[Closed] Road - musings on danger

Can't help but feel that all the people that have said they've stopped road riding have basically given up hope, allowed themselves to be bullied off the roads saying they wont come back unless things change, but expect somebody else to fix the problem for them and are only complaining about the problem rather than trying to be part of the solution.

Not sure what point I'm trying to make there other than it makes me sad... 🙁

Segregation is not the answer. Segregated routes will NEVER service enough places, and the existence of a partial network will then convince drivers they really do own the roads.

It's ghettoisation.

Proper cycle routes sound lovely to me. I don't have crumple zones and airbags which are the norm for the majority of road users.

so what your saying is that the numbers don't agree with your opinion so the numbers must be wrong then?

Can't help but feel that all the people that have said they've stopped road riding have basically given up hope, allowed themselves to be bullied off the roads saying they wont come back unless things change, but expect somebody else to fix the problem for them and are only complaining about the problem rather than trying to be part of the solution.

That may be the case. But with respect to the thread title it explains why they have. You have to accept that people find cycling on the road dangerous, some of us live with it, some deny it & some give up.

Eh? So pavements for pedestrians are ghettos?

90+% of the roads I ride don't have pavements on them and never will. I suspect this was Molgrips' point.

Proper cycle routes sound lovely to me

But you'd never be able to ride everywhere on cyclepaths, would you?

Depends where you live/ride I guess. I've only had a couple of near misses in 2-3 years riding on the road. Both on roundabouts. Oh and a couple of dickheads who think its funny to swerve towards you whilst showing off to their equally ****ish mates. I'm still happy to ride on the roads round here though as such occurances are quite rare.

I came across this article recently (apologies if it's already been posted)

There's a link here:

But you'd never be able to ride everywhere on cyclepaths, would you?

[img] [/img]
Can you imagine the horror of being 'ghettoised' and being able to ride on something like that?

Awful idea. We should keep cycling for transport as the terrifying experience for the brave 2% of the population that it is now. 🙄

Only if you accept that the stats are an accurate reflection of risk...

What else do you plan to use then? The risk really is low, per head of the population. However, you can alter your personal risk based on how and where you ride.

build every new main road with a GOOD parallel cyclepath, design every new housing estate with cars as an afterthought, look at the dutch for how it can work. It takes political will to do it but it is achievable, and in relation to the cost of things isn't that expensive.

The harder part will always be redesigning the roads of the 50's and 60's where the car was the point to be more suitable for cyclists.

The real issue is that if no one says anything nutters like pickles will get there way and things will get worse not better.

I understand that for some roads seem unsafe and it may make individual sense to stop riding. But all you achieve is to reduce the quality of life for those around you, more noise, more pollution, and more risk. every extra car is an extra hazard. If you look at the rates of childhood and adult obesity in the UK, then look at the levels of active travel...

Joined up thinking never seems to figure that highly with politicians.

^ That is perfect for a main urban cycling route but not practical for rural and unless you are very lucky you still have to use normal roads at either end of the cycleway.
Also many of us want to do it as a hobby or sport so want the open road and not to be confined to a few miles safety.
It's important not to get roadie needs confused with commuter needs - they aren't necessarily the same.

@bails,, how dare you show people riding WITHOUT HELMETS, won't anyone think of the children.

[sarcasm!!!!]

That may be the case. But with respect to the thread title it explains why they have. You have to accept that people find cycling on the road dangerous, some of us live with it, some deny it & some give up

And some try to do something about it and help change it.

That's exactly my point, demonstrated so beautifully by your post, that a lot of people seem to either default to the negative, assuming that they have to live with it, or give up, or get ground down by it to the point where they can't see the positive, long term, and progressive options.

I'm not saying people aren't scared, and I'm not saying they are foolish for feeling that way, all I'm saying is that it doesn't [b]have[/b] to be that way, but it will if everyone gives up or treats it as a problem for somebody else to fix...

That's exactly my point, demonstrated so beautifully by your post, that a lot of people seem to either default to the negative, assuming that they have to live with it, or give up, or get ground down by it to the point where they can't see the positive, long term, and progressive options.

build every new main road with a GOOD parallel cyclepath

What about the existing roads?

Bails, reel in the sarcasm, it helps no-one. That's a lovely cyclepath, for sure, but what are the junctions like? Does it have pedestrians? Those two things are the problems I have with dedicated paths. They end up as bedlam.

We should keep cycling for transport as the terrifying experience for the brave 2% of the population that it is now.

I'm obviously not advocating the status quo, so it's a bit irritating of you to suggest that I am to be honest. My point is that by creating segregated facilities you risk drivers thinking that all cyclists should be using them. Regardless of if they are any good or go where you want them to go. They are good for pootlers, but absolutely dreadful if you want to make progress.

We get enough shouts of 'use the cyclepath!' as it is. Drivers think they own the road, they do not. And segregation is going to reinforce their beliefs not challenge them.

By far the most effective approach I've seen has been critical mass. And I don't mean the organised rides.

what happens with cyclepaths is

they are shared use.

then we get dogs on leads across them

folks with earphones in walking 2 abreast

shouted at for going too fast.

WOOOO bloody great step forwards. exiled from the road and exiled from the shared use cycle path.

All activities carry risks, Road cycling is not particularly risky compared with quite a few other activities you could choose, MTBing isn't utterly safe either, ducking between trees Vs finding some space inbetween the Mondeos and Astras they're about on par IMO.

I still think the riskier moments on a road bike are actually in the slowwer moving traffic areas, at junctions or roundabouts in built up traffic where drivers need to look about more, think more about positioning and be more aware of cyclist, and are generally more prone to becoming impatient...

Serious incidents are still the exception rather than the rule IMO... How many deaths per million miles by bike is the statistic?

Cycling will become safer the more people riding there are and the more we fight people who drive without due consideration for others.

Giving up and riding an MTB doesn't really help make cycling any safer...

Right now I think we're part-way through the necessary transformation. Lots more people are riding which has 2 short-term implications:
a) the new riders are, by definition, inexperienced and so more likely to put themselves in danger (e.g. not riding primary position)
b) drivers are having to get used to looking properly for people on bikes, and drive with more care than they used to

Over time, the riders' experience should improve, as should general driver behaviour and acceptance of the legal rights of people to ride unharrassed... but this culture change will not come overnight...

I agree with that assessment, well put.

We are in a bit of a period of change right now, and while it might not seem like it, a fair few things are actually moving in cycling's favour.

cycling numbers are on the up, the more common bikes become on the roads, the more used to them drivers become and the better they generally become at dealing with them.

Ecconomic pressures have been building for motorists for a while now and will continue to, the cost of owning a motorized vehicle and running it (especially if you have a heavy right foot) are always mounting, this will inevitably reach the point where driving is less and less the default option for many journeys.

The Roads aren't dangerous on a bicycle, they are made unpleasant by a minority of user's attitudes, that's a broader cultural issue

By far the most effective approach I've seen has been critical mass. And I don't mean the organised rides.

They aren't organised. Apparently they just 'happen' 😉

I don't necessarily disagree, but there are a few people on this thread who seem to deny that there is a problem at all.

I know what you mean, however I think the problem there is that there is a disconnect between how safe cycling actually is, and how safe it is perceived to be.

statistically it is very safe overall, however it is perceived to be dangerous, and obviously in some specific scenarios and locations it is much less safe than it should be.

What we need is a two fold attack on the two separate problems there, try to improve actual safety, but also address why people [b]feel[/b] unsafe, hopefully the former will also improve the latter, and more people feeling it is safe to ride will increase the numbers of cyclists, which will also increase the political and social drive to improve actual safety, its a cyclical thing and very intertwined, but needs action on both fronts.

The Roads aren't dangerous on a bicycle, they are made unpleasant by a minority of user's attitudes, that's a broader cultural issue

This! very much this, but it's a very difficult and thorny issue to address and will take time and lots of effort.

What we need is a two fold attack on the two separate problems there, try to improve actual safety, but also address why people feel unsafe

Agreed. I think people feel insecure, and training would hugely improve that. And if we could get all cyclists to behave in a consistent way, it'd help both parties.

We need an official cycle handbook (that's not necessarily law) and it needs to be part of some kind of education - either through schools or the driving test I guess.

What about the existing roads?

that is the bit which takes time and money to fix, i am just saying there are quick wins. If you put a "hard shoulder" on all new main roads they can double as cyclepaths, put some effort in to designing the junctions and you have some progress.

There doees need to be education of all road users and that includes dog walkers, close control means by your ankle, not running loose, not on an extender lead.

As for roads, make roads narrower, make the furniture and design "anti-car" but DO NOT USE ISLANDS!!!!!! pinch points are a stupid idea!!!!!

We get enough shouts of 'use the cyclepath!' as it is. Drivers think they own the road, they do not. And segregation is going to reinforce their beliefs not challenge them.

Completely agree. IMO the single biggest threat to the success of cycling as a common form of transport and ultimately cyclist's safety is this growing movement among some cyclists (and drivers obviously) for segregated cycle paths and lanes. It's like turkey's voting for Christmas. I'm not against turning disused railway lines and other viable routes into cyclepaths (such as the Fallowfield Loop in Manchester, which is great, apart from the dog walkers), but these are not and never will be a replacement for using the roads for either commuting or recreation.

The more cycle paths we have and the more they get used, the closer we get to either
1) Holland and Germany, normal use and common sense
2) me deciding that the UK is in fact populated by a higher % of morons than anywhere else

I suspect 1) is the outcome )

the problems I have with dedicated paths. They end up as bedlam.

If you put a "hard shoulder" on all new main roads they can double as cyclepaths

It's pointless. How wide should it be? If you accept the primary position as the safest then the cycle lane will cover approximately 50-60% of the road width, then all that will happen is that the cars will drive in them anyway (they already drive in the 1m wide cycle lanes!) so they just become a waste of paint, whilst at the same time antagonising the 'road tax paying' motorist into thinking they're being squeezed off the roads in favour of cyclists, which then translates into more agression and impatience, resulting in more cyclist injuries and deaths, and then less people cycling.

1) Holland and Germany, normal use and common sense

Cyclepaths in most of Munich are only suitable for tootlers. Lethal to go >15mph on. Supported by studies too.

It's like turkey's voting for Christmas

its dark its wet its rush hour traffic, one turkey is cycling on the nsl dual carriageway & the other is cycling on the shared use path, I know which turkey I'd rather be

Molgrips, I've used some cycle paths in Germany, they're great. I'm sure some are better than others. But yes, not ideal for 20mph in lycra, I was thinking of transport rather than roadie-riding as per OP.

Unfortunately 'I want space for sport on a public highway' is a weaker case than 'I want safe non-motorised transport'. Respect for people's life should trump all road frustrations but we just don't get that; in all honesty I'd trade all my road riding at ~20mph for more CX and MTB and safe, sensible transport by bike that is separate from cars - despite feeling pretty safe and confident riding on the roads as I currently do. I'd road-ride in Europe more though. I think a lot of potential cycle commuters would be happier at the expense of a smaller number of road riders (I'm in both camps so I'm trading carefully..)

one turkey is cycling on the nsl dual carriageway & the other is cycling on the shared use path, I know which turkey I'd rather be

What about the one on the quieter side road?

And anyway, what happens when a car crosses the shared use path, or when a ped in dark clothes wanders into your path suddenly?

Molgrips, I've used some cycle paths in Germany, they're great.

Some are good, some are not. But I still got shouted at for not using them... at 25mph...

I got shouted at a couple of weeks ago, for not using a cycle path in Nottingham...that's been dug up to install tram lines... 😯

I have just taken up road riding to compliment my MTB and XC racing and find it a lot more tricky, more due tothe wet weather, wind and big hills, but the back lanes round Wrexham/Mold are great, especially at 5am on a Sunday. It does seem to be the obligatory BMW driver who trys to see how close to your elbow he can pass you, even if you are going DH around a right hander at 45-50mph, that is scary, especially when you cant hear them coming.

molgrips, aren't bikes banned from many roads in Germany? ..not wising to fuel the 'if we have paths we'll be forced off the roads' argument.. I remember being suprised at how UK-like German drivers were until I was told bikes weren't meant to be on those relatively minor roads.

I have no idea why people cycle the dual carriage way, when there is the shorter, flatter, quieter road that goes through the town which the bypass replaced.

It is very easy to get lost in the centre of a unfamiliar town, and when every sign post points you to the bypass, sometime you can end up on it for a time until you get back on route. Its happened to me before and its very annoying as I hate riding on main road out of town but when you're not local its easy to get pushed that way.

molgrips, aren't bikes banned from many roads in Germany?

Well I researched this when I was there a couple of years ago. The law says that if there is a sign designating a cycle path then you must use it. However, the federal govt ruled that the states had not acted within the spirit of the law by putting cyclepath signs up absoutely everywhere there was a path of any kind (which is most places, even out in the countryside) thereby forcing bikes off the road, which effectively rendered the signs impotent.

I used them where it made sense, to dodge hectic road junctions (which was the original aim of the legislation - to keep bikes out of difficult car junctions for their own safety) and then popped onto the road when out in the sticks. To be fair I only got shouted at a few times in the winter when it was dark.

I worked out some risk for a lecture I'm giving in a couple of weeks. Commuting 35 km for 200 days a year, gives a risk of 25 deaths per 100000 participants. Compares to 78 deaths for motorcycling, or 2.3 driving the same journey. Other activities swimming=1.8, skydiving=1, smoking 20 a day=100, giving birth=8.3, coronary bypass graft=4000. Of course none of these stats take any account of the benefits that some of the activities may offer.

My personal tally over the last 20 years is on the road, I've been hit by cars three times, resulting in minor bruises. I've been to a&e twice from mtb crashes, with one broken bone and one cut. Countless bruises from the mtb.

I worked out some risk for a lecture I'm giving in a couple of weeks. Commuting 35 km for 200 days a year, gives a risk of 25 deaths per 100000 participants.

So I could commute for 4000 years before being killed. Sounds fairly safe then.

I've been racing MTBs since 1999, and racing (TTs anyway) on the raod since 2003.
.
In that time I have seen 2 ambulances in road events (one incident, two riders hit each other, no car involved) and two other ambulances not in races (one rider down on the ice, one hurt in rider-rider contact), so that's 4 hospital cases in 10 years.
I have lost count how many air-ambulances, never mind normal ones, I have seen at MTB races. My former team-mate has been in one twice! I wasn't at the last NPS on the Olympic course but I was told there were 20 broken bones that weekend.
Road riding is far safer. However, I think the risks are different, on an MTB I pretty much control the risk, on the road I am relying on other people not to **** up too.

It does seem to be the obligatory BMW driver who trys to see how close to your elbow he can pass you, even if you are going DH around a right hander at 45-50mph, that is scary, especially when you cant hear them coming

Jeez, that sounds dangerous enough without the car bit ! I rarely go at that speed on the road, and only in dry good visibility situations, but maybe that's just me...

I think another problem bikes have, taking up iain c's comment above, is the variety of speeds we do.
.
On an A road for example, a slow car will dither along at 40mph. A fast one will be doing 80mph. Speed difference of 100%.
A slow bike, maybe a new rider on a shopping trip, will be doing 6mph. A rider in a time-trial can easily push 30mph on the flat. Speed difference 500%.
.
Drivers haven't yet figured out how to tell which is which when pulling out of side roads etc, they are used to bike pootling along at single figure speeds and think they have plenty of time to pull out/overtake/etc then realise the bike was actually doing 25mph and they've got it wrong

I did stop riding on the road a few years back despite having done so for many years, got fed up with the number of close passes on busy and non busy roads. Started again after friends wanted to do some long distance rides and I just promised myself to be selective on what I choose to ride.

Think I can deal OK with the stupidity of the school run and the commuter its the couldn't care less I'm not sure if I can be bothered to even try and give you room drivers that get me and the nutters
One in each category this week today suburban road with speed islands - look back car at least 50m back I'm probably doing 20mph, take prime position - 10seconds later he's on my tail revving his engine hard - he had to accelerate hard so he could be deliberately aggressive. Out of town quiet but fast road, truck driver just blasts away on horn as passes closer than needed - plenty of room for both of us and no bend or oncoming - pass him unlocking building site gate 2miles up road 'I hate f....king cyclists' scum of the earth, should n't be on the road ' its the aggression that worries me as it is hard to predict or see it coming

Double post

I'd love to get into road riding. The idea of the speed vs effort is very appealing! However, the number of tales of people getting hurt and worse while out and about really puts me off. This is, I know, only my perception, and many people have years of safe riding (my Dad being one!)

There are risks with off-road riding, but they are, in the whole, under my control. Apart from the occasional errant sheep or psyco lapwing, anything untoward that happens is probably down to my stuff up.

I sense it getting a little safer, due to the larger numbers riding?
It used to be 'bloody cyclists' said in anger. Now it's 'bloody cyclists' said with a hint of acceptance.
In forty years of serious riding on the road I've been hit once, and a minor one by a very very old man in a very old camper going very slowly.
I've not lost anyone, but know of two lost in TT's.
On the other hand mountainbiking has left one friend in hospital getting on for two years, another struggling to walk. Accidents on MTB's seem cool and something to boast about, something to print pictures of, look at me I'm a dick woohoo. Some of these people ride on the road.
But I do feel safer in general. That said the worst part of my ride is in the town I live where they've introduced things to help cyclists. The concensus says it's made things worse.