The war of the roads: Cyclists and drivers are at loggerheads like never before

There is fighting on the roads of the country. I’m sure you are aware of it and it may seem little, but the tension between motorists and cyclists often leads to dangerous and sometimes deadly situations.

It shouldn’t be. Many motorists are also cyclists. The Department for Transport’s accident figures published yesterday show that of the 1,558 road deaths last year, 682 were car occupants; 361 were pedestrians; 111 were cyclists; and 310 were motorcyclists. Other vehicles were involved in the other fatalities.

The government is trying to calm things down with new traffic regulations and is trying to create a ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law. Here’s how the arguments – or battle lines – are drawn…

make a case

Cyclists say cycling promotes a pollution-free, healthy lifestyle and helps reduce traffic. They argue for more bicycle paths and car-free zones.

But many complain that their lives are put at risk on a daily basis by motorists who drive too close or across their path, especially those in large SUVs. Many cyclists wear primary cameras, some report offenders and use the footage as evidence in prosecutions.

Motorists, on the other hand, believe that the authorities turn a blind eye to violations by cyclists.

Drivers are outraged by a minority of aggressive, dubbed ‘Lycra lutes’ who blatantly ignore the law and traffic regulations — confident that the police will rarely, if ever, prosecute them.

They drive through red lights; driving quickly through zebra crossings, putting pedestrians at risk; and yell at drivers who they believe have cut them to pieces or kicked the sides of their cars.

Increasingly, motorists are using their dashcams to record evidence. Car-free zones are perversely causing traffic jams and stalemate, while cycle paths are often empty, critics say.

And there was outcry from members of the cycling community when former Transport Secretary Grant Shapps suggested that bicycles should carry number plates so that violators can be easily spotted, tracked down and potentially prosecuted in the same way as abusive motorists.

More anger followed when ministers announced plans to tackle reckless cyclists with tougher prison terms – closing an ‘archaic’ legal loophole, meaning cyclists who kill pedestrians can currently face up to two years in prison.

The government wants to treat reckless cyclists the same as reckless motorists with a new offense of causing death or serious injury from dangerous cycling.

It has consulted on the measure, as well as on changes to existing offenses involving dangerous and careless cycling. The ministerial response will follow shortly.

It comes after a number of controversial deaths, including that of mother of two Kim Briggs, 44, who was killed in East London in February 2016 when she was crossing a road by 18-year-old cyclist Charlie Alliston in East London.

But he was sentenced to only 18 months in prison because there is no legal equivalent of death by dangerous driving yet.

Prosecutors had to rely on the Offenses Against the Person Act 1861, which was intended to cover horse-drawn carriage crimes, to obtain a conviction for causing harm by “driving intentionally or furiously.”

In contrast, a motorist can be sentenced to life imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving.

Time for change

Another important change is the recently revised Highway Code which introduces a new ‘hierarchy of road users’. Those capable of causing the greatest damage are considered to have a greater responsibility to reduce the danger they pose to more vulnerable road users.

Police forces have cited this ‘damage’ argument – and its impact on reducing road casualties – when deciding who should be prioritized in prosecutions.

The argument is that a car hitting a cyclist does more damage than a cyclist running a red light. This ignores the fact that an errant cyclist can cause a motorist who obeys the rules to swerve and hit another vehicle or pedestrians.

Under the new traffic regulations, motorists must watch out for cyclists, who in turn must also pay more attention to pedestrians, especially when crossing the road.

Any pedestrian hit or narrowly missed by a speeding cyclist knows that this is probably more of a hope than an expectation.

The updated Code also means that left (and right-turning) motorists must give way to cyclists who continue straight ahead, even if they ‘enterprise’ inside (and possibly in a blind spot).

The amended highway code states: ‘You should not cross cyclists ahead when entering or exiting an intersection or changing direction or lane, just as you would not cross the path of another motor vehicle.’

It adds: ‘Don’t turn off at an intersection if it would stop or swerve the cyclist going straight, just as you would with a motor vehicle.

‘If necessary, you have to stop and wait for a safe gap in the stream of cyclists.’

Cost shock for electric car drivers

Motorists who charge their electric vehicles (EV) at public fast-charging stations have seen prices rise by a staggering 42 percent in just four months, a new RAC study reveals.

This hits the one in three drivers who don’t have access to off-street home charging hardest – and makes the cost of running an EV almost as expensive as filling a car with gasoline.

The RAC’s Charge Watch report says average pay-as-you-go rates reached 63.29p per kWh last week – up from 18.75p since May. This means that the cost of quickly charging a family electric car with a 64 kWh battery to 80 percent has increased by £9.60 in just four months.

Such drivers pay about 18 pence per mile for electricity, compared to an average of 13 pence in May. This compares to 19p for gasoline and 21p for diesel (based on an average of 40 miles per gallon).

The energy price guarantee means that the average owner of an electric car will not pay more than 34p per kWh from October. The RAC says it is unfair for those using public chargers to pay 20 percent VAT on electricity, compared to home chargers who pay 5 percent.