Were the roads safer pre-cycle super highways?

DonDaddyD

Riding my bike to work today I experienced two very close passes, one clearly dangerous and the second born from misjudgement.

The finer details aside I got to thinking, are the roads safer now than they were pre-cycle super highways and the cycle – to – work explosion?

Now I’m sure there is an answer for, this several answers in fact, and someone will kindly post the number of bicycle related collisions recently to that of 7 – 10 years ago. Then someone will point out that there are more cyclists now, variables will be argued and a maths genius will work out the ratio/average year on year bicycle related collisions, accidents and deaths. For the purpose of this, none of that will answer anything. I’m asking for something more first-hand and more qualitative; on your route/s to work have you noticed a difference and have things like awareness, consideration and safety improved over the years?

The why?

A lot of people complain that there isn’t enough being done to improve the road infrastructure to accommodate and improve safety for cyclists. IMO they are right in places, however, there are some roads that are fine as they are. Even then, from my perspective a lot has changed from road layouts, cycle lanes, superhighways and Boris bikes, but most importantly driver awareness.

And to be honest I think that’s why I wasn’t taken out today, both drivers were aware of my position on the road and while both moves they were making were stupid (and one extremely dangerous) weirdly they knew about my existence and were made an effort not to hit me.

Have things improve however? I don’t know. Overall driver awareness of the existence of cyclists has increased, but the roads are more congested and there are more cyclists so perhaps some areas have changed and the challenges are now different.

Discuss.

Tl;dr? Are the roads safer now than they were pre-cycle super highways and the cycle – to – work explosion (say 7 – 10 years ago)?

rubertoe

Having only ridden since 2010, I wouldnt say that my route is any better or worse since then. There are however more bikes on the road and i do belive that awareness has improved.

jonny_trousers

Yes and no.

DonDaddyD

rubertoe wrote:

Having only ridden since 2010, I wouldnt say that my route is any better or worse since then. There are however more bikes on the road and i do belive that awareness has improved.

I been riding since 06/07 and before that every Saturday and Sun to my part time job in the early 2000s.

I think that the roads are generally safer now due to increased driver awareness.

DonDaddyD

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Yes and no.

Care to elaborate?

rjsterry

There have been a lot of changes, some of which will have made things safer, and others the reverse. What the net change is, I don't know, but this would seem to suggest that things aren't improving for cyclists or pedestrians

http://road.cc/content/news/98296-london-cyclist-deaths-and-injuries-tfl-commissioner-peter-hendy-suggests-flashing

daviesee

Much the same in my experience.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

There have been a lot of changes, some of which will have made things safer, and others the reverse. What the net change is, I don't know, but this would seem to suggest that things aren't improving for cyclists or pedestrians

http://road.cc/content/news/98296-london-cyclist-deaths-and-injuries-tfl-commissioner-peter-hendy-suggests-flashing

That's the thing I can't put my finger on it and say overall all the roads I have commuted on since 2006 have become safer. I don't think for example the stretch of road by Streatham Ice Rink is safer because they've moved the bus lane, but certainly Colliers Wood right down Kennington is much safer because there's cycle superhighway branding and it screams "think cyclist".

One place I'm undecided about it Elephant Castle, I liked the double roundabout system.

The increased congestion is probably the single biggest issue.

Admittingly when I started writing the opening post I attacked it with the thought that 'you lot don't know your born' what with the complaing about the need for safer roads. As back in 2007 you either rode at about 17mph or else - and a lot of that is true, and I think a lot has been done to address the issues back then. However, there are new issues emerging like congested roads and the lack of overall skill of some cyclists and I think those now need to be tackled. (and not with segregated roads or enforced 20mph limits)

slowbike

A few decades of riding - most of it is/was for work/school/college.

Back when I was at school & college, lights were rubbish and you didn't worry about them or not being able to see - you just got on and rode (to school/college/wherever) - never really thought about the traffic situation, but being a relatively forthcoming sort of chap I probably always made my presence known on the road. Never really felt unsafe either.
I still don't feel unsafe these days, but lights and being seen have become a greater priority ...

I think things have changed on the roads.

Cars - they're wider and have better acceleration & brakes - drivers often feel they're "nippy" but with the extra width taken they're taking up more space than before - leaving less for other road users.
Drivers - many seem to be stuck in the "you're holding me up" mode (whether you are or not doesn't seem to matter) and they "must over take" - combined with their nippier (but wider) cars they're taking more risks (risk to the rider)
Volume - there are just so many more cars on the roads these days - cars have become another throw away commodity that are easily affordable to practically everyone - more cars on the road = less space for other users. Equally there are a lot more leisure cyclists around these days - where once you'd expect to come across one or perhaps 2 riders in a journey you're now coming across 1 or 2 dozen riders in the same journey - and that has an impact of the flow of the journey for the car driver ..

DonDaddyD

Beutifully summed up IMO

ddraver

I have nt ridden in London in anger for a few years now since moving away (back soon). What i notice on visits is that there are definitely more cyclists than when I left and that there are many more women cyclists. I never got the benefit of the super-highway things so i can't comment.

What i notice in London as opposed to the rest of the country is that there is an awareness of cyclists. Britain has an attitude that each individual believes that he/she is king and that every one else is in their way which regularly makes riding a bike on road unpleasant. (Sorry DDD, but yes that attitude is much less prevelant overseas).

In London it seems hat people may not like cyclists but they have dealt with the reality that they re not going away any time soon and that they need to be given space. How much of that is to do with Infrastructure, education, "celebrity cyclists" (e.g. Boris and Cameron) or something else I don't know...Part of me suspects that the riding cost of travel is actually the main influence

DonDaddyD

ddraver wrote:

What i notice in London as opposed to the rest of the country is that there is an awareness of cyclists. Britain has an attitude that each individual believes that he/she is king and that every one else is in their way which regularly makes riding a bike on road unpleasant. (Sorry DDD, but yes that attitude is much less prevelant overseas).

I don't know what you're apologising for. I agree. This is why the most fun I ever had driving around London was in a Ford Transit. You can be an absolute c*nt in them things and you enjoy it because everyone else drives like a c*nt. I've noticed this more so in places like Thornton Heath, Croydon, Camberwell etc - places of lower economic wealth (than say Wimbledon and Dulwich where people give way) and high people density.

In London it seems hat people may not like cyclists but they have dealt with the reality that they re not going away any time soon and that they need to be given space. How much of that is to do with Infrastructure, education, "celebrity cyclists" (e.g. Boris and Cameron) or something else I don't know...Part of me suspects that the riding cost of travel is actually the main influence

Fair point.

estampida

is it really a question about superhighways

or more about drivers going around with their eyes shut?

better cars with nice comfy interior, makes the real world disappear

greg66_tri_v2.0

I have mixed feelings about the CSs. First, because I think they they have funnelled a lot of cycle traffic onto them, making the CS routes busier for cyclists than they used to be; and secondly because in addition to the funnelling they have (IMO) attracted new riders, thereby increasing the overall number of cyclists without regard to the range of speeds/ability.

Which is a long winded way of saying that I'm not a big fan of having numpties dumped on my commuting route.

There's also a question in my mind as to whether they really provide more space for cyclists. Pre CS8, between Chelsea Bridge and Millbank you pretty much had a de facto cycle lane in rush hour which was the left hand car lane. Sure, you might have had cars in it, but they were generally constrained to the speed of the bulk of the peloton. Outside of commuting hours, the motor traffic cars would use both lanes. Flexible, win/win.

Now you have the narrower CS lane, which is pretty much never used by car traffic, irrespective of the hours of operation. Kind of lose/lose, in a way.

Safer? Dunno. FWIW, I've always been of the view that no driver* is *trying* to hit a cyclist, no matter how it might seem; perception of danger therefore =/= actual danger.


* apart from one asshole in a Jag coming off VB lights in the pre CS8 days, who took objection to my presence in front of him, and gave my rear wheel a nudge at 40+kmh. But that's largely it for me.

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I have mixed feelings about the CSs. First, because I think they they have funnelled a lot of cycle traffic onto them, making the CS routes busier for cyclists than they used to be; and secondly because in addition to the funnelling they have (IMO) attracted new riders, thereby increasing the overall number of cyclists without regard to the range of speeds/ability.

Which is a long winded way of saying that I'm not a big fan of having numpties dumped on my commuting route.

There's also a question in my mind as to whether they really provide more space for cyclists. Pre CS8, between Chelsea Bridge and Millbank you pretty much had a de facto cycle lane in rush hour which was the left hand car lane. Sure, you might have had cars in it, but they were generally constrained to the speed of the bulk of the peloton. Outside of commuting hours, the motor traffic cars would use both lanes. Flexible, win/win.

Now you have the narrower CS lane, which is pretty much never used by car traffic, irrespective of the hours of operation. Kind of lose/lose, in a way.

Safer? Dunno. FWIW, I've always been of the view that no driver* is *trying* to hit a cyclist, no matter how it might seem; perception of danger therefore =/= actual danger.


* apart from one asshole in a Jag coming off VB lights in the pre CS8 days, who took objection to my presence in front of him, and gave my rear wheel a nudge at 40+kmh. But that's largely it for me.

I'd agree that the CSs are a mixed blessing, although you are quite spoilt with CS8. Some of the others are pretty patchy, and downright dangerous in places. The issue of new routes drawing traffic to them is already well documented for motor traffic, so it's no surprise that this applies to cycle infrastructure as well.

I think your last point might be a little rose tinted. Certainly most incidents are not deliberate, but I've experienced a bit more deliberate aggression than you have - maybe that's just down to a longer commute.

roger_merriman

To be honest I don't think the super highways etc have made it safer or worse. Stats are broadly the same I believe inspite of what various bloggers might say.

Other things have changed the volume of cars and their size, and that cycling is the new golf etc.

alan_sherman

I think I am about as likely to get taken out by a car as I used to be. There is more awareness of cyclists, but also a lot more hatred, and the jams are worse (often caused by cyclists!) leading to frustration and bad decisions.

I think I am more likely to get taken out by a cyclist as there are a lot of muppets. Had one RLJ across in front of me on Friday, idiot did't realise there was a filter lane with a green light (for me).

I agree with the poster who said that they object to a bunch of muppets being dumped on their commute route.

cookeeemonster

alan sherman wrote:

, and the jams are worse (often caused by cyclists!)

I gotta be honest I've never really seen this. Yes I've seen cars/vans etc being held up by cyclists in london, it's normally only ever for a few seconds and the net result is the car/van reaching the rest of the vehicular traffic (i.e. a jam) a couple of seconds later - i.e. zero time has been added to their journey.

I'm often held by by cars/vans/motorbikes blocking access but it's just one of those things, most people accept it without complaining (not saying you are)

As to the main issue...I'd say the cycle super highways helped give me confidence when I started cycling last year...I quickly outgrew them but even now, I prefer roads with them than without...but my experience is limited to the CS3 and parts of the CS8, which is far better than many of the other half arsed efforts (CS2 apart from the new bit is beyond awful).

Oh, I've often complained about the CS3 on cable street - it's a victim of its own success. It's too small (narrow) for the amount of people that use it in the summer...but is quite nice at less busy times

thistle_

rjsterry wrote:

There have been a lot of changes, some of which will have made things safer, and others the reverse. What the net change is, I don't know, but this would seem to suggest that things aren't improving for cyclists or pedestrians

http://road.cc/content/news/98296-london-cyclist-deaths-and-injuries-tfl-commissioner-peter-hendy-suggests-flashing

I think things have got worse over the last few years (I'm outside London).

The comment about lights is an interesting one. Daytime lights are now required on new cars, which I feel is making cyclists (and pedestrians and motorcyclists) much harder to see. In particular, many cars are now driving around in the daytime with headlights or foglights on and cars seem to be invlved in a lighting arms race, simliar to the cycling one a couple of years ago when Magicshines etc. came out.

I think CTC or a similar organisation rasied this concern at the time but I'm not sure how seriously it was taken.

bdave262000

I have been riding on London's roads for over 25 years. I think drivers have become much more cycle aware in the last few years than they were previous to this, whether they are more tollerant or safer is debatable. Some drivers get frustrated / stressed when they see large groups of cyclists. Years ago the I believe most motorists were surprised to see a cyclist on the road in London and would be more wary when passing them in a "whats that loony doing on the road" sort of way.

Although cycling infrastructure has increased, I think it is more dangerous for a cyclist now than it was when I was a nipper. This is probabaly the result of more road users in general and increased traffic.

ugo.santalucia

In an attempt to simplify EU bureaucracy, people like me, who got a driving licence in a different country, are allowed to drive, actually now I have even converted my licence to a UK one, without ever doing a driving test over here. I have no idea of the difference between a double red line and a double yellow, I assume parking in a double red is worse... up to a couple of years ago I did not know what the national speed limit was, as it's taken for granted, it's not signposted. Also I was uncertain how to take the Magic Roundabout in Hemel Hempstead and other absurd road features.
Maybe time to be a bit more serious about who should and should not be on the road? Maybe time to be a bit more serious about enforcing the highway code and speed limits. Maybe time to put limitations to how big a car a can be? Do we really need to see Range Rover Discovery sized cars in towns and cities? Personally, I'd like to see a permanent driving ban for a lot less than playing pin bowling with a group of cyclists...
I don't think anyone wants to tackle these issues seriously on either side... they just want to be seen talking about it and looking interested

greg66_tri_v2.0

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Maybe time to put limitations to how big a car a can be? Do we really need to see Range Rover Discovery sized cars in towns and cities?

Interesting to hear you target car size. IMO, the culprit is driver attitude rather than car size. The ideal is vigilant and careful drivers. It doesn't matter what they drive if they have those qualities.

(I should perhaps add that I speak as someone who's just acquired a Range Rover, and who's just got rid of a 911. For about a month I had both, and out of choice I went for the RR every time, which surprised me a lot. It has much better visibility. I'm much more aware of the weight of the vehicle, and tend not to boot it anything like as much as I did the 911. A big high up driving position for me engenders a much calmer approach to driving, and has made me drive more slowly (something I have mixed feelings about, but which I recognise is generally thought to be A Good Thing). My point is that put me back in a little supermini or hot hatch, and I'd probably be back on the go pedal in an instant.

Furthermore, road surfaces for whatever reason are pretty poor in the south of England, and speed humps make a ride worse. Something like a RR - or an S class Merc, or big BMW or Audi - soaks up poor surfaces.)

bigmat

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Maybe time to put limitations to how big a car a can be? Do we really need to see Range Rover Discovery sized cars in towns and cities?

Interesting to hear you target car size. IMO, the culprit is driver attitude rather than car size. The ideal is vigilant and careful drivers. It doesn't matter what they drive if they have those qualities.

(I should perhaps add that I speak as someone who's just acquired a Range Rover, and who's just got rid of a 911. For about a month I had both, and out of choice I went for the RR every time, which surprised me a lot. It has much better visibility. I'm much more aware of the weight of the vehicle, and tend not to boot it anything like as much as I did the 911. A big high up driving position for me engenders a much calmer approach to driving, and has made me drive more slowly (something I have mixed feelings about, but which I recognise is generally thought to be A Good Thing). My point is that put me back in a little supermini or hot hatch, and I'd probably be back on the go pedal in an instant.

Furthermore, road surfaces for whatever reason are pretty poor in the south of England, and speed humps make a ride worse. Something like a RR - or an S class Merc, or big BMW or Audi - soaks up poor surfaces.)

The exception that proves the rule perhaps, as most Range Rover drivers drive like ****s. Obviously that is a gross generalisation, but they are definitely one of the vehicles that I pay particular attention to because there's always a feeling that they'll cut you up, pass too close, pull out on you etc etc.

ugo.santalucia

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Interesting to hear you target car size. IMO, the culprit is driver attitude rather than car size. The ideal is vigilant and careful drivers. It doesn't matter what they drive if they have those qualities.

It does matter... big car on the A 244.. can't squeeze through with the incoming traffic, driver gets frustrated, after a minute tries his/her luck shaving the Assos jacket of the cyclist with the wing mirror, how many times have we seen it? Most of these scenarios could be avoided simply by having a car which is a foot or so narrower. Legislation should put a limit to how wide a car can be... it's not a HGV FFS, how big does it need to be to be big enough?

ugo.santalucia

Anyway... the all safety debate is a non starter, as the cyclists don't want to give up their bikes with no brakes and their unsafe equipment and disgraceful behaviour on the road and the motorists don't want to give up their monster gas guzzlers and the so call "freedom to drive whatever they like wherever they want"... if nobody wants to compromise, there will never be any progress

greg66_tri_v2.0

Weird. For me it's Addison Lee drivers. Utterly oblivious and couldn't give a fcuk. Except for the ones who aren't utterly oblivious but make a positive decision to ignore the fact that you might be on the piece of road they want to be on.

Now that I'm in the "gang", so to speak, I've noticed that RR and RRS drivers in London tend generally to be more likely to be female than male.

So, you two, you've just outed yourselves and unreconstructed sexist pigs! Ha! I hope you're hanging your heads in shame!

roger_merriman

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Interesting to hear you target car size. IMO, the culprit is driver attitude rather than car size. The ideal is vigilant and careful drivers. It doesn't matter what they drive if they have those qualities.

It does matter... big car on the A 244.. can't squeeze through with the incoming traffic, driver gets frustrated, after a minute tries his/her luck shaving the Assos jacket of the cyclist with the wing mirror, how many times have we seen it? Most of these scenarios could be avoided simply by having a car which is a foot or so narrower. Legislation should put a limit to how wide a car can be... it's not a HGV FFS, how big does it need to be to be big enough?

that is more driver ability I drive a lot for work, big people carrier and vans I see supermini cars stop behind me as they are unsure they can fit though the gap i've just driven though.

take it slow and calm and traffic is fine, the Galaxy has big mirrors so you can often spot a filtering bike (lycra/leather) and move sideways to allow more room and so they know you've seen them. get a friendly wave most weeks from someone.

Widgey

I've only cycled in London once and it was from kings cross station to the start of London to Brighton, early on a Sunday morning. Cannot really comment on cycle highways, but can give a view point of two places.

I used to live in Hemel Hempstead and now live in Bristol. The biggest difference is the familiarity with cyclists. Bristol drivers, on the hole, aren't that bad. They obviously see more of folk on two wheels, so it becomes a bit drilled in to overtake safely. Average speeds are also lower, so its a lot easier to assert authority. However it has problems, bus lanes that end 100m before road furniture, cars parked in the lanes, the list goes on.

Hemel Hempstead is very much car central. Bikes are only really used for recreational use and the infrastructure cannot support both.

With that in mind I'm a fan of cycle highways. Something that gives that extra bit of protection is great. I would say go one step further and ban buses, motorbikes and taxis from them, keep it separate. Moaning about those folk who are slow or wobbly is not the best approach. They are getting some exercise, benefiting themselves and possibly taking another vehicle off the road, benefiting the planet.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

Now I’m sure there is an answer for, this several answers in fact, and someone will kindly post the number of bicycle related collisions recently to that of 7 – 10 years ago. Then someone will point out that there are more cyclists now, variables will be argued and a maths genius will work out the ratio/average year on year bicycle related collisions, accidents and deaths. For the purpose of this, none of that will answer anything. I’m asking for something more first-hand and more qualitative; on your route/s to work have you noticed a difference and have things like awareness, consideration and safety improved over the years?

So, just to clarify. You don't want any actual data based on statistically meaningful sample sets - you specifically want to exclude that in favour of unrepresentative personal feeling and instinct of a meaninglessly small sample set?

I'm glad you don't work in a sector that's validity is dependant on the results of scientific study....

Oh, yes. Errrrr......!

(I'm going off to have a cry......)

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Furthermore, road surfaces for whatever reason are pretty poor in the south of England, and speed humps make a ride worse. Something like a RR - or an S class Merc, or big BMW or Audi - soaks up poor surfaces.)

Except that the reason the Range Rover rides better than a smaller has absolutely nothing to do with its size. The reason so many cars ride so poorly is down to the stupidly big wheels and stupidly low profile tyres and stupidly stiff suspensions they have, none of which serve any useful real world purpose whatsoever. Most cars made today are vastly oversized. There just isn't any need for it. Except that who would want to be in a crash in a small car with something like a Range Rover? It is the discrepancy in car sizes that makes smaller cars less safe. Your car is very much part of the problem. A maximum weight limit (rather than size limit) would I suspect have a huge benefit to both road safety and the envirornment.

asprilla

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Interesting to hear you target car size. IMO, the culprit is driver attitude rather than car size. The ideal is vigilant and careful drivers. It doesn't matter what they drive if they have those qualities.

It does matter... big car on the A 244.. can't squeeze through with the incoming traffic, driver gets frustrated, after a minute tries his/her luck shaving the Assos jacket of the cyclist with the wing mirror, how many times have we seen it? Most of these scenarios could be avoided simply by having a car which is a foot or so narrower. Legislation should put a limit to how wide a car can be... it's not a HGV FFS, how big does it need to be to be big enough?

Now that kids up to the age of about 11 or 12 are supposed to have car seats and boosters a RR Disco is one of the few cars that you can get three child seats across the back seat. Anyone with more than two kids needs a wide car.

bigmat

What's the point in limiting car size when there will always be vans, buses, HGVs etc on the road? A more realistic approach would maybe be to have driving tests specific to the size of vehicle you are driving (we already do I suppose, but perhaps we need separate classifications for vans and cars that are basically the size of vans).