The Times Today (Friday)

DonDaddyD

rml380z wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I personally believe (no way) that the infrastructure will have to happen first before the attitude change can occur.

(and I guess I include changes in the rules of the road in infrastructure)

I agree.

I'd much prefer to be cycling along with the rest of the traffic, and with all the other road users being aware of cyclists and treating them safely as regular road users. The only way this will happen is if everyone is also a cyclist,

What?

and the only way that is likely to happen is if we have segregated facilities to encourage everyone to cycle.

But then you wouldn't be cycling along with the rest of traffic and all the other road users wouldn't need to be aware of you as a cyclist because you would be segregated. That's what segregation does.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DDD, at what age will you be letting your son cycle unattended?

I haven't got a clue. Kids normally decide that don't they? When I got my bike 10yrs old there was no stopping me riding it and as I got older I rode it further and further.

I'm trying to get an idea of whether or not you think the roads are safe for kids. So you'd allow your 10 yr old to ride on the same roads as you do unaccompanied? Do you think they're safe enough? Or do you think kids shouldn't really cycle on roads?

I don't know yet! It depends on the child, the roads and the route.

Roads and driving attitudes in Croydon, for example, are different to those in Wimbledon Village or Dulwich Village.

Different children have different abilities and levels of common sense.

Ok, I'll be explicit. Do you think the roads are currently safe enough for a 10yr old to cycle unaccompanied? I don't care either way what you think, but you can't start laying into people on this thread (Bullshit! Bollocks and Poppycock!) for having ideas you don't agree with without stating what your opinion on the matter is.

If you're arguing that the current situation doesn't need to be changed, and its fine the way it is, then just say that, no need to start insulting people.

The real question is:

Given the state of society would I leave a 10yr old unaccompanied whether to ride a bike, go to the shops or go to school by themself. 10 is young.

A 12 yr old, as long as they were sensible, yes.

The roads are safer now than what they were when I was 10 yrs old. I had the ability to ride safely all around Lambeth from the age of 10.

I'll take that as a "DDD: Things are fine the way they are".

MattC59

DonDaddyD wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Your responses give the impression that you think my comment was directed at you, and I wonder why you think that ?

I'll bite.

At the point that you made your post there were two polarinsing positions in this thread.

Rick Chasey's - Netherlands style cyclefocused infrastructure
Greg66/DDD - Something a bit less militant

Your first post was:

Wow, it seems like this thread has prompted the dicks to come out in force !

Then Rick Chasy replied

Nice to see you turn up in the commuter forum .

3 likely conclusions:

1. You are refering to us all as dicks.
2. You are refering to Greg/DDD as dicks.
3. You are refering to Rick as a dick.

Now giving that you and Rick seem to already be acquainted it would appear that two was the most likely outcome.

But that said, I don't really care. You've come into the thread as a troll (to make it short work of it). You've added nothing contructive.

That's where I believe we are with you up to now.

Well, your conclusions are all assumptions and incorrect. You have made incorrect assumptions and your constant whittering has, perhaps, turned an observational commet pertaining to the content of some of the posts, into what you see at Trolling. It would also appear that if it is Trolling, it is pretty ineffective, as only Greg66/DDD have responded. Which just reinforces my previous point.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DDD, at what age will you be letting your son cycle unattended?

I haven't got a clue. Kids normally decide that don't they? When I got my bike 10yrs old there was no stopping me riding it and as I got older I rode it further and further.

I'm trying to get an idea of whether or not you think the roads are safe for kids. So you'd allow your 10 yr old to ride on the same roads as you do unaccompanied? Do you think they're safe enough? Or do you think kids shouldn't really cycle on roads?

I don't know yet! It depends on the child, the roads and the route.

Roads and driving attitudes in Croydon, for example, are different to those in Wimbledon Village or Dulwich Village.

Different children have different abilities and levels of common sense.

Ok, I'll be explicit. Do you think the roads are currently safe enough for a 10yr old to cycle unaccompanied? I don't care either way what you think, but you can't start laying into people on this thread (Bullshit! Bollocks and Poppycock!) for having ideas you don't agree with without stating what your opinion on the matter is.

If you're arguing that the current situation doesn't need to be changed, and its fine the way it is, then just say that, no need to start insulting people.

The real question is:

Given the state of society would I leave a 10yr old unaccompanied whether to ride a bike, go to the shops or go to school by themself. 10 is young.

A 12 yr old, as long as they were sensible, yes.

The roads are safer now than what they were when I was 10 yrs old. I had the ability to ride safely all around Lambeth from the age of 10.

I'll take that as a "DDD: Things are fine the way they are".

No you've posed me with a question that I cannot squarely answer as it is not simply a yes or no question with a yes or no answer.

Where in London would they be riding, how far? What is the child like in term of judgement, observation, commonsense and taking responsbility?

I think the standard age to start considering these things is between 11 - 13. So 12.

DonDaddyD

MattC59 wrote:

Well, your conclusions are all assumptions and incorrect. You have made incorrect assumptions and your constant whittering has, perhaps, turned an observational commet pertaining to the content of some of the posts, into what you see at Trolling. It would also appear that if it is Trolling, it is pretty ineffective, as only Greg66/DDD have responded. Which just reinforces my previous point.

I could have predicted that was going to be your response. Bottom line, my response at cussing your mum wasn't because I thought you called me a dick. It was becasue you came into the thread the way you did. It wasn't needed and I didn't care for it.

Also, it's not my fault you're a shite troll.

Now that's all you're getting. Eat up...

MattC59

DonDaddyD wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Well, your conclusions are all assumptions and incorrect. You have made incorrect assumptions and your constant whittering has, perhaps, turned an observational commet pertaining to the content of some of the posts, into what you see at Trolling. It would also appear that if it is Trolling, it is pretty ineffective, as only Greg66/DDD have responded. Which just reinforces my previous point.

I could have predicted that was going to be your response. Bottom line, my response at cussing your mum wasn't because I thought you called me a dick. It was becasue you came into the thread the way you did. It wasn't needed and I didn't care for it.

Also, it's not my fault you're a shite troll.

Now that's all you're getting. Eat up...

And still you whitter on :roll:
Interesting though, that you didn't care for my initial post, yet you respond with insults. A little contradictory don't you think ?

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

But then you wouldn't be cycling along with the rest of traffic and all the other road users wouldn't need to be aware of you as a cyclist because you would be segregated. That's what segregation does.

Well yeah. You'd pay bikes the same attention as you would peds when they were segregated.

What's the problem with that?

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

But then you wouldn't be cycling along with the rest of traffic and all the other road users wouldn't need to be aware of you as a cyclist because you would be segregated. That's what segregation does.

Well yeah. You'd pay bikes the same attention as you would peds when they were segregated.

What's the problem with that?

I pay pedestrians a different type of attention to cyclists not because of where they are i.e. pavement and not on the road but because of their different behavioural patterns while in motion.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

dutch roads are safe? don't get me wrong I think the Netherlands has some good ideas.

But being a cynical git i'd like to see the idea proven.

what worries me is the Netherlands is good mantra yet for a smaller country (27% of our population)they have more cycle deaths than we do, some 62% or so extra.

clearly they use bikes more than we do, but even so. a cynical eye over the ideas rather than blind faith is needed.

Per km cycled you're 3 times more likely to be hurt or die in the UK than you are in Holland.

Three times what? Three times not very much is still not very much.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

But then you wouldn't be cycling along with the rest of traffic and all the other road users wouldn't need to be aware of you as a cyclist because you would be segregated. That's what segregation does.

Well yeah. You'd pay bikes the same attention as you would peds when they were segregated.

What's the problem with that?

I pay pedestrians a different type of attention to cyclists not because of where they are i.e. pavement and not on the road but because of their different behavioural patterns while in motion.

But when they're ambling down the seperated bike path, that won't really matter.

So for all the times there's segregation, no worries.

When there isn't, then you pay more attention, like you would if you were sharing the road with peds (i.e. vulnerable road users). That's where the liability legislation comes in, to force drivers to be more considerate. After all, if they hit the cyclist, the cyclist is the one that gets hurt,not the driver.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

dutch roads are safe? don't get me wrong I think the Netherlands has some good ideas.

But being a cynical git i'd like to see the idea proven.

what worries me is the Netherlands is good mantra yet for a smaller country (27% of our population)they have more cycle deaths than we do, some 62% or so extra.

clearly they use bikes more than we do, but even so. a cynical eye over the ideas rather than blind faith is needed.

Per km cycled you're 3 times more likely to be hurt or die in the UK than you are in Holland.

Three times what? Three times not very much is still not very much.

Well let's take a look at the london figures which are easy to bring up.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... p-2011.pdf

So that's just cycle collisions, as opposed to falling off on your own.

It also includes a breakdown of what manoeuvre was being done by the cyclist when the collision/casualty occurred.

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So you think the roads are safe enough? That they don't need to be made safer for cyclists?

I'm going to have another go at this, because I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet (I wear a bonnet?) ATM. This is not directed at you, NSB, so don't go getting all indignant.

There was recently a thread here about the chap who got crushed by a left turning HGV at the lights, having ridden up to it for 12 seconds or so. I realise that the response here was far from universally sympathetic.

That was unsafe from the moment he committed himself to the "alley of death" alongside the HGV. What could have prevented it? First, education. The onus for that is on the rider. Second, a physical barrier - an arm that extends from the nearside rear of the HGV to prevent entry to the alley of death is what I have in mind. Completely impractical. Third, (if there was one) no cycle lane.

The third one is the one that got me thinking (and I can't remember, and haven't checked whether there was a cycle lane in the incident in question). But sometimes cycle lanes - the things that are supposed to help us and make our journeys safer - are invitations to enter some very dangerous pieces of road. Which got me to thinking: why is it safer to set off from the front of the lights? How is it safer than queuing in primary? I rather doubt that it is. It's a bit like the infantrymen being sent ahead of the faster heavier tanks - they're going to get run over.

We have cycle lanes though, and they're not going away. Even without them, cyclists will continue to filter past standing traffic. And right there is the root cause of one of your sources of danger.

So we could perhaps make things safer by enforcing a rule that cyclists queue in primary like other traffic. But is the present system so unsafe as to warrant that change? I don't think so at all. Every incident is to be regretted, but you will never eliminate incidents, and so you just have to live with a certain number of them.

Rip away.

I don't particularly disagree with you, G66. In all honesty, I *personally* think that the roads are fine the way they are for the way I ride.

But for most other people they aren't very safe at all. My sisters have both started cycling in London in the last year. They just have fairly entry level town bikes, don't wear lycra and aren't interested in going fast. I've been out on rides with them a couple times. Just out to lunch, or sight seeing, whatever. And its really very noticeable how much more at risk slower, less confident riders are. People drive too close behind them, don't give them enough space while overtaking, and harass them when they feel like they're in the way. One of my sisters was knocked off her bike on the Hammersmith Gyratory when she set off at a green light, and there have been other close calls. Whenever I remember I keep reminding them to cycle assertively, take primary when they need it, don't ride alongside lorries etc... Even though they do that anyway, it just makes me feel better to keep reminding them.

Fact is, when we were kids back in Holland, none of this was necessary. They used to cycle everywhere. Cycling in London (not just central London) is just generally so much more of a struggle, and for most people it *is* more dangerous than it should be. Personally, I don't feel like full segregation is desirable. But I do think that road design should factor in cyclists properly (i.e. not like the Blackfriars Bridge redesign). Because at the moment organisations responsible for road design pretty much state that the car is king by emphasizing "traffic" flow. This clearly reinforces the attitude that a significant motorists have which is that bicycles do not belong on *their* roads. I would like more emphasis on sharing the road. I don't think that cyclists should be mollycoddled or coccooned from risk. I just think they should be acknowledged as having a right to use the roads as much as anyone else.

bigmat

sfichele wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So you think the roads are safe enough? That they don't need to be made safer for cyclists?

I'm going to have another go at this, because I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet (I wear a bonnet?) ATM. This is not directed at you, NSB, so don't go getting all indignant.

There was recently a thread here about the chap who got crushed by a left turning HGV at the lights, having ridden up to it for 12 seconds or so. I realise that the response here was far from universally sympathetic.

That was unsafe from the moment he committed himself to the "alley of death" alongside the HGV. What could have prevented it? First, education. The onus for that is on the rider. Second, a physical barrier - an arm that extends from the nearside rear of the HGV to prevent entry to the alley of death is what I have in mind. Completely impractical. Third, (if there was one) no cycle lane.

The third one is the one that got me thinking (and I can't remember, and haven't checked whether there was a cycle lane in the incident in question). But sometimes cycle lanes - the things that are supposed to help us and make our journeys safer - are invitations to enter some very dangerous pieces of road. Which got me to thinking: why is it safer to set off from the front of the lights? How is it safer than queuing in primary? I rather doubt that it is. It's a bit like the infantrymen being sent ahead of the faster heavier tanks - they're going to get run over.

We have cycle lanes though, and they're not going away. Even without them, cyclists will continue to filter past standing traffic. And right there is the root cause of one of your sources of danger.

So we could perhaps make things safer by enforcing a rule that cyclists queue in primary like other traffic. But is the present system so unsafe as to warrant that change? I don't think so at all. Every incident is to be regretted, but you will never eliminate incidents, and so you just have to live with a certain number of them.

Rip away.

+1000, I have the similar concerns about the ASL and prefer not to filter and use them but stay primary. They can lure cyclists into a false sense of security, especially inexperienced ones! The basic idea is good, that cyclists are given a prominent spot at the front so that vehicles can see them and promote space for the cyclist.

BUT there is a massive grey area! What if you are trying to get the front whilst the lights change! You can argue that drivers should be looking etc, but so should you as a cyclist. The idea of charge, get to the front can put you at considerable risk if you are not paying attention to the lights changing.

-1,000

Always get to the front if possible. Plenty of room, better visibility, out of the fumes, easier to take a flyer as soon as the way is clear. Always a bit of a gamble if you end up in a bad spot when the lights change, so I make sure I always have an exit plan just in case.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'll take that as a "DDD: Things are fine the way they are".

No you've posed me with a question that I cannot squarely answer as it is not simply a yes or no question with a yes or no answer.

Where in London would they be riding, how far? What is the child like in term of judgement, observation, commonsense and taking responsbility?

I think the standard age to start considering these things is between 11 - 13. So 12.

Would you allow your 12 year old to cycle on his own from where you live now to take part in a Sky Ride.

bigmat

notsoblue wrote:

Cycling in London (not just central London) is just generally so much more of a struggle, and for most people it *is* more dangerous than it should be. Personally, I don't feel like full segregation is desirable. But I do think that road design should factor in cyclists properly (i.e. not like the Blackfriars Bridge redesign). Because at the moment organisations responsible for road design pretty much state that the car is king by emphasizing "traffic" flow. This clearly reinforces the attitude that a significant motorists have which is that bicycles do not belong on *their* roads. I would like more emphasis on sharing the road. I don't think that cyclists should be mollycoddled or coccooned from risk. I just think they should be acknowledged as having a right to use the roads as much as anyone else.

+1, top post.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

dutch roads are safe? don't get me wrong I think the Netherlands has some good ideas.

But being a cynical git i'd like to see the idea proven.

what worries me is the Netherlands is good mantra yet for a smaller country (27% of our population)they have more cycle deaths than we do, some 62% or so extra.

clearly they use bikes more than we do, but even so. a cynical eye over the ideas rather than blind faith is needed.

Per km cycled you're 3 times more likely to be hurt or die in the UK than you are in Holland.

Three times what? Three times not very much is still not very much.

Well let's take a look at the london figures which are easy to bring up.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... p-2011.pdf

So that's just cycle collisions, as opposed to falling off on your own.

It also includes a breakdown of what manoeuvre was being done by the cyclist when the collision/casualty occurred.

Very interesting stats, but they don't list KSI per km travelled, and without the equivalent figures for Amsterdam, we can't form any conclusions. Those figures on there own don't even tell us how safe cycling is relative to other modes of transport.

iPete

BigMat wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Cycling in London (not just central London) is just generally so much more of a struggle, and for most people it *is* more dangerous than it should be. Personally, I don't feel like full segregation is desirable. But I do think that road design should factor in cyclists properly (i.e. not like the Blackfriars Bridge redesign). Because at the moment organisations responsible for road design pretty much state that the car is king by emphasizing "traffic" flow. This clearly reinforces the attitude that a significant motorists have which is that bicycles do not belong on *their* roads. I would like more emphasis on sharing the road. I don't think that cyclists should be mollycoddled or coccooned from risk. I just think they should be acknowledged as having a right to use the roads as much as anyone else.

+1, top post.

+2.

sketchley

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'll take that as a "DDD: Things are fine the way they are".

No you've posed me with a question that I cannot squarely answer as it is not simply a yes or no question with a yes or no answer.

Where in London would they be riding, how far? What is the child like in term of judgement, observation, commonsense and taking responsbility?

I think the standard age to start considering these things is between 11 - 13. So 12.

Would you allow your 12 year old to cycle on his own from where you live now to take part in a Sky Ride.

What is the child like in term of judgement, observation, commonsense and taking responsbility?

That's actually quite a far regardless of whether they're on a bike or not. Basically that's like asking would I let my 12 year old son go to the West End by himself?

Would you?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

dutch roads are safe? don't get me wrong I think the Netherlands has some good ideas.

But being a cynical git i'd like to see the idea proven.

what worries me is the Netherlands is good mantra yet for a smaller country (27% of our population)they have more cycle deaths than we do, some 62% or so extra.

clearly they use bikes more than we do, but even so. a cynical eye over the ideas rather than blind faith is needed.

Per km cycled you're 3 times more likely to be hurt or die in the UK than you are in Holland.

Three times what? Three times not very much is still not very much.

Well let's take a look at the london figures which are easy to bring up.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... p-2011.pdf

So that's just cycle collisions, as opposed to falling off on your own.

It also includes a breakdown of what manoeuvre was being done by the cyclist when the collision/casualty occurred.

Very interesting stats, but they don't list KSI per km travelled, and without the equivalent figures for Amsterdam, we can't form any conclusions. Those figures on there own don't even tell us how safe cycling is relative to other modes of transport.

Indeed.

*shrugs* I haven't done all the research, what can I say. I just used what I read in the times (who apparently have).

What IS interesting is at the bottom of the tfl stats:

What is the cost?
Based on the average cost of P/C casualties as detailed in Department for Transport draft
Transport Analysis Guidance document (TAG Unit 3.4.1), the cost to the community of P/C
casualties is estimated at around £194 million at June 2009 prices. Pedal cycle casualties
averaged 11 per day in Greater London in 2010, with a subsequent cost to the community of
approximately £533,000 per day.

So preventing casualties is pretty cost effective.

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Yes, you've created a monster complete with Troll, flame war, political beef, images and multi-posting.

The Morpeth owes you a beer!

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'll take that as a "DDD: Things are fine the way they are".

No you've posed me with a question that I cannot squarely answer as it is not simply a yes or no question with a yes or no answer.

Where in London would they be riding, how far? What is the child like in term of judgement, observation, commonsense and taking responsbility?

I think the standard age to start considering these things is between 11 - 13. So 12.

Would you allow your 12 year old to cycle on his own from where you live now to take part in a Sky Ride.

What is the child like in term of judgement, observation, commonsense and taking responsbility?

That's actually quite a far regardless of whether they're on a bike or not. Basically that's like asking would I let my 12 year old son go to the West End by himself?

Would you?

Ugh, I give up, DDD.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

But for most other people they aren't very safe at all. My sisters have both started cycling in London in the last year. They just have fairly entry level town bikes, don't wear lycra and aren't interested in going fast. I've been out on rides with them a couple times. Just out to lunch, or sight seeing, whatever. And its really very noticeable how much more at risk slower, less confident riders are. People drive too close behind them, don't give them enough space while overtaking, and harass them when they feel like they're in the way. One of my sisters was knocked off her bike on the Hammersmith Gyratory when she set off at a green light, and there have been other close calls.

Sorry to hear about your sis. I wonder though whether slow cyclists are intimidated any less than slow drivers. Impatient drivers don't tend to drive into slow drivers (usually!) but I've seen a few examples of slow moving traffic attract other cars like they are glued to the rear bumper, leaning out into the middle of the road for an overtake.

I think it's probably all part of the general principle that you're safer the closer you are to the ambient speed of the traffic; the converse being the further away from the ambient speed you are, the more of an impediment you are to other road users.

Riding in traffic is a skill that takes practice. Not much different to swimming. But you wouldn't say "swimming is dangerous. Let's make it safer. Take away the water", would you?

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'll take that as a "DDD: Things are fine the way they are".

No you've posed me with a question that I cannot squarely answer as it is not simply a yes or no question with a yes or no answer.

Where in London would they be riding, how far? What is the child like in term of judgement, observation, commonsense and taking responsbility?

I think the standard age to start considering these things is between 11 - 13. So 12.

Would you allow your 12 year old to cycle on his own from where you live now to take part in a Sky Ride.

What is the child like in term of judgement, observation, commonsense and taking responsbility?

That's actually quite a far regardless of whether they're on a bike or not. Basically that's like asking would I let my 12 year old son go to the West End by himself?

Would you?

Ugh, I give up, DDD.

No, no I wouldn't. The distance is a bit too far for my tastes. But then if he asked "Dad I wanna go to the West End" (in general) I still would be saying no. I'd be saying no if it was Croydon, which is closer.

However, where I grew up in Norbury, a cul de sac with a green and a road circling it. Yes I would let him go out unaccompanied. Having watched him from the window a couple times if I have confidence in him and he has confidence in himself I'd let him go around the block.

Assuming that's all fine then maybe to school. But there is a big different to school being 3 miles away and 10 miles, which s roughly the distance between the Sky Ride and my House.

sketchley

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Yes, you've created a monster complete with Troll, flame war, political beef, images and multi-posting.

The Morpeth owes you a beer!

It's migrated somewhat from the OP. To be honest I cannot be bothered to read as it looks something akin to a pi$sing contest....

I'll take that beer sometime though.

sfichele

BigMat wrote:

sfichele wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So you think the roads are safe enough? That they don't need to be made safer for cyclists?

I'm going to have another go at this, because I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet (I wear a bonnet?) ATM. This is not directed at you, NSB, so don't go getting all indignant.

There was recently a thread here about the chap who got crushed by a left turning HGV at the lights, having ridden up to it for 12 seconds or so. I realise that the response here was far from universally sympathetic.

That was unsafe from the moment he committed himself to the "alley of death" alongside the HGV. What could have prevented it? First, education. The onus for that is on the rider. Second, a physical barrier - an arm that extends from the nearside rear of the HGV to prevent entry to the alley of death is what I have in mind. Completely impractical. Third, (if there was one) no cycle lane.

The third one is the one that got me thinking (and I can't remember, and haven't checked whether there was a cycle lane in the incident in question). But sometimes cycle lanes - the things that are supposed to help us and make our journeys safer - are invitations to enter some very dangerous pieces of road. Which got me to thinking: why is it safer to set off from the front of the lights? How is it safer than queuing in primary? I rather doubt that it is. It's a bit like the infantrymen being sent ahead of the faster heavier tanks - they're going to get run over.

We have cycle lanes though, and they're not going away. Even without them, cyclists will continue to filter past standing traffic. And right there is the root cause of one of your sources of danger.

So we could perhaps make things safer by enforcing a rule that cyclists queue in primary like other traffic. But is the present system so unsafe as to warrant that change? I don't think so at all. Every incident is to be regretted, but you will never eliminate incidents, and so you just have to live with a certain number of them.

Rip away.

+1000, I have the similar concerns about the ASL and prefer not to filter and use them but stay primary. They can lure cyclists into a false sense of security, especially inexperienced ones! The basic idea is good, that cyclists are given a prominent spot at the front so that vehicles can see them and promote space for the cyclist.

BUT there is a massive grey area! What if you are trying to get the front whilst the lights change! You can argue that drivers should be looking etc, but so should you as a cyclist. The idea of charge, get to the front can put you at considerable risk if you are not paying attention to the lights changing.

-1,000

Always get to the front if possible. Plenty of room, better visibility, out of the fumes, easier to take a flyer as soon as the way is clear. Always a bit of a gamble if you end up in a bad spot when the lights change, so I make sure I always have an exit plan just in case.

But haven't you just proved my point? You've an experienced cyclist, who knows the danger. I bet there are plenty of nodders who just hack their way up to the ASL without thinking about it.

secretdancer

Sketchley wrote:

It's migrated somewhat from the OP. To be honest I cannot be bothered to read as it looks something akin to a pi$sing contest....

I'll take that beer sometime though.

Apart from all the c0ck fighting in the middle the thread is still loosely related to the OP. Some think segregation is good, some think it's bad. Some think cycling on roads is in their present form is dangerous, some think it's not. Then there's the side debate about whether kids of 12 should be allowed to cycle on roads.

One thing most agree on is the education angle - changing the mindset of your average motorist to recognise the rights of cyclists on the roads. If that can be achieved then we might see progress.

Personally, I don't think there is a one size fits all segregation model that will work. If for example we did implement segregation on the roads with dedicated facilities for cyclists, would they then be mandatory? I imagine if they were there would be carnage on some stretches.

bigmat

sfichele wrote:

BigMat wrote:

sfichele wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So you think the roads are safe enough? That they don't need to be made safer for cyclists?

I'm going to have another go at this, because I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet (I wear a bonnet?) ATM. This is not directed at you, NSB, so don't go getting all indignant.

There was recently a thread here about the chap who got crushed by a left turning HGV at the lights, having ridden up to it for 12 seconds or so. I realise that the response here was far from universally sympathetic.

That was unsafe from the moment he committed himself to the "alley of death" alongside the HGV. What could have prevented it? First, education. The onus for that is on the rider. Second, a physical barrier - an arm that extends from the nearside rear of the HGV to prevent entry to the alley of death is what I have in mind. Completely impractical. Third, (if there was one) no cycle lane.

The third one is the one that got me thinking (and I can't remember, and haven't checked whether there was a cycle lane in the incident in question). But sometimes cycle lanes - the things that are supposed to help us and make our journeys safer - are invitations to enter some very dangerous pieces of road. Which got me to thinking: why is it safer to set off from the front of the lights? How is it safer than queuing in primary? I rather doubt that it is. It's a bit like the infantrymen being sent ahead of the faster heavier tanks - they're going to get run over.

We have cycle lanes though, and they're not going away. Even without them, cyclists will continue to filter past standing traffic. And right there is the root cause of one of your sources of danger.

So we could perhaps make things safer by enforcing a rule that cyclists queue in primary like other traffic. But is the present system so unsafe as to warrant that change? I don't think so at all. Every incident is to be regretted, but you will never eliminate incidents, and so you just have to live with a certain number of them.

Rip away.

+1000, I have the similar concerns about the ASL and prefer not to filter and use them but stay primary. They can lure cyclists into a false sense of security, especially inexperienced ones! The basic idea is good, that cyclists are given a prominent spot at the front so that vehicles can see them and promote space for the cyclist.

BUT there is a massive grey area! What if you are trying to get the front whilst the lights change! You can argue that drivers should be looking etc, but so should you as a cyclist. The idea of charge, get to the front can put you at considerable risk if you are not paying attention to the lights changing.

-1,000

Always get to the front if possible. Plenty of room, better visibility, out of the fumes, easier to take a flyer as soon as the way is clear. Always a bit of a gamble if you end up in a bad spot when the lights change, so I make sure I always have an exit plan just in case.

But haven't you just proved my point? You've an experienced cyclist, who knows the danger. I bet there are plenty of nodders who just hack their way up to the ASL without thinking about it.

Sorry, it was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment. Mental note though, other less experienced cyclists might be watching what I do so try and set a good example...

sfichele

Getting back on the point of segregation there are two types (imo).

There's the whole city planning type where the roads and cycle paths are completely separated. An example is (the sh:t hole, where I grew up) Peterborough. The Orton areas have main roads circling each conurbation. The cycle paths cut straight through the middle and only cross roads at a few locations. This is proper segregation of cars, bikes, and walkers, with paths going through fields. I used to ride to school on these bike paths and could ride for miles without too much contention with motorists. No one in their right mind can argue against this type of infrastructure.

The other type of cycle infrastructure is that directly along side the road. This for me is very a contentious issue, because it needs to be planned very carefully, and can be extremely costly. Done well it will help everyone. However, if its done badly, it will increase the divide between motorists from cyclists even further, and will lure inexperienced cyclists into making bad mistakes like undertaking lorries.

In addition the place where I have the most problems with idiot Sorry-Didn't-See-You-Mates is on the cycle lanes running along roads, because motorists aren't looking for cyclists!

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

dutch roads are safe? don't get me wrong I think the Netherlands has some good ideas.

But being a cynical git i'd like to see the idea proven.

what worries me is the Netherlands is good mantra yet for a smaller country (27% of our population)they have more cycle deaths than we do, some 62% or so extra.

clearly they use bikes more than we do, but even so. a cynical eye over the ideas rather than blind faith is needed.

Per km cycled you're 3 times more likely to be hurt or die in the UK than you are in Holland.

based on what figures? do you mean holland or Netherlands?

the only figures I ever seen bounded about are close on 10 years old, which considering uk's recent growth in cycling means you really need to be looking at recent figures.

Same thing.

And don't give me this "it's only two provinces" rubbish. I'm Dutch, and when I cheer for the football team I shout Hup! Holland, not Hup! Nederland.

Like I said, the figures are in the Times yesterday.

Have to say i can't see any. just a coment that our infrastucture lags behind theirs.

clearly used to be 3 times the risk per km, but since cycling apears to still being on the rise, but that the deaths do not seem to be tracking as fast thankfully.

it looks like the risk is reducing and i'd expect that to happen what ever the Boris/Ken/etc does or bloggers whitter on about.