You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Practice makes people better at any other skill. Why would riding a bike in traffic be any different?
Because as others said, experience will increase your confidence which may mean you ride in places that a less experienced rider would avoid completely (big roundabouts, busy roads, dual carriageways etc).
You might be safer than an inexperienced rider on the same road, but you're not safer than the inexperienced rider who avoided the road altogether and stuck to a traffic-free route.
A simple analogy is skiing.
Very few inexperienced skiers are killed in avalanches - because inexperienced skiers don't generally venture off-piste into potential avalanche zones.
Remember to factor in the health risks of not cycling everywhere and not being very fit 😉
Remember to factor in the health risks of not cycling everywhere and not being very fit
This is very true - in [i]overall[/i] public health terms the benefits from cycling massively outweigh the individual injuries or deaths.
That's one reason the BMA was originally against helmet compulsion*, the decrease in the number of people cycling it was supposedly cause would be a far greater loss to public health than the slight win of less head injuries.
.
*(before politics forced them to change their position).
On a related subject, why do foreign drivers leave more space? Is it that they are more used to bikes on the continent or is it simply that a LHD car provides a better view of us bikers?
Errrr... surely if you drive on the opposite side of the road to the UK you're in the same relative position?
I've noticed that cycling in France and Spain can be a lot more pleasant too. Both those countries have very low levels of people cycling for transport, so it's not the safety in numbers thing.
It could be that both countries have a long and illustrious history of being good at road racing, which fosters a culture of respect... in which case, expect the "Wiggins Effect" to kick in about 50 years from now. 🙄
Because as others said, experience will increase your confidence which may mean you ride in places that a less experienced rider would avoid completely (big roundabouts, busy roads, dual carriageways etc).You might be safer than an inexperienced rider on the same road, but you're not safer than the inexperienced rider who avoided the road altogether and stuck to a traffic-free route.
Well of course avoiding accidents takes both experience and judgement. I'd say judging the safest route is part of gaining experience. I still choose traffic free options where appropriate and avoid 70mph dual carriageways despite being experienced. Over confidence is just another pitfall to be avoided.
Anyway traffic free routes aren't risk free. Most routes have frequent junctions with roads or driveways which is where many accidents happen. Routes like well surfaced canal towpaths or former railways can be good because they are flat and have good sightlines and few intercections. Other farcilities less so.
In Milton Keynes over the past decade, there have been six deaths to off-road cyclists against just one (a child) on the alternative road network, where main roads largely have a 70mph speed limit and there are large roundabouts at all major junctions. Even when account is taken of relative distance cycled, the death rate for the cycle paths is significantly greater than for the roads.
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/sustrans1.html
Before anyone invokes Cyclecraft in support of their argument, [url= http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/****-you-john-franklin/ ]please, please read this[/url].
The MK stats quoted are skewed by the fact that cycle use here must be ten times what it is in the rest of the country. The provision of cycleways is so good that large numbers cycle every day.
Also, the letter is from 1998. I've lived in MK for the last 10 years and know of no deaths during that period on the cycle ways, but do know of at least 3 on the dual carriageways, one of whom was an experienced time-trialler.
The idea that you pass a 'test' and then there are no further capability tests involving a potentially lethal process is at odds with most other forms of hazard.
As a cyclist i like to think that my 'driving' awareness and manners are good.
At my previous employ, we went on a one day police driving course, after six hours with the instructor, i can say that my driving has altered somewhat.
The main issue for me seems to be the 'culture' of motoring that has developed on this island, it has taken many years for speeding to be at least recognised as a problem.
The legal system sends out a very strange message regarding driving, the paltry 'fines' for bad driving that may entail death or serious injury, it is surely time to be a lot stricter with poor driving, the minimum demand is that people pay attention whilst behind a wheel, but a rolling 'testing' programme would do no harm-- would increase employment, reduce incidents, and hopefully change a laissez fair culture.
Lol. MrAgreeable's link doesn't work due to the forum swear filter 😀
Go here and you will see the post: http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/
that is some 'blog' -- franklin the enemy eh ? responsible for deaths !
The anonymous blogger has high opinions of himself, he wants segregation, apartheid, -- i cannot believe the guy has thought much beyond the end of his nose !
The sooner that driver behaviour is modified to accommodate all road users then the better for all. Mr cat seeks to blame the victim-- wonder what he has done to promote road safety in the last thirty years ?
Hmmm.. I largely agree with the views in that blog to be honest.
I think Cyclecraft is a great book and it teaches very useful road skills and techniques. And I'm very much in favour of the Right to Ride on the roads.
But to me Cyclecraft is a survival guide. It suggests techniques to lessen your chances of getting squished on our hostile roads. To me it doesn't say [i]"Our roads are perfect for cycling"[/i] it says [i]"Our roads are terrible for cycling but here's how to cope with them as best you can"[/i]
If we want to get more people cycling then I am 100% convinced that the way to do it is to build more safe traffic-free routes.
No parent is going to give their 10 year old a copy of Cyclecraft and happily wave them off down the dual carriageway to school.
so by teaching kids to avoid roads,only go on paths, how is that a help ?
is there a dedicated cycle path from chepstow to peterborough , because according to that analysis, that is what you need !
You say give a kid a book and off down the dual carriageway, thats being a bit silly really isn't it ?
The onus is on those who control the lethal weapons to do just that !
so by teaching kids to avoid roads,only go on paths, how is that a help ?
Is it more helpful to prevent your kids riding to school because there is no safe route available to them? Because that is what largely happens at the moment.
Does your local school look like this:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
And isn't it more likely that it would do if the kids could ride to school safely like this:
[img] 
[/img]
(Source: [url= http://www.hembrowcyclingholidays.com/photos.html ]Photos from Hembrow[/url])
is there a dedicated cycle path from chepstow to peterborough , because according to that analysis, that is what you need !
Only if you ignore all the bits where he says he entirely supports Right To Ride and Vehicular Cycling but just doesn't want them to be the [i]only[/i] option.
You say give a kid a book and off down the dual carriageway, thats being a bit silly really isn't it ?
Not really. If you want people to ride regularly as a normal form of transport then it should be as accessible as walking and not something that can only be done in relative safety by adults that have been specially trained and own appropriate safety equipment.
If you want people to ride regularly as a normal form of transport then it should be as accessible as walking
Motoring isn't as accessible as walking, and that's fairly popular.
Anyway there is plenty of pedestrian training going on. I have spent many hours training my daughter, and I will have to do so for a good few years yet I imagine.
Just because it's not formal training doesn't mean it's not happening. When she learns to ride a bike I'll do the same. Now, if parents aren't training their kids in cycle roadcraft, there should be training available, no? After all you are a road user, and there are quite a lot of actual rules to obey, even if you don't consider general safe behaviour.
Forgotten what I was replying to.. but training is important.
Motoring isn't as accessible as walking, and that's fairly popular.
Not with children. I hardly see any kids driving themselves to school 😀
Now, if parents aren't training their kids in cycle roadcraft, there should be training available, no?
Of course.
but training is important.
I didn't say it wasn't.
But I still wouldn't trust a highly trained ten year old to cycle along a dual carriageway or even just a busy roundabout, would you?
graham s , most people walk before they run, you get confidence and experience by doing things not avoiding them.
Here and now in the uk, with our ancient infrastructure and its ad hoc developments,those idealistic cycle paths are not going to be possible in many places, we can however do things about behaviour, and the driving under different conditions etc, this idea that the motorist is absolved of responsibility is erroneous, the message of segregation just encourages such attitudes-- as we know when cycling on a road next to a 'path' --...
you seem to want to take extremes, dual carriageway to learn on !!
a first year medic is not expected to perform brain surgery ?
cycle paths that are properly built, are great, but since roads are already there and do the same function it would be folly to duplicate in all instances. The motorist must be responsible for their actions, and since the penalties are so light for infringements they treat it accordingly.
That blog is all stuff that needs to be said IMO.
Franklin is the epitome of a self-proclaimed expert. I'm not aware of any studies as to how effective Cyclecraft is at keeping riders safe, and there's no vehicular cyclist utopia full of people with funny little helmet mirrors cycling in harmony with motor vehicles. There are some good indications that some of the advice in Cyclecraft, such as riding in a "primary position" near the middle of the lane, actually causes conflict. Just have a look at [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/ ]Martin Porter's blog[/url] for examples.
His presentation of statistics is cherry-picking of the highest order. In that article linked above he gives a total of the number of accidents without any attempt to place this into context of journeys made, etc. Just like Mike Penning's assertion that British cyclists are safer than Dutch ones. Yes we do have fewer cycling accidents in the UK, but that's just because hardly anyone cycles. We probably have fewer surfing accidents than Hawaii too.
Franklin focuses disproportionately on cycle paths, ignoring all the other measures that Holland puts in to benefit cyclists and pedestrians like 20 mph limits or stopping up residential rat-runs. He also draws a false comparison between Dutch paths and the crap we have in the UK. The Milton Keynes Redways are a case in point - they have loads of gradient changes, blind corners, and require you to stop and carry your bike up steps or merge with 60 mph roads. Franklin's oft-cited article never mentions this, instead he makes out they're an exemplary facility.
Franklin's dogma - that riding on the road is just a question of assertiveness, training and experience, and then everything else magically falls into place - is what's led us to the current situation where cycling for transport(even in MK) is only done by a tiny proportion of the population.
What's "blaming the victim" - is it saying that vulnerable road users should be put in a situation where they're subjectively and objectively safer, or telling them to MTFU, cycle assertively and get on with it?
unbelievable-- you blaming JF for the motoring culture, defensive riding is the only way to stay safe on the roads, and as others have said, drivers have no probs with assertive riders in the main, this idea that we should be off the roads where possible is really regressive, it reminds me of the out of sight out of mind theory, any cyclist who is on the road would be 'asking' for trouble.
Why do you not turn your ire on the real culprits,the motoring lobbies, the motoring press in all its forms, Top Gear etc-- or are you a motorist who wants unhindered driving ?
you get confidence and experience by doing things not avoiding them.
Most kids learn to ride on the pavement, not the road. That's where I learned, probably where you learned too. Yet somehow we still managed to transfer those skills to the road when the time was right.
Here and now in the uk, with our ancient infrastructure and its ad hoc developments,those idealistic cycle paths are not going to be possible in many places
And yet in other countries with equally ancient infrastructure they manage just fine.
cycle paths that are properly built, are great
Agreed.
since roads are already there and do the same function it would be folly to duplicate in all instances
"all instances"? Well yes, obviously. How about we start with just 5%?
The motorist must be responsible for their actions, and since the penalties are so light for infringements they treat it accordingly.
I'm not sure how true this is. Motorists don't go out intending to kill cyclists. They are unlikely to think "Well, I was going to kill that cyclist, but there's a £10,000 fine now so I won't".
Penalties for driving offences should be tighter, I agree. There shouldn't be people legally driving around with more than 12 points. Regular retesting should be introduced.
But none of that would encourage me to set my daughter on her bike to go to school. But a traffic-free route would.
See the trouble with this debate is that the anti-segregation lot seem to think that supporting segregation means you are against cycling on the road. I'm not (and neither is the author of that blog). I'm all for cycling on the road.
But then you and I are already cyclists DESPITE the current conditions. We are not the target audience.
If you ask non-cyclists what's the number one thing that would tempt them to ride to work/school/shops/park/whatever then the vast majority will answer safe, traffic-free routes.
Read this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/03/britons-unmoved-cycling-campaigns
Of course I want tougher penalties for motorists who kill too, but it's not black and white. If you do something every day, even if it's potentially got serious, life-changing consequences for getting it wrong, you become blase about it. That's why factories and work places and trains and planes have multiple safety measures designed into them.
Modern roads are very safe places to drive. On a motorway you have good lines of sight, bland non-distracting backgrounds, markings to show you how far from the car in front you're supposed to be, a rumble strip at the side to wake you up if you doze off. All of these have been implemented because at some point traffic engineers have realised that telling people to be sensible in a stern voice isn't an effective long-term solution to road safety.
If you ask non-cyclists what's the number one thing that would tempt them to ride to work/school/shops/park/whatever then the vast majority will answer safe, traffic-free routes.
if you ask non swimmers what they would like, pretty sure they would plonk for a safe place in which to learn!
Do you ever stand at the side of a motorway and think-- thats madness going at 80 mph-- yet when you are amongst it , it feels very different?
This is the same for all, jumping off top board, riding on the road should be scary if only for awareness sake, FWIW i did ride to school when i was 8, along a busy road for four miles each way. Ok traffic was a bit lighter then, but the inherent risks were the same-- how many kids walk to school ?-- very few, its too dangerous say the doubters !!
the inherent risks were the same
Well, no they weren't, because as you rightly said [i]"traffic was a bit lighter then"[/i].
Quite a lot lighter in fact:
[img] 
[/img]
how many kids walk to school ?-- very few
Around 47% of Primary school kids and 38% of secondary school kids, according to the [url= http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/national-travel-survey-2010/nts2010-01.pdf ]National Travel Survey 2010[/url]. And I suspect more would if they had safe routes.
Okay let's put it another way, can you explain to me how providing a network of safe usable traffic-free cycle routes would [i]decrease[/i] the number of people cycling?
Drivers have no probs with assertive riders in the main
It's the in-the-main that's the problem. Drivers don't have difficulty passing at a safe distance or speed 'in the main' but the consequences when they do are too great for that to be good enough.
Taking primary position in traffic in London where it is not safe/sufficiently wide to filter and I'm keeping pace with slow moving traffic I've had people both undertake (where I'm in a straight on lane alongside a left turn lane) and overtake and then simply try to pull across into the space I'm in.
My view is that cycling on the road is relatively safe. CTC's current strategy is detrimental to efforts to encourage more people to cycle as their campaign is sensationalist. They'd do better by demonstrating how safe cycling is.
Just because your more likely to be injured than a car occupant doesn't make an activity relatively dangerous.
Motorcycling is also safe. It can be made safer by riders attending bikesafe courses and other advanced training. Riding byways also dramatically improves motorcycling skills.
It's worth noting that motorcycling is 20 times safer than horseriding:
There was also a recent research at the Conquest hospital in E Sussex that found 37 people were admitted with musculoskeletal injuries due to dogs in a two month period:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22310043
"Although owning a dog confers numerous health benefits, dogs can cause falls resulting in musculoskeletal injury and fractures. We conducted a prospective observational study over a two-month period to investigate the incidence and epidemiology of dog-related musculoskeletal injury. All patients attending the Emergency Department, trauma ward or fracture clinic were asked whether their injury was caused by a dog. Thirty-seven patients were identified. There were 26 fractures, 10 soft-tissue injuries and one head injury. Seventeen patients were admitted to the hospital and sixteen cases required an operation. Older people were statistically more likely to sustain a fracture (p=0.0003) or require hospital admission (p=0.02). Mechanisms of injury are discussed and can be classified into direct or indirectly caused by the dog. The most common injury mechanism was being pulled over by a dog on a lead. Injury avoidance strategies are discussed. We conclude that dogs are a potential hazard, particularly to the elderly and the morbidity associated with these injuries may offset the health benefits conferred by dog ownership."
They'd do better by demonstrating how safe cycling is.
You can't argue that cycling is safe while you're still 20 times more likely to be hurt doing it than you are driving. What if you don't cycle, but don't lead a sedentary unhealthy lifestyle either? What incentive have you got?
You can't argue that cycling is safe while you're still 20 times more likely to be hurt doing it than you are driving. What if you don't cycle, but don't lead a sedentary unhealthy lifestyle either? What incentive have you got?
The post illustrates precisely why the CTC's campaign, and "cycling is dangerous arguments" are detrimental and sensationalist. You use the argument that it's 20 time more dangerous. Shock Horror!! it's twenty times more dangerous, we're all gonna die. It's twenty times very little = very little. It's not like the roads are strewn with corpses from RTA's.
Scaremongers would have us believe that motorcycling is dangerous yet it's significantly safer than horseriding.
"What incentive have you got?" - Why not focus on the positives instead of scaremongering? Biggest incentive is surely that you might have some fun? Tell that person that both driving and cycling is relatively safe (which it is) and they may choose to cycle. Now assume cyclist road deaths are halved, both driving and cycling remain relatively safe, would you attract that person to cycling by telling them its ten time more dangerous than driving?
Daresay someone will roll out the research that says safety concerns put people off cycling. Maybe that's because scaremongering campaigns have misled the public into percieving cycling to be more dangerous than it actually is!
Funny you should say that. A serious RTA was a weekly occurrence on the A417 between Gloucester and Leominster when I drove it daily. After a while the police started leaving the burned out smashed up cars on the roadside. So that particular road actually was littered with the remains of crashes.
It was a shocking road though so not particularly relevant to the debate, except for the fact that my experiences driving it would not make me want to cycle it!
It's not like the roads are strewn with corpses from RTA's.
Well no, but over 200,000 people are injured on our roads every year.
You can hardly consider that "very little".
I agree that a focus on how awfully dangerous cycling is could be detrimental. But we do have to be realistic. If the campaigns were [i]"Hey come cycle on the road, it's great fun and it gets you fit"[/i] then there would still be a lot of people saying [i]"Well hang on, isn't that kind of dangerous?"[/i] regardless and the campaigns would seem dishonest.
Bear in mind that the main driving force behind the Dutch cycling revolution was the [url= http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/01/stop-child-murder.html ]1973 "Stop de Kindermoord" (Child Murder) safety campaign[/url], with pressure groups highlighting road deaths and pushing for better conditions.
French roads are generally quieter than ours, but they aren't that different, especially if you are out in the countryside. But cycling in France is a lot better than here.
It's because most drivers behave like the best drivers do here. They brake, back off, and overtake with good space. It's really not rocket science.
I firmly believe that most people blast by not because they are rude, nasty, or want to endanger us. It's just never occurred to them to do otherwise.
Hence education being paramount imho.
I don't go around banging on about how dangerous cycling is. I know the odds of a serious accident happening to me are minute, and apart from anything else I'd look like a hypocritical fool - I cycle to work every day and I've just SORNed my car. But you have to admit that it takes a philosophical attitude to near-misses and close passes to keep cycling on most urban roads.
You can paint cycling in a positive light, even have some minor successes doing this. In Bristol we're up to about 10% of journeys made by cycling after the council spent a lot of money promoting it - although we have a relatively large number of cycle paths too, some great, some useless. The down side is that you also see a lot of people cycling on pavements, making their own infrastructure if you will.
Unfortunately, most people have already made up their own minds. To sell cycling as "safe" you'd also have to overcome the conflicting voices. It's not a proven approach and we've had a decade or more of people promoting cycling without actually backing it up - either with changes to the law or changes on the ground.
If you really want to get into the reasons why people do or don't cycle there are interview transcripts and more on Dave Horton's blog.
http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/
Let's keep that "over 200'000" injuries in perspective. Only 23'122 were fatal or serious injuries in 2011. And to keep that 23'122 in perspective a broken pinky counts as a serious injury but it's hardly life changing.
How many people does anyone know that have been seriously injured in a car crash? Not many.
Serious injury definition on page 4 at
I firmly believe that most people blast by not because they are rude, nasty, or want to endanger us. It's just never occurred to them to do otherwise.
I think that's close. Not so much that it has't occured to them. But because there is a collective pressure to make progress. And bicycles are merely obstacles that should be passed quickly.
Many people feel nervous passing cyclists. They [i]know[/i] the danger. And they generally know when they are cutting it close. Yet they feel they [i]should[/i] pass. Because that is what's expected of them. There's very much a pack mentality on the roads, and everyone sucumbs to it in some way or other, no matter how self-controlled we believe ourselves to be. Dare I say it, it's not entirely the fault of the indiviual that steps too close to that line, but that of the society which encourages them to do so.
I think that applies to both physical infrastructure and education in equal measures.
But cycling in France is a lot better than here.
I have to wonder if a part of that doesn't relate to Le Tour. Cyclists have always been 'heroes' in France - ride through a the French hills and you get a smile and a shout of 'Allez'. Despite the last few months the press reporting has still been along the lines of 'Bradley Wiggins is great but the cyclists I see every day are shits'.
The inconsiderate close pass maybe you can educate about but the attitude that sees someone literally try to move into the space that you're in, or accelerate towards you on a narrow road and just expect you to get out of the way, is a more fundamental attitudinal shift. I don't buy the 'posters and adverts' thing at all - it's a complete cop out. Lets spend the money on something tangible.
I'm assuming this thread, somewhere references [url= http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/the-telling-death-of-a-railwayman/ ]this blog post on relative safety measures on road and rail[/url]
Cycle [i]touring[/i] in France is great. Very few people cycle for everyday transport in France though, which makes me wonder whether we're seeing a one-sided view of the place.
Also how do we replicate this effect to create more favourable conditions for cycling in the UK? We've cleaned up at the Olympics, the world champs and the Tour, but the drivers on my commute aren't giving me any more space.
Let's keep that "over 200'000" injuries in perspective. Only 23'122 were fatal or serious injuries in 2011. And to keep that 23'122 in perspective a broken pinky counts as a serious injury but it's hardly life changing.
The September 11 attacks in the US only resulted in 3000 deaths, 510 UK soldiers have been killed in action in Iraq and Afganistan combined in 10 years.
Last year there were [url= http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm ]173 fatal accidents at work[/url] reported by the HSE
However, c2000 deaths p.a. on UK roads is just acceptable collateral damage is it? Even after people have killed in a car [url= http://goo.gl/Bh2bL ]we rarely even take their licence away for long[/url]
Cycle touring in France is great. Very few people cycle for everyday transport in France though, which makes me wonder whether we're seeing a one-sided view of the place
I've wondered the same thing - I don't have any experience of urban cycling in France. However, cycle touring in France is more pleasant than cycle touring in the UK. [url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/paris/ ]Good piece on Paris with photos of some infrastructure and mention of fact that zero fatal cycle accidents there last year[/url]
I firmly believe that most people blast by not because they are rude, nasty, or want to endanger us. It's just never occurred to them to do otherwise.
I think that's true of some. But there are plenty of others who deliberately pass close to [i]"teach that uppity cyclist a lesson. Who does he think he is riding in the middle of the road like he has a right to be there? He doesn't even pay road tax.. blah blah blah"[/i]
Just the other week Carlton Reid (editor of Bike Biz, IPayRoadTax, and numerous other bikey websites) [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/carlton-reid-deliberately-knocked-off-his-bike-in-newcastle ]was deliberately hit from behind[/url] by one such a motorist.
And to keep that 23'122 in perspective a broken pinky counts as a serious injury but it's hardly life changing.
Mmmm... that may be technically true, but it's hardly representative of the injuries sustained by people in that category which, as you pointed out, are defined as:
"An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an 'in-patient', or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally."
-- http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/road-accidents-and-safety/reported-road-casualties-gb-notes-definitions.pdf
However, c2000 deaths p.a. on UK roads is just acceptable collateral damage is it?
Well at 82 killed or seriously injured per billion miles it's acceptable to me. Room for improvement but a 1:30'000 chance of being killed on the roads seems OK to me. My personal risk will in fact be far lower as the overall risk includes high risk groups like motorcyclists, young drivers, and drivers with alcohol in their blood.
Anyone who finds that 1:30'000 level of risk too much could always do their traveling by rail and bus which are far safer than cars.
I've cycled across Paris, and it's 'kin 'orrible. Crap cycle lanes galore and nothing where you need it.
We've cleaned up at the Olympics, the world champs and the Tour, but the drivers on my commute aren't giving me any more space.
Roads at commute time are totally different to roads at other times...
Sadly like many people I don't have the option of commuting outside rush hour.
Me neither, but my point is that the reasons for being nearly run over at rush hour might not be simply lack of consideration of cyclists.
At rush hour everyone behaves like an arsehole to everyone else, perhaps this needs addressing first?
I don't know what proportion of accidents are due to arseholes, or what motivates them to behave in that way. I doubt anyone does. Rather than trying to unpick the psychological background of accidents, wouldn't it just be simpler to put in measures to ensure they couldn't happen?
Rather than trying to unpick the psychological background of accidents, wouldn't it just be simpler to put in measures to ensure they couldn't happen?
Not quite sure what measures we could put in? Apart from an entirely separate road network dedicated to cyclists, which would be next to impossible. Certain backbone routes would be great, but everywhere? Not possible imo.
And it does nothing to address the issue of bikes on roads. And I don't want to be ghettoised
At rush hour everyone behaves like an arsehole to everyone else, perhaps this needs addressing first?
But it's not just rush hour.
Look at literally any of the "helmetcam cycling in traffic videos" on YouTube and you'll find several people in the comments mouthing off about how it was all the cyclists fault, they shouldn't be on the road, don't pay road tax, should be run down on sight etc etc
Here's a nice example. Cyclist doing absolutely nothing wrong. Cycling across Runcorn Bridge. Taking the middle of his lane because it is too narrow to pass and he knows it widens out shortly. Driver behind is inconvenienced for around 45 seconds and responds by running him off the road and threatening to kill him.
Until we address THAT attitude then what hope have we got?
a starter would be the fact that any incident involving a motor vehicle and a vulnerable road user, the onus is on the motorist to prove negligence- this is why you find the different attitude in france !
Even Holland doesn't have an "entirely separate road network". Instead the quieter roads have low speed limits, noisy surfaces, parking bays rather than a kerbside free-for-all, and are usually closed at one end to prevent rat-runners.
[img] 
[/img]
They also got the pedestrianisation of town centres right by allowing bicycles. In the UK we put the dampers on utility cycling by banning them.
[img] 
[/img]
Aside from the question of safety, just telling people to cycle on roads will never address the negative effect that roads have - how they take space away from people and give it to motor vehicles.
That is a different debate. But I am not sure how to remodel Cardiff to make it more bike or pedestrian friendly. What would you do in your town? Specifically.
reclaim the streets -- i agree we need to take over roads every now and then , for people not for motors-- when that jubilee nonsense shut our main thoroughfare it was liberating for a few hours.
France. Major difference is the culture of roads there. ALL roads (including unsurfaced ones) are open to ALL users. Much less of the NIMBY you not supposed to be on this green lane (that's been used by motorbikes for 100years) or no cycling on footpaths mentality. Roads are roads - unnatural lines of communication for use by all. This inclusive approach for all roads is mutually beneficial.
It's got s*d all to do with different legislation which presumes guilt before innocence, an abhorrent situation. Most drivers will have experienced being car less at some point and how unpleasant it is. The slightest threat of the possibility of losing licence is quite sufficient for reasonable people. The unreasonable just carry on whatever legislation exists.
Holland. It's been a while but I do recall it being very flat with very good lines of sight. In contrast British roads are inherently more hazardous due to being more twisty with blind corners etc. Yes I know your meant to drive accordingly but it does raise the probability of human error (of all road users) resulting in accidents.
Near miss. Ride a small capacity motorbike with mirrors and without. With mirrors the passing seems ok. Absence of mirrors makes passes feel like near misses. Proper mirror BTW not mini convex cycle ones.
Went cycling with other half and everyting was a near miss = anxious cyclist syndrome. The passes were fine. She gives exactly the same amount of room to cyclists when driving. Took her out again after fitting mirror to bicycle, anxiety cured.
When i drive a car I give cyclists at least 3x plus the room I give cars when I overtake them on a motorcycle. I Motorbike 10K miles a year.
Road sense. This goes beyond CTC training, bikesafe and driving test/lessons. Theory practice gap springs to mind. Just because you've a right to cycle 2m from the kerb doesn't mean it's the safest place to be. Prescribed carriageway position isn't always the most courteous or safest.
High viz. Undoubtedly the most effective piece of safety kit for any cyclist traveling in poor light/nightime. not fussed on color, its the reflective elements that are important.
RLJ'ing. Haven't got a problem with it and find few people that have. Socially acceptable provided it's done considerately and carefully. Pedestrians jump red lights all the time - why shouldn't cyclists? Yes, it may be a vehicle in law but that's not how the majority of road users see them. RLJ'ing is only an issue when motorists are made to feel defensive and look for a stick to beat cyclists with.
Let's not turn this into an RLJ debate, it will deteriorate.
I'm not a traffic engineer, but here are some ideas I'd suggest:
Pedestrianise the main shopping areas in town, but keep roads open to cyclists. More on-street and off-street secure cycle parking.
Restrict hours that delivery vehicles can enter the town centre to outside rush hour. And try and keep HGVs out as much as possible. Tesco don't need some ridiculous pantechnicon to restock a Metro, but that's what they use.
Better controls of parking. Adequate parking where needed (free at places like hospitals and GP surgeries) but clamp down on kerbside parking which narrows roads and increases accidents through dooring and the like. Park and ride schemes and make them more bike-friendly too.
Close off some streets to traffic completely, or make them dead ends. More events held on closed roads, like street parties, etc, to encourage people to think of them as "their" space rather than a no-go zone.
Tighter regulation of construction traffic. Builder's lorries seem to have a nasty habit of killing cyclists and pedestrians.
Initiatives to boost local high streets rather than sprawling out-of-town developments.
Congestion charging.
Direct, well-signed traffic-free cycle routes into and out of the suburbs.
Changing electric bicycle regs would also help. Slightly higher power outputs as in Switzerland. This would make it feasable to use the best cycle network we have,namely byways, bridleways and unclassified roads, for utility journeys.
Many of my suggestions are already being practiced. The CC is the one thing that I can't see my home city introducing, despite it being congested as.
the best cycle network we have,namely byways, bridleways and unclassified roads
Srsly? Here's part of that "network" near me, last night:
[img] 
?t=FQQVBBg9aHR0cDovLzI0Lm1lZGlhLnR1bWJsci5jb20vdHVtYmxyX21jMzgyM0NncXQxcnQ2M2twbzFfNTAwLmpwZxQCFgASAA&s=Ul-VOc-gjSh2eq_Zl0ISRSf8wOh1M-tugitHXatZRE8[/img]
Interesting Mr Agreeable. Most of those are in practice where I live.
And I do seem to have far fewer gripes than some people.
I wonder if we could do a survey of the number of near misses or issues people have versus where they live/commute...?
Lovely looking track 8)
I do seem to have far fewer gripes than some people
But I recall you saying on a previous thread that your wife won't ride on the same roads as you. It's the classic example of subjective safety.
Quite - pretty much all UK roads are more intimidating than US suburban streets which is where she grew up, so it's understandable in some ways.
She isn't as confident of a cyclist as me so is more likely to make a simple handling error; she's slower so can't keep up with traffic as well, and she's just not used to it. I grew up in a small town so I was riding bikes along quiet streets, I graduated to the town's main streets which were far quieter than the city ones but still working along the same principles, and I moved to the city when I was 19, already a fit cyclists, and full of confidence and youth. So I had the perfect introduction.
She grew up riding kids bikes on the pavements around very quite kids streets, then never rode as an older kid or young adult. Hence insecurity about going on roads now.
Going back slightly to the [i]"What would you do in your town?"[/i] question - here's a nice example of how it all goes wrong, the new transport strategy proposals for Durham:
[url=
]"Transport Innovation in an Historic City" by Roger Elphick, Head of Highway Management, Durham County Council (PDF)[/url]
Loads of good stuff here: congestion charges, pedestrianisation, bus priority, park and ride, reduced long term parking in centre, reducing through traffic, reallocating road space etc etc. [i]*applauds*[/i]
A 35 page presentation. Cycling is mentioned just once in a vague bullet point about "better facilities". 😕 [i]*sigh*[/i]
As [url= http://bikeyface.com/2012/10/18/serious-about-safety/ ]Bikeyface[/url] put it:
[img] 
[/img]
pedestrianisation
At a talk by Sustrans founder John Grimshaw recently, he voiced the opinion that the widespread pedestrianisation of town centres in the 70s, with accompanying bike bans, caused a whole "lost generation" of cyclists, as people who would previously have cycled to get their shopping or meet up with friends were steered towards driving or taking the bus. He didn't cite any research in support but it sounds plausible.
Councils are very quick to give in to the anti-cyclists, or avoid the issue altogether, without realising the longer term harm it can do.
Yeah I'd agree with that. [url= http://newcycling.org/news/20120711/weve-written-cllr-nigel-todd ]One the Newcastle Cycle Campaign's objectives[/url] is to get bikes allowed onto the pedestrianised Northumberland Street.
[img] 
[/img]
There's room, it would be a boost to the businesses and encourage utility cycling. The campaign have suggested trialling it with out-of-shopping-hours cycling and seeing how it goes.
Plenty of resistance to it.
Best they've managed is a concession that bikes might be allowed on a parallel road. 🙄
Often appears to me that perceptions of improved cycling and cycling achievements pertain almost entirely to utility cycling (for shopping, work etc)
Leisure cycling is where it's at for me, yet I see little campaigning focused on this. Most campaigns tend to be directed towards utility cycling on roads shared with cars and aimed at making life harder for motorists. Urban/city/large town utility cycling seems to feature more as well.
Shame really as the main temptation to leave the car for a bicycle is primarily leisure. Leisure cycling acts as a gateway to utility cycling.
For semi rural commuting I would want to use a direct route, which means using rights of way as opposed to tarmac roads, and to travel 25 miles in an hour(ish)- well it's 25 road miles on a motorbike, but that would be significantly reduced if rights of way were used. The only way I see this as being feasible is if electric bicyles regulations were changed to allow higher outputs as per Switzerland.
Are CTC, or anyone else, campaigning for this?
What's CTC's line on electric bicycles?
Leisure cycling is where it's at for me, yet I see little campaigning focused on this. Most campaigns tend to be directed towards utility cycling on roads shared with cars..
Sustrans.
Their routes are off and on-road and cover both leisure and utility for pedestrians and cyclists.
travel 25 miles in an hour(ish)
What you want there is a car. Or maybe just a moped.
There's room, it would be a boost to the businesses and encourage utility cycling. The campaign have suggested trialling it with out-of-shopping-hours cycling and seeing how it goes.
How would it be a boost to business? It's a genuine question. Are they saying people don't shop there because they can't ride their bikes or do they just go there a different way? Also, there;s not much you can buy and take home on the average person's bike (most don't have paniers etc).
How would it be a boost to business? It's a genuine question.
There are a couple of studies (I'll have a look for sources in a bit) that show that businesses that can be easily accessed by bike have greater numbers of people coming through the door.
Makes sense if you think about it. If you're out on a bike going through somewhere then you might pass an interesting shop or fancy a coffee. It's much easier to just stop and pop-in on a bike than it is from car.
[img] 
[/img]
http://bikeyface.com/2012/10/11/the-myth-of-the-open-road/
Plus of course (in the UK at least) cyclists are likely to have reasonable disposable income.
Leisure cycling is where it's at for me, yet I see little campaigning focused on this.
Sky Rides? The NCN? The Cyclist's [i]Touring[/i] Club? If you have the idea that all cycling campaigners are hair-shirt utilitarians, you probably need to find out what most of them actually do.
aimed at making life harder for motorists
Bit of a misrepresentation there. If you have fewer cars, surely driving actually gets safer, quicker and easier?
Leisure cycling is definitely part of the bigger picture, but without trying to make it into a viable mode of [u]transport[/u], it's never going to be more beneficial to society as a whole than people going hang-gliding. Or windsurfing. Or going to the gym.
These activities don't give you less clogged-up cities, or more welcoming streets.
Besides, a whole bunch of people driving their cars to bike somewhere (like I see on the Bristol/Bath Path very weekend) is a sorry sight in many ways.
How would it be a boost to business?
There's a few reasons. Less space given over to cars, cyclists and pedestrians are more likely to visit several shops, the environment becomes more pleasant.
Not to mention that car-based shoppers are the ones who are going to go to big out-of-town developments rather than the little high street shops.
I think the leisure side of things has been put above 'useful' journeys for ages. Hence the old railway line routes that don't really go anywhere, the pottering along the cana;, the cycling routes that just go round reservoirs, the parents who put the bikes in the car so they can ride around a park with the kids before driving home again.
It's treating the bike as a toy. For some of us it is a toy, but there will only be more bikes/people on bikes if we treat it as a convenient, cheap form of transport and build roads/facilities accordingly.
I think the leisure side of things has been put above 'useful' journeys for ages. Hence the old railway line routes that don't really go anywhere, the pottering along the canal..
Given my commute to work is an old railway line and a pottering alongside the Tyne, I tend to disagree 😀
Some routes can be utilitarian AND leisure. My route is part of the Hadrian's Cycleway leisure route, but also well used by commuters on bikes or foot.
Given my commute to work is an old railway line and a pottering alongside the Tyne, I tend to disagreeSome routes can be utilitarian AND leisure. My route is part of the Hadrian's Cycleway leisure route, but also well used by commuters on bikes or foot.
Of course they can be both, but the primary consideration when building the "Hadrian's Cycleway leisure route" would have been leisure. 😉
Here are a couple of good blogs about shopping and cycling that links to the relevant studies and figures etc:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2007/11/cyclists-are-better-shoppers-than.html
http://spacingtoronto.ca/2009/02/18/study-finds-that-removing-parking-to-install-bike-lanes-or-widen-sidewalk-would-benefit-businesses-on-bloor/
This one covers UK examples of Edinburgh and Leicester:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/Info%20sheets/ff39.pdf
An important aspect is that local retailers are generally against pedestrianisation because they have a perception that people drive to their shop and must be able to park nearby. But the reality is usually different. People rarely drive to a small shop (unless it is very specialist) and a lot more trade comes from foot traffic than many retailers realise:
[img] 
[/img]
(We're talking small in-town shops here - not huge out-of-town supermarkets).
the primary consideration when building the "Hadrian's Cycleway leisure route" would have been leisure.
😀
Ah but it wasn't. It's a Sustrans route. So the primary consideration was a good usable [b]sus[/b]tainable [b]trans[/b]port route. If it forms part of a larger Coast2Coast then all the better, but that isn't its main usage Monday to Friday.
I get the impression that in many places Sustrans and local authorities have gone for the easy wins (and fair play, if they'd held out for Dutch-style infrastructure at the time they started, they might not have got anywhere at all) so the NCN features lots of converted railway lines and the like.
Most of these routes are a mixed bag with some good stuff and some half-finished or convoluted bits. And of course it's all shared use. It's much easier to promote these routes as leisure facilities rather than serious transport. For example, a bit of crap gravelly surfacing is a safety issue on a commute, but it's all part of the fun to a hardened touring cyclist.
I get the impression that in many places Sustrans and local authorities have gone for the easy wins
Yeah they absolutely have. They are a charity and have to work with local authorities as best they can with whatever land they can persuade them to turn over.
It does lead to some less than perfect routes. The NCN72 I use is great, but the parallel route on the south side of the Tyne (NCN14) is a lot more disjointed and less direct.
But these are a foothold that they build on. They do what they can, demonstrate that people use it, then use that positive feedback to get more routes. We've just had a new route (NCN141) added as a spur to the NCN14 and the NCN725 is also linking up with it in Gateshead.
And yeah, it's all shared use, but then so is a great deal of the Dutch-style infrastructure too.
Ah but it wasn't. It's a Sustrans route. So the primary consideration was a good usable sustainable transport route
Like the Camel Trail? Which Sustrans describe as:
"One of the most popular [b]recreational[/b] routes in the country, ....
The traffic free trail follows the route of an old railway and is [b]ideal for family cycling [/b]as it is fairly level all the way and the [b]views of moorland, woodland and estuary are spectacular[/b]. The trail is also used by walkers, joggers and horse-riders."
Now, obviously if your commute took you along the same route then you may well use it, but it's not trying to be a car-free [u]road[/u] like the stuff in the Netherlands.
bails, come and ride the Bristol/Bath Path at rush hour on a weekday. Then ride it on a Sunday. It's absolutely heaving at both times but with completely different sorts of cyclists.
Sometimes it's a win/win. And it's all more people on bikes.
it's not trying to be a car-free road like the stuff in the Netherlands.
[b]My route (all Sustrans):[/b]
[img] 
[/img]
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/in-praise-of-sustrans-and-traffic-free-cycle-paths-photos
[b]A Netherlands route:[/b]
[img] 
[/img]
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/09/team-building.html
The two goals are not mutually exclusive.
Safe usable routes benefits all cycling. 🙂
Speaking of which, time I was on my bike...