The Times Today (Friday)

sketchley

secretdancer wrote:

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.

Nope that wasn't my point at all. It was something about the letters they had chosen to print not supporting the campaign they are running.

As for segregation, I'm in favour if it means direct, fast and wide "roads" for cyclists (i.e. shutting some roads off from traffic like motorways are shut to cyclists). I'm against if it means stuff like priory lane with a pavement mounted cycle lane designed to get the cyclist out of the way of the car rather than to make cycling pleasant.

vermin

As I see it, the main reason these discussions always descent into pitched battles is that contributors tend to forget that they, and others, are speaking from first-hand experience, i.e. what they see on a day-to-day basis. Whilst these experiences and views are all valid, they are not necessarily co-existent. For example, I have commuted through, amongst other places, Reading, Manchester, Milton Keynes and London. The applicability of various cycle safety solutions to each of these is vastly different. The least safe, by some margin, was Reading. The reason for this is very simple - drivers were not used to seeing cyclists and, as result, would simply not see me. The safest was MK, because it has dedicated cycle lanes.

There can be little doubt that a life spent solely on cycle lanes would be the safest option for cyclists, but that simply is not possible in dense urban areas such as London - what are you going to do, make the roads impassable for motor vehicles by narrowing them to make space for fully segregated cycle lanes, knock down buildings to lay new lanes, or dig tunnels? Partial cycle segregation is arguably more dangerous than none at all - it can lead to even lower levels of concentration and awareness on the part of drivers and cyclists alike.

This is the problem then, as I see it. The solution is awareness, brought about by any means possible - compulsory cycling proficiency lessons in school, harsher sentencing for at-fault drivers, perhaps some form of mandatory penalty system for poor cycling (RLJing for example). The responsibility lies with both drivers and cyclists. Some roads simply are not fit for slow cyclists, children, etc. They simply shouldn't use them - it's common sense. Use other routes. How to stop nodders getting themselves into trouble (I agree with G66 on this), I don't know, other than a penalty system. Maybe some form of compulsory tutoring by bike shops could be introduced at the time of sale, similar to the tutoring one is offered on purchasing a super-car. The situations are highly analogous for the majority of people - both are situations where a customer is purchasing a tool with which they can put themselves into enormous danger if they don't know how to handle it properly.

It is beyond doubt that RLJing by cyclists is the single most annoying thing to drivers, and with good reason - it's against the law. These people, as those who tear along cycle lanes alongside stationary traffic and those who park alongside left-turning vehicles, are (almost) entirely to blame for the consequences. Some are taking stupid risks; others are not even aware that the risks exist.

As for awareness - well, having the Times run a national pro-cycling campaign can't hurt.

deptfordmarmoset

I think I've read this whole thread but I don't remember seeing a female contributor. Did I miss it? Did anybody?

veronese68

Blimey, this has gone a long way since I last looked. G66 made a point a few pages back about a theoretical cycling nirvana and where we are now and that somewhere in between would be nice. This is basically what I'm after. Improve things where possible. The current situation is fine for me, but I worry about my kid. As I'm sure Greg does about his daughter. He still lets her ride, as I will with my son. I will have to work out the best route and make sure I give him the best advice I can. As DDD said he will do what his DDDD did before him and teach his kid how to ride on the road. I will do this, but, I will also do what my father, and most other fathers, did and worry a little when they start out. I will also hope things are improved for them, and not just say it's all fine as it is.
I will sign up to the campaign as anything that increases awareness is a good thing. I hope some good comes of it. In a month or so I will be riding to school with my son, in spite of all of my concerns, but he will be armed with some idea of how to ride around traffic and be aware of possible dangers.

dilemna

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.

Errrr ......... I disagree. Cycling on UK roads is bloody dangerous. I've been knocked down twice now. I gave up cycling on the roads 18 months ago as I didn't want to be killed 3rd time unlucky. Neither do I ride anywhere near London. The Times has got it right. Didn't the Independent do something similar about one year ago? Their front page had a pic of all the cyclists killed for the previous year. The Times only ran this front page as it is one of their journalists Mary Bowers I think who is still in a coma after being flattened by a truck last year. If they didn't have this link then they wouldn't be running this campaign. IIRC the Independent one was quickly forgotten.

If you value your life and want to cycle, the only solution is to move to Holland or Denmark, or give up cycling on UK roads. It is not worth being killed.

mroli

Wrote to my MP and got the following response:

Thanks for getting in touch and I agree that cycling needs to be prioritised and made safer. Deaths and serious injuries among cyclists have risen by 11 per cent since 2004. In 2007, over 16,000 cyclists were injured and 136 cyclists were killed. According to the London Mayor’s Cycle Safety Action Plan, the reason most often given by non-cyclists to explain why they do not intend to take up cycling is a fear of the consequences of traffic.

Additionally, I am hoping the Mayor will limit the number of HGVs in London by encouraging, and in time requiring them to decamp outside of town and transfer to smaller electric vehicles. I would go further, and impose stricter limits on the times in the day when the can be used, and the routes they can take.

I have reservations about a default 20mph limit, but support this campaign.

Very best wishes,

Zac Goldsmith

rick_chasey

Sounds good. Though you'd expect him to be more cycle friendly than most, given he's an ex environmental journo. Still, good to hear.

veronese68

Cycling in London was a big topic on Robert Elms this morning. Not a surprise as he is a keen cyclist. Missed most of it but I might iplayer it later.

Initialised

Any of this is temporary, eventually the driver will be taken out of the equation and cycling will be as safe as you riding style and cars will be programmed to avoid them and give them space and cycling will be the only way to enjoy our road network. Until then it's all about reducing perceived conflict.

nation

I still think the way to make cycling safer and more pleasant in the UK is to plan the road system such that arterial routes for cyclists are planned into road construction/traffic planning, and that those routes are different from arterial routes planned around cars.

We already plan the road system (speaking of within cities, here) to try to segregate main roads from residential areas, and then plan junctions such that traffic flow along those roads is emphasised, the idea being that cars will preferentially use those roads over minor roads. In some cases (Birmingham is very like this) there isn't any route other than the main road - you start on a residential/minor road, travel to the nearest main road, then follow main roads until you turn off it onto another minor road. Any non-trivial journey will follow this pattern.

There's no reason we can't arrange things such that there is a "main road" usable by cyclists that is either inconvenient or impassable for cars, in the sense that motor traffic can't follow it from one end to the other. Imagine something like the London superhighways, but entirely on roads that don't form part of any useful route for motor traffic. I also think that something like that has to be cheaper to construct, and likely incite fewer objections, than any plan that involves removing space from already existing arterial routes. In a lot of places it can probably be done just by joining up (in a way usable by cyclists, but not cars, otherwise you're just creating a rat run) sections of already existing road.

It seems like that shouldsatisfy everyone. De facto segregation while still being "proper" roads. No complaints from drivers about space being taken away from them, no requirement on the part of cyclists to use the kind of dangerously designed infrastructure we're usually subjected to.

Agent57

Cycling isn't dangerous. Juggling chainsaws might be, if they're on. But cycling isn't.

nation

Agent57 wrote:

Cycling isn't dangerous. Juggling chainsaws might be, if they're on. But cycling isn't.

You know that, and I know that, but the problem is that to anyone that isn't used to cycling with traffic it seems bloody terrifying.

sfichele

Anyone seem the Sunday Times? They ran another article on cycling and how to make the infrastructure safer.
But it was titled:

Keep cyclists safe - ban us from main roads

Absolute fecking turds! Some of the content is fairly sane, but that sort of title just tells motorists, who merely glance at it, that we should be off the roads. In addition the stupid cow talks about A-roads at the end, and how scary it is to be passed at 60 mph. Again, the suggestion is that we should have more infrastructure, but it could also foster the idea that we shouldn't be on the roads.

When are they going to talk about the attitudes and awareness of drivers?

I do a lot of riding in the Peaks - and I'm sure a lot of people here enjoy long rides in the countryside. The worst possible outcome of this type of campaign would be for hardline motorists to begin talking about banning us from the countryside A-roads.

We all know the score, most quiet A-road are safe as long as drivers slow down and give us room. The vast majority of cars do! Its only a few c@cks.

It's awareness that they should be talking about it!

daviesee

This:-
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/is-gard ... cling.html

sfichele

daviesee wrote:

This:-
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/is-gard ... cling.html

+1, Yep, which goes hand-in-hand with awareness. More people cycling, means more visibility, awareness, and better attitudes.

thegibdog

Idiots.

Glad I thought about it before signing up to their campaign.

dilemna

nation wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

Cycling isn't dangerous. Juggling chainsaws might be, if they're on. But cycling isn't.

You know that, and I know that, but the problem is that to anyone that isn't used to cycling with traffic it seems bloody terrifying.

Errr ......... cycling in traffic IS dangerous. Which bit of either dangerous and traffic or both don't you understand?

A few other words and numbers you might not have come across or understand are in years 2009,2010,2011 injuries caused to and fatalities suffered by cyclists increased. As a cyclist you are many many more times likely to be injured or killed on your journey than making the journey by car.

daviesee

Still safer than going into hospital according to this report -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... lity-rates

Taking a shower is dangerous, crossing the road is dangerous. Life is dangerous.

Things can be massively improved but the largest factor is the attitude of drivers and cyclists.

Wallace1492

Cycling in itself is not really dangerous. In 3 years commuting by bike I have had 2 off's, 1 on leaves and one on diesel. Therefore it is *slightly* more dangerous than taking the train, though only a few minor injuries.

But when you start mixing it with cars/lorries/buses/WVM, it has the potential to be more dangerous. My life is in their hands so to speak, and that can frighten people. However, you have to realise that they are not trying to kill you (but assume they are!) and keep yourself in a safe position, and cycling will still be *slightly* more dangerous than taking the train, but the sheer enjoyment of it far outweigh's this.

rick_chasey

Only barely related: how people died in 2008:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... lity-rates

bigmat

Read the Times on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Didn't waste my time / money yesterday. Very cynical about their campaign. Increasingly it seems like a covert "get bikes off the road" campaign, dressed up as being in the interests of cyclists. Their general train of thought seems to be:

1. Cycling is good.

2. But cycling is terribly dangerous because of all the nasty traffic.

3. Cyclists must therefore be separated from the nasty traffic.

Where is the balance - nobody suggesting that cycling isn't that dangerous relatively speaking, and most infuriatingly nobody seems capable of taking the leap and suggesting that actually, its the motorised traffic that needs sorting out rather than the cyclists being separated. I bored my wife senseless ranting about this on Saturday... :evil:

sfichele

What gets my goat with these campaigns is they sometimes don't differentiate between the varying levels of cycling ability. There are the very young/vulnerable/slow that do need more segregation and better infrastructure and at the other end there are serious cyclists who do hundreds of miles on open roads. The latter don't need segregation, only wider roads in some places - and better attitudes and care from drivers.

But both need better attitudes and awareness

iPete

It is pretty clear that nearly all in this thread want/would be happy with better facilities but not segregation. On my route I have seen junction improvements that integrate with the road layout and help cyclist hold position on the road, more of this please.

Perhaps those who are so vocal about it should take some time to input into LCC, Cycling Embasy of Great Britian etc.

It would be good to see some positive stories coming out from the Times but sadly a little scaremongering sells more papers.

rick_chasey

iPete wrote:

It is pretty clear that nearly all in this thread want better facilities but not segregation. On my route I have seen junction improvements that integrate with the road layout and help cyclist hold position on the road, more of this please.

Perhaps those who are so vocal about it should take some time to input into LCC, Cycling Embasy of Great Britian etc.

My limited experience of cycling lobbyists when discussing road changes (I was part of a group that represented the local 6th form about a bridge that had seen 4 cyclists killed in 2 years) was that they were the most vehement campaigners for 'vehicular cyclists'.

In this instance the bridge was a busy, narrow, two lanes each way bridge, with a complicated junction at one end and broad (but used) pavements on both sides. Bikes going straight on after the bridge had to moved over into the right hand lane in order to go straight on, with traffic in and around the 30-40mph mark.

The school had been arguing for a while it was too dangerous but only after the deaths did the council do anything. They suggested 3 options - all with different costs. In short, they all included a separated bike path.

The cycling lobbyists were against EVERY SINGLE ONE, on principle that 'bike should be treated like cars'.

It was a real bury-hands-in-face moment.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

iPete wrote:

It is pretty clear that nearly all in this thread want better facilities but not segregation. On my route I have seen junction improvements that integrate with the road layout and help cyclist hold position on the road, more of this please.

Perhaps those who are so vocal about it should take some time to input into LCC, Cycling Embasy of Great Britian etc.

My limited experience of cycling lobbyists when discussing road changes (I was part of a group that represented the local 6th form about a bridge that had seen 4 cyclists killed in 2 years) was that they were the most vehement campaigners for 'vehicular cyclists'.

In this instance the bridge was a busy, narrow, two lanes each way bridge, with a complicated junction at one end and broad (but used) pavements on both sides. Bikes going straight on after the bridge had to moved over into the right hand lane in order to go straight on, with traffic in and around the 30-40mph mark.

The school had been arguing for a while it was too dangerous but only after the deaths did the council do anything. They suggested 3 options - all with different costs. In short, they all included a separated bike path.

The cycling lobbyists were against EVERY SINGLE ONE, on principle that 'bike should be treated like cars'.

It was a real bury-hands-in-face moment.

There will always be some situations where segragation might be the answer, I just object to the way that The Times is pushing for full-on segragation with no balance and no emphasis on motorists improving their behaviour / being more harshly penalised.

In your example, I would have thought that sensible proposals might include a 20mph speed limit, signs advising on the presence of cyclists and requiring cars to give them room when overtaking, educating local school kids to always ride primary over the bridge, then maybe some kind of cycle lane. And if money was going to be thrown at the thing, how about sorting out the dangerous junction?

To be honest, the best way to sort the situation out might have been for one of the drivers causing a fatal collision to be hauled over the coals and given the full force of the law in as public a manner as possible.

veronese68

I must admit whilst I am in favour of things being improved, I am in favour of increasing awareness, I am not happy about the wording of some of the Times' articles. I read the piece on Sunday whilst at my parents, I'm glad my wife didn't read it. As I said earlier I will be starting my son riding to school soon, that article would make her worry more and possibly argue against him riding to school.
The basic sentiment seems to be good, unfortunately there are some very uninformed opinions appearing in print. Or, as the cynics may say, it's deliberately meant that way.

notsoblue

I agree with Bigmat on this one. In your example, Rick, why wasn't something like a 20mph speed limit and signage one of the options? The answer isn't *always* segregation...

ddraver

Just to annoy Greg and DDD with more tales from the Netherlands, it is interesting that despite it snowing here as much as it has in the UK, I ve not seen a single snow plough/gritter out yet. The message is just put Winter Tyres on your car and deal with it!

I want to try skating on the canals though, just to say I ve done it...

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

I agree with Bigmat on this one. In your example, Rick, why wasn't something like a 20mph speed limit and signage one of the options? The answer isn't *always* segregation...

I personally don't think it would have helped, given the flow of traffic over it.

It was the lane change that did the damage. The bridge was a bit of a humpback.

http://g.co/maps/y92pd

This was the bit. You can see the roadworks on google maps (doing the changes discussed in said meeting).

There were problems like the left lane light would be green and the right lane red.

People were getting crushed between stationary traffic going straight on and heavy vehicles heading left for example.

Others picking a bad time to head into the right hand lane etc.

I don't think the speed was the problem in this instance.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I agree with Bigmat on this one. In your example, Rick, why wasn't something like a 20mph speed limit and signage one of the options? The answer isn't *always* segregation...

I personally don't think it would have helped, given the flow of traffic over it.

It was the lane change that did the damage. The bridge was a bit of a humpback.

http://g.co/maps/y92pd

This was the bit. You can see the roadworks on google maps (doing the changes discussed in said meeting).

There were problems like the left lane light would be green and the right lane red.

People were getting crushed between stationary traffic going straight on and heavy vehicles heading left for example.

Others picking a bad time to head into the right hand lane etc.

I don't think the speed was the problem in this instance.

Ah fair enough, makes more sense now... The internet makes it far too easy to have an opinion on something you know nothing about This bit of road is a prime candidate for a cycle lane...

So what happened in the end with the bridge?