10 times more likely to be injured and 22 times more likely to be killed than someone covering the same distance in a car.
Silly statistics again. Can't remember the last time I nipped up to the other end of the country on my bike for a weekend.
My point remains, I go on a bike ride, I don't expect to die; I suspect most people don't expect to die, and they don't.
To be honest, if you are a nervous beginner then as long as you can physically ride a bike then I don't think cycling on a cycle path actually helps. You're not actually learning anything about how to ride with traffic, which is what you really need to gain confidence with. Mrs Grips has been on plenty of cyclepath rides and mtb rides, but is still no closer to being confident on the road.
I think a good network of integrated facilities would really help that.
I'm interested in the opinions of those on this thread, should I allow myself to be bullied off this route and take the much slower cycle path or stick to my guns and keep on riding this stretch
Stick to it, and try and look over your shoulder when you hear a bus coming - make eye contact. Also get one of those continuous loop cameras to get the bus numbers and talk to the depot.
You have the right to be there. I'd complain to the bus company ASAP.
its kind of relevant and the OP will be familiar with the route I'm talking about.
Yeah, I've ridden that route as well. I stuck to the cycle path (NCN14?) though, but it is poorly signed in places and not nearly as complete as the NCN72 the other side of the river (though there is some work ongoing on it). Didn't seem to be too many peds, but I guess it depends on the time of day.
Have you consider raising the issue on http://www.gatesheadcycling.org.uk/ ?
It is an open forum for cycling issues in Gateshead and is read and responded to by folk on Gateshead council.
I did laugh at that one recently. I've tended to stick to the road (the old A9) and then follow the track that runs alongside the new A9 to Ballinluig.sangobegger - Member - Quote
Just did the LEJOG - and my experience of UK cycle paths is somewhat mixed. From the worst (forest road at Dunkeld )
You have the right to be there. I'd complain to the bus company ASAP.
I emailed them after yesterday's incident stating my concerns and asking if they could educate their drivers's as to how much room is needed to safely pass a cyclist. I know I have a right to be there but its no good being right and squished under a bus.
Silly statistics again. Can't remember the last time I nipped up to the other end of the country on my bike for a weekend.
Not silly at all. That's how you sensibly compare the risk: mile for mile.
If you want people to replace a 5 mile car commute with a 5 mile bike commute on road then it is a perfectly fair measurement.
I go on a bike ride, I don't expect to die; I suspect most people don't expect to die, and they don't.
Meantime lots of people DON'T go on bike rides and DON'T let their children ride bikes, because they DO expect to die.
As I keep saying, you are not the target audience, you already cycle despite the conditions.
I think a good network of integrated facilities would really help that.
So what does a network of "integrated facilities" look like?
Have you consider raising the issue on http://www.gatesheadcycling.org.uk/ ?
It is an open forum for cycling issues in Gateshead and is read and responded to by folk on Gateshead council.
Thanks for the link. I'll see how I get on with the bus company then take it from there.
I emailed them after yesterday's incident stating my concerns and asking if they could educate their drivers's as to how much room is needed to safely pass a cyclist. I know I have a right to be there but its no good being right and squished under a bus.
Answered your own question there. It be easy for a bunch of people on a forum to encourage you to ride amongst a herd of badly behaving buses, but ultimately the decision is yours!
Good on you for reporting them though, badly driven buses are one of my pet hates, and that's not even from cycling. I just find it irresponsible, they're supposed to provide a public service, not a detriment.
Another survey to chew on. [url= http://www.brake.org.uk/latest-news/commuters-call-for-safer-streets-for-cycling-to-enable-more-to-get-on-their-bikes.htm ]This one from the road charity Brake[/url].
The survey of 1,550 commuters revealed many would be persuaded to cycle if roads were safer. A third (35%) said they would switch to cycling their commute if the route was less dangerous. A huge 46% would be persuaded to make other local journeys by bike given safer roads...The majority of those surveyed said 20mph limits and other safe cycling measures were needed in their area...
Of those who don’t already have them, three-quarters (73%) would back widespread 20mph limits and [b]83% would back measures like cycle paths being introduced in their community[/b].
Mrs Grips has been on plenty of cyclepath rides and mtb rides, but is still no closer to being confident on the road.
Imagine starting work in a factory where conditions meant that a 1/2 tonne object whistled past your ear at 30-40 mph every 30 seconds, with no means of separating you from it other than the skill of the operator.
There's no industry left in the Western hemisphere that would allow these sorts of working conditions, yet people who use urban roads face them daily.
Now imagine that almost every week brought news of someone working in similar conditions being killed or seriously injured, often spun to imply how irresponsible the victim was for not wearing some thoroughly inadequate PPE that they had to purchase at their own expense, or perhaps just how irresponsible they were for being there in the first place.
Your wife isn't irrational for not wanting to cycle on the roads, and nor is anyone else.
Mr Agreeable: the Health and Safety viewpoint is an interesting analogy:
[url= http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm/acop.htm ]ACoP Risk Mitigation Hierarchy[/url]:
[b]Eliminate[/b] (separate cyclist from risk with traffic-free routes)
[b]Reduce[/b] (lower speed limits and reduce the numbers driving)
[b]Inform[/b] (education for drivers and cyclists)
[b]Control[/b] (protective gear: helmets and safety vests).
More at http://katsdekker.blogspot.co.uk/2012_08_01_archive.html
Credit where it's due, the health and safety metaphor isn't mine - I first heard it in a recent talk by transport psychologist Dr Ian Walker (which you can hear via the link below):
http://bristolcyclefestival.com/2012/07/ian-walker-speaks-at-bristol-cycle-festival/
The safety records of various modes of transport are interesting. At the top you've got aircraft (a systematic approach to safety at every level, right down to carrying a spare pilot - very safe), then rail (dead man's handles and what have you - fairly safe), then cars and other road traffic (airbags, seatbelts and, oh what the heck, it'll be fine).
I don't think walking or cycling fit into that hierarchy for most people because they're not even considered modes of transport.
Your wife isn't irrational for not wanting to cycle on the roads
Who's saying she's irrational?
There's no industry left in the Western hemisphere that would allow these sorts of working conditions, yet people who use urban roads face them daily.
Quite, through lack of any practical alternative really.
Out of interest, I wonder if anyone has stats for how many busy city cycling fatalities could be considered to be partly or wholly the cyclist's fault?
2009 report from the independent Transport Research Laboratory showed that – when a cyclist over the age of 25 sustained serious injuries – the motorist was entirely at fault between 64 and 70 per cent of the time, with the cyclist at fault in 23 to 27 per cent of incidents.
And in cases when a cyclist over 25 died in a crash, the motorist was deemed entirely at fault in 48 to 66 per cent of incidents and the cyclist 33 to 43 per cent of the time
I've seen the very legitimate concern raised that this is very likely to overstate cyclists being to blame in deaths since they're not around to defend themselves.
Regardless, it's the implications of a mistake that are out of kilter. if you're in with the Lions.....
Today's links -
[url= http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/blackfriars-cyclist-collision-last.htmlhttp://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/blackfriars-cyclist-collision-last.html ]Blackfriars bridge. [/url]
[url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/dangerous-lorry-driving-is-not-taken-seriously/ ]Dangerous Lorries[/url]
The blogger writes that "Human beings are not infallible, and even with higher standards of driving (and cycling), mistakes will happen. The consequences of those mistakes should not be fatal. Structural separation allows people, particularly cyclists, to make mistakes with only minor consequences."
and someone makes the point in the comments that "achieving changes in driver behaviour is probably an even more ambitious project than building wide-scale Dutch style infrastructure"
I suspect not. Wanting to kill people is not an ingrained behaviour for human beings, and I think people could be prompted into responsibility.
But no-one's even tried, have they? Loads of campaigns against drunk driving (from which we all benefit of course) and speeding, but where's the campaign for cycling respect? Now would be the perfect time.
Erm, have you been living under a rock? This year has seen a massively high profile campaign from a national newspaper which has prompted debates in Parliament, amongst other positive developments:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/
where's the campaign for cycling respect? Now would be the perfect time.
I'm all for that by the way.
Especially if it explained some cycling myths ("road tax", gutter vs primary position, right to use the road) possibly balanced with some cycling advice (undertaking, blind spots).
BUT...
That'd be for existing cyclists. I don't think it would do much to get new people cycling. If anything it would highlight what a battleground the roads are.
Erm, have you been living under a rock? This year has seen a massively high profile campaign
Too wordy for 99% of the population. You need something simple and memorable, like "Clunk-Click Every Trip" or the "Summertime" drink/drive campaign.
Well, it's got a snappy one-word hashtag... but anything that focuses on "cyclists" (2% of the population and a despised law-breaking out-group to boot) is probably not going to bring about a mass transport revolution.
The Sustrans "Free Range Kids" campaign (which focuses on safe walking and cycling routes, lower speed limits for residential areas and the like) is far better thought-out:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/freerangekids/about-free-range-kids
On the current scale of "things you can say without your workmates considering you to be a sociopath", "I hate cyclists" is much more acceptable than "I hate children". Sadly.
I think people could be prompted into responsibility
but not into infallibility
No obviously not. But the two are linked!
The blogger writes that "Human beings are not infallible, and even with higher standards of driving (and cycling), mistakes will happen. The consequences of those mistakes should not be fatal. Structural separation allows people, particularly cyclists, to make mistakes with only minor consequences."and someone makes the point in the comments that "achieving changes in driver behaviour is probably an even more ambitious project than building wide-scale Dutch style infrastructure"
I don't think you can sum it up much better than that.
Butcher, it's nice but it's a pipe dream, isn't it?
Are you proposing an entirely new network of cycle only paths? Really? Roads simply have to feature in the life of someone who cycles for transport, and where there are roads there's the risk of being run over.
Are you proposing an entirely new network of cycle only paths? Really? Roads simply have to feature in the life of someone who cycles for transport, and where there are roads there's the risk of being run over.
I think we're all proposing pretty much the same thing:
- plenty of useful, well designed, well maintained, traffic-free cycle paths covering arterial routes and giving cyclists the choice of avoiding the most dangerous roads (NSLs, dual carriageways)
- physical separation where practical along other major roads
- other changes to road layout to protect cyclists where physical separation is not possible.
- other facilities such as 20 zones, cycle lanes, traffic restrictions, priority changes etc in residential areas and towns.
I'm not sure how, or if, this differs from your vision of an "integrated network" which you haven't really explained yet?
The budget for the creation of cycle routes in the Netherlands is about £25 per head annually. Sounds like a lot, but going from one mode of transport to the other, that's a similar level of subsidy to the funding that Concorde received. And who got to ride on that?
The budget for the creation of cycle routes in the Netherlands is about £25 per head annually.
UK budget is 70p per cyclist per year!
Hembrow reckons the Uk budget for infrastructure is actually a lot less, once you take into account all the "soft" measures like promotion and training (which, worthy as they are, have been going on for quite a few years now with little discernible effect on cycling levels).
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/05/487-million-euros-for-cycling.html
Butcher, it's nice but it's a pipe dream, isn't it?Are you proposing an entirely new network of cycle only paths? Really? Roads simply have to feature in the life of someone who cycles for transport, and where there are roads there's the risk of being run over.
It's certainly not going to happen overnight. Not on that scale. I can only hope it will happen in my lifetime and I maintain the health to enjoy it.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't start. And even beginning projects on such a large scale sends out positive messages about cycling and its potential importance in modern society.
In contrast, modifications to roads and routing to support integration could happen in a few years.
Yay for cycle routes...
[url= http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6209/6116847775_c71010e529.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/6116847775/ ]Exif_JPEG_PICTURE[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/matt_outandabout/ ]matt_outandabout[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6187/6117011397_785867898a.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/6117011397/ ]Exif_JPEG_PICTURE[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/matt_outandabout/ ]matt_outandabout[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6062/6117121213_60fabdde19.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/6117121213/ ]Exif_JPEG_PICTURE[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/matt_outandabout/ ]matt_outandabout[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3481/3896945153_8097c58845.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/3896945153/ ]Glen Ogle, Killin[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/matt_outandabout/ ]matt_outandabout[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3440/3897713550_912afef1a2.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/3897713550/ ]Glen Ogle, Killin[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/matt_outandabout/ ]matt_outandabout[/url], on Flickr
That'll really help ease the morning commute!
In contrast, modifications to roads and routing to support integration could happen in a few years.
What sort of modifications are we talking about molgrips? You still haven't really expanded on what you meant by an "integrated network"?
Do you mean the same kind of things I'm suggesting in my last two points above (20 zones, improving junctions for cyclists etc)? Cycle lanes? Or something else?
That'll really help ease the morning commute!
Yep. Three kids cycling and having fun, who may well indeed develop a lifelong enjoyment of it and choose bike over car for their commutes later in life. That's a long term approach. That's what it is all about.
[i]*glitch bump again*[/i]
In contrast, modifications to roads and routing to support integration could happen in a few years.
I'm all for it. Anything that improves cycling. But I'm not entirely sure what you mean either, and I don't see why you can't modify and improve existing infrastructure [i]and[/i] build new infrastructure.
Wanting to kill people is not an ingrained behaviour for human beings, and I think people could be prompted into responsibility.
But no-one's even tried, have they? Loads of campaigns against drunk driving (from which we all benefit of course) and speeding, but where's the campaign for cycling respect? Now would be the perfect time.
And right on cue ....a much better argued and researched case than I made.
"The idea that somehow physical engineering is difficult and expensive and unpopular, while changing human behaviour is quick, easy, cheap and effective, is one that the British are remarkably strongly attached to"
[url= http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/the-definition-of-madness/ ]"the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. For eighty years or more the answer to motorists playing nice has been just a little bit more education and awareness raising"[/url]
And yet more Sustrans evidence that traffic-free cycle routes get people cycling (and walking) to work:
Cyclists made 40 million more journeys by bike on a national network of cycle routes, bucking a trend of falling traffic volumes on the roads, the study by Sustrans transport charity found.Cyclists and pedestrians made 484 million journeys along the National Cycle Network — 13,600 miles of signed routes on traffic-free paths or quieter roads — last year. A third of cyclists said that they could have chosen to drive instead, which would have resulted in an additional 52 million car journeys on the roads.
The report, Cycling Revolution, calculated that the health benefit of the network was worth £442 million a year.
-- http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3448897.ece
Does anyone know if the NCN Route 8 South from Dolgellau towards Llanegryn is rideable on a road bike? the OS map shows an white "other road or track" marked with broken lines rather than solid lines so I'm guessing its likely to be hard packed gravel not tarmac? The area i'm interested in is 656133 to 611061 following the "cwm-llwyd"
