[Closed] So what do you think would improve safety for cyclists?

See mike, I have seen serious head injuries, and I know that an inch of polystyrene doesn't stop you having one.

It's not a black and white issue, and it's not a simple as wear one and get away with it.

Educate yourself.

having read most of this thread (ignored the helmet bit on page 4 sorry) I have learnt that

1)Germany has a law that states cyclists have priority over cars
2)The Netherlands have a law that rules that the car is automatically responsible in a crash
3)the belgians give bikes priority over cars

FFS HOW OBVIOUS IS THE SOLUTION

edhornby - thats assumed liability and is only for civil cases not criminal - and all it does is mean the car driver has to show why his collision with the cyclist is not his fault - it also applies to bike / pedestrian collisions - the bike rider is assumed to be at fault unless evidence to suggest otherwise.

It does however help set an attitude

It's not a black and white issue, and it's not a simple as wear one and get away with it.

I'm not claiming it is. Just that they seem to have worked for me.

Get over yourself. You really are rather rude, aren't you?

"Many, if not most, accidents could be prevented by the cyclist."

Again, Id really like to see some facts to back up this statement.

There was a recent study published in Australia where 158 cyclists injured badly enough to require hospital admission were interviewed.

The vast majority of the accidents were easily avoidable. For a start 61% did not involve another vehicle. Causes ranged from a handbag hanging from the handlebars getting caught in the front wheel to a pilates mat being carried that jammed between fork and wheel. Five crashes were caused by broken or disengaged chains. One crash was caused by broken forks. 10 riders crashed into doors being opened in parked cars. Numerous riders hit objects or debris in the road. 4 riders were using mobile phones when they crashed.

Of the 39% (61 riders) of crashes that involved other vehicles - around a quarter crashed into parked or stationary cars. Around 10% (15 riders) crashed after hitting other cyclists.

I'd say that most of these crashes were avoidable. Don't ride in the doorzone, look where you are going, ride a well maintained bike, carry luggage properly etc. Don't ride into parked cars.

"The rider was heading north on Beach Road near Love Street, Blackrock, was climbing and steered around a parked van. The rider then merged left but had his head down. The rider was then knocked unconscious after running into the rear of a second parked vehicle, with sufficient force to break its rear windscreen".

In a UK context how many riders have been killed by left turning HGVs or buses? Completely avoidable.

I've been touring and commuting on the roads for decades without an accident. Am I just lucky or can a cyclist with average skill and a bit of care and attention anticipate and avoid the causes of most accidents?

Steam gives way to sail. The theory of that Dutch system is das solution in mine eyes!

Can't see it happening for many reasons. It's the big idea that
could turn the tide.

A manifesto for Wig go - bonanza!

I've been touring and commuting on the roads for decades without an accident. Am I just lucky or can a cyclist with average skill and a bit of care and attention anticipate and avoid the causes of most accidents?

I wonder how many of those dead riders thought they were more skilfull/careful than average too?

I wonder how many of those dead riders thought they were more skilfull/careful than average too?

It doesn't matter what they thought. They obviously weren't more skilled/careful than average if they put themselves in the path of a left turning HGV or bus or went so close to a parked car they hit a door being opened. I don't see what is controversial about recognising known risks and avoiding them.

CBA reading the preceeding 5 pages, I assume all of this has been stated already but just in case things I think our Government should initiate (in no particular order):

1- General awareness campaign (Similar to the "THINK BIKE" one for motorcyclists) Still not sure why we lack one...

2- Greater emphasis on Cyclist awareness in driving tests at all levels (From Motor-bikes all the way up to HGVs).

3- better subsidised, more widely available access for all (Adults, children, famiies) to bikability/cycle proficiency type training, including online learning materials (like the DVLA have for driving theory) to act as a refresher/reinforcer of best practice.

4- Stronger promotion (but not compulsion) for the use of cycle helmets, including material on correct fitting and adjustment.

5- As a bare minimum Better planning guidlines but ideally a National Authority/centre of expertise dedicated to the safest/best practicable implementation of cycle routes across town and reigional road planning, with the power to vito any proposal which would they feel would increse danger to cyclists, and to compell local authorities to improve known existing problem spots...

6- Greater Subsidy for all of the above, it needs investment.

All of that could be done, it's not beyond the wit of man and any transport minister (possibly with the assistance of a minister for sport?) looking to capitalise on the Wiggins effect would benefit from being able to say [I]" Road safety for cyclists improved during my time in office"[/I]...

I struggle with long sentences.

From my personal experience.

More drivers who ride and therefore understand more about bikes and how the riders feel.

More riders who drive, and particularly more people with practical HGV/PSV experience. I drive 7.5T trucks periodically and the size of the blindspots is terrifying, and they're minimal compared to an artic. More mirrors help, but only so far, as any mirror on the opposite side of the vehicle you're looking at from 7+ feet away, and if it's a "wide angle" effort, objects in it appear even smaller. (FWIW you couldn't pay me enough to drive a large HGV around central London in rush hour with the sheer number of uncontrolled, unpredictable, barely able to ride cyclists about)

EVERYBODY - drivers, cyclists and peds paying proper attention to what's happening around them. Pedestrians who step off pavements with their phones glued to their ears. Drivers who never use their mirrors. Cyclists who never look over their shoulder or who may have their lights on at night, then cover them with a long coat.

EVERYBODY - drivers, cyclists and peds - reading, understanding and abiding by the highway code. All the guidance needed to exist successfully side by side is in there if we just make use of it. We all have rights, but we all have responsibilities too.

Helmets, hiviz, bikelanes, IMO are all pretty irrelevant - that's all about solving the symptoms, not the original ailment. It's all about respect for one another. I feel much safer riding in London where far more other road users are simply used to bikes as a fact of life, than I do now living in Sheff, where drivers are still a little unsure how to treat us (getting better though). Many London cyclists would improve their safety further by taking better responsibility for their own actions, using common sense and abiding by the rules of the road.

I don't see what is controversial about recognising known risks and avoiding them.

Nothing at all. It's good to recognise the risks and mitigate them. That's entirely sensible and not what I was getting at.

What I meant was, many of those killed will have [i]thought[/i] they were taking all reasonable care and were aware of the risks. And a significant number probably were.

Thinking you are safe because you know the risks and take greater care than most is a dangerous line of thought IMO. As is the flipside of that argument which apportions blame to the victims.

And of course if you were [i]really[/i] trying to avoid the risks, you wouldn't be riding on the road at all!

I drive 7.5T trucks periodically and the size of the blindspots is terrifying

Out of interest, how do you feel about the proposed blindspot cameras or sensors?

Seems to be mixed opinion as far as I can gather. Theoretically a good idea, but I've heard objections cameras mean more screens for a driver to watch and sensors would beep every time you pulled up next to a bin or busstop, so would soon be ignored.

I think if a buzzer went off everytime a lorry went past a bus stop, they wouldn't get fitted. The cameras i've seen are excellent. Theres only one screen (not 12 mirrors) and it shows everything around the lorry. Its a "virtual camera" type view, made up from multiple feeds. Like this...

No problems with technology being used as a driver aid. Also give me things like cruise-control with a speed limiter mode, so I can concentrate on the road and not the speedo in 20 zones, roadworks, average speed limit zones etc. If I said that on certain other road/commuter bike forums, I'd probably be hounded off the forum.

Not seen the vid yet (at work) so don't know if they cause information overload.

Truck-Cyclist interfacing obviously needs some effort on both sides. Does UK still have a proliferation of railings at city centre traffic lights? Remove them, and that one half of the problem gone that causes cyclists to be crushed by large vehicles turning left.

Take a bus/40-ton artic./truck to every school on cycling proficiency day. Get them to sit in the driver's seat, and see how many of their freinds/classmates they can see.

Does UK still have a proliferation of railings at city centre traffic lights? Remove them, and that one half of the problem gone that causes cyclists to be crushed by large vehicles turning left.

Yep. Likewise the cycle lanes that come up the left hand side to reach the ASL, encouraging people to ride through a blindspot to get to another blindspot!

Can't we get the scrap metal thieves to steal them, instead of stealing church roofs and ripping up fibre-optics expecting them to be copper?

Traffic signs on back of buses and trucks (I'm sure they must do this?), indicating to cyclists not to filter up the inside (or even some other technology to highlight that even more if the LH indicator is flashing)

I did actually RATS, and there are some good suggestions on this thread.

What's needed isn't one specific measure, but a reprioritisation of pedestrian and cyclist traffic over motor vehicles in places where the two mix.

That means [url= http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/ ]lower speed limits[/url], stopping up rat runs or making them one-way, [url= http://lcc.org.uk/articles/what-would-british-roads-look-like-if-we-treated-them-the-same-way-we-do-our-cycle-lanes ]proper continuous cycle lanes that don't expect you to give way or merge every hundred yards[/url], [url= http://bamboobadger.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/car-parking-ill-just-leave-this.html ]restrictions on where people can park[/url] (does your car HAVE to be kept right outside your front door all the time?), less tolerance of motoring offences ([url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/joao-lopes-sentence.html ]At present you can kill repeatedly and still be back driving in 6 years[/url]), restrictions on HGVs in city centres, not forcing cyclists to share the same road space as buses, and more.

Giving cyclists free training, helmets and hi-viz, while I'm sure it's done with the best of intentions, has already been tried, and doesn't seem to make a blind bit of difference. Unless your overall aim is to make cyclists switch to cars.

EVERYBODY - drivers, cyclists and peds paying proper attention to what's happening around them. Pedestrians who step off pavements with their phones glued to their ears. Drivers who never use their mirrors. Cyclists who never look over their shoulder or who may have their lights on at night, then cover them with a long coat.

EVERYBODY - drivers, cyclists and peds - reading, understanding and abiding by the highway code. All the guidance needed to exist successfully side by side is in there if we just make use of it. We all have rights, but we all have responsibilities too.

Helmets, hiviz, bikelanes, IMO are all pretty irrelevant - that's all about solving the symptoms, not the original ailment. It's all about respect for one another. I feel much safer riding in London where far more other road users are simply used to bikes as a fact of life, than I do now living in Sheff, where drivers are still a little unsure how to treat us (getting better though). Many London cyclists would improve their safety further by taking better responsibility for their own actions, using common sense and abiding by the rules of the road.

+1

Many London cyclists would improve their safety further by taking better responsibility for their own actions, using common sense and abiding by the rules of the road.

This is true. However, things could be improved far more if the same ideals were applied to drivers too. Because by far the worst offenders in London are drivers. Blaming cyclists disproportionately for problems is just self-defeating. Drivers have to take responsibility and act more safely and considerately towards cyclists, or we'll get nowhere.

Why not just stop making or importing cars into the country, there are just far too many on the roads full stop...Think of the benefits?!

haha - /me imagines 60M cyclists all on 3 week pilgrimage on foot to Felixtowe to collect their new bikes as they arrive from Taiwan. And the DHL rickshaw delivering their replacement chains/cassettes/etc. from CRC 😉

edit: on some other forums I've been on, the only safe speed for traffic is 0 MPH (and remember, these are cyclists that bleat on about "we are the traffic" 😉 )

And the DHL rickshaw delivering their replacement chains/cassettes/etc. from CRC

Would still be faster than parcelforce.

Would still be faster than parcelforce.

You're not wrong! Mind you, strapping it to the back of a laser-guided tortoise would be faster than parcelforce.

That is true. I said DHL based on my guess that DeutschePost-DHL will have bought RM/Parcelfarce by then 😉

Or a turtle. I suppose you could use a turtle also.

things could be improved far more if the same ideals were applied to drivers too. Because by far the worst offenders in London are drivers. Blaming cyclists disproportionately for problems is just self-defeating. Drivers have to take responsibility and act more safely and considerately towards cyclists, or we'll get nowhere.

This. 400 pedestrians were killed in 2009 as a result of drivers running red lights. If cyclists were equally dangerous then I'd advocate similar controls on them, but they're not.

It just seems that every time this discussion comes up, the immediate response of many is to 'educate cyclists'. Rarely do people talk of doing the same with drivers. It's the assumption that cyclists, by their mere presence, cause problems that I find frustrating.

I like the aussie approach to things; direct and to the point, designed to make you really think. I remember a billboard which said 'Drink and drive? You're a bloody idiot'. Massive, across a motorway.

i'll try to post a picture of one I saw recently:

[img] [/img]

We need stuff like this. Emotive and thought-provoking. Reminding people if how fragile life really is.

yay it worked!

Drivers have to take responsibility and act more safely and considerately towards cyclists

Especially those filtering up the inside of large vehicles turning left. Especially those RLJing. And those pulling out of the cycle lane on my way home to overtake other cyclists on a large multi-lane (plus tram lines) crossroads, without looking, exactly at a point where there's a pinch-point of 2 car lanes and a cycle lane. (edit: it's actually a shyte junction and section of road immediately after exiting the junction, and the sole reason for haveing a roadangel camera to record ALL traffic ****ness, bikes+cars)

It works both ways.

It works both ways.

Sure. But the emphasis must be on the drivers, as they are potentially far, far more lethal. And their actions are far more likely to result in serious injury or death to someone else.

It works both ways.

No it doesn't. If you can't tell the difference between an 85kg cyclist hitting a 500 kg car, and a 500 kg car hitting an 85 kg cyclist, then...

I posted this on another thread but it's just as applicable here. No amount of cyclist training, driver training, helment wearing will ever have any significant effect if the roads are structurally unsafe - and in the majority of cases when cyclists are getting killed or seriously injured that is the cause. It's no good telling cyclists 'not to filter on the left' if that's where the meagre facilities we have place them, or if they're unsegregated on roads with high speeds where it's not possible to merge with fast moving traffic and 'take the lane'

This blogger puts it far better than I could -

"...leaving aside the fact that the effects of changing driver education (if there are ever any effects at all, and it’s not a very robustly researched field) have long lag times — as long as street lifecycles. And leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence that this sort of intervention would ever actually have any significant effect on the sort of issues we’re concerned about, such as occurrence and severity of motor vehicle/cycle crashes. And leaving aside the fact that it could have, at best, only a small effect on the arguably more important issue of barriers to cycling, which are more about subjective assessment of the comfort of the environment than about raw injury statistics, and so can make no significant contribution to solving the wider issues which cycling is tied 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]

If you can't tell the difference between an 85kg cyclist hitting a 500 kg car, and a 500 kg car hitting an 85 kg cyclist

edit: and there are ways to avoid the above 2 cases even being an issue.

Especially those RLJing

FFS. Now, I don't jump red lights but what exactly is the objection of motorist to cyclists jumping red lights? Is it just an instinctive 'dailymail' reaction?

RLJ'ers don't seem to be high in the casualty stats - you can be damn sure it would be reported if it was given how often 'was not wearing a helmet' comes up. In fact turning left on a red light gets you out of the way of those left hook vehicles that result in so many deaths (thought to be why more women than men die this way). Yes, cyclists should always give way to pedestrians (as should vehicles turning into side roads but lets not go there now) but they're not injuring pedestrians in large numbers and certainly not killing them (unlike red light jumping drivers).

Cyclists aren't motor vehicles, and they're not pedestrians. What CYCLISTS should be campaigning for (and this *is* a cyclists forum) is for red lights to be considered 'stop' signs for cyclists - must stop moving but if route is clear fine to proceed. You'd then make your own risk assessment on whether to proceed (as you do as a pedestrian) and not pose any risk to anyone else.

Like helmets this is a complete non-issue when it comes to 'safety OF cyclists' which is what this thread was supposed to be about.

It's not that I think cyclists are morally unimpeachable, it's just that any bad behaviour by cyclists carries a massive personal risk to the person doing it, and much less potential for harm to anyone else.

The sooner we get past arguing about which user group behave the worst and get on with some pragmatic solutions the better.

Like helmets this is a complete non-issue when it comes to 'safety OF cyclists' which is what this thread was supposed to be about.

Agreed.

The only real safety impact seems to be that it taints drivers' attitudes towards cyclists.

I struggle with long sentencestuff ^

Driving test refreshers - every 5 or 10 years. Doing my m/cycle DAS was a real eye opener... I thought i knew it all, and being a cyclist, thought I knew lots about bikes on the road - how wrong...

All new drivers (and refreshers ^) to do an equivalent of a CBT. Either on a 125 m/cycle, or bicycle. MAKE them experience the vulnerability of being a non-4-wheeled road user.

Those two would do a lot to help

And cycling proficiency refresher every 5 years?

but is it the driver turning left or the cyclist riding where they really ought not to ride that was inconsiderate? I'd wager it's close to 50-50 than 100-0 or 0-100.

Lets blame the victim shall we? based on no evidence whatsoever? You should read [url= http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/blackfriars-cyclist-collision-last.html ]this piece by Danny Williams[/url] . Now someone in the comments has made your call that 'she shouldn't have been there' but that's where the current infrastructure put a cyclist.

Where should the cyclists be on Blackfriars Bridge or on any other junction where current, unsegregated, cycle lanes put them on the left of left turning vehicles?
[img] [/img]

As a cyclist you *could* try to merge right into one of the traffic lanes but, since it's a drag race from one set of traffic lights to the next traffic speeds are high and you're likely to get someone forcing their way past you. You could try to get to the front of the traffic queue into the (unenforced, so likely full of motor vehicles) ASL but the cycle lane is full of cyclists.

Despite being an experienced, long term, law abiding cyclist when the traffic starts moving you can still easily find yourself on the left of a left turning vehicle (say that bus...). How inconsiderate.

Cyclists have to take responsibility and act more safely and considerately towards drivers too.

Absolutey. But I think you have to be very careful in how you present it.

There's a lot of drivers out there, including half the people on this very forum, that already think cyclists are in the wrong much of the time. And any re-inforcement of those beliefs is damaging to the relationship between motorists and cyclists, resulting in an increasingly dangerous and growing irratibility on the roads.

You DO need to be very careful on a bike. Mainly because you're in a very dangerous environment. Some of us could make wiser decsisions, particularly (but not solely confined to) those who are new to cycling, or indeed new to the roads in any form of transport. Education would be welcomed with open arms if presented in the right way, I'm sure.

However, it is the giant lump of mass that carries the biggest potential risks. And with that comes huge responsibility (it is your job to keep people safe from that force). So when you have someone trying to squeeze past, talking on the phone, honking the horn...whatever the circumstances, it's not really acceptable. It's one thing to put yourself at risk, but something else entirely to risk the life of another human. The core beliefs that lead to this behaviour need to be addressed in a big way.

I would suggest that they are two completely seperate topics. Putting them together sends mixed messages, and is confusing for everyone.

Cyclists need to know their place on the road. Not to be told that they should be:

On the pavement
In the gutter
In the door zone
In a car
Taking primary position

*Select an option*

And more importantly, it needs to be RESPECTED. That is key.

Motorists need to be aware that cyclists have a right to be on the road. And that they will take many positions on the road (and not just to antagonise you).

Cyclists are already aware that motorists think they have every right to the road, so they simply need to be aware of their surroundings and to know how to make them as safe as possible, for everyone involved.

Out driving yesterday, I was behind a roadie. And every time I come up to a cyclist I feel what everyone else feels: there's a certain pressure to pass as quickly as possible, a collective membrane of what is not even impatience, but a ladder of self importance ([i]that's a bicycle, I'm a car, we belong in front, WE MUST PASS!![/i]). It's expected of you. And the cyclist feels it too! This one certainly did as he tried to wave me past. I hung back as it wasn't safe (there was a gap...and a fast approaching blind corner), and I could sense the discomfort in him, unsure to just take the road or selflessly pull in somewhere and save me a few seconds.

That is the collective expectancy of behaviour on the roads. And to change that one thing would have a massive impact on road safety.

And cycling proficiency refresher every 5 years?

That couldn't be done without introducing rider licensing - there's no legal mechanism.

This one certainly did as he tried to wave me past... I hung back as it wasn't safe.. I could sense the discomfort in him

Had exactly the same thing happen to me the other day. I knew I wanted to turn left shortly, so there was absolutely no point in me trying to overtake him.

It was palpably uncomfortable. I almost wanted to wind down the window and shout [i]"Don't worry mate. I'm one of you lot. You carry on."[/i]

Sad that the attitudes and expectations on our roads are such that actually doing the right thing generates confusion and discomfort.

To instigate a mind shift in the driving majority the government needs to act.

Start by renaming RFL 'Vehicular Carbon Charge' and increase the charge by 50%.

Ensure drivers who injure cyclists are dealt with appropriatly.

Modernise the Cycling profiency test.

Tv campaign , Something like this.

Every Parent, Cyclist and Motorist should watch , it should be on during the Olympics Velodrome events . Possibly could be slightly more obvious, as white van man will not 'get' it.

How about we start by encouraging (and given some newspaper articles, even actually allowing) kids to ride to school so at least the NEXT generation grows up with some sort of affinity with life on two wheels be it self powered or motorised.

Cycling proficiency compuslory in schools for all kids who can ride bikes

More heavy handed penalties for people who absent mindedly kill cyclists or assault them (themselves or with their vehicles) just for riding along

More bike locking facilities in city centres, train stations and so on in places that are more visible to encourage more people onto bikes

Enforcable penalties for cyclists who do dumb stuff like RLJ, ride on pavements etc so there's less "them and us" and more a laws of the road sort of feel to things