[Closed] 20,000 cycle deaths and injuries on the road every year!

there will always be accidents, but as i read that report at least the dutch numbers are falling, ours aren't.

[i]Slightly Injured 16,023[/i]

And thats just the reported ones!

Brake, the fake "road safety" organisation are driving this. They mistakenly think that speed is the key to road safety. I can see why, it's easy to sell to the Dailyfail readers. I'm sure someone is doing well, but it's not the road users, pedestrians, motorised, or cyclists.
We should fight these liars, I'm just working out how.

I guess those trying to reduce rural road limits have either never left London or do 20mph round the Cotswolds. 40Mph probably terrifies them. We need better cyclists better drivers not more people plodding round getting ******* off

[i]We need better cyclists better drivers [/i]

Maybe they know that just isn't possible in this country, so they are looking at other avenues. Driving is getting worse.

If my googling is correct 179 soldiers died in Iraq. They were there for many years fighting a war with people trying to kill them.

Compare that to one year on the roads and cycling seems to have a fairly high death rate.

The idea that 107 people should die just trying to get somewhere or out for a fun ride is horrific. These aren't statistics these are mothers, fathers, children etc.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.nl/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html

If we can solve the problem of the motorist thinking they have more right to the road then cyclists then we have it solved. Also get them to realise they have no right to be past cyclists.

From my experience the main problem seems to be cars trying to squeeze through between a cyclist on their side and an oncoming car. This is on rural roads. Cities tend to have wider roads in a lot of circumstances.

Dont ride in the gutter - it encourages it.

I support reductions in speed limits on the basis that if shit drivers are moving more slowly, both them and other road users have more time to react, plus the consequences of any accidents are less significant.

I had a near miss this weekend when a driver pulled straight of the local supermarket onto the traffic island I was turning right on. She missed by an inch.

Me: Use your eyes for **** sake.
She: Sorry I couldn't see the sun was in my eyes.
Me: Stop and have a look then. Why did you pull out if you couldn't see what was coming.?

Folks need to take a few more seconds at junctions.

Re the primary position/not in the gutter approach. I find there is an unhealthy number of drivers which find this antagonistic to the point where they 'must' squeeze by/pass even closer regardless. Its the old cyclist has less of a right to be there mentality which is at the heart of the problem.
I feel in greater danger when in that primary position from being mown down tbh.

With the best will in the world you'll have cycling deaths, even the Dutch do.
> http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/04/netherlands-traffic-deaths-down-again.html
Yep, between 6 and 7 times here!

I suspect that if these figures were matched to thousands of miles ridden by cyclists or total number of cyclists etc, then the overall proportion or ratio of deaths might well me lower than here in the UK?

Still 2 many though.

[i]Me: Stop and have a look then. Why did you pull out if you couldn't see what was coming.?[/i]

Her: Well the law says it's not my fault if the sun's in my eyes, so it doesn't matter if you're in my way.

between 6 and 7 times here!

Not when you adjust for the number of journeys made by bike in NL. Or the number of elderly people riding bikes. Or the fact that they're very hot on counting solo accidents in traffic stats.

There's also the small matter of the overall health of the population. Even in the UK, not cycling (or doing some other regular form of exercise) is pretty much guaranteed to affect when you die, whereas getting knocked off by a car is a much more remote possibility.

I support reductions in speed limits on the basis that if shit drivers are moving more slowly, both them and other road users have more time to react, plus the consequences of any accidents are less significant.

I believe that drumming the mantra "speed kills" into people has had the effect that people now equate speed above the posted limit with danger, and conversely, speed below the limit with safety.
I've heard it more than once after an accident:
"Ooh, but I wasn't speeding"
as if that is the only metric with which we can measure safe driving.

If you remove the need for people to be responsible for their actions, then they will stop being responsible for their actions.
💡

Scrap speed limits.
Scrap cycle lanes.
Scrap all the paint on the roads.
Scrap traffic lights.
Scrap pedestrian crossings.
Start prosecuting when RTCs do occur.

Make it so people have to think about their road use, and they will think about their road use, not creep along, blinkers on, with the sound of cyclists being clipped off the wing drowned out by the incessant tones of Jeremy "No you're not a serious ****ing journalist" Vine.

theres really no avoiding it... cycling is coming into the news, cycling has now reached levels where friction occurs and is news, world champions are knocked off bikes, TdF winners are knocked off bikes, we're winning olympic medals, the debate on safety is inevitable, the debate amongs the public and now politicians is happening... on balance I think this is good thing. Fingers crossed.

[img] https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQaMdRoYDJiwS4YOmopvhPXXLRRu-7c9ycLQDtjqEA0kmYp3FV2 [/img]

[i]Make it so people have to think about their road use[/i]

Yeah, like that'd work. Most of the drivers I see can't even get it right even when there are rules to follow FFS

Yeah, like that'd work. Most of the drivers I see can't even get it right even when there are rules to follow FFS

Ignoring the fact that we have some of the safest roads in the world already, it does work and has been shown to work.
💡

Where?
Anyway, I won't be able to prove you wrong because your nice theory will never become reality. But it wouldn't work IN REALITY.

[img] [/img]
[url= http://www.ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/policeclampdown.html ]London Cycle Campaign[/url]

This doesn't really sell the speed limit solution to me but if people drove more slowly then maybe they would have more time to make the necessary observations? Also collisions would be less likely to be fatal.

I think it's fear of prosecution or an insurance claim that's most likely to get people to modify their behaviour.

As both a cyclist and a car driver but putting my car driver hat on for a moment. I would find [url= http://www.bikehub.co.uk/news/bike-to-work/strict-liability-too-contentious-says-transport-minister/ ]strict liability [/url] a more paletable solution than lower speed limits.

With the best will in the world you'll have cycling deaths, even the Dutch do.

About a third of the UK rate per KM though.

the Netherlands has 1.1 cycle deaths per 100m kilometres cycled, whereas the UK has three times as many: 3.6 fatalities per 100m kilometres cycled.

[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3394181.ece ]From this Times article[/url]

Scrap speed limits.
Scrap cycle lanes.
Scrap all the paint on the roads.
Scrap traffic lights.
Scrap pedestrian crossings.
Start prosecuting when RTCs do occur.

So we'll be pretty much back in the situation we were in the 1930s then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#Annual_summary

And no, I don't think drivers have become noticeably less reluctant to prosecute other drivers in that time. The cultural attitude to motoring is still to treat it as a fundamental human right, rather than being in control of a scary bit of machinery.

Where?
Anyway, I won't be able to prove you wrong because your nice theory will never become reality. But it wouldn't work IN REALITY.

Shouting doesn't make you less wrong, it just makes you more obviously so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

So we'll be pretty much back in the situation we were in the 1930s then?

No, and I'm really not sure how you can come to that conclusion.

And no, I don't think drivers have become noticeably less reluctant to prosecute other drivers

We need the police to start prosecuting when someone's driving falls so far below standard that an accident occurs, not prosecuting drivers who are driving safely without incident.

I'm not sure where private prosecutions come into this.

So the guy who drives at high speed down my road every single morning, causing people to take evasive action, should be left alone.

FIFY -
We need the police to start prosecuting when someone's driving falls below standard as a matter of course. When an accident occurs a prosecution and points on licence should be the norm even for minor incidents, rather than an exception, so that people who are repeatedly causing danger to others are banned from driving.

If anything else was responsible for a fraction of the deaths and injuries caused by motoring there would be massive public outcry and it'd be banned ... but somehow road deaths/injuries seem to have become almost acceptable, just part of normal daily life

Just one of the items on my "why people are stupid" list 😀

A road I cross every day is notorious for speeding. It's a 30 but drivers regularly do 40-45. It makes it hard to walk across the road safely, it's hard to come out from a side road on a bike safely and it's hard to pull out in a car safely because you find some arsehole tooling round the corner at 45. What it means is that every user of this road HAS to be aggressive because you can't rely on any other user to be abiding by the speed limit. This moronic notion that driver's (and I'm constantly amazed by the number of cyclists on here that **** [edit - refers to onanism] off constantly about it) are able to determine a safe speed to drive at is patently untrue because by driving at 10-15 mph over the limit they cause a total and complete change in the way every other road user acts on those roads.

putting my car driver hat on for a moment. I would find strict liability a more paletable solution than lower speed limits.

They have strict liability in Italy, and it's done nothing to reduce road deaths - in fact you can see it in that diagram you posted.

If it was introduced (over the dead bodies of the motor lobby and the right-wing press) I don't think it'd hurt, but it's not going to solve anything by itself.

We need the police to start prosecuting when someone's driving falls so far below standard that an accident occurs, not prosecuting drivers who are driving safely without incident.

I'm not sure where private prosecutions come into this.

Serious motoring offences are still tried by jury:

http://road.cc/content/news/60396-coach-driver-cleared-causing-death-cumbrian-cycling-brothers

Trial by jury for less serious motoring offences was abolished in 1977 due to the abysmal conviction rates even in clear-cut cases. When over 50% of a jury can place themselves in that situation and visualise themselves making the same mistakes, it drastically reduces the odds of conviction.

Even after that step was taken, there's still a big bias in favour of drivers throughout the entire judicial system. Read that article on the Cycling Silk blog linked above, it's horrible.

I think better driving standards are required. Additionally plans to alleviate driver frustration which leads to drivers making ill judged decisions. Wether thats making public transport a)viable and b)affordable is something that I fear will never happen.

Also better cycling standards. How many of those injuries are from cyclists putting themselves in harms way? Running lights, poor position in the road or squeezing though gaps that are not there?

Running lights

The usual suspects. Strange that when you hear about cycling injuries this never seems to be the cause. SMIDSY, head on or sideswipe through bad overtaking, loss of control due to excessive speed, left turning lorries yes but I've never heard "the cyclist jumped the light into the path of an oncoming car". The Dutch widely use 'head start lights' to let cyclists get away ahead of traffic to improve safety.

Poor position

How many of those injuries are from cyclists putting themselves in harms way? Running lights, poor position in the road or squeezing though gaps that are not there?

Surprisingly few, considering the poor standard of cycling that most people observe on their commutes. Boris got it badly wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/oct/04/boris-johnson-cycling-accident-statistics-wrong

Gutter or primary? A hard choice at the moment - take primary and you risk punishment passes or just outright aggression. I've had both in the last few weeks.

fourbanger - The Yorkshire version of Look North had reducing the speed limit to 20mph as their lead article earlier in the week. Brake wheeled out some poor woman whos daughter had been killed by someone driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone. They then used this as the reason to reduce the limit to 20mph.

All organisations who are concerned with road safety should focus on improving driving standards, not just aim to reduce the speed limit.

If anything else was responsible for a fraction of the deaths and injuries caused by motoring there would be massive public outcry and it'd be banned .

So how come smoking and alcohol are still legal then?

The approach of removing conventional road markings, signs and controls is an interesting one. In "Traffic" the author describes a Dutch experiment with this which improved both safety and traffic flow.
I think Westminster reduced accident rates by taking away pedestrian barriers along the edge of pavements. The suggestion was that people drive more carelessly when they think there are safety measures in place to protect other road users. Anecdotally, I have experienced road junctions where the traffic lights failed, and everyone had to slow right down and work out what the other road users were doing, in order to negotiate the junction safely; it seemed to work quite well!

This is not just about cyclists. About 10 people a day die on UK roads, so reducing that number benefits motorists and non motorists. Achieving that will involve lots of different changes. Personally, I think reducing speed is part of the solution. There is a general culture of driving as fast as you can get away with in this country, and too many people do not bother to drive at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions, so I think generic limits are inevitable.

Retesting after 10 years or after being caught doing anything you shouldn't would be a good start.

This is not just about cyclists. About 10 people a day die on UK roads,

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623072 ]Actually about 5 people are killed on the roads every day[/url]

Yes there is room for improvement but the UK's roads are among the safest in the world.

there will always be accidents, but as i read that report at least the dutch numbers are falling, ours aren't.

Fair enough, but I see more and more cyclist on the road, have the figures been adjusted accordingly?

Mr agreeable said:

"The cultural attitude to motoring is still to treat it as a fundamental human right, rather than being in control of a scary bit of machinery."

An accurate observation. And yes, I do believe I have a fundamental human right to drive and ride a motorbike. I also have a fundamental human right to cycle. When I cycle I accept that I'm on a vulnerable bit of machinery. When I mix with scary bit's of machinery I cycle accordingly.

The problem with current cycle campaigns is that they are antagonistic and adversarial to motorists. The approach is to improve matters for cyclists at the expense of motorists. Surely the goal should be to improve the roads for ALL legal users? If approached from this stance then there would be support from motorists instead of resistance.

If cyclists organisations entertained motorists belief in their fundamental human right to drive/ride then the same would be reciprocated. After all, cyclists have no more moral or legal rights to the road than any other user.

So how come smoking and alcohol are still legal then?

The libertarian in me says that you should be able to do whatever you want when it has an impact only on you. Smoking has been banned, pretty much globally now, in public places where it did have a direct impact. You could extend that to say that smokers/drinkers/drugtakers/fat people should be refused free medical care for related illness but what they do in the privacy of their own home is no concern.

Driving causes danger to others both directly (accidents) and indirectly (pollution).

I do believe I have a fundamental human right to drive and ride a motorbike.

I think my right to clean air and safe use of the roads as a pedestrian/non-motorised vehicle comes further up the hierarchy than that right.

Actually about 5 people are killed on the roads every day

Personally I think the focus on deaths underestimates the problem. As a minimum is should be KSI (killed or seriously injured). Someone will come on and argue that the SI figure includes any hospital visit in a minute as if that invalidates it. It also includes a huge number of 'life changing' injuries such as the woman who lost an arm (as a minimum - not sure of the totality of her injuries) when dragged under a cement truck on a junction on my commute where motorists systematically jump red lights, block Cycle advance area and speed.

The problem with current cycle campaigns is that they are antagonistic and adversarial to motorists. The approach is to improve matters for cyclists at the expense of motorists.

Which campaigns are those? I haven't seen any campaign by the established cycling organisations the that fits that description.

e.g. from the British Cycling Road Safety Manifesto:
[i]"British Cycling’s Road Safety Manifesto aims to foster a culture of mutual respect
between cyclists and motorists to create a safer cycling environment on the roads...investment in a national ‘Think Bike’ campaign focussing on mutual respect between all road users, including the importance of cyclists riding sensibly and obeying traffic laws.[/i]

If cyclists organisations entertained motorists belief in their fundamental human right to drive/ride then the same would be reciprocated. After all, cyclists have no more moral or legal rights to the road than any other user.

Are you seriously suggesting that the behaviour of "motorists" (aren't most cyclists motorists anyway?) is the result of cycling organisations failing to respect their "fundamental human rights"? I could be wrong, but I don't think the couple who shouldered me out of a lane with their 4WD recently did so because they were miffed at a CTC campaign.
I have not seen any serious cycle campaign that suggests cyclists have greater moral or legal rights? Can you demonstrate some examples?

The libertarian in me says that you should be able to do whatever you want when it has an impact only on you

A huge number of assaults and murders are alcohol related. The libertarian argument doesn't work for me with alcohol.

The UK's roads are a very safe place to be, as long as you're in a car. Great if you want to live in a world where kids are driven to school as a matter of course, the strip of land outside your front gate is a no-go zone, or where a Tour De France winner can't ride on the roads safely.

If cyclists organisations entertained motorists belief in their fundamental human right to drive/ride then the same would be reciprocated. After all, cyclists have no more moral or legal rights to the road than any other user.

Cyclists have more right to use the road than the driver who doesn't have valid insurance (between 1 and 2 million, according to whose estimate you believe), doesn't check their windscreen washers work properly, or who refuses to wear their corrective specs.

And what about the people who've given up on cycling and walking, or even refuse to entertain the idea in the first place, because of the obvious dangers posed by motor vehicles? I'm sure they could cycle, in theory, but to all intents and purposes they've been stopped from doing so because of the horrible conditions on the UK's roads.

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/cycling-struggles-4/

The libertarian in me says that you should be able to do whatever you want when it has an impact only on you

This simply isn't the case with smoking. And I'm not just talking the obvious stuff like passive smoking. I watched a relative lose the best bit of 10 pretty healthy years, having to nurse her husband through a long lingering epmhacaema death

I watched a relative lose the best bit of 10 pretty healthy years, having to nurse her husband through a long lingering epmhacaema death

Don't get me wrong, smoking is evil but I excercise my right to choose to smoke occasionally. However, a lot of people suffer a slow, inconvenient death that puts massive strain on their loved ones due to heart disease and obesity - are you suggesting we should ban people from eating unhealthy food? What about someone who injures themselves mountain biking?

This is a side issue anyway. [url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/speeding-driver-almost-killed-me-says-cyclist-in-payout-fight-8343220.html ]Today's outrage[/url] Speeding driver who hits cyclist from behind, seriously injuring them, gets 6 points and c£300 fine.

By using legislation, publicity campaigns and economic pressure, we've created social conditions where it's actually quite difficult to smoke and drink, there's less pressure to do it than ever before, and you can generally exercise the option to stay away from smokers and drunks if that's your preference.

With driving, you can see some of these measures at work, but not to the same extent.

Tax? You'd have to be extremely ignorant to think that your £130 a year covers the costs of road building, repairs, traffic enforcement and whatnot.

Publicity? I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a road safety campaign, unless you count the odd flashing 30 sign that every driver sets off on their way past, knowing there will be no adverse consequences.

Social conditions? I live on the edge of a major city and it's still massively inconvenient to do anything other than drive (or cycle, but many people simply don't see that as an option). If you apply for a job, one of the first questions is always "do you have a car?".

The CTC's campaign to ban motorbikes from bus lanes springs to mind as does it's support of every anti motorvehicle TRO I've encountered.

The excerpt from the manifesto is good and in a positive and fair spirit. It's not one I've encountered before, does it have a great deal of support from cyclists organisations?

I completely agree that legal users of the road have more right than those using the road illegally ( eg uninsured drivers, drunk cyclists with no lights.

I never suggested that individual motorists behaviour is attributable to CTC campaigns

This:

"And what about the people who've given up on cycling and walking, or even refuse to entertain the idea in the first place, because of the obvious dangers posed by motor vehicles? I'm sure they could cycle, in theory, but to all intents and purposes they've been stopped from doing so because of the horrible conditions on the UK's roads"

SOME UK roads are horrible and improvements should be sought to benefit ALL users. This only applies to some journeys though and there are plenty that are safe AND pleasant to undertake by cycle. So why aren't people doing so? Surely the issue as to why perfectly good roads aren't being used by cyclists needs to be acknowledged and addressed?

It's fear, basically.

http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/society_and_environment/cycling/Understanding_Walking_&_Cycling_Report_WEB.pdf

There were a number of negative associations with cycling, including need to negotiate difficult road junctions, cycling being a bad experience using existing roads and desire for more cycle lanes to feel safer, which together indicate notable safety concerns. [b]Indeed
poor safety was one of the key reasons for not cycling expressed by approximately 80% of respondents.[/b]

Why are cycling organisations using sensationalist campaigns to exacerbate that fear then?

"perception of poor safety" isn't the same as "poor safety".

I cycled loads as a child in the 80's when roads were more dangerous than today. There was no fear culture. Now the roads are safer and the fear culture is huge.

The CTC's campaign to ban motorbikes from bus lanes springs to mind

Hmm. I'd support them fully in that. As a cyclist using bus lanes in London their legal use by motorbikes has been a major step backwards. Being under and over-taken closely by fast moving motorbikes is highly unpleasant.

[url= http://lcc.org.uk/articles/tfl-says-motorbikes-in-bus-lanes-report-allows-no-meaningful-comparison ]The first London trial showed an increase in danger, the second was abandoned before it was complete according to the pieces I've read about it.[/url]

[url= http://lcc.org.uk/articles/transport-for-london-ignores-increases-in-road-danger-making-motorbikes-in-bus-lanes-permanent ]Despite three years of trials showing increased danger, Transport for London is going ahead with its plans to allow motorbikes to permanently use red-route bus lanes[/url]

The report on the second 18-month trial, published on 21 December 2011, shows a sharp increase in both motorcyclist fatalities on red-route bus lanes and the rate of cyclist collisions with motorbikes.

Cyclist-motorcyclist collisions increased significantly, from 10 to 25, while motorcyclist deaths increased from one in the first 18-month trial to seven in the second.

Collision rates for motorcyclists didn't improve significantly during the second trial, which included an extensive and expensive police-enforcement programme to reduce the large number of motorcyclists ignoring speed limits.

For the second trial TfL abandoned its commitment to gather enough data for robust analysis, and very few statistically significant results were obtained.

Now the roads are safer and the fear culture is huge.

Fewer deaths does not mean the roads are safer for all users. Far fewer people die inside cars because cars are safer for their occupants. You need to separate out other factors. When I was a kid in the 70's and 80's we all played outside in the street. At the age of 8 growing up near Chelmsford we would cycle off for the whole day down the country lanes. Few children are allowed that sort of freedom now.

It's not progress if the roads have become safer because we have removed the people from them and given them over completely to motor vehicles.

If anything else was responsible for a fraction of the deaths and injuries caused by motoring there would be massive public outcry and it'd be banned .

So how come smoking and alcohol are still legal then?

Well, yes, those things too to be honest ... although we're not supposed to like being told what we can or can't do 😀

I (cynically) think it comes down to whether or not Goevernment earns millions(/billions?) from taxes related to it. If they didn't, they'd be more likely to be all against it and try and ban it.

Also, people are very selfish/stupid/narrow-minded, so prefer several tens of thousands of people dying and families being ripped apart rather than not being able to 'enjoy' a fag and getting bladdered on a weekend.

Why are cycling organisations using sensationalist campaigns to exacerbate that fear then?

The people interviewed for that study weren't influenced by cycle campaigns. It's perfectly possible to come to the conclusion that cycling on the road is dangerous just by watching it or doing it.

What other everyday activity involves a tonne of machinery operated by a smartphone-fiddling twonk passing inches from your elbow at 30 mph?

What other everyday activity involves a tonne of machinery operated by a smartphone-fiddling twonk passing inches from your elbow at 30 mph?

Precisely.

I can't think of any everyday activity that carries similar potential for risk that takes place on such a large scale......and with relatively miniscule numbers of accidents either.

It does suggest that it's not as sensationally dangerous as some claim.

And to be fair the smartphone twiddling twonk is probably doing 50mph, not wearing his glasses and is also hungover.

I think its important to be aware that small minority of the population who who choose to cycle on the roads at the moment are a self-selecting subgroup who are willing to "take primary" road position and do all the other cycle-craft related stuff to stay safe on the roads.

This doesn't mean its a solution for everybody.

Mixing with HGVs and much faster moving traffic is just too imtimidating for 99% of the population no matter how much training you give them.

There's 6 million motorcyclists in the UK that are happy to mix with HGV's at half a bar's width on a mode of transport that is more dangerous than cycling.

Then there's all those horseriders that are 20 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than the motorcyclists.

Then there's all the smokers.

And all the people that use illicit recreational drugs.

If you took 4 images and included the probability of death or serious injury on each. one for smoking, one for horseriding, one for motorcycling and one for cycling to work. I've a nagging suspicion that cycling would be the safest.

I'm not convinced that reducing alledged fear of cycling would make more people commute by cycle though.

I suspect the issue isn't fear but convenience and enjoyment.

For the study I linked to above, they surveyed 600 people. 80% of them mentioned fear as a key factor putting them off cycling.

How much more evidence do you need?

I'm not disputing that they mentioned fear. Hardly surprising when we're constantly being told roads are dangerous.

The fact is that some roads are both enjoyable and safe to cycle on but see little cycle use despite providing usefull links.

Scaremongering by organisations that are supposed to be encouraging cycling may be an explanation for this?

Or do you genuinely believe that 80% of people are right to be petrified of cycling roads that are safe and enjoyable for cyclists?

Scaremongering by organisations that are supposed to be encouraging cycling may be an explanation for this?

I'm a current cyclist and I get scared regularly. Are you saying we shouldn't highlight the unacceptable danger on current roads because we might put non-cyclists off? [url= http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/truth-and-propaganda/ ]They're non-cyclists - they're not going to start however much we tell them it's safe because it doesn't feel it[/url]. Without harping on, the Dutch have kind of worked this out.

The fact is that some roads are both enjoyable and safe to cycle on but see little cycle use despite providing usefull links.

Where is this cycling paradise of which you speak?

Some roads are not a network. That's like putting two phones in place and complaining that people aren't communicating

I wrote that the roads provided usefull links ie a network (albeit local one)

Is your expectation that the entire shared network be cycle friendly?

Agreed that unnacceptable danger should be highlighted. This is localised though, it's not as though the entire network is unnacceptably dangerous.

Any point to point connection is only going to be useful to a very limited number of people, and even for them only for a specific journey - if you have to join an A road at either end of it it's not going to encourage take up. Where are you thinking of?

Is your expectation that the entire shared network be cycle friendly?

Ultimately, yes in the long term I don't see why that shouldn't be an ambition. Obviously excluding motorways. Dutch model = Segregated provision where traffic levels are high/speeds are fast. Reduced speeds and traffic calming (and enforcement) where provision is on road. Start with the most dangerous roads and highest potential benefit (ie cities) and work out.

The model is there - the Dutch have done it over the last 40 years.

I thought the Dutch let mopeds in cycle lanes and were generally pro motorbike?

If you want to learn about Dutch cycling, a great place to start is David Hembrow's blog. He also answers your question about safety a good deal more succinctly than I could:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html

Thanks. Good site.

It said that mopeds are generally allowed to use rural cycle routes. Would be great if we could get the Dutch system over here and allow mopeds (espescially electric ones) on restricted byways.

[i]Thanks. Good site.

It said that mopeds are generally allowed to use rural cycle routes. Would be great if we could get the Dutch system over here and allow mopeds (espescially electric ones) on restricted byways.
[/i]

There are two types of moped in NL, light and heavy. AFAIK Only light mopeds are allowed on cycle paths and you don't need to wear a helmet.

I suspect the issue isn't fear but convenience and enjoyment.

there are too many fat lazy people who see cycling as a) something other people do, b)beneath them

ask most drivers if more drivers should use public transport and most will say yes and they will say public transport should be improved, now ask them would they use it most would say no.

a colleague worked for National Express and every survey they did, went is public transport good, answer yes, should more people use it, yes; should more money be spent on it, yes; would you use it now, no, it needs work; and if we did the work? No, full of people who use public transport.

I see no difference with cycling tbh, lots of people say it is a good idea, but ask them to do it and no chance.

An accurate observation. And yes, I do believe I have a fundamental human right to drive and ride a motorbike. I also have a fundamental human right to cycle. When I cycle I accept that I'm on a vulnerable bit of machinery. When I mix with scary bit's of machinery I cycle accordingly.

Let me get this straight, you have no right to drive and your comment exemplifies the problem, you have to show you are competent, pass a test etc. then conduct yourself in a manner where you demonstrate you are safe. If you fail your test you are not allowed to drive, therefore it is not a fundamental right but a privilege. The sooner drivers understand this the better

The problem with current cycle campaigns is that they are antagonistic and adversarial to motorists. The approach is to improve matters for cyclists at the expense of motorists. Surely the goal should be to improve the roads for ALL legal users? If approached from this stance then there would be support from motorists instead of resistance.

If cyclists organisations entertained motorists belief in their fundamental human right to drive/ride then the same would be reciprocated. After all, cyclists have no more moral or legal rights to the road than any other user.

I'm not sure which campaigns you are referring to as all the ones I've noticed recently have been very much the opposite, actively trying to build relations with motorists. Yet the stereotype of the militant ant-car cyclist is still constantly bandied about in an attempt to justify aggressive behaviour towards them.

Yet the stereotype of the militant ant-car cyclist is still constantly bandied about in an attempt to justify aggressive behaviour towards them.

Exactly - I don't see any equivalent of [url= https://twitter.com/CycleHatred ]#cyclehatred[/url]

There is a @driverhatred on twitter in response to @cyclehatred. They're up to all of about 50 followers now, and it's all a bit pathetic (don't feed the troll by following, that's my advice).

Their associated website is a crime against HTML, reminiscent of Geocities sites in 1998, and includes bold claims like the fact that 20mph zones encourage drivers to speed when if it was a regular 30mph zone they might actually do less than 20.

@MRMO

I'm fully aware of the legal position regarding rights to drive. However my belief remains that I have a fundamental human right to do so. My expectation is that this right is protected. I suspect my expectations and beliefs are shared by the majority of motorists i.e. the majority of the population.

Could be mistaken but the significant numbers of people taking to their cars each day suggests otherwise as does voter behaviour in relation to fuel prices.

The right to motor came about before restrictions. It's subject to greater restrictions than cycling (yes, the right to cycle is subject to restrictions too) by virtue of motorvehicles having greater potential for danger.

I think part of the issue is that motorists have to demonstrate competence to use the roads whereas cyclists do not. This gives some motorists an impression that they have greater rights to the road than cyclists.

Starting off from a point of "I'm on a cycle so have a right to use the road whereas you are in a car merely by priveledge" is mistaken.

BTW I also have a right to cycle on footpaths (but not pavements)

@orangetoaster, whilst i agree that you have a right to drive, in so much that you have the right to sit a test and if you can prove you are competent you should be allowed to drive. I believe that drivers should be forced to sit retests, the number of drivers i see who can't use a roundabout, who fail to understand how to behave around horses and cyclists etc.

The right to motor came about before restrictions. It's subject to greater restrictions than cycling (yes, the right to cycle is subject to restrictions too) by virtue of motorvehicles having greater potential for danger.

and the number of people who died before the introduction of licences demonstrates that drivers can't be trusted without training, and that they pose a risk to those around them.

@MRMO

I'm dissapointed that it remains so easy to pass a car driving test. Also that it enables one to buy any car. The restrictions placed on motorcycles permitted to be ridden at certain ages/competencies should be extended to cars.

In some Swiss cantons your only allowed 3 attempts at passing a driving test. If unnsuccessfull it's assumed that you suffer from some form of mental deficit and your only allowed a further attempt subject to a psychological evaluation. The driving test is also very tough and includes skid control and tests on car maintenance etc.