More cyclists: The only real solution to making safer roads.
Comments
-
-
Apparently, the difficulty with teaching secondary school age kids is that they're more self-conscious and learning to ride doesn't look cool in front of their peers.notsoblue wrote: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.0 -
-
"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."
You know, I'm not sure I really agree with any of that!
a) who said too many cyclists was a problem - DDDs point was more cyclists is good. If anything our problem is too few cyclists
b) I'm far from convinced that more facilities is the answer. I think obliging road users to share the roads is the way forward (through critical mass, training and enforcement). You are never going to be able to segregate cyclists from other road users entirely - doing a bit of segregation gives the message that cyclists shouldn't be on the road and reduces the incentive for cyclists and drivers to learn how to coexist properly
Now I'm not extreme about this - I do think there is a role for some off highway cycle routes to help learner cyclists build confidence and there is a role for some careful redesign of particularly hazardous junctions but in general I think we would be better removing cyle lanes than adding to them.0 -
I think it's more about infrastructure, planning and managing what we have. For example, all urban areas could have 20 mph limits. Why aren't cycle lanes built better? Why do they always seem to be an afterthought? Why is it almost impossible to leave my bike locked at my local rail station in a properly secure manner?
If the infrastructure was better, I'm sure more would cycle, on a "build it and they will come" basis.
Oh and as long as my local paper prints long, rambling letters from "law-abiding motorists" complaining about cyclists, then we will always be cycling uphill on this (figuratively speaking).Ecrasez l’infame0 -
Most cyclists are also motorists.DonDaddyD wrote: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)0 -
Not mandatory though, as far as I know.Rick Chasey wrote:I thought all kids did their cycling proficiency when they were 11?"Get a bicycle. You won't regret it if you live"
Mark Twain0 -
Denmark is a good model for what is possible with time. The laws of the road favour cyclists, cycle lanes are physically separated, everyone knows (and accepts) that this is the way it is.BelgianBeerGeek wrote:I think it's more about infrastructure, planning and managing what we have. For example, all urban areas could have 20 mph limits. Why aren't cycle lanes built better? Why do they always seem to be an afterthought? Why is it almost impossible to leave my bike locked at my local rail station in a properly secure manner?
If the infrastructure was better, I'm sure more would cycle, on a "build it and they will come" basis.
Oh and as long as my local paper prints long, rambling letters from "law-abiding motorists" complaining about cyclists, then we will always be cycling uphill on this (figuratively speaking).
I think it should be mandatory that whenever any section of road is resurfaced/renewed/changed, cycle facilities should be automatically incorporated into the design. It might result in a somewhat disjointed approach in the short-term, but it might start to change motorists' attitudes and approach if this became the 'norm'.
To be honest the issue is so-broad based it will take a generation to fix; to change the 'them and us' attitude, to coax as many people out of their tin boxes, to make our roads safer, and (whisper it) to make road users a bit more tolerant of each other."Get a bicycle. You won't regret it if you live"
Mark Twain0 -
Saw a program in Holland about bike lanes while I was on holiday. (Yes, my holidays ROCK).
Basically, in the 1950s and 1960s, traffic was getting a little outa control.
No bike lanes at all cars everywhere - rather like we have today - only Holland's a fair bit denser so the traffic became a problem more quickly.
They basically made an active decision to trump the bike over the car. So they did things like turned 2 lane roads with car parking on one side into one lane roads with bike parking and cycle paths. The program showed pictures before and after with traffic figures. More people use the road today, but it's only 5% of the total cars that used it.
That happened all over Holland. Similar in Denmark. It was a conscious decision by the planning authorities. They're now reaping the rewards with less congestion, less pollution and, above all, healthier people.
The numbers of cyclists will rise if the infrastructure is there to support it, and make the decision for the traveller.
It's similar in Cambridge, as much by coincidence as planning. The centre is a car free zone, it's pretty flat, and nothing's too far away - so most people cycle since it's so much more convenient. 45 minutes in a car can be a 15 minute pootle in on an Oma fiets.0 -
Absolutely. People love to cycle. The only thing that stops most of them is sharing roads with cars and lorries.Rick Chasey wrote:The numbers of cyclists will rise if the infrastructure is there to support it, and make the decision for the traveller.0 -
"I think it should be mandatory that whenever any section of road is resurfaced/renewed/changed, cycle facilities should be automatically incorporated into the design"
Oh god no. What a pointless waste of money that would be.
In my town there was a campaign to get more cycle facilities built (led by the local bike shop incidentally). I didn't sign up!
Sure enough the council widened a stretch of pavement on one of the main roads into the town and made it into a (quite a decent by the standards of these things) shared use path. I cyle past it or drive past it about 8 times a week. I almost never see anyone cyling on it.
At the same time our roads are covered in potholes which are the legacy of years of underspending and two harsh winters. That money would have been much better spent on resurfacing.
A key point - monety spent on something is money not available for something else. I think we have much better investment opportunities than more cycle paths. Resurfacing, cycling education and enforcement would all rank higher for me.0 -
jedster wrote:"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."
You know, I'm not sure I really agree with any of that!
a) who said too many cyclists was a problem - DDDs point was more cyclists is good. If anything our problem is too few cyclists
b) I'm far from convinced that more facilities is the answer. I think obliging road users to share the roads is the way forward (through critical mass, training and enforcement). You are never going to be able to segregate cyclists from other road users entirely - doing a bit of segregation gives the message that cyclists shouldn't be on the road and reduces the incentive for cyclists and drivers to learn how to coexist properly
Now I'm not extreme about this - I do think there is a role for some off highway cycle routes to help learner cyclists build confidence and there is a role for some careful redesign of particularly hazardous junctions but in general I think we would be better removing cyle lanes than adding to them.
Better cycling facilities doesn't always mean full segregation. It just means cycle paths that are wide enough, have continuity, and are kept clear by the authorities. Some paths are worse than having nothing at all, but that just means that they should be improved rather than removed.0 -
Not all motorists are cyclist. So what's your point.notsoblue wrote:
Most cyclists are also motorists.DonDaddyD wrote: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)Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Rick Chasey wrote: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.
Sorry, bit late coming in on this - only just seen it. 7 mile commute into Cambridge daily, various routes, but cover most of the town centre. IMO the standard of cycling is generally not too bad, and drivers are more bike aware than in other places I've ridden in frequently (London, Sheffield and Leeds mostly.) However at this time of year, the standard seems to drop SHOCKINGLY. This morning, on Hills Road (and on numerous other occasions), I saw two cyclists cycling down the cycle path. A good thing, you say, no? They were cycling down the wrong cycle path on the right! Added to this were the 5 bikes on the pavement which nearly clobbered a pram...
Have commuted here for about 7/8 years and have definitely seen an increase in commuters as apposed to general usage of bikes. As RC says, there's definitely something to be said about the roads in central Cambridge (although I did Histon Road without any problem for 4 years - must have been lucky). I think you get more considerate drivers where there are more cyclists to an extent, but the flip side (certainly from my experience as both a cyclist and a driver) is that drivers are then exposed to more foolwittery on bikes, be it RLGing, no lights, stupid riding etc. so there ends up with more resentment due to the higher exposure? I really think that a higher basic standard of both riding and driving is the only real way to make the roads safer. How this is achieved however....Road bike FCN 6
Hardtail Commuter FCN 11 (Apparently, but that may be due to the new beard...)0 -
I guess my point is this:
We all know that cycling on the road is fine if you know what you are doing.
Sure it would be better and safer if that section of the driving public who are ignorant/inconsiderate/incompetent behaved better but, still, cycling on the road works.
So how do we go about making it even better?
We could build more cycle facilities but they are never going to go everywhere so cyclists will still end up on normal roads where they need to know how to ride defensively and be exposed to the ignorant/inconsiderate/incompetent. So more facilities don't fix the problems they just ignore them and paper over the cracks.
However, teaching cyclists to assess risk and manage it plus policing the ignorant/inconsiderate/incompetent would actually address the real issues.
Now there is a PERCEPTION issue too. People don't cycle not just because they don't know how and are rationally worried about the ignorant/inconsiderate/incompetent but because they PERCEIVE cycling on the road to be more dangerous than it actually is.
So what is the best way of dealing with this misperception? Surely not by building cycling facilities that appear to endorse it.0 -
"Oma fiets" - love it! Is that what they're really called?0
-
-
DrLex wrote:Milton Keynes was "designed" to accommodate cyclist- look how few cycle there.
Are you sure? Way back when, I remember being taught in geogrpahy classes that MK's road design was laid out to accommodate the quick passage of cars.
Of course, this was wel before the CC bandwagon had even been thought of. Back then the next ice age was just around the corner, according to anyone who took an interest in the climate.
Would be interested to know whether this factoid has now been "adjusted" in schools to suit the current climate agenda.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:They basically made an active decision to trump the bike over the car.
Central London has the seat of the Government, the official residence of the Head of State, numerous embassies and consulates, even more seats of businesses that are central to the economy, and is a massive tourist draw.
It's not a place where is is practical to make an active decision to trump bikes over cars.
I have often felt that C London motor traffic is a lot more aware and accommodating of bikes than weekend out of alondon traffic. It's familiarity. DDD is right: more bikes will increase familiarity. It's a complete solution, and it's the simplest solution.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:It's similar in Cambridge, as much by coincidence as planning. The centre is a car free zone, it's pretty flat, and nothing's too far away - so most people cycle since it's so much more convenient. 45 minutes in a car can be a 15 minute pootle in on an Oma fiets.
For sure - I often used to pass a car in the City Centre only for him to finally catch me up as I got home. Whether planning a road system where you have to drive twice as far to get somewhere (once they'd closed the city centre off) is sensible, I don't know. Trumpington to Castle Hill for instance seems to mean going around 2/3rds of the city (I may exaggerate but not by much)ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Greg66 wrote:DrLex wrote:Milton Keynes was "designed" to accommodate cyclist- look how few cycle there.
Are you sure? Way back when, I remember being taught in geogrpahy classes that MK's road design was laid out to accommodate the quick passage of cars.
Of course, this was wel before the CC bandwagon had even been thought of. Back then the next ice age was just around the corner, according to anyone who took an interest in the climate.
Would be interested to know whether this factoid has now been "adjusted" in schools to suit the current climate agenda.
That's what I'd understood the purpose of the MK redway system to be - segregation of motor vehicles & pedestrians/cycles. But then again, I was also told that every time someone put a coffee cup down in the MKDC planning office, they got another roundabout...Location: ciderspace0 -
OP don't fool yourself into thinking that "Safety in Numbers" works across the board.
Cyclists are still a minority/out-group, therefore even if you double the number of cyclists, the number of people driving does not change by an significant amount. Cyclists increase but that does not mean there is a significant decrease/increase in safe/unsafe drivers.
All that happens is the drivers are now exposed to twice the cyclists and therefore the probability of an accident (approximately) doubles. Look at the KSI stats, they are increasing as the number of cyclists increase.
There are many types of drivers (unfortunately).
1) There'll be drivers that do respond positively to more cyclists on the road - however, it's likely these drivers were never likely to have caused an accident anyway. Therefore increasing cycling numbers is inconsequential for these drivers.
2) There's drivers who are oblivious morons - and wont adapt their attitude of understanding - these are a danger and will kill more cyclists as the number increases.
3) And worst, there'll be drivers who get even more annoyed as numbers increase, and in the extreme may be even less tolerant of cyclists and pass more closely.
In addition more cyclists causes problems and conflicts with drivers. I've had many drivers overtake me with lots of room and not realised there is a cyclist a head of me. And then cut in dangerously, bang their brakes on an swerve. Increasing cycling numbers increases that type of contention.
The two things that will improve safety are Cultural acceptance and proper, bonafide infrastructure.
Without that how do you expect kids to take up cycling. Vehicle cycling is okay for fit and strong, but its not okay for the more vulnerable, especially as people are becoming more self-righteous about cars and ownership of the road0 -
Cambridge is a bit unique - the centre is just too small and too narrow for any kind of motorised traffic.
The buses regularly tear up the paving in the centre on their own.0 -
DrLex wrote:Greg66 wrote:DrLex wrote:Milton Keynes was "designed" to accommodate cyclist- look how few cycle there.
Are you sure? Way back when, I remember being taught in geogrpahy classes that MK's road design was laid out to accommodate the quick passage of cars.
Of course, this was wel before the CC bandwagon had even been thought of. Back then the next ice age was just around the corner, according to anyone who took an interest in the climate.
Would be interested to know whether this factoid has now been "adjusted" in schools to suit the current climate agenda.
That's what I'd understood the purpose of the MK redway system to be - segregation of motor vehicles & pedestrians/cycles. But then again, I was also told that every time someone put a coffee cup down in the MKDC planning office, they got another roundabout...
Remember doing a case study on MK for geography.
Apparently the way the segregation worked meant that it was perfect for rapists, since the pavements were hidden away from view.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:DrLex wrote:Greg66 wrote:DrLex wrote:Milton Keynes was "designed" to accommodate cyclist- look how few cycle there.
Are you sure? Way back when, I remember being taught in geogrpahy classes that MK's road design was laid out to accommodate the quick passage of cars.
Of course, this was wel before the CC bandwagon had even been thought of. Back then the next ice age was just around the corner, according to anyone who took an interest in the climate.
Would be interested to know whether this factoid has now been "adjusted" in schools to suit the current climate agenda.
That's what I'd understood the purpose of the MK redway system to be - segregation of motor vehicles & pedestrians/cycles. But then again, I was also told that every time someone put a coffee cup down in the MKDC planning office, they got another roundabout...
Remember doing a case study on MK for geography.
Apparently the way the segregation worked meant that it was perfect for rapists, since the pavements were hidden away from view.
Really?
It's council should adopt a new slogan: "Milton Keynes: something new for every geography teacher".
0 -
sfichele wrote:OP don't fool yourself into thinking that "Safety in Numbers" works across the board.
Cyclists are still a minority/out-group, therefore even if you double the number of cyclists, the number of people driving does not change by an significant amount. Cyclists increase but that does not mean there is a significant decrease/increase in safe/unsafe drivers.
All that happens is the drivers are now exposed to twice the cyclists and therefore the probability of an accident (approximately) doubles. Look at the KSI stats, they are increasing as the number of cyclists increase.
There are many types of drivers (unfortunately).
1) There'll be drivers that do respond positively to more cyclists on the road - however, it's likely these drivers were never likely to have caused an accident anyway. Therefore increasing cycling numbers is inconsequential for these drivers.
2) There's drivers who are oblivious morons - and wont adapt their attitude of understanding - these are a danger and will kill more cyclists as the number increases.
3) And worst, there'll be drivers who get even more annoyed as numbers increase, and in the extreme may be even less tolerant of cyclists and pass more closely.
In addition more cyclists causes problems and conflicts with drivers. I've had many drivers overtake me with lots of room and not realised there is a cyclist a head of me. And then cut in dangerously, bang their brakes on an swerve. Increasing cycling numbers increases that type of contention.
The two things that will improve safety are Cultural acceptance and proper, bonafide infrastructure.
Without that how do you expect kids to take up cycling. Vehicle cycling is okay for fit and strong, but its not okay for the more vulnerable, especially as people are becoming more self-righteous about cars and ownership of the road
+10 -
notsoblue wrote:sfichele wrote:OP don't fool yourself into thinking that "Safety in Numbers" works across the board.
Cyclists are still a minority/out-group, therefore even if you double the number of cyclists, the number of people driving does not change by an significant amount. Cyclists increase but that does not mean there is a significant decrease/increase in safe/unsafe drivers.
All that happens is the drivers are now exposed to twice the cyclists and therefore the probability of an accident (approximately) doubles. Look at the KSI stats, they are increasing as the number of cyclists increase.
There are many types of drivers (unfortunately).
1) There'll be drivers that do respond positively to more cyclists on the road - however, it's likely these drivers were never likely to have caused an accident anyway. Therefore increasing cycling numbers is inconsequential for these drivers.
2) There's drivers who are oblivious morons - and wont adapt their attitude of understanding - these are a danger and will kill more cyclists as the number increases.
3) And worst, there'll be drivers who get even more annoyed as numbers increase, and in the extreme may be even less tolerant of cyclists and pass more closely.
In addition more cyclists causes problems and conflicts with drivers. I've had many drivers overtake me with lots of room and not realised there is a cyclist a head of me. And then cut in dangerously, bang their brakes on an swerve. Increasing cycling numbers increases that type of contention.
The two things that will improve safety are Cultural acceptance and proper, bonafide infrastructure.
Without that how do you expect kids to take up cycling. Vehicle cycling is okay for fit and strong, but its not okay for the more vulnerable, especially as people are becoming more self-righteous about cars and ownership of the road
+1
-50 -
London is pretty safe, certainly far safer than the times would have you believe. The problem is that the safety is linked to a fairly narrow band of regular commuters. I expect the majority of this forum is in the 25-40 age bracket and overwhelmingly male. We can, by and large, keep up with traffic, ride confidently and take the lane where needed. We have spidey sense for trucks/vans/taxis and we hang back when something just doesn't feel right. I'm personally loving the massive increase in cyclists because regardless of the standards and speed of the new crew, they are starting sto displace motor traffic at junctions. For example when you turn off at either end of Putney Bridge during commute hours there are so many bikes that the cars physically have to wait until it's clear. When there are only a couple they usually try and squeeze past, more and more bikes means that a straggly line of left hand filterers is being replaced by 10-20 bikes all occupying the whole ASL and setting off together. It reaches a tipping point where so many people are doing it that people in cars start to think maybe it's safe for them to try as well. I applaud the likes of LCC over things like dangerous junctions but I don't want to be pushed off the road because it isn't safe, I want more people on the road, on bikes. Segregation has its place but the OP's point is valid, more bikes are the answer.
#1 Brompton S2L Raw Lacquer, Leather Mudflaps
#2 Boeris Italia race steel
#3 Scott CR1 SL
#4 Trek 1.1 commuter
#5 Peugeot Grand Tourer (Tandem)0 -
-
Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:sfichele wrote:OP don't fool yourself into thinking that "Safety in Numbers" works across the board.
Cyclists are still a minority/out-group, therefore even if you double the number of cyclists, the number of people driving does not change by an significant amount. Cyclists increase but that does not mean there is a significant decrease/increase in safe/unsafe drivers.
All that happens is the drivers are now exposed to twice the cyclists and therefore the probability of an accident (approximately) doubles. Look at the KSI stats, they are increasing as the number of cyclists increase.
There are many types of drivers (unfortunately).
1) There'll be drivers that do respond positively to more cyclists on the road - however, it's likely these drivers were never likely to have caused an accident anyway. Therefore increasing cycling numbers is inconsequential for these drivers.
2) There's drivers who are oblivious morons - and wont adapt their attitude of understanding - these are a danger and will kill more cyclists as the number increases.
3) And worst, there'll be drivers who get even more annoyed as numbers increase, and in the extreme may be even less tolerant of cyclists and pass more closely.
In addition more cyclists causes problems and conflicts with drivers. I've had many drivers overtake me with lots of room and not realised there is a cyclist a head of me. And then cut in dangerously, bang their brakes on an swerve. Increasing cycling numbers increases that type of contention.
The two things that will improve safety are Cultural acceptance and proper, bonafide infrastructure.
Without that how do you expect kids to take up cycling. Vehicle cycling is okay for fit and strong, but its not okay for the more vulnerable, especially as people are becoming more self-righteous about cars and ownership of the road
+1
-5
-50
