottage,
82 Bonhill Road,
Dumbarton.
I DO not pretend that all drivers are blameless, but they are not responsible for every incident. Recently I was waiting behind two cars at traffic lights showing red in Giffnock. Each driver was indicating that we intended to turn left. In the right-hand lane alongside there was a van so I could not see what traffic was crossing from the right. A cyclist overtook us and rode straight through the red lights. As he did so there was a loud horn blast from a car which appeared across the front of the van, driving properly through the green lights. The driver obviously braked fiercely and swung his car to the right, thereby managing to avoid the cyclist who rode on without any acknowledgement of the skill of the driver who had just saved his life. This habit of cycling through red lights is so common that it is obvious that a proportion of cyclists are unaware that the rules of the road have any relevance to them. A larger proportion obviously do know the rules.
Cyclists must learn to use cycle tracks where they exist. The A77, a single carriageway with two-way traffic between Newton Mearns and Fenwick, has a very good cycle track running alongside which is not well used by cyclists.
On a recent journey going southwards I saw two groups each of eight cyclists then a single one riding north on the carriageway. There were also two on the cycle track. On the southbound carriageway there were three cyclists with another one on the cycle path. Why?
I think that all parking of vehicles, except emergency ones, on cycle tracks should be banned, though it would take time to organise this.
There are people with faults in each category and it is wrong to have a blanket ruling that the driver is always wrong.
James Lindsay,
1 Langton Gate,
Newton Mearns.
IN view of the pressure to introduce presumed blame or liability on to car drivers where any accident occurs, what safeguards would there be against a possible new wave of crash-for cash claims?
In the event of an incident between a pedestrian or cyclist and motorist, where there is no independent witness willing to offer their time for the motorist's defence the insurer involved is exposed to possibly extreme and fraudulent claims.
Increased costs for everyone seem likely whether through increasing premiums or having to purchase in-car CCTV systems to prove innocence - unlike simple assault, robbery or murder where guilt must be proved.
I have walked, cycled then motorcycled and driven cars and vans for more than 40 years but know that no one group is blameless. It is wrong to change laws to protect absolutely any one group to the detriment of another.
John McKnight,
14 Hilary Crescent,
Ayr.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article