Cities fit for cycling

CiB

BigMat wrote:

I think 20mph zones could be appropriate for a lot of residential roads - I'm thinking the ones that are used as cut-throughs, back routes etc, where know-it-all locals see the chance to get off the main road and put their foot down in totally inappropriate circumstances. You know, residential streets with cars parked up either side, that sort of thing.

20mph across the board would be a pain though, for the reasons G66 has mentioned - try cycling in Richmond Park, when the cars actually obey the speed limit its a right pain having to constantly overtake!

This is where the logic falls apart. There is - in the real world - no real problem caused by "know-it-all locals [who] see the chance to get off the main road and put their foot down in totally inappropriate circumstances". I drive a lot and can't recall the last time I saw anyone do this. I'm sure it happens here & there, but does it not occur to anyone that a muppet who does drive too fast in a 30 is not going to suddenly become a law-abiding citizen when presented with a shiny new 20 sign. One thing is certain, that he won't be caught by a copper with a speed gun. So we attempt to solve a virtually non-existent problem with a law that does nothing more than antagonise a lot more people for no good reason.

kieranb

no real problem caused by "know-it-all locals [who] see the chance to get off the main road and put their foot down in totally inappropriate circumstances". I drive a lot and can't recall the last time I saw anyone do this

Funny how people have different opinions I see this all the time in my local area of SE London, the local roads actually feel more dangerous than the city centre, I also experience it driving as I stick to speed limits and get impatient drivers right on my tail and also overtaking at the first dodgy chance. 20mph is too slow for me when training so I don't use richmond park etc but if enforced might encourage those who are NOT currently cycling to take it up, as often it is the perception of danger that stops someone cycling.

sfichele

I'd welcome the 20 mph in some places, like my road where some idiots hammer down at 30+, despite it being a 15% hill, narrow, and cars parked on both sides. But in reality its never going to happen. Think of the cost, it would be massively expensive to change signs in all residential areas, etc, and it would be impractical to police. At the moment we have cameras on major roads, but it would be impossible to put them in lots of residential areas, nor would you want them everywhere.

a muppet who does drive too fast in a 30 is not going to suddenly become a law-abiding citizen when presented with a shiny new 20 sign

^ I also think a lot of motorists would just ignore the limit anyway.

In addition, whatever the views are on a 20 mph limit, it has little to do with cycling safe cities, its just being piggy-backed onto this campaign (as said above). An idiot who approaches a junction at 20 mph, who them doesn't look, and pulls out without slowing down is still a menace...

DavidJB

Annoys me how a lot of this stuff is so London centric...there's a whole country of cyclists out there...we don't all live in London.

symo

I think today's letters page in The Times says everything.

"Better Training for Cyclists" How are you going to fund that? Shouldn't drivers be trained more to prevent the 200,000 plus casualities a year caused by motor vehicles?
"Licensing for Bikes" Yes and how are we going to fund that, how will it be enforced, and will it be as successful as licensing everywhere else? Also has successful is licensing cars and lorries at stopping RLJing and speeding?

Usual crowd of idiots with an opinion and giving it an airing, like I said before; I don't want to be wrapped in cotton wool I want to be respected and I want to be able to ride within the current law and be protected by it.

CarlosDSanchez

BikeAbility should be taught at school and then you should have to do it again as part of your driving test/HGV test etc tailored in a way to suit the types of vehicle you will be driving.

sfichele

CarlosDSanchez wrote:

BikeAbility should be taught at school and then you should have to do it again as part of your driving test/HGV test etc tailored in a way to suit the types of vehicle you will be driving.

+1

oneof1982

Have to say that I see The Times campaign as a "good thing". To see even one of the national newspapers splash across its front pages positive, pro-cycling messages has got to be good in terms of raising the profile and awareness of cycling. If anything, I'd rather it had been the Daily Mail or even the BBC taking such a pro-cycling stance. Yes, I am sure there are all sorts of cycnical reasons that they may or may not have behind them, and that the detail can be argued over, but I'm supportive, and I will be signing up.

Initialised

In principle this is a good thing.

The focus should be on reducing conflict between motorised and self propelled traffic, not segregation

1: Enforce the ASL with cameras as is done at some 'Yellow Box Junctions'

2: Allow cyclists to treat traffic light controlled junctions like give way (effectively legalise RLJ) or have a separate lane for cyclists that bypasses the lights (especially useful where there is no left entrance) thus reducing the need for the ASL and basing law on behaviour.

3: Design new roads so that the left most lane is wide enough for a car to pass a bike safely (e.g. extra 1.5-2m) but not quite wide enough for two cars (maybe two Smarts).

4: Only use cycle lanes where necessary/ use cycle lanes sparingly. Don't make the surface of the cycle lane different from the road, slippery, bumpy, prone to flaking.

5: Include Bikeability in the driving test, add questions 'from the cyclists perspective' to the theory test

6: Cycling at speed is dangerous. I've broken (at least) three bones, two were from cycling. Stop perpetuating the myth that it is safe. Lose control of a car and the car gets damaged, lose control of a bike and you get damaged.

7: Default liability for the motorist in a car vs bike collision (not accident as it implies no fault).

8: More Beware Bikes sign-age. Take the Think Bike logo and apply it too all two wheeled road users.

veronese68

CarlosDSanchez wrote:

BikeAbility should be taught at school and then you should have to do it again as part of your driving test/HGV test etc tailored in a way to suit the types of vehicle you will be driving.

My son's school will only put kids on Bikeability if they are already cycling to school. If they put more kids through perhaps more would cycle.

CarlosDSanchez

I know it's a long time since I was a kid, but it was the other way round then. You weren't allowed to ride to school (and use the racks there) until you had passed the cycling proficiency test. I tbe winter a teacher would be on duty to check you had lights and they worked. This is more useful I think.

roger_merriman

I did cycletraining years ago in my primary school back in the mist of time, not really likley to ride to school bar that though. I had a school bus as one of the kids in the mountains.

I still remeber the ride home only a few miles but a fair gain in height, a hot sweaty ride.

kids locally ride there bikes play in the street as it's quiet and narrow.

Daz555

Not sure about bikeability and cycling proficiency. I'd rather just ride to school with my child each day and teach him the skills he requires - which I will be doing from Sept when he'll be 5. Parental responsibility is key here - not rules about who can and cannot ride to school.