Cycling in the UK

il_principe

Article in the Guardian re cycling today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling-safety-york-calderdale

The experts, who took the all-party cycling group on a tour of the unparalleled Dutch cycling infrastructure, argued that the best way to tempt people on to bikes is to portray cycling as an everyday activity, not just the preserve of young men with an assertive attitude and a wardrobe full of skin-tight DayGlo jerseys.

"If you really want to have a lot of people cycling, one thing that people need is to feel safe cycling. It is the perceived safety that is so important," said Hans Voerknecht from Holland's Fiets Beraad, or bicycle council.

"It shouldn't be a fringe sub-culture, just for the cyclists you could call the urban guerrillas. You'll never have ordinary people cycling if that's the image they see."

Voerknecht points out that only a tiny minority of Dutch cyclists wear helmets, and while a few enthusiasts take to the roads in full Tour de France gear they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by people pedalling to work, school or the shops in everyday clothes, even formal business suits.

I'm in two minds about all this. I'd love to see the UK take up a Dutch approach to cycling but only as long as the so called "urban guerrillas" among us are allowed to stick to the roads and not forced into using paths.

robmanic1

That's a good article, some very interesting points. I especially liked the " automatic presumption of innocence in any collision with a car" rule implemented in Holland. I wonder if there are any valid reasons that couldn't be introduced here? It would certainly make drivers a great deal more careful when overtaking cyclists, pulling out at junctions etc.

Rich158

It's a catch 22 situation isn't it. The more cyclists you encourage onto the roads the safer it becomes, and eventually you reach critical mass, where a real improvement in facilities is justifiable to the powers that be. The downside is that the serious cyclists, ie us, get caught up with the masses, forced onto facilities we don't want or need to use, all the while trying to avoid all the casual cyclists who do no more than pootle along at 5mph.

Personally I like being classed as an "urban guerrilla", it fits with my rebelious nature. I kind of quite like the fact that serious road riding could be forced underground and would become a sub-culture akin to mountain biking, BMX, skateboarding etc

Christophe3967

jashburnham wrote:

I'd love to see the UK take up a Dutch approach to cycling but only as long as the so called "urban guerrillas" among us are allowed to stick to the roads and not forced into using paths.

I don't think we have anything to worry about on that front

Interseting quote from the owner of the bike shop in York, rated the safest place to ride in England.

"There's what you could call a residual bike culture, from the past – when the shifts changed at the Rowntree factory the streets used to be a mass of bikes. The traffic in the centre is pretty bad as well, which encourages people to ride. In some ways it's been quite easy for the council, as you've got the river and parks, so they've been able to put in bike lanes. But when it comes to the difficult decisions like disrupting cars they're not doing a great job. The volume of cycle traffic certainly helps. The cycling culture is a lot less aggressive than in some places, particularly London."

London? Aggressive? We're pussycats. :?

il_principe

Christophe3967 wrote:

Interseting quote from the owner of the bike shop in York, rated the safest place to ride in England.

"There's what you could call a residual bike culture, from the past – when the shifts changed at the Rowntree factory the streets used to be a mass of bikes. The traffic in the centre is pretty bad as well, which encourages people to ride. In some ways it's been quite easy for the council, as you've got the river and parks, so they've been able to put in bike lanes. But when it comes to the difficult decisions like disrupting cars they're not doing a great job. The volume of cycle traffic certainly helps. The cycling culture is a lot less aggressive than in some places, particularly London."

London? Aggressive? We're pussycats. :?

Perception rules with cycling though. People perceive it to be dangerous, perceive lycra wearers to be "louts" etc etc.

nicklouse

Christophe3967
after reading the Quote i had to see who it was, I had my money on Andy at C.H.

Cycling in York is fun but some of the roads in FFS they are bad.

_Brun_

The experts, who took the all-party cycling group on a tour of the unparalleled Dutch cycling infrastructure, argued that the best way to tempt people on to bikes is to portray cycling as an everyday activity, not just the preserve of young men with an assertive attitude and a wardrobe full of skin-tight DayGlo jerseys.

But I rely on cycling to give people the impression that I'm a young man with an assertive attitude!

Get out of my way, Grandad :evil:

AndyManc

Would anyone like to reply to this c*** , link below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling-safety-york-calderdale?commentid=b48bdd9d-c0b3-4951-843b-f4117f6b8445


The problem I have found with cyclists is that they dont have any observational skills at all, they cycle along without a care for whats behind them swinging out in front of any parked car, and also turning left and right without telling anyone they are going to do it.

I had this one guy that i knew was going to turn right at a junction, and as there was a big truck he decided to cut into my going forward lane to beat it on the wrong side (that is a really bad idea) so he was riding in the centre of my going forward lane, i gave him a honk to show i was there, and he stuck his finger up at me.

As most cyclists I have seen have no awareness and are really smug, no wonder they get knocked off.

I am a keen motorbiker, and during the CBT i took it gave me lots of tips and techniques for safe motorbiking, which i use all the time on my bicycle, and they keep me safer and also keep the car driving from having to hit me.

I think that all cyclists now should need to take a CBT to be on the roads, it would cuts deaths dramatically .

To any cyclists that are reading this (it is the guardian, so there is bound to be a few) get on a CBT course, and start using observation, and why not get some mirros for your bike as well, oh and if the pavement is free and there is no one walking on it, and you are going up a hill at 7MPH , just use the pavement better for everyone






.

AndyManc

BTW , the 'fact finding mission' mentioned in the report is shown in the video I linked yesterday.


http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12621943



.

Kieran_Burns

jashburnham wrote:

I'm in two minds about all this. I'd love to see the UK take up a Dutch approach to cycling but only as long as the so called "urban guerrillas" among us are allowed to stick to the roads and not forced into using paths.

I'm more in the 'Urban Baboon' or possibly 'Urban Orangutan' area myself. Maybe the faster cyclists should start wearing Silver on their backs as a sign of assertiveness?

The bottom line though is that cycling on a shared pavement is (IMHO) more dangerous than cycling on the road when you reach a certain average speed (which even I have attained)

lost_in_thought

I agree with those above saying they don't want to be herded into cycle lanes. the cycling culture in places like amsterdam or copenhagen is great but marred by segregated lanes and the city pootlers on phones going at 5mph...

robmanic1

If we're not careful we'll be accused of wanting a "moon on a stick" situation.

il_principe

What about this peach of a comment:

I wonder if there's also any link between social and ethnic background and accidents involving cyclists? Living in the Black Country I notice a marked difference in the number of people who run red lights and fail to stop at pedestrian crossings compared to more white and wealthy Solihull, despite having apparently similar number of cyclists on the roads.

Yeah it's called the Black country 'cos lots of Black people live there, nothing to do with the presence of coal...

blu3cat

I wonder if there's also any link between social and ethnic background and accidents involving cyclists? Living in the Black Country I notice a marked difference in the number of people who run red lights and fail to stop at pedestrian crossings compared to more white and wealthy Solihull, despite having apparently similar number of cyclists on the roads.

That is so much crap. I see cycllists of all ethicity jumping lights etc.

roger_merriman

old cities like london have the roads fairly set in postion, that where one would put, big wide bike lanes never seem to be answered.

the other thing to point out is that the Dutch have a more even spread of people unlike UK which has some increadbly busy places and some that are very sparce. that making direct comparisons are set with problems this said on the whole more bikes means safer roads does seem to be true though you also have the whole cultal thing. ie most people see bikes as a sport than transport, ebay lists bikes as such.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Hmm. Encouraging cycling. HTF to do that.

I think there are a few immutable starting points here.

First, we're stuck with the layout of our cities and the roads in them.

Second, I don't think cycle lanes are feasible solutions either in cities or out of cities. Leave aside their pros and cons; I just don't think there's room for them in cities and I don't think there's a need for them outside.

Third, roads are a shared resource. Always have been and always will be. Whenever you ask people to share something, you've set a recipe for trouble somewhere (a reason why cycle lanes don't help: motorists see their real estate shrink further).

Fourth, for at least 4 months a year the weather in this country is such that you will weed all but the most dedicated riders off the roads. Simple as (another reason why cycle lanes are not a solution; those that remain on the road are the least likely to want to use them for those four months).

So, as I see it, any solution has to (a) work with what we have and (b) acknowledge that a large proportion of riders will only ever be fair weather riders.

This govt has routinely encouraged behaviour by taxing the opposite behaviour. But you can't realistically tax people out of cars *and* public transport - there are plenty of vote-losing and policy reasons why not. And you can't tax people out of commercial vehicles and onto bikes at all.

A solution would be to offer monetary incentives to people to who. Zero rating all bike and bike related goods - easy to do (not sure it would be permissible under EU VAT laws though). Instead of the £2000 for scrapping old cars, give a generous incentive to people to trade in rusted old wrecks in favour of working new bikes. Hell, subsidise the crap out of new bike prices.

But that's all money-driven, and may do little more than replace unused old bikes with unused new ones. So much for that idea.

Seems to me that the biggest obstacle to everyday bike use (aside from the weather) is the safety aspect. Time and time again I see people shudder when I say I commute by bike in London.

Improving safety, without segregated bike lanes, requires (a) better road awareness from cyclists; (b) better road awareness from drivers; (c) a change in the public's perception that cycling is inherently dangerous.

So what about this:
(a) a cycling test, directed specifically at riding in traffic on roads. You take it and pass, and then in any subsequent accident with a vehicle, there's a presumption you were not at fault. You don't take it (or fail) and there's no presumption either way.
(b) a driving test, directed specifically at bike awareness. You take it and pass, and you get 15% off your motor insurance. You don't take it (or fail it) and there's a strong presumption in an accident with a cyclist that you were at fault.
(c) an advertising drive, similar in scale to that for drink driving and speeding, to change the public's perception of danger in cycling *and* to encourage more generally cycling as a means of transportation.

rolf_f

AndyManc wrote:

To any cyclists that are reading this (it is the guardian, so there is bound to be a few) get on a CBT course, and start using observation, and why not get some mirros for your bike as well, oh and if the pavement is free and there is no one walking on it, and you are going up a hill at 7MPH , just use the pavement better for everyone[/i]

So, on that basis, when I am cycling along the Kirstall road on my MTB at 20mph and the cars are parked or doing 5mph, is he suggesting that he is willing to drive on the pavement - better for everyone?!!

roger merriman wrote:

the other thing to point out is that the Dutch have a more even spread of people unlike UK which has some increadbly busy places and some that are very sparce. that making direct comparisons are set with problems this said on the whole more bikes means safer roads does seem to be true though you also have the whole cultal thing. ie most people see bikes as a sport than transport, ebay lists bikes as such.

.

That isn't really true. Western Holland is very densely populated with the cities of Amsterdam, Haarlem, Leiden, The Hague, Delft and Rotterdam all virtually in sight of each other. It is notorious for horrendous traffic problems but the reason the bikes have an easy time is that they are given the space and segregation to be much safer. As important as that is that when there are that many bikes around, drivers assume they will be there rather than, as here, assuming that they won't be.

I found it fairly easy to cycle at a reasonable pace in Delft but Dutch bikes encourage a slower pace than UK commuters will be used to. Also, they often have less far to cycle (the cites are on the small side) and it is all on the flat - again encouraging a slightly gentle ride. TBH, if the price to pay for a Dutch level of bike use is an end to SCR, then that is a no brainer - a price worth paying 1000 times over. I could cycle to work much slower and still beat the bus.

jedster

A solution would be to offer monetary incentives to people to who. Zero rating all bike and bike related goods - easy to do (not sure it would be permissible under EU VAT laws though). Instead of the £2000 for scrapping old cars, give a generous incentive to people to trade in rusted old wrecks in favour of working new bikes. Hell, subsidise the crap out of new bike prices.

To be fair to the Govt. (not something I generally recommend) cycle to work, for all its faults is a reasonably generous stab at this.

I realise that it is of modest help if you're wanting to buy a custom carbon bling machine!

J

bigmat

I'm not too keen on this "presumption of fault / no fault" thing. I see cyclists do the most ridiculous things on a daily basis and as somebody who also drives a car, I don't see why I should be presumed to be at fault where some idiot has effectively ridden into me. I see what you're saying about the proficiency tests, which might help, but the whole presumption thing sets a dangerous precedent.

greg66_tri_v2.0

jedster wrote:

A solution would be to offer monetary incentives to people to who. Zero rating all bike and bike related goods - easy to do (not sure it would be permissible under EU VAT laws though). Instead of the £2000 for scrapping old cars, give a generous incentive to people to trade in rusted old wrecks in favour of working new bikes. Hell, subsidise the crap out of new bike prices.

To be fair to the Govt. (not something I generally recommend) cycle to work, for all its faults is a reasonably generous stab at this.

I realise that it is of modest help if you're wanting to buy a custom carbon bling machine!

J

I wondered whether to mention C2W, but decided my post was too long already. I concede C2W is a reasonable stab, but it has faults: it's not that straightforward; it's not offered by every bike shop (AKAIK); you have to get your employer to sign up (and I know from mates this isn't always easy); and it's not available if you're self employed.

I'd have been happy to have taken its benefits and topped up to get a bling machine ( ), but since I'm self employed, I was fecked over by it.

greg66_tri_v2.0

MatHammond wrote:

I'm not too keen on this "presumption of fault / no fault" thing. I see cyclists do the most ridiculous things on a daily basis and as somebody who also drives a car, I don't see why I should be presumed to be at fault where some idiot has effectively ridden into me. I see what you're saying about the proficiency tests, which might help, but the whole presumption thing sets a dangerous precedent.

I drive too, so it cuts both ways for me as well. The point about a presumption is that it's just that: a starting point. It's not irrebutable. If the cyclist RLJ'd, then it's going to be pretty easy for the driver to rebut the presumption and show they were not at fault.

Christophe3967

Greg66 wrote:

So what about this:
(a) a cycling test, directed specifically at riding in traffic on roads. You take it and pass, and then in any subsequent accident with a vehicle, there's a presumption you were not at fault. You don't take it (or fail) and there's no presumption either way.
(b) a driving test, directed specifically at bike awareness. You take it and pass, and you get 15% off your motor insurance. You don't take it (or fail it) and there's a strong presumption in an accident with a cyclist that you were at fault.
(c) an advertising drive, similar in scale to that for drink driving and speeding, to change the public's perception of danger in cycling *and* to encourage more generally cycling as a means of transportation.

I think a and c are both practical, given the political will to Do Something. B should be included in the standard driving test, and PSV and HGV tests should take it further and require say two or three hours on a bike in an urban environment.

I'm just not getting my hopes up...

LDN-Flyer

MatHammond wrote:

I'm not too keen on this "presumption of fault / no fault" thing. I see cyclists do the most ridiculous things on a daily basis and as somebody who also drives a car, I don't see why I should be presumed to be at fault where some idiot has effectively ridden into me. I see what you're saying about the proficiency tests, which might help, but the whole presumption thing sets a dangerous precedent.

^ this, i also see cyclists do mental things everyday. It needs to work on two levels, reducing inner city speed limits to 20mph and educating drivers that cyclists are here to stay and they need to respect them as well as making cyclists aware of the rules of the road.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

I drive too, so it cuts both ways for me as well. The point about a presumption is that it's just that: a starting point. It's not irrebutable. If the cyclist RLJ'd, then it's going to be pretty easy for the driver to rebut the presumption and show they were not at fault.

+1, I do think it's a good starting point rather than the current mixed one according to whether you get a plod that's pro- or anti-cycling.

As someone else said, it'd make a reasonable percentage drivers a lot less inclined to overtake bikes stupidly or be aggressive towards cyclists. Some, however, will still be w@nkers. But some cyclists are too. Whether proficiency tests would change that, I don't know. You (theoretically) have to pass a driving test, remember...

I think the gov't. needs to work on a 'carrot rather than stick' approach with cycling, offer a greater incentive to those who do cycle to work or cycle their kids to school, percentage reduction in income tax/ NI for example, or similar. I have no knowledge of tax law etc.

The C2W-type schemes fall flat for reasons already stated, but the other issue for them is that people disinclined to cycle at all will not start simply because they can get a bike at a discount on what is effectively a finance scheme.

Tax breaks, OTOH, or some other financial incentive would be a far greater push.

And what to do about the perception of danger? Like G66 says, people are horrified that I cycle in London, especially without a helmet, but I don't think it's dangerous. An advertising campaign, maybe, but another story about a cyclist's death and all the good work is undone. Positive steps being taken to make the roads safer for cyclists would help, but I have no idea what they would be...

Tricky.

Eau Rouge

I lived in Holland for a few months as a student. I borrowed an ancient womens bike you had to pedal backwards to stop on to get around. The bike lanes seemed great to me at the time, with ample space to pass other cyclists etc. In contrast, when I visited Amsterdam, it looked a lot less cycling-friendly to my not-really-a-cyclist eyes. I do wonder what I'd make of those cycle lanes now. SCR road trip to the Netherlands anyone?

To me though, the single biggest difference between cycling there and in Ireland (and in the UK too) was the attitude of car drivers and pedestrians. The pedestrians didn't walk in the cycle paths, even the few that I remember being shared-use.
The cars were even better. They gave way to cyclists all the time. Best examples were the bigger traffic-light controlled crossroads. The bikes, being on cycle lanes, were further forward of the cars but stopped at the same lights (cyclists-specific lights on the cysle lanes, no excuse to RLJ) When both went green, as they would, the lead car would come around the corner....to cross the path of all the cyclists going straight on.....and stop and let them all through.

That, of course, is 100% down to the law that effectively makes it illegal for a motor-vehicle to be involved in an accicent with a cyclist. It forces drivers to be carfull, to not contribute in any way to the accident, because they know they will get done for it, even if the cyclist is in the wrong too. It effectively means bikes always have right of way over cars. There is absolutely no reason such a law would not work here, once worded carefully (and thats not that hard to do)

always_tyred

You can only practicably offer a tax break at the point of sale, since it would be inappropriate to offer tax breaks later for people who drive to work but who happen to have cheap bikes rusting in their garage.

Tax breaks for employers to build cycle facilities at work would be good.

Removal of VAT on bicycles and accessories would be good.

Forcing train companies to provide a minimum provision for cycle COMMUTING would be good (rather than providing the minimum provision at all other times).

roger_merriman

Rolf F wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

To any cyclists that are reading this (it is the guardian, so there is bound to be a few) get on a CBT course, and start using observation, and why not get some mirros for your bike as well, oh and if the pavement is free and there is no one walking on it, and you are going up a hill at 7MPH , just use the pavement better for everyone[/i]

So, on that basis, when I am cycling along the Kirstall road on my MTB at 20mph and the cars are parked or doing 5mph, is he suggesting that he is willing to drive on the pavement - better for everyone?!!

roger merriman wrote:

the other thing to point out is that the Dutch have a more even spread of people unlike UK which has some increadbly busy places and some that are very sparce. that making direct comparisons are set with problems this said on the whole more bikes means safer roads does seem to be true though you also have the whole cultal thing. ie most people see bikes as a sport than transport, ebay lists bikes as such.

.

That isn't really true. Western Holland is very densely populated with the cities of Amsterdam, Haarlem, Leiden, The Hague, Delft and Rotterdam all virtually in sight of each other. It is notorious for horrendous traffic problems but the reason the bikes have an easy time is that they are given the space and segregation to be much safer. As important as that is that when there are that many bikes around, drivers assume they will be there rather than, as here, assuming that they won't be.

I found it fairly easy to cycle at a reasonable pace in Delft but Dutch bikes encourage a slower pace than UK commuters will be used to. Also, they often have less far to cycle (the cites are on the small side) and it is all on the flat - again encouraging a slightly gentle ride. TBH, if the price to pay for a Dutch level of bike use is an end to SCR, then that is a no brainer - a price worth paying 1000 times over. I could cycle to work much slower and still beat the bus.

they have a much dencer population dencity which apears to be more even while the uk has some very dence areas such as SE england and some areas with just sheep, and places that are even reducing population such as the upper parts of the welsh valleys.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Eau Rouge wrote:

The cars were even better. They gave way to cyclists all the time.

That brought to mind N America. At ped crossings, peds are King. It doesn't matter if the car can go (eg a right turn on a red light). If there's a ped on the crossing, the cars freeze. No one gets frustrated; they just wait.

On the face of it, it's an attitudinal thing. I bet, however, that the attitude is there because there are heavy penalties for hitting a ped on a crossing. I wonder that drives the attitude to cyclists in Holland.

vorsprung

MatHammond wrote:

I'm not too keen on this "presumption of fault / no fault" thing. I see cyclists do the most ridiculous things on a daily basis and as somebody who also drives a car, I don't see why I should be presumed to be at fault where some idiot has effectively ridden into me. I see what you're saying about the proficiency tests, which might help, but the whole presumption thing sets a dangerous precedent.

The way that the word "dangerous" fits into this is "cars are more dangerous than bikes"

If a bike is ridden carelessly then the rider themselves will be injured
If a car is driven without due caution then the driver is unlikely to be hurt but if he meets a bicycle then the cyclist could well end up as an ex-cyclist.

We might all drive cars regularly but this doesn't make them less deadly.
Cars are an everyday experience but also extremely dangerous

The idea behind the presumption is to force car drivers ( like me, I have a driving license ) that safety of other road users is their #1 priority and not getting to their destination 30 seconds earlier.

The Dutch experience is that they had a campaign in the 70s called "stop killing our children" which brought in the idea that car drivers should be really really careful when encounting bikes, as if anything goes wrong they could well get the blame

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

On the face of it, it's an attitudinal thing. I bet, however, that the attitude is there because there are heavy penalties for hitting a ped on a crossing. I wonder that drives the attitude to cyclists in Holland.

Well, the Belgian Highway Code is rather differently worded to the UK one regarding cyclists - it's very clear that you 'must not' endanger cyclists and you must give them right of way. It also says that you must not endanger them by overtaking and if you cannot leave one metre of space (which isn't a huge amount) you must wait until you can.

The Dutch one, however, apparently treats cyclists and their network of 'cycling roads' entirely as their own entity, it seems the cycle lanes are segregated to the extent that there is rarely the situation that the two interact, and the crossing/crossroads is dealt with by the phrase (rough translation) 'a cycle lane forms part of the crossing and its users must be given priority'. There is a 'last resort' provision for cyclists to use the motor carriageway.

Interestingly, no mention whatsoever of motorists' treatment of cyclists is made in the summary English translation.

The difference in phrasing etc. is quite interesting - the Belgian one especially could teach the UK some lessons.

Belgian one and Dutch one

Jay dubbleU

Biggest problem in our area is stupid shared cycle paths - just a white line down the middle to separate peds and cyclists - of course the peds take no notice and just wander anywhere.
The council here seems to try to get cyclists as far away from the roads as possible but because we have these stupid shared paths no-one uses them and most people ride on roads which make no allowances for cyclists. :roll: