The Times Today (Friday)

sketchley

Brought it this morning (on PT) as I thought I'd have a read about the safer cycling campaign. In the middle of their plan for betting cycling which seemed to be focused on segregating cycle lanes by putting a low level curb between the cycle lane and traffic there was this gem, "Should Cyclist be licensed to make them more responsible?" and the letter pages really wound me up too, usual stuff about, tests, licensing, tax, RLJ...... Nothing they printed today would change the mind of the non cyclist and I cannot see this campaign working unless they do.

CiB

What? Are you saying that in response to a newspaper article about cyclists, a lot of the readership have jumped at the opportunity to harangue us and to point out our many failings, and to point out where we need to be licenced, taxed, insured and kept out of the way of proper road users? Well knock me down with a feather. I could have told you that might happen yesterday, in fact I did IIRC when pointing out that campaigns like this can only go one way. Like I said, Bad Plan. Be careful what you wish for, as they say.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

Brought it this morning (on PT) as I thought I'd have a read about the safer cycling campaign. In the middle of their plan for betting cycling which seemed to be focused on segregating cycle lanes by putting a low level curb between the cycle lane and traffic there was this gem, "Should Cyclist be licensed to make them more responsible?" and the letter pages really wound me up too, usual stuff about, tests, licensing, tax, RLJ...... Nothing they printed today would change the mind of the non cyclist and I cannot see this campaign working unless they do.

It's the people who don't write in who will be persuaded.

There are enough out there who would try cycling if it wasn't so frightening. They're the people who might be won round.

Some driver who has a rage problem who writes into the times about red light jumpers (presumably he doesn't write in about speeders, but will complain about speed cameras) will never have their opinion changed, rational argument or not.

BigLights

I still think the concept of their Cycling campaign is a good one. I've signed up, I can't see what harm it would do - on the grounds that any publicity is good publicity. There's a page to sign up here:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... y/contact/

sketchley

CiB wrote:

What? Are you saying that in response to a newspaper article about cyclists, a lot of the readership have jumped at the opportunity to harangue us and to point out our many failings, and to point out where we need to be licenced, taxed, insured and kept out of the way of proper road users? Well knock me down with a feather. I could have told you that might happen yesterday, in fact I did IIRC when pointing out that campaigns like this can only go one way. Like I said, Bad Plan.

I should have know better.

My despair was that a newspaper that is running a very high profile safe cycling campaign chose to print the letters that they did. By their own admission they had 5,000 people sign up to support the campaign yesterday but all the letter editor chose to print were either critical of the campaign or cyclist in general. I'd expect these rants on a comments page on the web, but I thought would have chosen more supportive letters in the printed letters version. I'd guess the letters editor can't be a support of the campaign.

sketchley

BigLights wrote:

I still think the concept of their Cycling campaign is a good one. I've signed up, I can't see what harm it would do - on the grounds that any publicity is good publicity. There's a page to sign up here:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... y/contact/

Yes I signed up yesterday and spent a bit of time writing some positive comments too.

CiB

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are enough out there who would try cycling if it wasn't so frightening. They're the people who might be won round.

And this is the crux of it. Cycling isn't frightening, or dangerous. We all know this - most of us have survived another year's commuting and charging around at barmy speeds without coming a cropper, yet The Times has decided to announce to the world that cycling in England [oh hold on - London.) is so so dangerous that money needs to be thrown at it and everybody must change their ways to make it safe.

I was uneasy about this yesterday when it was all over the media. Day 2 and they're pressing it home by winding up the message - DANGER DANGER DANGER - CYCLISTS WILL BE KILLED - DANGER DANGER DANGER. Is that the message I want my family & acquaintances to hear? Is it f. I want them to believe me when I say it's perfectly safe and there's nothing to worry about when I pop out for an hour, or ride to work, or decide that a century would be a good idea this weekend.

rick_chasey

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are enough out there who would try cycling if it wasn't so frightening. They're the people who might be won round.

And this is the crux of it. Cycling isn't frightening, or dangerous. We all know this - most of us have survived another year's commuting and charging around at barmy speeds without coming a cropper, yet The Times has decided to announce to the world that cycling in England [oh hold on - London.) is so so dangerous that money needs to be thrown at it and everybody must change their ways to make it safe.

I was uneasy about this yesterday when it was all over the media. Day 2 and they're pressing it home by winding up the message - DANGER DANGER DANGER - CYCLISTS WILL BE KILLED - DANGER DANGER DANGER. Is that the message I want my family & acquaintances to hear? Is it f. I want them to believe me when I say it's perfectly safe and there's nothing to worry about when I pop out for an hour, or ride to work, or decide that a century would be a good idea this weekend.

I disagree.

The way the infrastructure is now makes it a battle to ride.

I'm belligerent enough that I don't mind it.

A classic case in point > a very old friend who lived more or less on the same road as me and went to the same 6th form as me.

It took me 15-20 minutes to ride into school every day. She took the bus which took her about 40-50 minutes and cost her around £1,000 a year.

She's since moved to Amsertdam. She now cycles everywhere. When she comes back to England for holidays, she gets out on her bike and is totally petrified again - enough to keep her off.

I know it's like turning up to a vegan meeting group and telling them to all eat steak, but guys like you and me on this forum are a genuine minority. We'll cycle come-what-may. We'll ride at 20mph, in lycra, and spend thousands on bike kit.

Most people don't do this. If you want more people to use a bike to get around places, you need to make it accessible. The comparisons to Copenhagen and Holland are there because they show what good infrastructure CAN do. i.e. make people cycle everywhere. Not to keep fit, not for a green agenda, not at 20mph in lycra but because it's most convenient.

The most immediate problem in the UK is, like it or not, how dangerous it is. It needn't be, and there's not much to do to make it safer. Once it's safer, more people will cycle (like it or not) and then there will be more pressure to fund infrastructure etc etc.

The paper is right that cycling in London is dangerous (by comparison to other cities), and that should change. Heaven forbid a paper use a little hyperbole to make the point.

mroli

@RickChasey - agree 100%.

Also, the motorist is supported by a number of large industry and opinion forming bodies. I can see absolutely no harm in adding another voice (especially that of a big media player) to that on the cyclist's side.

The stats show cycling IS dangerous. People on here may not think so as we're confident cyclists, but enough people on here have been taken off their bike.

I am also not totally opposed to the idea of a cycling licence - I'm a British Cycling member, carry my card and therefore also have insurance protection. Something that allows me (even if only internally) to take the moral high ground when people have a go at cyclists.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

The way the infrastructure is now makes it a battle to ride.

That it just bullsh!t.

Rick Chasey wrote:

The most immediate problem in the UK is, like it or not, how dangerous it is.

You're confusing people's perception with fact.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The way the infrastructure is now makes it a battle to ride.

That it just bullsh!t.

Rick Chasey wrote:

The most immediate problem in the UK is, like it or not, how dangerous it is.

You're confusing people's perception with fact.

I'm not.

You're confusing 'dangerous' as a discreet or quantitative term.

And the infrastructure does make it a battle to ride. We've all had abuse and arguments with drivers.

We've all felt exposed once or twice on various roads. If you don't then you're very unusual.

London has 3 times the amount of cycling casualties than Copenhagen, for example. How is that fine?

veronese68

I also agree with what Rick says about the infrastructure.
My son wants to cycle to school now as he's had enough of buses. I've told him he can't at the moment but he can in spring when it's a bit brighter. Whilst he can do most of the route along minor roads he will have to ride along at least a short stretch of a very busy road. There is also another road that is possibly worse as it has traffic calming chicanes that cars take much to fast and swerve through them. I would be much happier if there was a segregated cycle lane for him to use.
He won't be riding into the city, it's from Kingston to Worcester Park, but the roads are still busy. I will go with him for a few days and show him what to do. But I won't be there all the time and I will worry.

iPete

With Rick on this, we are a minority, rain or shine we are out battling. I ride aggressively and quickly with the traffic on the road bike but put me on my Brompton, in normal clothing running normal arons and I won't ride on the same roads or routes.

There is a 40 road near my house, ride it happily every day on the roadie but riding slowly at 12-14mph its fecking scary and I'll happily admit to taking the pavement.

As for central London, there needs to be infrastructure to make cycling 'normal', not "SCR Strava recording normal", popping to the shops to pick up some milk normal, cargo bike normal, take your kids to school normal, let your kid cycle to school normal.

secretsam

To some extent, I agree with Rick, but a key issue for me is not the presence of some kerb or signs or whatever, it's the training and attitude of drivers, who seem to think (on the whole) that cyclists are a bunch of slow, unpredictable spongers who take up the road that they've exclusively paid for with their "Road Tax".

That attitude needs changing, and no amount of segregation or other bollocks like that will change it, in fact creating cycling lanes will only reinforce the view that we have no place on the road.

I'm heartily sick of being berated, cut up and driven at because I choose to ride on the road rather than on some shitty pavement with lines painted on it, which is utterly useless and MORE DANGEROUS than the road becuase you have to cross several junctions.

Motorists have the RAC, etc who will pander to their every need, and judges who will pat them on the wrist if they have the misfortune to kill a non-taxpaying, non-contributing selfish cyclist who decides that they don't want to drive 2 miles to the station or whatever.

PS: before anyone jumps on a horse or soapbox, I have a driving licence and a car. So there.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're confusing 'dangerous' as a discreet or quantitative term.

And the infrastructure does make it a battle to ride. We've all had abuse and arguments with drivers.

We've all felt exposed once or twice on various roads. If you don't then you're very unusual.

London has 3 times the amount of cycling casualties than Copenhagen, for example. How is that fine?

First sentence: doesn't make sense as a sentence.

Second and third sentences: I get into an argument with a driver about once every other year. I don't know what you mean by feeling "exposed", but whatever it means, once or twice over a cycling lifetime does not make cycling dangerous

Fourth sentence: source?

If you want to subscribe to the "battling" school of thought, PM AndyManc. He'll be your bff. You might want to read some of his posts first.

bigmat

Sadly, I fear Rick is right. There is a difference between cycling enthusiasts (most of us) and those who want to cycle simply as a convenient mode of transport. Cycling in London is dangerous - you need to seriously keep your wits about you, be assertive and quick. That isn't an option for a lot of people who may be less fit, less willing, less confident, unhappy to get sweaty etc. The dilemma for me is that I*'m not massively arsed about these people. I am happy with things the way they are. I hate the thought of Amsterdam style cycle paths, pootling around with a million nodders in my way. I love the fact that I can bomb around on my commute at decent speed and on occasionally open roads. I think London is just too big and too spread out for the Amsterdam model to be a realistic option for most commuters. So whilst on balance I'm in favour of The Times' campaign (looking at it objectively), I don't actually feel like its something that is being done "for me", and will struggle to get excited about it or anything similar.

rjsterry

BigMat wrote:

Sadly, I fear Rick is right. There is a difference between cycling enthusiasts (most of us) and those who want to cycle simply as a convenient mode of transport. Cycling in London is dangerous - you need to seriously keep your wits about you, be assertive and quick. That isn't an option for a lot of people who may be less fit, less willing, less confident, unhappy to get sweaty etc. The dilemma for me is that I*'m not massively arsed about these people. I am happy with things the way they are. I hate the thought of Amsterdam style cycle paths, pootling around with a million nodders in my way. I love the fact that I can bomb around on my commute at decent speed and on occasionally open roads. I think London is just too big and too spread out for the Amsterdam model to be a realistic option for most commuters. So whilst on balance I'm in favour of The Times' campaign (looking at it objectively), I don't actually feel like its something that is being done "for me", and will struggle to get excited about it or anything similar.

This. It's fine for me (bar the morons who pass too close and believe I shouldn't be on the road), but I'd like Mrs RJS and later the littl'uns to feel comfortable riding around the village and so on. At the moment, I know she wouldn't, and I have to admit I'd be nervous about the littl'uns - I'm nervous enough seeing other people's children out on the roads, despite being pleased that they are on their bikes.

iPete

BigMat wrote:

Sadly, I fear Rick is right. There is a difference between cycling enthusiasts (most of us) and those who want to cycle simply as a convenient mode of transport. Cycling in London is dangerous - you need to seriously keep your wits about you, be assertive and quick. That isn't an option for a lot of people who may be less fit, less willing, less confident, unhappy to get sweaty etc. The dilemma for me is that I*'m not massively arsed about these people. I am happy with things the way they are. I hate the thought of Amsterdam style cycle paths, pootling around with a million nodders in my way. I love the fact that I can bomb around on my commute at decent speed and on occasionally open roads. I think London is just too big and too spread out for the Amsterdam model to be a realistic option for most commuters. So whilst on balance I'm in favour of The Times' campaign (looking at it objectively), I don't actually feel like its something that is being done "for me", and will struggle to get excited about it or anything similar.

It needs to strike a balance. I'm with Rick but bad off road infrastructure that your expected to use, for me, would be awful.

The best method would be start removing car lanes and create space but this is going to take some balls. The section of CS8 that is now dedicated to cycling is a good example, its safe for all and fast for the more enthusiastic. Then junctions, many in London need to be addressed, again space needs to be given, not necessarily segregation, then priority lights etc added.

I'd also like to see many parts of Zone 1 pedestrianised but that'll take bigger balls, similar to whats been done in times square.

Medders

I read yesterdays times over breakfast before riding in this morning. The wife picked it up as she thought I would be interested and was quoting the stats at me last night when I got home.

It made me rather nervous of riding in notwithstanding I am a confident rider and have been doing it without major issue for 3 years. And obviously my wife is now even more concerned about my safety.

Does the safety issue have to be the main thrust of the argument to improve infrastructure? My view is that the health, environmental and cost benefits should be pushed equally as currently I can only think that the campaign will put off more people riding. This in turn could inhibit the generation of the critical mass of riders and resulting weight of opinion to justify the public expenditure to improve infrastructure.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're confusing 'dangerous' as a discreet or quantitative term.

And the infrastructure does make it a battle to ride. We've all had abuse and arguments with drivers.

We've all felt exposed once or twice on various roads. If you don't then you're very unusual.

London has 3 times the amount of cycling casualties than Copenhagen, for example. How is that fine?

First sentence: doesn't make sense as a sentence.

Second and third sentences: I get into an argument with a driver about once every other year. I don't know what you mean by feeling "exposed", but whatever it means, once or twice over a cycling lifetime does not make cycling dangerous

Fourth sentence: source?

If you want to subscribe to the "battling" school of thought, PM AndyManc. He'll be your bff. You might want to read some of his posts first.

You say cycling is not dangerous, and that is a 'fact', even though the term dangerous is a qualitative term :P.

Second - I don't get in to arguments, I just get abuse. It's no coincidence that there are lots of threads on here documenting bad driving and abuse. "sorry mate I didn't see you" is a meme on the forum. LFGSS has a rider down thread as a sticky!!!

We get endless chat about having to wear high vis vests and have lights that could burn your retina just to be seen. You even have to wear a helmet if you want full compensation if you're hurt on your bike.

Compare that to Holland where it's so safe you look like a gimp if you wear a helmet unless you're racing. Because you barely spend any time on the same stretch of tarmac as a car, a dynamo and a back pedal brake is more than enough.

I've never even been honked at by a car, let alone shouted at, driven at.

In the UK I've been pushed off my bike from a stranger in a car (fractured my pelvis), and the first I knew that the car was even there was when I was on the floor, and I have been pushed off my bike and kicked on the floor by a driver who felt I was 'taking up too much space'.

I've seen drivers bump into cyclists waiting at ASLs. I've seen a taxi man get out and shout abuse at a 50yr old women because she slowed him up and he missed the green light. My mother (a Dutch women who cycles like one) has been knocked off her bike whilst standing at some lights by a bus, which didn't stop. My sister fell in front of a bus who ran over her bike, and honked at her to get out of the way. I've seen my friend (who I was drafting) get taken out by an oncoming car turning right. The car didn't stop.

We see videos of people getting out of cars punching cyclists because they're cyclists., or riders getting threatened for being on the road.

When I used to train in Cambridgeshire I'd be on a country lane and cars would pass only half a metre away from me at 60mph.

Even in France they pass you fully in the other lane.

The source was yesterday's Times. I would give you the link but it's a paywall.

sfichele

Its all a double edge-sword. New infrastructure could be a welcomed solution, but if done badly it could make things worse! Take the kerb example: cycle lane that runs up to an ASL on the left could be guarded by a mini kerb to segregate the cyclists from the motorists. Sounds like a good idea. It could mean that lorries are less likely to squash people on a left turn because they have to clear the kerb as they turn.

BUT who now has the right of way? It would add massive ambiguity. What motorists will assume is that he cyclist has to stop and give way to left turning motorist, because they are of the opinion that the cyclists are occupying a different section of road. If the cyclist does have right of way (and they should), it would only work if motorists are aware of the cyclists and look out for them as they go through the "protected" section.

The infrastructure by itself is not a solution in unless it completely segregates us - its awareness of the motorists that is the solution and the understanding that we have a right to be on the road! If the campaign just focuses on the cyclists and the infrastructure then it wont work. It has to target drivers!

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The way the infrastructure is now makes it a battle to ride.

That it just bullsh!t.

Rick Chasey wrote:

The most immediate problem in the UK is, like it or not, how dangerous it is.

You're confusing people's perception with fact.

Yep, I agree wholeheartedly with Greg.

I live right in the heart of the Cycle Superhighway, mine was one of it not the first to be implemented. (I'm citing the cycle superhighway as it and the Boris bike is arguably the most significant attempt at improving the infrastructure for cyclists).

Iwas capabale of riding my bike safely to work before the implementation of the highway as I am now with it. Yes drivers are more aware of it, but for all its good it is not without creating new dangerous. Such as: Having more cyclists around creates it's own dangers, having motorists thinking or expecting we're staying on the left within the thin blue lane and road layout (even when turning right) creates it's own dangers. Dedicated lanes like the superhigway also hinders overtaking similarly there is less "swerve and wobble room"

Over my 4/5 years of commuting to work every structural improvement I've seen usually in turn creates new problems.

That said, when I do encounter a proper dangerous situation it usually isn't because of the infrastructure (we know where to ride and not ride) it's because of the attitude of the cyclist, the motorist, both or the actions of those around them.

You want to make the streets safe, strive to change peoples attitdues. The car does not own the road. The bicycle should not abuse its right to use the road.

I don't believe we need more roads and dedicated lanes or the like.

DonDaddyD

Another bug of mine is the tax, insurance and licencing of cyclists notion.

Licencing
There is no age requirement to ride a bike and/or commute. Therefore there is no legal requirement to insure the vehicle and a age based precedent (like with the car) cannot be made.

Tax
Tax won't work either as it's based on emissions and cyclists generate less than electric cars which are also tax exempt. - So the point is mute.

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

Another bug of mine is the tax, insurance and licencing of cyclists notion.

Licencing
There is no age requirement to ride a bike and/or commute. Therefore there is no legal requirement to insure the vehicle and a age based precedent (like with the car) cannot be made.

Tax
Tax won't work either as it's based on emissions and cyclists generate less than electric cars which are also tax exempt. - So the point is mute.

You don't really deal with the insurance issue there. Tax and licencing seem pretty clear to me - inappropriate and unworkable. Insurance is more of a moot point - there are obvious benefits, and there is no real reason why insurance couldn't be compulsory for adults cycling on the highway, for example. This would need some thought, but I can how it might be beneficial overall (we'd all be better off with insurance, making it mandatory would result in a competitive market and lower rates, would benefit the public's perception of cyclists etc.)

rick_chasey

Sooo many of the problems cyclists have day to day would be avoided with the following:

#1 - separate cycle lane. Like this:

#2 - a situation where an accident involving a bike is the car's fault.

How many drivers would drive close to a cyclist if that was the case? How many would make that extra look in case they hit someone?

bigmat

OFF TOPIC:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/moot-point.html

Was just checking I'd got it right - right with the spelling, the meaning can go one of two diametrically opposite ways oddly. The lawyer in me prefers the former!

sfichele

Cyclists used to be taxed a long time ago in France, I suspect that quickly stopped when the guillotine was re-sharpened.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sooo many of the problems cyclists have day to day would be avoided with the following:

#1 - separate cycle lane. Like this:

#2 - a situation where an accident involving a bike is the car's fault.

How many drivers would drive close to a cyclist if that was the case? How many would make that extra look in case they hit someone?

@1 - there isn't room

@2 - it isn't fair

rick_chasey

BigMat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sooo many of the problems cyclists have day to day would be avoided with the following:

#1 - separate cycle lane. Like this:

#2 - a situation where an accident involving a bike is the car's fault.

How many drivers would drive close to a cyclist if that was the case? How many would make that extra look in case they hit someone?

@1 - there isn't room

@2 - it isn't fair

1) you can make room. Theres an example somewhere of a two lane road in some Dutch town with loads of parking which was turned into a one lane road with 2 bike lanes either side and bike parking. More people use the road, virtually no cars use the road. Job done.

2)It's done elsewhere. Again, Holland. You hit a bike, it's going to be your fault. Within reason obviously, but if it's debatable it's the car's fault.

rick_chasey

I can think of roads it could be done. Most parts of Embankment are wide enough. The cycle superhighway could be seperated off, and the pavement is way bigger than it needs to be.

The roads in and around where I live in Fulham could easily use them.

Priority over buses in bus lanes would be great > The infrastructure is already there.

I can name 10s of roads in Cambridge where I live. Loads in Sheffield, and they're just the roads I know about.

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The way the infrastructure is now makes it a battle to ride.

That it just bullsh!t.

Rick Chasey wrote:

The most immediate problem in the UK is, like it or not, how dangerous it is.

You're confusing people's perception with fact.

I'm not.

You're confusing 'dangerous' as a discreet or quantitative term.

And the infrastructure does make it a battle to ride. We've all had abuse and arguments with drivers.

We've all felt exposed once or twice on various roads. If you don't then you're very unusual.

London has 3 times the amount of cycling casualties than Copenhagen, for example. How is that fine?

Copenhagen is has nowhere nr 3rd of londons population about 2 million compared to what 14 million for london, this is always the problem with comparing dutch systems vs uk. dutch citys are compartivly tiny. And even with that smaller population and the bike lanes they have close on 50% more cycle deaths.

in terms of road rage, as a bike you feel vunrable but watch busy junctions and it's clear there is plenty of it about, I used to have some um charming jobs when I first moved to london, walking about you'd regually see road rage.

ie they are not out to get you, they may be unthinking selfish so and so's but it's not intended.

I don't think any one would claim that BikeRadar regulars are in any way normal! our millages are on the highend of things.

the majority are the hivis hybrids, even in central london, the lycra lot are only evident at rush hours, when i make my trips in the day I see hybrids and normally a boris bike or two but very rare to see a roadie clad in lycra. and yes I do use the embankment.

In terms of making traffic less agressive, less mutlylane oneway systems quite apart that on foot you seem to need to use about 6 traffic lights to cross the road.

locally Kingston oneway system is hardly friendly don't get me wrong I enjoy blasting though but i'd not expect my wife or other basket/shoppers etc to use it, and Kingston is far from the worse.