The Times Today (Friday)

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

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?

Haven't been near it since, but AFAIK they've shoved a very narrow segregated cycle path up the middle of the bridge.

Can't be sure though. Can't find anything to confirm it either way.

roger_merriman

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100135065/cyclist-deaths-and-casualties-in-london-%e2%80%93-the-facts/

rather better newpaper artical still clearly has a agende but at least it's not butchering stats.

and certinaly seems to key up with the tfl pdfs

DonDaddyD

So BBC news this morning have latched onto this.

HGV driver showing the numerous mirrors and insisting his drivers will look but cyclists need to take responsibility wear hi-viz, lights and not run up the side of him. I didn't agree with the whole cycling test point to use the road bit tge rrst was spot on. I would even be happy if the aforementioned - lights and viz - was made law.

Then Terresa May (i think) came on and said enforcing 20mph speed limits in towns and cities would help.

Someone tell me what would 20mph limits do to help? There are speed humps everywhere anyway.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

So BBC news this morning have latched onto this.

HGV driver showing the numerous mirrors and insisting his drivers will look but cyclists need to take responsibility wear hi-viz, lights and not run up the side of him. I didn't agree with the whole cycling test point to use the road bit tge rrst was spot on. I would even be happy if the aforementioned - lights and viz - was made law.

Then Terresa May (i think) came on and said enforcing 20mph speed limits in towns and cities would help.

Someone tell me what would 20mph limits do to help? There are speed humps everywhere anyway.

Less likely to die if you get hit.

sfichele

I would even be happy if the aforementioned - lights and viz - was made law.

Sigh!

As I said before I wear hi-viz on my commute because I want to. As there's a lot going on during commuting hours, cycling in all weather and during darkness, and sharing the roads with chimp-like-creatures in vans.

However, would you wanna be forced to wear hi-viz on weekend countryside rides, or during sportives and time-trialling? Should our top cycling athletes have to flappy wear hiz when they are training.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's the clothes manufacturers that need to pull their socks up. They should be adding more reflective strips etc, whilst keeping things stylish. There's too much black, ninja-like clothing out there.

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So BBC news this morning have latched onto this.

HGV driver showing the numerous mirrors and insisting his drivers will look but cyclists need to take responsibility wear hi-viz, lights and not run up the side of him. I didn't agree with the whole cycling test point to use the road bit tge rrst was spot on. I would even be happy if the aforementioned - lights and viz - was made law.

Then Terresa May (i think) came on and said enforcing 20mph speed limits in towns and cities would help.

Someone tell me what would 20mph limits do to help? There are speed humps everywhere anyway.

Less likely to die if you get hit.

I think there is a case for the default being 20mph and trunk routes being higher etc, if nothing else so places people live don't have cars doing 30mph where the differnce between 30 and 20mph in braking distance and impact is quite big.

for cyclist I suspect that since junctions seem to be where people make mistakes, that 20mph limits would probably not alter things in terms of deaths this said could make with other changes for more acessable roads for cyclists.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So BBC news this morning have latched onto this.

HGV driver showing the numerous mirrors and insisting his drivers will look but cyclists need to take responsibility wear hi-viz, lights and not run up the side of him. I didn't agree with the whole cycling test point to use the road bit tge rrst was spot on. I would even be happy if the aforementioned - lights and viz - was made law.

Then Terresa May (i think) came on and said enforcing 20mph speed limits in towns and cities would help.

Someone tell me what would 20mph limits do to help? There are speed humps everywhere anyway.

Less likely to die if you get hit.

Indeed, and I reckon a 20mph limit would be preferable to all those bumps - less wear and tear on cars and roads.

I was also struck by just how much the whole RLJ thing undermines sympathy for cyclists. The chap reporting from the centre of Bristol was giving a fairly balanced report, but people RLJing in the background behind him just made 'us' all like a load of scofflaws who don't want to take responsibility for our actions. Of course that's not the case but it's easy to see how the perception arises.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So BBC news this morning have latched onto this.

HGV driver showing the numerous mirrors and insisting his drivers will look but cyclists need to take responsibility wear hi-viz, lights and not run up the side of him. I didn't agree with the whole cycling test point to use the road bit tge rrst was spot on. I would even be happy if the aforementioned - lights and viz - was made law.

Then Terresa May (i think) came on and said enforcing 20mph speed limits in towns and cities would help.

Someone tell me what would 20mph limits do to help? There are speed humps everywhere anyway.

Less likely to die if you get hit.

Indeed, and I reckon a 20mph limit would be preferable to all those bumps - less wear and tear on cars and roads.

I was also struck by just how much the whole RLJ thing undermines sympathy for cyclists. The chap reporting from the centre of Bristol was giving a fairly balanced report, but people RLJing in the background behind him just made 'us' all like a load of scofflaws who don't want to take responsibility for our actions. Of course that's not the case but it's easy to see how the perception arises.

*sighs*

People don't seem to get the same rage when they see car after car bombing down the motorway at 90.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So BBC news this morning have latched onto this.

HGV driver showing the numerous mirrors and insisting his drivers will look but cyclists need to take responsibility wear hi-viz, lights and not run up the side of him. I didn't agree with the whole cycling test point to use the road bit tge rrst was spot on. I would even be happy if the aforementioned - lights and viz - was made law.

Then Terresa May (i think) came on and said enforcing 20mph speed limits in towns and cities would help.

Someone tell me what would 20mph limits do to help? There are speed humps everywhere anyway.

Less likely to die if you get hit.

Indeed, and I reckon a 20mph limit would be preferable to all those bumps - less wear and tear on cars and roads.

I was also struck by just how much the whole RLJ thing undermines sympathy for cyclists. The chap reporting from the centre of Bristol was giving a fairly balanced report, but people RLJing in the background behind him just made 'us' all like a load of scofflaws who don't want to take responsibility for our actions. Of course that's not the case but it's easy to see how the perception arises.

*sighs*

People don't seem to get the same rage when they see car after car bombing down the motorway at 90.

Agreed, but we're talking about perception rather than objective fact, and the former is what counts in any publicity campaign.

bigmat

Compulsory hi-viz? Really?! I'm a bit thrown by the hi-viz thing. I generally don't wear it, but am taking an interest in the arguments suggesting I should. Horrible stuff in the main, but I have responsibilities. That said, I generally cycle assuming I am invisible and NEVER rely on vehicles having seen me when filtering / manoeuvering at junctions.

Re the 20mph limit, most of these accidents seem to happen at lower speed at junctions so not sure it would make the difference people expect - probably a good idea in some cases to make roads less intimidating and would probably have more of an impact on pedestrian collisions as well.

rick_chasey

BigMat wrote:

Compulsory hi-viz? Really?! I'm a bit thrown by the hi-viz thing. I generally don't wear it, but am taking an interest in the arguments suggesting I should. Horrible stuff in the main, but I have responsibilities. That said, I generally cycle assuming I am invisible and NEVER rely on vehicles having seen me when filtering / manoeuvering at junctions.

Re the 20mph limit, most of these accidents seem to happen at lower speed at junctions so not sure it would make the difference people expect - probably a good idea in some cases to make roads less intimidating and would probably have more of an impact on pedestrian collisions as well.

It generally gives you more time to look around too, as well as speeds between cyclists and car being more relative (unless you're ATG obviously).

rjsterry

Compulsory flappy builders HV tabard? No thanks. Must have some reflective material bigger than Xcm² on front and rear of garment when riding at night? That doesn't sound like too much of an ask. The main problem with the existing (lights + reflectors) and proposed requirements for visibility is enforcement, and that seems to be something that the police aren't interested in to any real degree.

rick_chasey

I only want luminous green / orange cars, else I won't be able to see them.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

I would even be happy if the aforementioned - lights and viz - was made law.

As was pointed out by my recent accident - Hi-Viz has zero impact when drivers are looking in their mirrors, or looking out their side windows. You need their lights to be shining on you to reflect.

Lights are already law.

That is a problem in this Country. There are already enough laws, they are just not enforced.
If everyone obeyed the law and applied common sense, most accidents wouldn't happen.

greg66_tri_v2.0

BigMat wrote:

Re the 20mph limit, most of these accidents seem to happen at lower speed at junctions so not sure it would make the difference people expect

Quite. The left-turning HGV squishes cyclist accidents aren't down to an excess of speed.

And much as I hate speed humps, and would love to see them removed, I don't for one minute think that would happen if the limit on roads that had them was reduced to 20.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

I only want luminous green / orange cars, else I won't be able to see them.

Often thought this when the Hi Viz argument comes up. Mind you car headlights are much brighter than most bike lights. Indeed, some are far too bright.

sfichele

Sure, we should all be using better lights, technology has come such a long way. We're really hard to see in wing mirrors in bad conditions, etc

However, there are plenty of head-on incidents in the day, despite people wearing hi-viz. Comes back to frantic, myopic drivers not paying attention

UndercoverElephant

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I would even be happy if the aforementioned - lights and viz - was made law.

As was pointed out by my recent accident - Hi-Viz has zero impact when drivers are looking in their mirrors, or looking out their side windows. You need their lights to be shining on you to reflect.

Lights are already law.

That is a problem in this Country. There are already enough laws, they are just not enforced.
If everyone obeyed the law and applied common sense, most accidents wouldn't happen.

Indeed. If we take Germany as an example, they have pretty sensible laws for riding at night, and they're enforced. And, because they're Germans, they tend to follow the laws too. I mean the following are pretty sensible:

1) Everyone must have an approved front and rear light
2) Except on racing bikes < 10Kg, those lights must be powered by a dynamo.
3) Reflective sidewall tyres or spoke reflectors are required

None of the stupid pedal reflectors, lights with a million (or near zero) lumens into the eyes of oncoming traffic, nor people with no side visibility at all.

davis

UndercoverElephant wrote:

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I would even be happy if the aforementioned - lights and viz - was made law.

As was pointed out by my recent accident - Hi-Viz has zero impact when drivers are looking in their mirrors, or looking out their side windows. You need their lights to be shining on you to reflect.

Lights are already law.

That is a problem in this Country. There are already enough laws, they are just not enforced.
If everyone obeyed the law and applied common sense, most accidents wouldn't happen.

Indeed. If we take Germany as an example, they have pretty sensible laws for riding at night, and they're enforced. And, because they're Germans, they tend to follow the laws too. I mean the following are pretty sensible:

1) Everyone must have an approved front and rear light
2) Except on racing bikes < 10Kg, those lights must be powered by a dynamo.
3) Reflective sidewall tyres or spoke reflectors are required

None of the stupid pedal reflectors, lights with a million (or near zero) lumens into the eyes of oncoming traffic, nor people with no side visibility at all.

I don't much care for 2), but that's pretty sensible legislation. Not over the top, either.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So BBC news this morning have latched onto this.

HGV driver showing the numerous mirrors and insisting his drivers will look but cyclists need to take responsibility wear hi-viz, lights and not run up the side of him. I didn't agree with the whole cycling test point to use the road bit tge rrst was spot on. I would even be happy if the aforementioned - lights and viz - was made law.

Then Terresa May (i think) came on and said enforcing 20mph speed limits in towns and cities would help.

Someone tell me what would 20mph limits do to help? There are speed humps everywhere anyway.

Less likely to die if you get hit.

Surely that's dependant on how you are hit and not the fact that you are hit? I mean if that's the rule why not restrict cars to 10mph? Speed limit is based on an equation of average human reaction time and stopping distance.

sfichele wrote:

As I said before I wear hi-viz on my commute because I want to. As there's a lot going on during commuting hours, cycling in all weather and during darkness, and sharing the roads with chimp-like-creatures in vans.

However, would you wanna be forced to wear hi-viz on weekend countryside rides, or during sportives and time-trialling? Should our top cycling athletes have to flappy wear hiz when they are training.

I concede that I really didn't think about weekend rides. When I wrote it I was thinking about winter conditions during the weekly commute.

Rick Chasey wrote:

People don't seem to get the same rage when they see car after car bombing down the motorway at 90.

Personally I think the 70mph limit on the motorway is now a myth or at the very least outdated. With cars as powerful and stable as they are it's a struggle to keep them comfortably at 70mph. Further more newer cars (those made from about 1998 onwards give or take) are far more capable of slowing to a halt in shorter distances than when the 70mph limit was devised. Everyone drives at 80mph anyway.

Big-Mat wrote:

Compulsory hi-viz? Really?! I'm a bit thrown by the hi-viz thing. I generally don't wear it, but am taking an interest in the arguments suggesting I should. Horrible stuff in the main, but I have responsibilities. That said, I generally cycle assuming I am invisible and NEVER rely on vehicles having seen me when filtering / manoeuvering at junctions.

Re the 20mph limit, most of these accidents seem to happen at lower speed at junctions so not sure it would make the difference people expect - probably a good idea in some cases to make roads less intimidating and would probably have more of an impact on pedestrian collisions as well.

OK compulsory hi-viz was a bad suggestion. As a driver and cyclist it does make you more visible throughout the day and not just night. It should however, never be solely relied on to make you visible or safe. If the driver isn't going to see, you they aren't going to see you.

I agree with your 20mph point.

Daviesee wrote:

As was pointed out by my recent accident - Hi-Viz has zero impact when drivers are looking in their mirrors, or looking out their side windows. You need their lights to be shining on you to reflect.

Er, no.. and I'm sorry about your accident. Hi-Viz is the yellow material that doesn't reflect it's just visibly bright. Reflective surfaces like the Respro stickers reflect when light is flashed on them.

I know I'm more visible in my hi-viz jacket. I think Red and Orange have a similar effect. But I don't rely on it for the driver to see me or grab their attention at junctions. Flashing lights work best IMO. Even then, it's down to the driver to respond accordingly.

ddraver

Hmm, I don't much fancy a Dynamo on my MTB when I'm on a night ride...

I think the proper enforcement of 1) would be enough. EUR35 per missing light over here, people only "forget" once!

bails87

Yep, I wouldn't want hi viz to be law, although I think a poster above was confusing it with reflectives, the two are different. When I was hit by a car, the driver didn't even look in my direction so I could have been head to toe in flourescent yellow and he would have hit me still.

But I'd be happy to see more 20mph limits, and see them enforced with avg speed cameras. The only roads near me that have speed humps are the 20mph ones (entirely sensible as there are several schools on that road) but drivers just do 40 between the humps and 20 over them. The bigger the car, the faster they go because they're able to straddle the humps. :roll:

For me, on a relatively rural commute, the vast, vast majority of any 'iffy' incidents are down to driver's either not anticipating or overtaking too close. Nothing to do with not being seen, completely to do with driving ability and attitude.

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally I think the 70mph limit on the motorway is now a myth or at the very least outdated. With cars as powerful and stable as they are it's a struggle to keep them comfortably at 70mph. Further more newer cars (those made from about 1998 onwards give or take) are far more capable of slowing to a halt in shorter distances than when the 70mph limit was devised. Everyone drives at 80mph anyway.

I think you'll find 70mph is still the law although yes, its often broken. I used to happily cruise along at 100mph plus, safe in the knowledge (or recklessly disregarding the risk?) that there was almost no chance of being stopped by the police. Nowadays I have slowed right down and my speed rarely starts with a figure above 7. That is due to a number of factors - increased fuel prices, having two kids in the back, travelling on less congested roads (I used to really hammer it after I'd been stuck in a jam). Surprisingly, it doesn't actually make that much difference if you travel at 70 or at 80 unless you are covering massive distance. I can also confirm (given that I drive a newer version of your car) that saying "it's a struggle to keep them comfortably at 70mph" is utter tosh. Then again, you said earlier that its a struggle keeping a car at 30mph in town.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

Er, no.. and I'm sorry about your accident. Hi-Viz is the yellow material that doesn't reflect it's just visibly bright. Reflective surfaces like the Respro stickers reflect when light is flashed on them.

Er, no... It was dark. If he didn't see my light then being head to toe in yellow wouldn't have mattered one little jot.
The only useful part of a hi-viz jacket is the reflectives. Otherwise I may as well be wearing my old Once jersey

bails87

DonDaddyD: In what way is it a struggle to keep your car at 70? When it's in top gear, at idling revs it won't push past 70 will it? So what do you mean?

rjsterry

BigMat wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally I think the 70mph limit on the motorway is now a myth or at the very least outdated. With cars as powerful and stable as they are it's a struggle to keep them comfortably at 70mph. Further more newer cars (those made from about 1998 onwards give or take) are far more capable of slowing to a halt in shorter distances than when the 70mph limit was devised. Everyone drives at 80mph anyway.

I think you'll find 70mph is still the law although yes, its often broken. I used to happily cruise along at 100mph plus, safe in the knowledge (or recklessly disregarding the risk?) that there was almost no chance of being stopped by the police. Nowadays I have slowed right down and my speed rarely starts with a figure above 7. That is due to a number of factors - increased fuel prices, having two kids in the back, travelling on less congested roads (I used to really hammer it after I'd been stuck in a jam). Surprisingly, it doesn't actually make that much difference if you travel at 70 or at 80 unless you are covering massive distance. I can also confirm (given that I drive a newer version of your car) that saying "it's a struggle to keep them comfortably at 70mph" is utter tosh. Then again, you said earlier that its a struggle keeping a car at 30mph in town.

This. It is not a struggle. It is not even a challenge. It's just driving too fast.

davis

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

People don't seem to get the same rage when they see car after car bombing down the motorway at 90.

Personally I think the 70mph limit on the motorway is now a myth or at the very least outdated. With cars as powerful and stable as they are it's a struggle to keep them comfortably at 70mph. Further more newer cars (those made from about 1998 onwards give or take) are far more capable of slowing to a halt in shorter distances than when the 70mph limit was devised. Everyone drives at 80mph anyway.

Arrant bobbins. Utter poppycock. Stuff and nonsense.

I disagree. :-)

Edit: emboldening.

DonDaddyD

BigMat wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally I think the 70mph limit on the motorway is now a myth or at the very least outdated. With cars as powerful and stable as they are it's a struggle to keep them comfortably at 70mph. Further more newer cars (those made from about 1998 onwards give or take) are far more capable of slowing to a halt in shorter distances than when the 70mph limit was devised. Everyone drives at 80mph anyway.

I think you'll find 70mph is still the law although yes, its often broken. I used to happily cruise along at 100mph plus, safe in the knowledge (or recklessly disregarding the risk?) that there was almost no chance of being stopped by the police. Nowadays I have slowed right down and my speed rarely starts with a figure above 7. That is due to a number of factors - increased fuel prices, having two kids in the back, travelling on less congested roads (I used to really hammer it after I'd been stuck in a jam). Surprisingly, it doesn't actually make that much difference if you travel at 70 or at 80 unless you are covering massive distance. I can also confirm (given that I drive a newer version of your car) that saying "it's a struggle to keep them comfortably at 70mph" is utter tosh. Then again, you said earlier that its a struggle keeping a car at 30mph in town.

You have a 2008 - onwards Mazda 6? What's it like?

Few points:

Usually, when driving, I travel 2 thirds around the M25 Wimbledon - Essex.

In 6th gear foot gently brazed against the A-pedal my car feels more comfortable at 80mph - it's certainly not struggling. In contrast my Seat Ibiza with all of 60bhp felt far more comfortable to drive at 60 - 70mph, anything faster and you just couldn't be sure.

By comfortable I mean ability to accelerate further, handing, suspension, revs, engine note, cruising. Basically the whole thing. I would also argue that given my 2nd gear takes my car all the way to 40mph before running out of revs driving at 20mph is a struggle as well.

Newer cars are better at going faster. FACT. Gear ratio's, braking, suspension, handling et al is all shaped around this and in the 46yrs that the 70mph speed limit was introduced it's not unthinkable to imagine that cars have gotten better at being driven at speeds in excess of this.

notsoblue

Compulsory Hi-viz would get Rapha lobbying government...

bails87

DonDaddyD wrote:

Few points:

My journey more often than now take me 2 thirds around the M25 Wimbledon - Essex.

When I have people in the car I drive slower.

In 6th gear foot gently brazed against the A-pedal my car feels more comfortable at 80mph - it's certainly not struggling.

No-one said 80mph was a struggle. you said 70 was a struggle. How is keeping it at or below 70 a struggle?

Also, don't you have cruise control?