More cyclists: The only real solution to making safer roads.
Comments
-
If you accept that the % of drivers who would deliberately hurt another human being is extremely low then I don't see how you can argue with DDDs point. He's obviously right.
Ever driven past a football ground at the end of a match? You start off being infuriated "there's people walking all over the road!" but you soon calm down, realize you just need to calmly wait, for a few moments. Surely the concept is the same?
Sadly, I do think some cyclists attitude towards new cyclists is less charitable than the drivers they are all too ready to criticise. All this talk of "nodders" and "noobs".0 -
woodnut wrote:If you accept that the % of drivers who would deliberately hurt another human being is extremely low then I don't see how you can argue with DDDs point. He's obviously right.
Ever driven past a football ground at the end of a match? You start off being infuriated "there's people walking all over the road!" but you soon calm down, realize you just need to calmly wait, for a few moments. Surely the concept is the same?
Sadly, I do think some cyclists attitude towards new cyclists is less charitable than the drivers they are all too ready to criticise. All this talk of "nodders" and "noobs".
2) There's drivers who are oblivious morons - and wont adapt their attitude or understanding - these are a danger and will kill more cyclists as the number increases.
These guys aren't necessarily aggressive towards cyclists - they are just poor drivers that will unfortunately kill due to the probabilities catching up with them.0 -
Then the answer to that is better use of the already existing laws against poor drivers, (as suggested earlier).
Otherwise we (as a society) are allowing a vanishingly small minority of very poor drivers dictate how the entire population use the road network.0 -
woodnut wrote:Then the answer to that is better use of the already existing laws against poor drivers, (as suggested earlier).
Otherwise we (as a society) are allowing a vanishingly small minority of very poor drivers dictate how the entire population use the road network.
+1
Woo! We've gone full circle!0 -
notsoblue wrote:
What does CS8 have anything to do with the points made in the post we are arguing about? That was an anti car homily, whining about car owners owning the road and not apparently spotting the irony in asserting a cyclists' claim to own the road. The roads are shared resources. If you don't get that, you shouldn't be on them whatever your mode of transport.
Subjectively, I don't like it. It has attracted more cyclists to that route. The vast majority of them are slower than me and hold me up.
Objectively, I don't think it is well implemented. Besides the bits that swerve around obstacles (Dolphin Sq eastbound) and bits where it is patchy (Battersea Park Road), there are places where the sizing and lack of flexibility is just plain wrong. Eg VBL to DSC westbound used to be a patch where the volume of cyclists meant that for couple of hours in the evening lane 1 was a de facto cycling lane. Outside those hours cars could use two lanes. Now CS8 is narrower than lane 1 was; and the road layout does not practically convert itself back to two car lanes outside the hours of operation of the bike lane.
Similarly from VBL eastbound. Plus that is a good example of where you want as a cyclist a lot of space pulling away from the light (due to bottlenecking) but the lane can be a lot narrower, or non existent, by the time you get to Millbank as the peloton is well spaced by there.
ETA: the -5 was not intended to indicate strong disagreement; simply that the whole +1 is a bit lazy; but if we're going to use it to do a head count of opinions, mine's worth a lot more than that of others. :twisted:0 -
Have you ever used a cycle lane you thought was useful, Greg?0
-
Was riding home today thinking about how many less 'incidents' I have these days. Could be that:
a) My Jedi skills are improving and will soon become a Master
b) More cyclists, more awareness
c) Slower cyclists make great canon fodder, slowing cars as I jet into the distance
e) I blame Wiggle
d) All of the above0 -
Today I was behind a car down a residential road (lots of cars parked either side) for about a minute (watching its speed and lights intently). Because there were speed bumps (the island type) the car kept slowing for them whereas I had no need to. I waited for my moment when there was plenty of clear space and overtook to the right leaving the widest gap possible. Just as I was going round the car pulls sharply to the right to pull in and park - the car was millimetres from hitting me but I had enough speed to avoid it.
The driver was an idiot - clearly hadn't checked their mirrors at any point and didn't signal. I think that, had the driver seen loads of cyclists around, the incident would be less likely to happen.0 -
For me it's strict liability that will do it. Infrastructure, and cycling takeup might play their part, but strict liability is the bedrock.
That is when a driver hits a cyclist the driver has to prove they did everything possible NOT to strike the cyclist, and that might include having to slow down, or look properly when they didn't.
The same would apply to drivers that strike pedestrians, or cyclists that strike pedestrians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo0 -
Slow day, Eh, D ?DonDaddyD wrote:[...]So, it dawned on me as I rode to home from work yesterday[...]
More cyclists.
[...]Discuss.
D'ya do stuff like evidence & whether a correlation does or does not suggest causality in your line of work ?
Something that came to you personally, and originally, then. Not something you had read or heard about before, then. Very good.DonDaddyD wrote:So, it dawned on me
Try again, with citations (plural), and some analysis. We've got enough anecdotes.0 -
Ha. And I can't see the sort of people who cycle would like to have themselves all lumped together as 'bloody cyclists'. Stereotypes? On here? Never...Rolf F wrote: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.
MK is a fabulous place, I've lived there and am still close enough to see it often enough, so here's a few thoughts.
MK was designed around the car. Residential areas are separated from industry, retail & commerce; the links are high speed roads that hide the distances. When you can get from one end of town to the other in less than 15 minutes legally at 70mph, the incentive to cycle is a bit less than towns where crossing town by car is a succession of jams and traffic lights.
The redway system was planned to complement the roads. Shared use footpaths - ooh instant flaw becomes visible - run parallel to the grid roads, and also meander though housing estates, commerce etc allowing cyclists a means of covering the same distance without being on the dual c/ways. It should be a utopia. My view was that it isn't. Why? Shared use for a start. I used to commute 6 miles across town and it was a nightmare avoiding peds, other cyclists, kids meandering to school oblivious or maybe belligerent to anything that came their way. And redways are handy dumping grounds for household gear; settees, white goods, lamp standards.
How about this? Redways run parallel to main roads but at every roundabout and junction off the main road the r/way detours under an underpass, or perhaps 20 yards down a side road so that the crossing point is away from the road junction. So cycling becomes a stop-start experience instead of a smooth ride where once built momentum can be maintained. And you develop a neck like an owl to look for turning traffic turning left from behind as well as checking the other two directions.
On top of that the maintenance budget for these shared paths was approximately 17/6 in old money. The potholes were nuts, and were hidden by street lighting that didn't light, or emitted as much light as a 1970s bike light. Redways - good idea in a planning meeting, real world no good. I gave up after a bit and cycled to work on the d c/ways instead. It was the only way to do it at any speed and have a reasonable expectation of making it to work satisfactorily.
What happened when I was doing my commute across MK was that very few cycled as the road speeds were good, the parking was good and the incentive to cycle was pretty much non-existent. What the redways are good for is family bimbling, but that's not gonna replace commuting by car. For places like MK it almost doesn't have a chance to build cycling as a mainstream commuter option when the incentive is on the floor, the supposed fantastic cycle routes aren't that good in reality and the distances are always a surprise to people who do have a go, being used to 5 minute journies to get around. Maybe it's better these days, but I doubt it. Better cycling infrastructure doesn't automatically mean more cycling.0 -
Have you ever used a cycle lane you thought was useful, Greg?
I know that was aimed at Greg (genius aren't I) but I've been wracking my brain on this.
I honestly can't think of an on road cycle lane that I've thought was really helpful. I've come across many that I thought were utterly counter productive / dangerous.
There are some off road cycle paths that I have used. They can be really helpful when you are teaching kids to ride.
I do use the cycle path in Hyde Park fairly regularly but I'm just as happy riding round Marble Arch and down Park Lane - which I use depends on which lights are on red when I come to them. To be honest the bike crossing of Park Lane from Hyde Park to Mayfair can be a bit of a clusterf00k which I'm never sad to avoid.
Come to think of it, I quite like a couple of bike only entrances to otherwise closed roads that allow me to avoid a ponderous one-way system.
All in all, the only bike facilities I would really spend money on would be a small number of off-road cycle paths to provide a good environment for learners and more covered bike racks.
J0 -
Well its pretty clear that some people are happy to just keep cycling as a niche sport activity. Cyclepaths just get in the way of that. Its obvious what their opinion is going to be in any discussion about improving cycle facilities, if they don't think they should be there at all anyway.
All I know is that when I'm out pootling on bikes with friends or family (and we're not all wearing lycra) better cyclepaths would make things much safer. Its a worthwhile investment in my clearly quite biased opinion.0 -
you see, I think enforcement and training would allow cycling to become more popular - I don't want to stop it becoming more popular. Actually it IS becoming more popular and I dont think that has anything to do with cycling facilities.
and I think this is wrong:
"better cyclepaths would make things much safer."
I think cycle paths make inexperienced cyclists BELIEVE it's safer without actually improving safety.0 -
jedster wrote:you see, I think enforcement and training would allow cycling to become more popular - I don't want to stop it becoming more popular. Actually it IS becoming more popular and I dont think that has anything to do with cycling facilities.
and I think this is wrong:
"better cyclepaths would make things much safer."
I think cycle paths make inexperienced cyclists BELIEVE it's safer without actually improving safety.
I reckon a novice cyclist would be less likely to be involved in an accident in Copenhagen than London.0 -
notsoblue wrote:when I'm out pootling on bikes with friends or family (and we're not all wearing lycra) better cyclepaths would make things much safer. Its a worthwhile investment in my clearly quite biased opinion.
I was just thinking this as I read through the thread. IMHO, cycle paths are great for nodders, but disastrous for speed freaks.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:jedster wrote:you see, I think enforcement and training would allow cycling to become more popular - I don't want to stop it becoming more popular. Actually it IS becoming more popular and I dont think that has anything to do with cycling facilities.
and I think this is wrong:
"better cyclepaths would make things much safer."
I think cycle paths make inexperienced cyclists BELIEVE it's safer without actually improving safety.
I reckon a novice cyclist would be less likely to be involved in an accident in Copenhagen than London.
Once again though, is that due to the mass of other cyclists or the facilities? Or some complex combination of the two? As we are unlikely to experience any great improvement in facilities surely a greater mass of cyclists will help?0 -
vermin wrote:notsoblue wrote:when I'm out pootling on bikes with friends or family (and we're not all wearing lycra) better cyclepaths would make things much safer. Its a worthwhile investment in my clearly quite biased opinion.
I was just thinking this as I read through the thread. IMHO, cycle paths are great for nodders, but disastrous for speed freaks.
We're practically the boy racers of the cycling world.0 -
I always wonder why these types of discussion polarize opinion in cyclist. For me I don't think there is any one solution, and that all people are correct to varying degrees.
There are numerous variables:
Proficient cyclist - nervous cyclists - outright idiotic and dangerous cyclist. The same applies to car drivers. Then there is the myriad of road types, traffic density and availability of space.
For me I have yet to come across a segregated cycle route that has actually been of any use at all.
What I do believe is there is a need for good cycle routes where there is not this idea of a cyclist only travel at 5 - 10 mph. For a cycle route to be effective it needs to be effective and able to handle speeds of up to 20mph and going in directions that people want to travel and not just a recreational route. But all this costs money!
Whether we like it or not cyclists are still in a minority, this means that Public Bodies are not going to give up tight revenues to help them - for this reason more than anything else I see the increase in cyclists as very positive. I also believe that the more accustomed to cyclists that drivers are the more a majority of them will take more care around them and become more concious of them - no this will not be the case with all of them - but I do think it will be the case of the majority of drivers who are not out to kill cyclists but more than likely have not considered cyclists when they are on the road due to the rarity of them - over the last 3 years I feel like I have seen an improvement from a majority of drivers in how they treat me as a cyclists and remember every new cyclists on the road is also probably another driver who has now become more aware of what a cyclist goes through (personally I think part of the driving test should be for people to learn how to ride a bike on the road).0 -
jedster wrote:you see, I think enforcement and training would allow cycling to become more popular - I don't want to stop it becoming more popular. Actually it IS becoming more popular and I dont think that has anything to do with cycling facilities.
and I think this is wrong:
"better cyclepaths would make things much safer."
I think cycle paths make inexperienced cyclists BELIEVE it's safer without actually improving safety.
Honestly, the biggest issues casual cyclists face are speed differentials with motorised traffic and the amount of space they're given on the road. Training is going to have an effect on confidence, but it won't stop road infrastructure being bad for people who pootle along at 10-15mph.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:vermin wrote:notsoblue wrote:when I'm out pootling on bikes with friends or family (and we're not all wearing lycra) better cyclepaths would make things much safer. Its a worthwhile investment in my clearly quite biased opinion.
I was just thinking this as I read through the thread. IMHO, cycle paths are great for nodders, but disastrous for speed freaks.
We're practically the boy racers of the cycling world.
I feel the road is an entirely different environment when I'm riding slowly with others. At my own pace I can hold an assertive primary position, and I'm part of the traffic. At a casual pootle pace I'm constantly being closely overtaken by larger vehicles travelling 20-30mph faster than I am. Thats what "Casual" cyclists always have to deal with. If you ride in primary and you're going 20-30mph slower than ambient traffic, then you'd better be pretty confident and have thick skin.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:vermin wrote:notsoblue wrote:when I'm out pootling on bikes with friends or family (and we're not all wearing lycra) better cyclepaths would make things much safer. Its a worthwhile investment in my clearly quite biased opinion.
I was just thinking this as I read through the thread. IMHO, cycle paths are great for nodders, but disastrous for speed freaks.
We're practically the boy racers of the cycling world.
I feel the road is an entirely different environment when I'm riding slowly with others. At my own pace I can hold an assertive primary position, and I'm part of the traffic. At a casual pootle pace I'm constantly being closely overtaken by larger vehicles travelling 20-30mph faster than I am. Thats what "Casual" cyclists always have to deal with. If you ride in primary and you're going 20-30mph slower than ambient traffic, then you'd better be pretty confident and have thick skin.
Precisely. The cycle path gives slower cyclists the protection of being out of the way of most of the faster traffic and, in the event that motorists venture into the cycle path, the slow cyclist is less likely to get tangled up with them.
One size does not fit all, hence all the arguments.0 -
I think CS8 is a really good example of how it should be done to be honest. It goes along some pretty busy roads that would be a nightmare for the slower cyclist. But the space reserved by CS makes it pretty safe. As a faster cyclist I just use the road to overtake. The nodders at VB lights don't bother me in a the slightest.vermin wrote:notsoblue wrote:I feel the road is an entirely different environment when I'm riding slowly with others. At my own pace I can hold an assertive primary position, and I'm part of the traffic. At a casual pootle pace I'm constantly being closely overtaken by larger vehicles travelling 20-30mph faster than I am. Thats what "Casual" cyclists always have to deal with. If you ride in primary and you're going 20-30mph slower than ambient traffic, then you'd better be pretty confident and have thick skin.
Precisely. The cycle path gives slower cyclist the protection of being out of the way of most of the faster traffic and, in the event that motorists venture into the cycle path, the slow cyclist is less likely to get tangled up with them.0 -
notsoblue wrote:I think CS8 is a really good example of how it should be done to be honest. It goes along some pretty busy roads that would be a nightmare for the slower cyclist. But the space reserved by CS makes it pretty safe. As a faster cyclist I just use the road to overtake. The nodders at VB lights don't bother me in a the slightest.
My worry with CS8 is that it prevents/discourages a faster cyclist from taking primary, putting them at risk of becoming entangled as my example above. On balance though, I think CS8 is a positive benefit to the most at-risk cyclists.0 -
vermin wrote:notsoblue wrote:I think CS8 is a really good example of how it should be done to be honest. It goes along some pretty busy roads that would be a nightmare for the slower cyclist. But the space reserved by CS makes it pretty safe. As a faster cyclist I just use the road to overtake. The nodders at VB lights don't bother me in a the slightest.
My worry with CS8 is that it prevents/discourages a faster cyclist from taking primary, putting them at risk of becoming entangled as my example above. On balance though, I think CS8 is a positive benefit to the most at-risk cyclists.
People just have to slow down a bit
.
The more cyclists you get, the more cyclist traffic you'll have to deal with. Rather like cars. I'd imagine people easily drive 40 down embankment when it's 3o'clock and there's no traffic. Cyclists have to get used to the idea they have to slow down for traffic too.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:People just have to slow down a bit.
Come again?0 -
daviesee wrote:What this Country needs is for everyone to slow down, show some patience and have consideration for others.Rick Chasey wrote:People just have to slow down a bit.
Well. It took 5 pages but agreement! :P None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
I agree with Vermin, this thread has descended into madness. I've always found that if I cycled faster then I'd not be in the place where the accident happened at the time it happened. I applied this logic to car buying too and the quickest car I owned was not involved in a crash. All others before were. The slowest car was even involved in a crash when I was at work and it was parked. This proves how dangerous going slowly is.daviesee wrote:daviesee wrote:What this Country needs is for everyone to slow down, show some patience and have consideration for others.Rick Chasey wrote:People just have to slow down a bit.
Well. It took 5 pages but agreement! :P0
