The Times Today (Friday)
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote: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.
Again, though, cycling infrastructure only helps with the addition of driver awareness! The lanes you example, are a good idea. BUT at some point these lanes will cross junctions, side roads, or transition to normal roads. When that happens you need drivers that are looking out for cyclists.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote: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.
OK, there may be some roads where there is room, but factor in the cost and disruption of removing traffic lanes and narrowing pavements, in the midst of a recession - to say its not a vote winner is an understatement.
As for the "cars to blame" thing, having a presumption of liability for the larger class of vehicle might be beneficial, but that isn't what you said initially.0 -
sfichele wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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.
Again, though, cycling infrastructure only helps with the addition of driver awareness! The lanes you example, are a good idea. BUT at some point these lanes will cross, junctions, side roads, or transition to normal roads. When that happens you need drivers that are looking out for cyclists.
Sure, if you give riders right of way when crossing the road. Job's a good'un.
I'd like to see a stat about the average distance travelled on the average bike journey between places.
Would clear up one way or another the argument that London is bigger, though I still don't quite see why that means infrastructure isn't worth it.0 -
BigMat wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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.
OK, there may be some roads where there is room, but factor in the cost and disruption of removing traffic lanes and narrowing pavements, in the midst of a recession - to say its not a vote winner is an understatement.
As for the "cars to blame" thing, having a presumption of liability for the larger class of vehicle might be beneficial, but that isn't what you said initially.
Yeah fair enough.
Ultimately, with infrastructure - the reason Holland and Denmark has got it right is because authorities decided that they were going to promote cycling infrastructure and did it.
You need the initial investment, and you'll get the return.
Ultimately, if you make cycling easier and driving tough, what are people going to do?0 -
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?
Yeah, we are not seeing eye-to-eye on this.
#1. Downright dangerous, IMO. Can you imagine having that on your right hand side in the morning melee along CS8? Clip the kerb, and you're over into the traffic. No thanks.
[FWIW I was toying with ideas on the way in this morning: all lorries/delivery vehicles/heavy goods vehicles barred between 6am and 7pm; abolish bus lanes; where there was a bus lane implement a cycle lane as wide as CS8 and turn the remainder of the road over to the motorised traffic. Trouble it, you still end up with parking and bus stops at the kerbside, which buggers up any attempt to form a coherent bike lane system].
#2. No, no, thrice no. The obvious example: RLJ'er causes an accident, but it's the driver's fault. Just silly.
On the earlier stuff:
- you can only confuse something with something else. You seemed to be saying that one can confuse something full stop.
- abuse/interaction with drivers is, IMO, far more (if not exclusively) to do with the mindset of the participants than infrastructure.
- would be interested to see whether the comparison is apples and apples. I'd guess the population and cycling population of London is >> Copenhagen.0 -
BigMat wrote: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.)
It's not moot though. Motorists that don't want to 'share' the road with cyclists often spout three things: Tax (Road), licensing (by way of having to pass a test) and insurance. They do this because in some of their minds we get to use the roads they pay for and have had to 'earn' the right to use. Therefore in their frustration they would attempt to place the same requirements on us.
Tax - wouldn't work for reasons I explained above.
Licensing and insurance wouldn't either - and it wouldn't purely because unlike a car there isn't an age requirement to ride a bike on the road. I
I believe in addressing these arguments alongside "think about where the cyclist is" would go a long way in changing the motorists' attitude about cyclists.
So not moot.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
I'd like to see a stat about the average distance travelled on the average bike journey between places.
Would clear up one way or another the argument that London is bigger, though I still don't quite see why that means infrastructure isn't worth it.
I think the point is that in a city like London, getting on a pedal back cruiser in your work gear and pootling along a segregated cycle path isn't going to be realistic for a lot of people. I wouldn't fancy 10 miles of that first thing in the morning, would take forever! Its different doing relatively short distances on very flat roads.0 -
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?
What happens when I want to turn right?
Or I want to get in a position to turn right?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Greg66 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?
Yeah, we are not seeing eye-to-eye on this.
#1. Downright dangerous, IMO. Can you imagine having that on your right hand side in the morning melee along CS8? Clip the kerb, and you're over into the traffic. No thanks.
[FWIW I was toying with ideas on the way in this morning: all lorries/delivery vehicles/heavy goods vehicles barred between 6am and 7pm; abolish bus lanes; where there was a bus lane implement a cycle lane as wide as CS8 and turn the remainder of the road over to the motorised traffic. Trouble it, you still end up with parking and bus stops at the kerbside, which buggers up any attempt to form a coherent bike lane system].
#2. No, no, thrice no. The obvious example: RLJ'er causes an accident, but it's the driver's fault. Just silly.
On the earlier stuff:
- you can only confuse something with something else. You seemed to be saying that one can confuse something full stop.
- abuse/interaction with drivers is, IMO, far more (if not exclusively) to do with the mindset of the participants than infrastructure.
- would be interested to see whether the comparison is apples and apples. I'd guess the population and cycling population of London is >> Copenhagen.
#1 - meant the idea, not the execution :P It's easy to work around bike lanes and bus stops, especially the recessed bus stops.
#2 the red light jumping would be less of an issue if #1 was properly in place. There's a reason it's a problem in Australia, US and UK, and not Holland, Denmark etc.
#3 - abuse/interaction with drivers occurs because you share the same space. People will always be d*cks. You can't give them the opportunity.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Sure, if you give riders right of way when crossing the road. Job's a good'un.
But that's the irony isn't it? If drivers were courteous we wouldn't need extra infrastructure0 -
Greg66 wrote:[FWIW I was toying with ideas on the way in this morning: all lorries/delivery vehicles/heavy goods vehicles barred between 6am and 7pm; abolish bus lanes; where there was a bus lane implement a cycle lane as wide as CS8 and turn the remainder of the road over to the motorised traffic. Trouble it, you still end up with parking and bus stops at the kerbside, which buggers up any attempt to form a coherent bike lane system].
I was toying with the idea of making recesses into the pavement for bus stops, so the bus pulls into the stop and out of the lane of traffic.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD 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?
What happens when I want to turn right?
Or I want to get in a position to turn right?
Turn right at the lights. Why would you want to turn right beforehand? There's nothing there.
If say, there is a turn half way down. You have a little break in the seperation to turn right, and there'll be a pelican crossing for bikes
Give bike lanes priority:
and with separate roads you can have separate lights, nullifying most of the RLJ stuff. If someone jumps a bike red light - game over.0 -
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
Agreed, I don't like this kind of segregation, particularly as they are rarely properly integrated with side turnings and driveways, and are just not big enough for the numbers of cyclists in central London. However, Mrs RJS taking the littl'un to pre-school - I could see her using it, and there are more people like her than there are like me. Mind you, it wouldn't be needed if motorists gave enough room when passing and treated cyclists with some respect*.
* Many (most) of them do, but too many don't.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
This: is another option.
backed up with a law whereby a car hitting a bike in the lane is the car's fault.
How about this for seperation?
0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ultimately, with infrastructure - the reason Holland and Denmark has got it right is because authorities decided that they were going to promote cycling infrastructure and did it.
Don't know about Denmark, or the Netherlands outside Amsterdam, but Amsterdam is par excellence a city that is simply not laid out to accommodate cars. Narrow, compact streets all over the place.
London's more like Paris or New York than Amsterdam. I don't think the comparison with Amsterdam is remotely valid. You might as well look to Cambridge for your urban planning ideas (God forbid).0 -
The idea is bikes never cross the path of motorised traffic unless it's a) perpendicular and b) they have right of way ( so the traffic will stop) That's the premise.0
-
Look the idea and suggestion is frankly stupid.Rick Chasey wrote:#1 - meant the idea, not the execution :P It's easy to work around bike lanes and bus stops, especially the recessed bus stops.
#2 the red light jumping would be less of an issue if #1 was properly in place. There's a reason it's a problem in Australia, US and UK, and not Holland, Denmark etc.
#3 - abuse/interaction with drivers occurs because you share the same space. People will always be d*cks. You can't give them the opportunity.
It's not one that suggests you're understanding or want to work with motorists in order to "improve the 'road using' experience for all". All your porposal suggests is that you would further drive a wedge between cyclists and motorists. It's confrontational.
It's bad enough that they (motorists) have to put up with a 30mph speed limit (when most newer car engines find it easier to cruise at 40mph), traffic lights and bus lanes.
On top of that there are now cycle lanes (throughout London) that force them into single lanes and you would go one step further and put a curb between them and force unto them an assumed 100% liability should a a bicycle and their vehicle collide.
I'm speaking as a motorist and cyclist. They (motorists) and us (cyclists) aren't enemies.
It's just plan dumb.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I think so much of the problem in the UK is driver (mostly) attitude. Soemone has already covered this but when I commuted in London, I treated it like a race or even a battle. I had a similar mindset to the one I had during a rugby match! I had done some MTBing and general cycling so my bike handling skills were OK but the first few months were pretty hard. I was dodging all sizes of veichles and wearing out brake pads and tyres in record time because of all the rapid stops I was having to do.
Contrast that to Leiden, where I have nt seen a single car on bike incident, drives stop at juctions 100% of the time (it's the cyclists that are the problem there!), drivers check before opening doors, they wait behind you if they re turning right (obviously the equivalent of left for the UK), they don't get stressed and they always look specifically for the bike path before manouvering. I pass small children on bikes or in BakFiets with their parents on the way to school. The bike I use is worth about 20 squids, is heavy rusty, the gears hardly work and the brakes are shot and every now and again, I have a hot Dutchie girl sitting on the rack resting her head against my back as we ride to the pud (love this! :? ). I have never felt threatened cycling to work or around town, ever.
99% of that is not down to infrastructure, it's down to attitude...
With regard to insurance, it is common here to pay something like EUR3-4 a month for personal liability insurance so that if you hit someone's car, break a flowerpot when drunk etc, they can claim on that. Given the suing culture is fast on the rise in the UK, i think that's a good idea! (for everyone)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ultimately, with infrastructure - the reason Holland and Denmark has got it right is because authorities decided that they were going to promote cycling infrastructure and did it.
Don't know about Denmark, or the Netherlands outside Amsterdam, but Amsterdam is par excellence a city that is simply not laid out to accommodate cars. Narrow, compact streets all over the place.
London's more like Paris or New York than Amsterdam. I don't think the comparison with Amsterdam is remotely valid. You might as well look to Cambridge for your urban planning ideas (God forbid).
Take a look at any Dutch town or city on google street view. Either the road will be so quiet there's no need, or there will be a separate lane. The Hague is a good one, given it's got big main roads like London.
It's also a virtuous circle, the more people who ride, the less cars there are, etc. 0 -
But again, that requires drivers to be aware.The idea is bikes never cross the path of motorised traffic unless it's a) perpendicular and b) they have right of way ( so the traffic will stop) That's the premise.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:#1 - meant the idea, not the execution :P It's easy to work around bike lanes and bus stops, especially the recessed bus stops.
Are just being deliberately daft now? How (TF) are you going to get that idea worked around a bus stop? Esp as the current fashion is *not* to recess bus stops, but to build them out into the road, so that the bus stops stone dead in the middle of the carriageway and holds up everything behind it.
It looks like the typical brand of sh!t designed by someone who has never ridden a bike, and couldn't give a toss about traffic management more generally. But who thinks it's a good idea which will "help".0 -
ddraver wrote:99% of that is not down to infrastructure, it's down to attitude...
+10000 -
Even if cyclists were registered, paid tax, had insurance, didn't RLJ etc, many car drivers would still find something to complain about. The reason is that many road users simply don't want to share the road with cyclists, and until cyclists are regarded as valid road users, with the same rights and responsibilities as all other vehicles the arguments will continue.0
-
DonDaddyD wrote:
Look the idea and suggestion is frankly stupid.Rick Chasey wrote:#1 - meant the idea, not the execution :P It's easy to work around bike lanes and bus stops, especially the recessed bus stops.
#2 the red light jumping would be less of an issue if #1 was properly in place. There's a reason it's a problem in Australia, US and UK, and not Holland, Denmark etc.
#3 - abuse/interaction with drivers occurs because you share the same space. People will always be d*cks. You can't give them the opportunity.
It's not one that suggests you're understanding or want to work with motorists in order to "improve the 'road using' experience for all". All your porposal suggests is that you would further drive a wedge between cyclists and motorists. It's confrontational.
It's bad enough that they (motorists) have to put up with a 30mph speed limit (when most newer car engines find it easier to cruise at 40mph), traffic lights and bus lanes.
On top of that there are now cycle lanes (throughout London) that force them into single lanes and you would go one step further and put a curb between them and force unto them an assumed 100% liability should a a bicycle and their vehicle collide.
I'm speaking as a motorist and cyclist. They (motorists) and us (cyclists) aren't enemies.
It's just plan dumb.
Just where would the confrontation be if they were separated on the road?
The problem with cyclists is when they mix with lorries, they can die. That's a problem. The best solution is to not have lorries and bikes close to one another. Then they won't get hit. Same goes for cars, etc etc.
We already separate pedestrians from the roads. Why is separating the bikes too so different?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:DonDaddyD 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?
What happens when I want to turn right?
Or I want to get in a position to turn right?
Turn right at the lights. Why would you want to turn right beforehand? There's nothing there.
Yes, but not every road works like that and not every right turn is preceded with a set of traffic lights. Sometimes you need to to get into the far right lane and stop and be prepared to turn right during a gap in oncoming traffic.
Your ideawould suggest bunny hoping the cyclist curb and riding getting into position and then bunny hoping the cyclists curb on the other side of the road whilst avoiding the cyclists in the cycle lane on the other side.If say, there is a turn half way down. You have a little break in the seperation to turn right, and there'll be a pelican crossing for bikes
So more traffic controlled lights, more delays and more slowing down traffic - in London where average traffic speed is around 12mph. Right.Give bike lanes priority
Why?
Why and how would it nullify the RLJ. The provision of RLJing is to ignore the red light, having more red lights doesn't help to stop this.and with separate roads you can have separate lights, nullifying most of the RLJ stuff. If someone jumps a bike red light - game over.
You are single handedly making me want to vote Tory and am probably going to vote Boris Johnson because I can trust in him to have the sense never to let an idea like this see day. Red Ken, you just can't be too sure.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
-
Considering motorists already use those view points (cyclists - not registered, don't pay tax and don't have insurance) to dismiss our validity as a road user. Do you think addressing those view points publicly wouldn't contribute to raising awareness to the validity of cyclists using the road? Because I think it would.rml380z wrote:Even if cyclists were registered, paid tax, had insurance, didn't RLJ etc, many car drivers would still find something to complain about. The reason is that many road users simply don't want to share the road with cyclists, and until cyclists are regarded as valid road users, with the same rights and responsibilities as all other vehicles the arguments will continue.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:The idea is bikes never cross the path of motorised traffic unless it's a) perpendicular and b) they have right of way ( so the traffic will stop) That's the premise.
Ok. So where in this picture
Does the cyclist move from the r/h cycle land to the l/h cycle lane, and are you really suggesting that either the move be perpendicular to the cars in the r/h car lane, and/or that there be a give way line across the r/h car lane?0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I was toying with the idea of making recesses into the pavement for bus stops, so the bus pulls into the stop and out of the lane of traffic.
And that, my young friend, is how things used to be (where there was space). And then idle bus drivers complained that it was too hard to re-enter the traffic flow, because no one would let them out (well, durrrr, you have to wait for a gap, don't you?). So we got those stickers on the rear o/side 3/4 of the bus commanding us to give way to the bus.
Which was disastrous, because it meant that bus drivers could then do what in the driving test was an immediate fail: pull away without having to check what was behind them.
Yet still that didn't work, and so the dum-dum town planners decided that the only solution was to have the bus park square in the middle of the road, and build out the kerb to meet it. That way, the bus never has to rejoin the traffic. Oh, the traffic is brought to a standstill you say? Well, so it is. Good thing too. It means all those rich people in their private cars will cease to have an advantage over the bus, and will immediately start using PT. Wrongheaded on so many levels.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The idea is bikes never cross the path of motorised traffic unless it's a) perpendicular and b) they have right of way ( so the traffic will stop) That's the premise.
Ok. So where in this picture
Does the cyclist move from the r/h cycle land to the l/h cycle lane, and are you really suggesting that either the move be perpendicular to the cars in the r/h car lane, and/or that there be a give way line across the r/h car lane?
That happens further back.
I don't know the junction myself.
Point is, when they set off, no cyclist will cross the path of a car.0
