More cyclists: The only real solution to making safer roads.

DonDaddyD

So I've been a 'professional cycling commuter' since the 07/08 season. Back then, when commuting by bike was still uncool, there wasn't too many of us on the r. d. I'd argue that the commute was quicker - you were more likely to keep upwith ambient traffic speed and able to due to fewer cyclists on the road. You also had to for safety - but the commute was also far more dangerous.

I've seen Ghost Bikes for those unfortunate, campaigns, critical mass, public bikes and superhighways. I've spent and watched for years as we (cyclists) argue amongst ourselves about how to make the roads safer or if we should be removed from the roads altogether [Rick Chase]. I get irked at the new trend of camera crusaders who film their commutes and use youtube to report every single traffic infringement or close pass they encounter - 'it were far worse in 07/08 and we just got on with it! No one likes a nark!'

So, it dawned on me as I rode to home from work yesterday (I was being cut up, forced to the curb, reversed on, closely followed so I couldn't brake safely - horrendous commute); as I negotiated traffic that didn't know how to deal with me I thought about how to make these roads safer. I couldn't think of a single thing that wouldn't complicate matters except this:

More cyclists.

Having more cyclists on the road makes the roads safer. Drivers using those routes each day encounter cyclists and gain experience of how to react around them. Larger numbers of cyclists force drivers to use ASLs properly, give room and not speed off at the lights (most of the time). I also find that drivers are more willing to wait and turn right/left as oppose to overtaking and then turning infront of you where there is no time to brake.

Bottom line, for all the awareness, protesting, video footage etc. For all the cycle highways and bike lanes. During the commute I feel most safest with a group of cyclists, roads be damned.

Discuss.

meanredspider

I'm less convinced by this argument: more bikes might mean more more frustration for car drivers, more variability of cycling standards (RLJing etc), more cyclists competing for space on the road etc

Awareness and consideration from both drivers and cyclists is definitely the need - how you get there though is not clear

meanredspider

....be interesting to know if the issue is better in Cambridge than elsewhere. I'd imagine Cambridge has close to the highest denisity of cyclists in the country. That said, it's also well-adapted to cyclists.

daviesee

What this Country needs is for everyone to slow down, show some patience and have consideration for others.

And I mean for society as a whole, not just about cycling. People are just in too much of a hurry and rarely question why.

How we achieve this is the tricky question.

rubertoe

I don't think it is one thing that can make it safer, but lots of little things.

Better awareness from both cyclists and motorists.
Better Infrastructure.
Some segregation.
Consideration to all road users.
Obeying the rules and the laws.
Training.

The list is a lot longer than that I'd guess.

notsoblue

Looking forward to seeing DDD on the next critical mass.

DrLex

meanredspider wrote:

....be interesting to know if the issue is better in Cambridge than elsewhere. I'd imagine Cambridge has close to the highest denisity of cyclists in the country. That said, it's also well-adapted to cyclists.

Paging RC to the thread. IMO, central Cambridge is hardly well-adapted to anything beyond Tudor times; if the nuclear siren ever sounded with me there, I'd bunk into Peterhouse, where life has hardly changed in half a Millenium.

Milton Keynes was "designed" to accommodate cyclist- look how few cycle there.

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

....be interesting to know if the issue is better in Cambridge than elsewhere. I'd imagine Cambridge has close to the highest denisity of cyclists in the country. That said, it's also well-adapted to cyclists.

I grew up there .

Cycling's the easiest way to get around the town and the nearby satellite villages.

It's not particularly bike friendly with regards to traffic.

I'd say it's no worse than London, but not better either.

The roads are much narrower so there is a lot more competing for space. There is also definitely more road rage. Seems like bikes and cars have more instances to wind one another up. Busses are a particular problem in Cambridge. The roads are too narrow for both and that causes a lot of friction. The narrow fenland lanes heading in and out of Cambridge aren't much better.

There's also a Cambridge specific town vs gown problem - whereby locals who are more likely to be in cars feel a particular sense of entitlement to road space over people on bikes who they assume are therefore students.

Having said that, when I briefly came back to Cambridge (I left in around 07 and came back briefly in '10) and had to do my old commute, I couldn't believe how many more cyclists there were commuting.

Made it even more of a pain tbh, but then I probably should have just slowed down a bit.

Where the roads are wide enough like Huntingdon Road it works well. That bike line basically functions like a segregated lane but with easy overtaking opportunities since it's so far away from the cars.

On a road very nearby, it's a real nuisance, like Histon Road where the road is barely wide enough for a car - so the cycle lane gives drivers an excuse to squeeze past.

Cambridge is cycle friendly in the sense that it's easiest to get around by bike. It's not actually a friendly experience on the bike.

airbag

I'd agree pretty much entirely with OP.

DrLex wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

....be interesting to know if the issue is better in Cambridge than elsewhere. I'd imagine Cambridge has close to the highest density of cyclists in the country. That said, it's also well-adapted to cyclists.

Paging RC to the thread. IMO, central Cambridge is hardly well-adapted to anything beyond Tudor times; if the nuclear siren ever sounded with me there, I'd bunk into Peterhouse, where life has hardly changed in half a Millenium.

Milton Keynes was "designed" to accommodate cyclist- look how few cycle there.

I happen to know a college that has bunkers for just such an eventuality: later, suckers 8)

If you've seen how bad the general standard of cycling in Cambridge, the fact that anyone survives is testament to its safety . I've had a handful of brown trouser moments in three years, mostly out of the town centre, at least one due to another cyclist - overall the drivers are amazingly courteous IMO, tbh I can get away with things I shouldn't be able to. Infrastructure-wise it's quite scattergun - some parts are quite lovely, some the same crap we get everywhere, and the council's response to pavement cycling is usually to stick a blue signpost on the pavement making it no longer illegal :roll:. The latest additions are far better though.

team47b

daviesee wrote:

What this Country needs is for everyone to slow down, show some patience and have consideration for others.

And I mean for society as a whole, not just about cycling. People are just in too much of a hurry and rarely question why.

How we achieve this is the tricky question.

I think you are onto something there.

As someone who now sees a different mindset on the road to the UK, people have more patience here, 'cos there's less of them, can't see how "more" of anything on the road would do anything but increase the aggression on the road.

You would need a change of culture, less aggression, less pressure, less people on the road, smooooth empty roads and sunshine etc... let's face it you're farked!

rolf_f

DrLex wrote:

Milton Keynes was "designed" to accommodate cyclist- look how few cycle there.

But in many ways MK is the most American town in the UK. I can't see the sort of people who'd want to live there would that likely to be quick to embrace cycle commuting.

My old home town, Harlow, is networked with cycle lanes often nowhere near the roads - mostly used by schoolchildren in the 70s. No idea what it's like now though but doubt that there are thousands of cycle commuters on those lanes. But then I have used the cycle lanes in Peterborough recently but prefer to use the roads myself.

meanredspider

Yup - I cited Cambridge for the very reason that I grew up there and went everywhere by bike and commuted there for several years by bike about 10 years ago. I actually think more bikes has made it worse. I had far more issues there than I've had in the Highlands where, frankly, bikes are pretty rare. I think that the volume of bikes is a red herring.

rick_chasey

S'all about space.

Headhuunter

I think more cyclists on the road mean that drivers are more aware of them, I seem to get left hooked less often than when I 1st started riding around London, drivers still pull past you and then immediately try to turn left, but they do it more tentatively with the indicator going... Having said that I think that the increase in the number of cyclists has also made drivers more likely to try to push past and squeeze through gaps. I think I've witnessed aggressive behaviour from motorists increasing, particularly motorists pulling out from turns on the left right in front of me in a desperate attempt not to end up behind me once I have passed their junction, I've been forced to brake sharply/take evasive action after motorists have pulled out in front of me quite a lot recently...

Origamist

There is a correlation between the numbers of people cycling and the frequency of collisions. Put crudely: more cyclists, less collisions. What is a little worrying is that the safety in numbers effect does not appear to be as pronounced in the UK.

notsoblue

Origamist wrote:

There is a correlation between the numbers of people cycling and the frequency of collisions. Put crudely: more cyclists, less collisions. What is a little worrying is that the safety in numbers effect does not appear to be as pronounced in the UK.

Well I'm sure you agree that you can't safely sustain that increase in cyclists on the road without an improvement in the road facilities to accommodate them. The problem in the UK isn't too many cyclists, its poor facilities.

The "Critical Mass" effect is definitely noticeable. I was sat outside a pub with a G&T on Clerkenwell Road the other day, right by a set of lights, and every time they were red there were 15-20 cyclists stopped at them. There were more cyclists there each time than there were cars. And the cars that were there couldn't have failed to notice all the bikes.

tailwindhome

Kieran_Burns wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

<snip> waffle <snip>

Discuss.

No.

I'm not sure at what juncture you've made any point that hasn't been made a million times before (generally in the helmet debate) but in a ever so slightly arrogant manner....

Cape on a bit tight today KB?

jedster

I don't think more cyclists is the only thing (cyclist training/education is valuable too*) but I do think it is very important. I feel safer on the London leg of my commute than the rural one at the other end of my train journey - partly because of the speed differences/sight lines but mainly because drivers in London expect to be surrounded by cyclists and are more alert to them. The statistics bear this out - fatalities per mile travelled are lower in London than on rural roads.

Given this, I'm rather against campaigns like the one run recently by The Times. They tend to make people believe cycling in London is more dangerous than it really is which is likely to put off people from starting. Quite apart from that, a look at the stats shows that cyclists are more art risk outside London...

*BTW shouldn't cyclecraft be made available on the web as a free download with the web address given away with every new bike? I appreciate the author deserves royalties but I'd have thought a deal could be done.

Origamist

notsoblue wrote:

The "Critical Mass" effect is definitely noticeable. I was sat outside a pub with a G&T on Clerkenwell Road the other day, right by a set of lights, and every time they were red there were 15-20 cyclists stopped at them. There were more cyclists there each time than there were cars. And the cars that were there couldn't have failed to notice all the bikes.

It's worth remembering that the burgeoning numbers of commuting cyclists in the central and inner London cordon is not mirrored across the rest of the country. This London-centric perception of a cycling revolution in the UK is, sadly, far from the mark (not that I'm suggesting your view is skewed!).

That said, with the virtuous circle of increased cyclist numbers, cycling moves up the transport agenda and cycling pressure groups have more leverage and influence to make road conditions more cycle-friendly.

Headhuunter

notsoblue wrote:

Origamist wrote:

There is a correlation between the numbers of people cycling and the frequency of collisions. Put crudely: more cyclists, less collisions. What is a little worrying is that the safety in numbers effect does not appear to be as pronounced in the UK.

Well I'm sure you agree that you can't safely sustain that increase in cyclists on the road without an improvement in the road facilities to accommodate them. The problem in the UK isn't too many cyclists, its poor facilities.

The "Critical Mass" effect is definitely noticeable. I was sat outside a pub with a G&T on Clerkenwell Road the other day, right by a set of lights, and every time they were red there were 15-20 cyclists stopped at them. There were more cyclists there each time than there were cars. And the cars that were there couldn't have failed to notice all the bikes.

...And with the inflation busting train fare rises announced, the increase in the number of cyclists will probably continue...

notsoblue

jedster wrote:

*BTW shouldn't cyclecraft be made available on the web as a free download with the web address given away with every new bike? I appreciate the author deserves royalties but I'd have thought a deal could be done.

The thing about cyclecraft is that the only people who read it are those who probably don't need to.

jedster

"The thing about cyclecraft is that the only people who read it are those who probably don't need to."

Yeah... I know. I was trying to find a way to make people aware of it before they've learned enough to find it. If every bike shop handed out the web address and made a point of saying "take a look at this - it really made me a better rider" when they sold a bike perhaps a few more people would learn? Probably dreaming...

roger_merriman

Origamist wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The "Critical Mass" effect is definitely noticeable. I was sat outside a pub with a G&T on Clerkenwell Road the other day, right by a set of lights, and every time they were red there were 15-20 cyclists stopped at them. There were more cyclists there each time than there were cars. And the cars that were there couldn't have failed to notice all the bikes.

It's worth remembering that the burgeoning numbers of commuting cyclists in the central and inner London cordon is not mirrored across the rest country. This London-centric perception of a cycling revolution in the UK is, sadly, far from the mark (not that I'm suggesting your view is skewed!).

That said, with the virtuous circle of increased cyclist numbers, cycling moves up the transport agenda and cycling pressure groups have more leverage and influence to make road conditions more cycle-friendly.

And even in central london out of rush hour it's remarkable how few bikes you see. even down the hallowed Embankment!

notsoblue

Origamist wrote:

It's worth remembering that the burgeoning numbers of commuting cyclists in the central and inner London cordon is not mirrored across the rest country. This London-centric perception of a cycling revolution in the UK is, sadly, far from the mark (not that I'm suggesting your view is skewed!).

Oh for sure, it is London-centric. But London is often the testing ground for ideas that get adopted elsewhere.

BillyMansell

jedster wrote:

"The thing about cyclecraft is that the only people who read it are those who probably don't need to."

Yeah... I know. I was trying to find a way to make people aware of it before they've learned enough to find it. If every bike shop handed out the web address and made a point of saying "take a look at this - it really made me a better rider" when they sold a bike perhaps a few more people would learn? Probably dreaming...

Or increase funding for NSI training so it's available to all. Locally it's funded only for Years 4 and 5 school kids and even there it's so bureaucratic as to which age can learn which levels it ridiculous. Training is available to other groups if they self-fund but it should be made available to anyone with a bike and especially anyone buying a bike regardless of age, ability or personal finances.

phy2sll2

The *only* solution?

How about enforcing the rules?

People drive and ride like bell ends because they know there's very little chance of being pulled up for their behaviour. And even if they do (and I'm thinking specifically of drivers here), they know the penalty will be laughable.

BillyMansell

phy2sll2 wrote:

The *only* solution?

How about enforcing the rules?

People drive and ride like bell ends because they know there's very little chance of being pulled up for their behaviour. And even if they do (and I'm thinking specifically of drivers here), they know the penalty will be laughable.

Here's an example from yesterday of an inadequate response by the police to law breaking;

"80 people caught filming crash scene while driving"
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/ ... -1-4157571

phy2sll2

There you go!

Cops wrote:

'Sgt Gray said the Force had taken the decision not to prosecute the motorists in a bid to educate them about the consequences of using a mobile phone while behind the wheel.'

The implication being that those people didn't know what they were doing was wrong, and as such, deserve a second chance?

Oh sorry officer, I didn't realise left hooking cyclists was wrong - can we just let it go?

or

Well, the guy didn't know driving his HGV at 20mph over the limit and being practically blind was against the law, therefore we won't prosecute?

notsoblue

BillyMansell wrote:

jedster wrote:

"The thing about cyclecraft is that the only people who read it are those who probably don't need to."

Yeah... I know. I was trying to find a way to make people aware of it before they've learned enough to find it. If every bike shop handed out the web address and made a point of saying "take a look at this - it really made me a better rider" when they sold a bike perhaps a few more people would learn? Probably dreaming...

Or increase funding for NSI training so it's available to all. Locally it's funded only for Years 4 and 5 school kids and even there it's so bureaucratic as to which age can learn which levels it ridiculous. Training is available to other groups if they self-fund but it should be made available to anyone with a bike and especially anyone buying a bike regardless of age, ability or personal finances.

They should really be teaching older kids how to ride. I doubt many Year 4-5 kids will be allowed to cycle on their own to school.

PBo

I would imagine they do y4/5 so that they might then cycle to school when they go to secondary, right from the off.

DonDaddyD

Training for cyclist is all well and good. But if a motorist isn't conditioned to 'think bike' there are times when there is very little you can do. I note the different attitude motorists have now along my commute compared to what it was some 6 years ago. I would say there is probably more than quadruple the number of cyclists on my commute now compared to 6 years ago - that kind of increase is going to force an attitude to change.

I would argue if you want motorists to 'think bike' then seeing a large number of bikes will achieve this.

(I can only speak from the perspective of my commute)