A few weeks ago the The Times covered the thoughts of Richard Allchin –
Bradley Wiggins’s former manager has urged cyclists not to jump red lights and to respect the rules of the roads, adding that motorists will only stop acting “selfishly” if those riding bicycles do the same.
[Mr Allchin] said today that he had carried out research at a junction near his home in Hampstead in north London and explained: “I reckon 90 per cent of cyclists go through the lights. It’s every kind of cyclist: women, men, casual cyclists, racing cyclists. If we want to make the roads safer, then cyclists have to stop acting so selfishly – and then perhaps the drivers might.”
This is the idea that good behaviour towards people on bikes from those driving cars is contingent upon much better behaviour from those bike riders. If we can somehow stop people cycling through red lights, and if we can stop them riding on the pavement, then – and only then – will motorists stop acting selfishly. (It’s never explicitly stated, of course, how many people jumping lights or riding on pavements motorists will tolerate before they start to behave – none at all? Five a day? Who knows.)
There is so much wrong with this kind of thinking it’s hard to know where to start. Law-breaking by people on bicycles is vastly overstated and exaggerated, and pales into insignificance compared to the regular daily infractions committed by people driving, such as speeding, which remain ‘invisible’ offences. In addition, law-breaking by people who ride bikes, when it occurs, is far less likely to cause harm to other people than law-breaking by drivers. And finally, there is no logical reason why the way in which drivers should behave towards me, or any other person who is riding a bike, should be conditional upon the bad behaviour of complete strangers who happen to be riding bikes. It’s nonsensical. If drivers were being killed or seriously injured in large numbers in a particular town by lorry drivers, it would be absurd to argue that car drivers can only expect to be treated well by lorry drivers once the joyriders and boy racers stop speeding – yet this is precisely the same argument being employed by Mr Allchin.
Worryingly, it seems this kind of attitude lies behind the recently-launched ‘Nice Way Code’ – the Scottish government’s facile (and expensive) attempt to make everyone behave merely by asking them to. The very first post on their site links enthusiastically to Mr Allchin’s comments, writing
we were interested to see [Bradley Wiggins’] former manager, Richard Allchin, telling off cyclists and urging them to get better at respecting the rules of the road. Motorists will only stop acting “selfishly”, he says, if cyclists do the same. Strong words from Mr Allchin.
As if this wasn’t clear enough, the Nice Way Code Facebook page stated that they were
Delighted to see Bradley Wiggins’ former manager wading into the debate about road use etiquette!
‘Delighted’? No, his comments were absolute rubbish, and any reasonable safety campaign that had the interests of people riding bikes at heart would have dismissed them as such.
But this is the problem. The ‘Nice Way Code’ isn’t just a bit of fluffy and expensive nonsense – it actually buys into precisely the same kind of thinking about how people on bikes can expect to be treated. Namely, that good behaviour from drivers towards them is dependent upon the good behaviour of ‘cyclists’ as a group. Behave, or else, is the message.
The voiceover of the publicity video states that the Nice Way Code is
targeting pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, asking them to respect each other on the roads.
That’s right, pedestrians – ‘respect’ motorists, or presumably you won’t get any ‘respect’ in return. Keith Brown MSP then states that
this is an initiative aimed at trying to increase the tolerance that should exist between users of the roads. So whether they’re people in cars, or HGVS, or cyclists, or even pedestrians on pathways as well… Try to encourage people to be more tolerant of each other’s needs.
Yes, this is the Transport Minister calling on pedestrians and cyclists to be more tolerant of HGV drivers.
The equivalence being made here between parties who pose little or no risk to other road users, and those who pose serious danger, is staggering. Yet Cycling Scotland – just one of the large number of cycling organisations that have lent their support and their name to this initiative – appear willing to buy into this logic. Ian Aitkin appears in this very same video asking for drivers to give cyclists space, but also asking cyclists to
beware of pedestrians. And we’re also asking cyclists not to jump red lights, and not to cycle on pavements.
I cannot see what these kinds of messages are going to achieve, beyond actually reinforcing the impression in the general public that jumping red lights, and riding on pavements, is what ‘cyclists’ do. Where was the message asking drivers to ‘beware’ of pedestrians, or not to jump red lights, given that it is motorists – not cyclists – who almost universally kill and seriously injure pedestrians?
Maybe at some point this campaign started out with the intention of trying to demonstrate that we are all people using the roads, and we just happen to be using different modes of transport. Unfortunately it has actually ended up presenting different road users as discrete, monolithic entities who have to ‘respect’ each other, and behave well in order to garner respect – with no attention paid to who is actually posing danger, and who is causing death and serious injury. The result is platitudinous nonsense, like this last passage from the video –
The message is – road users have a shared responsibility to keep each other safe.
So when I’m walking in town, I have a responsibility to keep car drivers safe? Or when I’m riding my bike? Gibberish.
I think Gnomeicide is right when he argues that this kind of campaign can only have been dreamed up from behind a car windscreen –
The idea that there is moral equivalence between cyclists and motorists ignores the fact that the power and therefore hazard posed by each is not equivalent – accident stats back this up. It may seem appropriate to ask cyclists for a bit of give when also asking motorists to stop endangering us, but the reality is we have nothing to give – most of us don’t jump reds, we don’t ride on the pavement, and even if we did that’s irrelevant – all of those factors combined still only amount for a few percent of all cyclist injuries. I suppose from behind the windscreen wipers of your car this could look like a good idea. From anywhere else? Its expensive, counterproductive, victim blaming nonsense.
The CTC seem happy to support the Nice Way Code on the basis that it doesn’t make cycling look dangerous or weird. But a campaign that isn’t quite as abysmally bad as ones that might have come before it shouldn’t automatically merit endorsement. The Nice Way Code employs the same logic as Richard Allchin – that respect and good behaviour is conditional upon cyclists obeying the rules of the road. A campaign that is supposed to be about reducing death and serious injury actually buys into the tired stereotypes about how people on bikes behave. That’s simply not good enough.
As Easy As Riding A Bike 
what are we supposed to make of the photo on nicewaycode.com on the 29/7/13 ‘Lets all get along’ post? the car is quite clearly over the line at the zebra crossing whilst some body is standing on it, the bike by contrast is waiting on the line. Is the pedestrian showing a lack of respect by blocking the cars way, the fact the the bike is in the cars way of course goes without saying.
We don’t ask Mo Farrah about the needs of normal pedestrians, nor would we think his opinion particularly noteworthy if he stated one. Why are sports cyclists’ opinions on normal cycling any more relevant?
So many parts of Scotland are so car sick and crying out for real investment in cycling infrastructure. Hard not to be pissed off that taxpayers’ money is being wasted on this rubbish.
Superb. You really nailed the absurdity of the campaign. Another glorious waste of precious taxpayers’ money, something here in Scotland we can ill-afford to do, especially when it would’ve been better spent on something tangible like — oh, I don’t know — meaningful infrastructure for instance.
Anyway, if anyone hasn’t noticed, the Nice Way Code’s reference to “Bradley Wiggin’s former manager” is what’s known as a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to authority. That is to say, they think saying “Bradley Wiggin’s former manager” will lend their argument credence, when in actual fact Mr Allchin is no more authoritative on the subject than your average man in street. Just an example of the lazy contempt with which the _authorities_ hold us cyclists [scrub that] all.
Agreed. It has as much chance of making a difference as telling car drivers that if they stop middle lane hogging, using their mobile phones, undertaking and not using their indicators, HGV’s won’t jack knife, pull out in front of them or mow them down in a pile up.
The problem is painfully perpetuated by government refusing to invest because they can only see investment and return on investment in one way – generating new businesses, which to them means the odd access road to new business parks and housing estates, which by default mean more car and lorry use.
When we spoke to Martin Curtis the so called cycling champion of Cambridgeshire, he said that central government won’t provide funding unless it’s to make Cambridge richer so they can pay it back but there’s no proper connection to making the county work better with cycle and public transport access to these new jobs (what we will get will be isolated and Cambridge – centric). Central government hold the purse strings and all we stand to get is safety campaigns and network maps because the paltry (in national terms) amount of money they dedicate will only pay for rubbish like this.
Unless the All Party Enquiry thing in September shifts things along, this will be the way it continues.
What utter bullsh!t….just having got back in from what would have been a lovely ride had some selfish Europarts driver, on his mobile phone, not tried to right hook me to make it into a junction as I approached him. What respect did he show me then? Not a lot. I might have let the whole cut up part slide however when I spotted the mobile I just saw red so came to a complete stop and what to I get from the driver? A quick “sorry” wave as he tries to reverse park – STILL ON THE F**KING PHONE!!!! At this point I not-so-politely suggest that he put the phone down and again got another pitiful wave. There wouldn’t have been much point going to try and chat as frankly I’d have dragged him out of the van and smashed his phone.
So I suppose this above described incident wouldn’t have happened if a bunch of other randoms cyclists didn’t jump red lights? Or ride on pavements? Yeah I didn’t think so…..
I think I see the same guy every day. Please tell me you are in Mancland
I think that it would be fair to say that there has been a general slide in standards of behaviour amongst the UK population as a whole over the last couple of decades. It is now commonplace to:
– park a motor vehicle with two wheels on the footway
– cycle on the pavement / through pedestrianised areas
– run across pedestrian crossings against the signal forcing traffic to brake.
Legislation, transport investment and highways design have all failed to keep pace with the needs of today’s road users. If it was a criminal offence to park on the footway (unless explicitly permitted) then people would do it less. If there were segregated cycle routes then people wouldn’t feel the need to cycle on the footway. If there were reasonable wait times at crossings with countdown timers to the next green signal then people would probably be happier to wait.
UK governments need to engage in far more research and development and be more responsive to society’s transport needs. They are so risk averse that it takes forever to get any changes to traffic regulations and as a result, they are outdated by the time they are introduced.
Transport investment could also be more effectively prioritised. The economic benefits of investing in cycling are huge, while HS2 is struggling to make a case for itself and campaigns like the Nice Way Code are clearly a waste of time.
I’d like to see all pedestrians crossings converted so that the lights change a second after the button is pressed. Any waiting time to give motorists a chance should be applied _after_ the pedestrian green phase. That way:
a) Pedestrians don’t have to wait if they’re the first to a crossing, they press the button, pause, then cross.
b) Motorists would get back into the habit of looking to see whether there were any pedestrians wanting to cross (as they used to have to do for zebra crossings) instead of just blindly looking for traffic lights and not people.
I suppose reversing the system – so motorists have to stop, lean out their window, and press a button before waiting several minutes for the lights to consequently turn green for them for a few seconds – is asking too much? 🙂
Oh well, one can dream!
Seriously, the replacement of zebra crossings with push-button light controlled ones inconveniences everyone. Pedestrians have to wait (for no valid reason) for the lights to change after pressing the button, but it also delays motorists. As what often happens is you press the button, there’s a break in the traffic, you cross without waiting, then the lights change behind you causing motorists to have to stop even though there is now nobody there crossing for them to stop for.
If motorists had just respected zebra crossings then everyone would be better off.
PS, when cycling I’m very conscientious about zebra crossings, but what bemuses me is how often a pedestrian will verbally thank me for stopping at one. I don’t really expect to be thanked every time I obey the law.
Heh, it surprised me too the number of people who thank me for stopping at a zebra crossing. On the other hand, I’ve overheard someone say to their family something along the lines of funny it needs the police to be there for a cyclist to obey the traffic lights, when in fact I normally do obey them.
In my experience there hasn’t been a general slide in the standards of behaviour, a minority of people have always rode or driven badly but if anything there’s been a slight improvement in the last few decades. Do you have any statistics to back this up because I think the accident statistics suggest things have tended to get better…
It’s just personal observances. Accident statistics have largely got better because cars are more proficient at stopping and protecting their occupants and due to engineering measures at casualty cluster sites rather than an improvement in road user behaviour.My barometer is how often illegal / inconsiderate road user behaviour occurs on my way to and from work and my blood pressure by the time that I arrive. Things weren’t too bad 8 years ago, but on current trends, I fully expect to have a coronary well before 2020! 🙂
@legocyclist
It is already an offence to park / drive on footpaths under the Highways Act.
It’s a matter of interpretation. Most police forces will not prosecute unless they catch the people in the act of driving on the footway or if the vehicle is physically obstructing the footway. The law is ambiguous and this is widely exploited.
They’ve added a “research” element to the site, from which this is taken;
“Most refreshingly our target audience will even admit (when coaxed and in the right way) to being less than perfect; yes, they have sometimes overtaken cyclists too fast, run red lights (by bike and car), ridden on the pavement, and been too busy texting when crossing the road. However, many of their actions are not wilful, but rather unthinking.
Clearly accidents and attitudes don’t differentiate between wilful and unthinking, but in order to connect, our communications approach has to. Because it was clear from research (both here and internationally) that the target audience will either blank accusatory campaigns or worse still attack them. ”
That equivalence (between “trained” people driving tonnes of metal at speed, and cyclists and pedestrians) is there, but so, I think, is the rationale behind it. Getting the people who do the damage on the roads to bloody behave themselves would be “attacking” them, so it’s back to “mutual respect” for the campaign. Seeing the names of the CTC and Sustrans attached to it makes me feel rather like I do when I see another shoddy bit of infrastructure incorporated into an NCN, I know hearts are in the right place, but I wish they’d just say “What? No way mate.”
I had an interesting discussion with Euan Lindsay on twitter about it, and, mercifully, it does represent a fraction of the total Scotland is spending on improving the environment for cycling and walking. I still think the ideas of equal responsibility, and potential for harm suggested by the campaign are problematic, and will change little out on the roads (if they’re not actively detrimental), but I hope I’m wrong.
So where is the spending on ‘improving the environment’ for cycling? I can see the spending on trunk roads, and on vacuous advertising begging car drivers for tiny amounts of space, but where is the spending on actual physical infrastructure?
According to the response from the Scottish government Road.cc posted;
““We are currently investing almost £58 million on cycling infrastructure, training and road safety projects through Cycling Scotland, Sustrans and local authorities. Funding of £20 million goes directly to local authorities for cycling, walking and Safer Streets projects. Together, these three approaches can reduce casualties on Scotland’s roads.”
http://road.cc/content/news/89479-pedal-parliament-not-impressed-scotland%E2%80%99s-nice-way-code-campaign
My main problem with campaigns like this are, the person at home watching this advert or reading some press release, will just think ‘Arh well its aimed at Mary next door, she’s a right dick on her bike’ or ‘This campaign is aimed at Derek down the road, he is a total arse in his truck’. Never once will it occur to ANYONE that the message might be aimed at THEM. We are far too sanctimonious and convinced of our own ability that we would never think it meant US. So anything like this approach will never ever work
True. I’d support a campaign “YOU drive like SHIT, STOP IT before you fecking KILL someone”, but somehow I’m not sure it would get funded.
I think they have a ‘Don’t Be a Dickhead’ Campaign in Australia
I still think they would be looking at the ad thinking ‘Yeah I hope Dave up the road listens to this, he drives like a right twat’ even if their own driving were atrocious. Dangerous drivers see themselves as infallible behind the wheel. Its this dangerous toxic mix which creates such a dangerous environment. But pedestrians and cyclists are just expected to BE NICE and not get angry when someone puts them in danger.
A glorious irony in the launch video of the Niceway Code is that at one point there are 2 cyclists riding cycles from a footway (not visibly designated for cycling) and straight out across a zebra crossing 1′ 01″ (technically an illegal manouevre) and not appearing to pause or check that vehicles (including cycles) on the road have stopped to let them ride across.
PS I’d love to know which road junction Mr Allchin was observing in Hampstead so that I can go there and see for myself. I ride regularly in London, Glasgow and less frequently in Edinburgh, Manchester, and other cities. Most notable is the huge surge of cyclists which sets off when the lights change compared to the relatively small number who ride through against a stop aspect (red, amber and red & amber). By contrast the number of motor vehicle drivers who ‘crash’ a stop signal, at dangerous speeds is substantial, and on occasion I have forced drivers attempting to run a red light (when I have the green aspect) to stop. So Mr A a tell us which junction and we’ll go and count up for ourselves, and do a count for cars, buses and trucks running a stop signal at the same time. Plus of course the count of the cyclists who do stop and obey the signals.
Of course the extent of footway cycling by adults at speeds which should only be used on the carriageway, is positively endorse when they see cycling Police officers riding on the footway when the carriageway is almost deserted, as I did the other night – and photographed them doing so. Many do not realise that the risk of crashing into a pedestrian or a vehicle emerging from a loading bay or site, when riding on a footway is between 4 and 8 times greater than when riding on the carriageway – one survey found that a third of A&E presentations by cyclists were the result of riding from riding between footway and carriageway, with further records from footway crashes. Perhaps when we see Police cyclists and drivers not driving on a footway (Highways Act 1835 s 72 – applies to all wheeled vehicles classified as carriages, at appropriate dates (cycles in 1888 under the Local Government Act, following up the case of Taylor vs Goodwin in 1878, and 15 years later it was applied to motor cars under the 1903 Motor Car Act)) than we might find the users of carriages of all kinds having a greater respect for the law.
Mr A is talking out of his rear when he quotes that bogus statistic, I’ve been cycling around North London for the last 15 years and can tell you that there is no junction where 90% of bikes jump the lights.
For virtually any other issue about endangering people and behaving appropriately using his logic would obviously be extremely offensive: It’s basically the same logic as the guy who beats up his wife – if she didn’t want a black eye she wouldn’t have burnt the toast. Somehow this guy doesn’t see that when he blames me for being put in danger by cars it’s really quite offensive, what an idiot.
Interesting statistic about riding on to or off the footway – it sort of calls in to question some of the pavement cycle paths which crop up but have no proper entry or exit on to the carriageway. For instance the Westfield centre in Stratford – maybe they expect cyclists to fly there.
On to Scotland – if anyone watched that programme last night about preventable type 2 diabetes linked to excess fat you’ll realise that the MSPs have chosen to reduce the life expectancy of their constituents and cripple their health services. It costs a million pounds an hour for drugs and treatments to deal with type 2 diabetes in the UK, but no need to do anything meaningful to get more people cycling…
Oh yes, the BEATINGS will continue until behaviour improves!
Excellent post.
I happen to know Richard Allchin – he sponsored our club and Bradley Wiggins. He doesn’t drive, rides in his middle age, and is a nice person.
I think he just happens to be quite wrong for the reasons you have given. What is interesting is not him personally, but the ideology he expresses. In fact Brad Wiggins has come up with the same sort of manifestations of car supremacist “road safety” ideology – I have written extensively about it here: http://rdrf.org.uk/category/bradley-wiggins/ .
Us club cyclists were very much brought up with this kind of ideology: you are ambassadors for cycling; you must set a good example; you mustn’t upset motorists etc. I even remember a veteran official of the local club scene telling us that motorists had a right to complain about cyclists “because, after all, they are the ones who pay for the road”!
I see this now as a classic way in which the then largely working class culture of club cycling was enveloped in “road safety” ideology which is a central part of maintaining motorist privilege and danger on the road.
The central thrust is to neutralise the difference between the lethal potential of the motorised and the relatively far more benign effects of even careless walking or cycling. It also tries to erode the difference between endangering and being endangered. It turns the harmonious idea that we should be nice to each other – which of course we should – into a noxious attempt to blur the fundamental difference between the different potential to harm others.
It has two central contradictions which I think could be highlighted more:
1. The nonsensical idea that motorists only drive badly near cyclists because of something some cyclists – there or elsewhere – have been doing. Why are there 4 million car insurance claims every year? Why do motorists feel they need seat belts, roll bars, crumple zones, and air bags in their cars and crash barriers, antiskid etc. in the highway? Because of cyclists?
2. The idea that motorists are somehow doing us a favour when they decide not to drive into us. It’s a kind of lord of the manner nonsense. Take this example from Christopher Snelling of the Freight Transport Association in his piece in the collection “Get Britain Cycling” which comes with Landor Press’ Local Transport Today (current issue):
“ When cyclists jump red lights or undertake vehicles they put themselves at risk and decrease the motor driver’s enthusiasm for giving them the consideration they deserve”
What is interesting here is that although friendly consideration is good, why should it be based on an “enthusiasm” which can be withdrawn if the driver feels like withholding it? This is a bizarre world where the motorised operate with a kind of noblesse oblige towards the lower orders – if they feel like it.
Dr Robert Davis, Chair, Road Danger Reduction Forum
Campaigns come and go and so will this one. The only one which has ever stuck with me is the Think! one, but then only a small part – the child being hit at 30 and the driver being haunted by the child. I think they stuck originally because of traffic schemes I did around schools and more recently, having kids myself and they are brutal. Fluffy nonsense like this one just annoys me and so I will push against it.
To continue John C’s line, the research item starts – “the campaign is a result of conversations with… ”
Saves going out and doing some data collection to see what is actually happening, and present that, or even use existing numerical research, doesn’t it? After all thanks to these conversations we now know that 90% of “cyclists” jump red lights because of someone’s say so. That’s apparently far more credible than DfT research based on actual counting which typically shows RLJing by people on bikes generally struggles to get to 10%. Meh.
However the most troubling aspect to me is that if someone gets run over on their bike or walking then the campaign reinforces the excuse of the motorist saying – well, they weren’t sharing the road properly. This is the refrain we see on loads of UK YouTube helmet cam videos – here’s one (not me) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vNn9mJbgm4 . From this it seems inevitable that without clear guidelnes on responsibility people will interpret a woolly message such as the campaign’s to their own advantage.
Meanwhile in Portugal, according to the ECF, a new highway code does incorporate such guidelines on responsibility**:
“The driver of a motor vehicle must maintain a lateral distance of at least 1.5 meters, to prevent accidents between their vehicle and cycles transiting in the same lane.
Drivers must give way to bicycles crossing the carriageway in marked passages.
and emphasizes that it is the duty of the driver of each vehicle to ensure that their behavior does not endanger the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, as well as other vulnerable road users”
Practical measures that make explicit, and cater for, the difference in vulnerability, rather than seeking to obscure it. That’s what’s needed.
** http://www.ecf.com/news/victory-for-cycling-in-portugal-government-approves-new-road-code/#sthash.vUE03FnO.dpuf
PS @Ranty Highwayman you may be right, but an additional irritation for many people, including myself, over and above the OP and comments is that it is costing half a million to see a campaign come and go, money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Just wondering, the Agency responsible for the scheme is Newhaven who have also just launched another ‘words rather than actions’ road safety campaign #kidsinthecar also fronted by Keith Brown MSP. Is there a pattern emerging, (excuse my ignorance of Scottish Politics)?
I’ve deliberately avoided looking into this “Nice Way” stuff because what I have read referring to it makes me aware it would annoy me beyond endurance.
I have been clinging to the excuse that “I don’t live in Scotland, its nothing to do with me, I don’t need to get upset about it…stay calm…deep breaths…go to my happy place*”
One of the unacknowledged health issues associated with cycling is the risk of finding yourself constantly enraged. I mean, that _can’t_ be good for your health!
For example, a couple of days ago, for the second time in as many weeks, I was nearly knocked down by a red-light-jumping motorist while crossing the road as a bike-less pedestrian (with a clearly lit green man in my favour), only to later read yet another whinge on the internet from a motorist about red-light-jumping cyclists. This is not good for my blood pressure.
*probably somewhere in the Netherlands.
Reblogged this on The Lapmosphere.
Cars will start behaving when most bike have helmet cameras. Car drivers miss-behave for the same reason cyclist jump lights. Anonymity means they can get way with it. If you have helmet camera and car does something dangerous you can report it. If the prosecution rate goes up, then the perceived risk of getting court if you drive badly around cyclist goes up. They change in perceived risk will change driver behavior. We need to put pressure on the police to prosecute when they are given helmet cam evidence.
Great post, but there are a couple of things which aren’t quite right, when you say “Cycling Scotland – just one of the large number of cycling organisations that have lent their support and their name to this initiative”, it should pointed out that Cycling Scotland are actually running the campaign. Cycling Scotland are 100% funded by the Scottish Government and are doing their masters bidding.
As for the “large number of cycling organisations”, well there is Sustrans Scotland which receives ~90% of its funding from the Scottish Government, the Bike Station which has just been given £45k by the Scottish Government (oh and the board of trusties have not be consulted about lending support to this political campaign), and CTC (UK), note that CTC Scotland have not added their voice in support. Also note that SPOKES and Pedal on Parliament were both consulted about the campaign but declined the invitation to support it (both where sceptical of it value during the consultation and said that it was very unlikely to work). Then there was Scottish Cycling, rather like British Cycling they are not known for their interest in road safety, even after the death of Jason MacIntyre. That is all the cycling groups that were involved.
Who else supports it? British Horse Society (Scotland) this is a bit of an odd one as the only reference to horses in the whole campaign is one of the TV ad (spoiler alert, as it is yet to be shown) where motorist are asked to treat cyclists like horses and feed them sugar lumps.
The AA, Institute of Advanced Motorists, Road Haulage Association and Scottish Taxi Federation, all well known victim blamers more then happy to has negative stereotypes of cyclists reinforced. Lothian Buses, probably the most cycle aware bus company in Scotland, but who rather cyclists caught a bus than rode on the road. Motorcycle Action Group, well they have their own issues. Paths for All, another 100% government funded body. Ramblers Scotland, more interested in off road paths than road safety. Police Scotland and Transport Scotland, both are a part of the state and 100% government funded.
The biggest disappointment is Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland aka SCOTS, I would have hoped they would have supported the money being better used to build safer infrastructure, these people are actually in a position to make Scotland’s roads safer through engineering and planning, sadly they currently choose not to.