Forum menu
My googlefu seems to have deserted me. I can't find the government standards for cycleways and guidence. can anyone help?
Don't worry, government can't find it either.
Ta
Pragmatically - it's little use complaining that cycling infrastructure doesn't conform to standards. The truth is that something is (almost always) better than nothing and that putting up with something short term often leads to incremental improvements.
I don't think poor cycling infrastructure is necessarily better than no cycling infrastructure.
It can make cycling more dangerous, yet if you try and use the road, some motorists will get quite aggressive you aren't using the cycle lane (like that video from a while back near Richmond park).
See the words "almost always" in my reply?
Go back and read them again.
The truth is that something is (almost always) better than nothing
Many (myself included) would disagree.
An old thing by Joe Dunckley:
https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/better-than-nothing/
yet if you try and use the road, some motorists will get quite aggressive you aren’t using the cycle lane
In my experience those drivers are angry you're not using a car/doing 70 in a 50, generally having the audacity to inconvenience them in some minor way. They'll just as happily run you off the road if there's a cycle lane or not, if you're on a bike or on foot etc. Poor infrastructure isn't the reason some people are dicks.
I would still disagree. I think poor cycle provision as often seen in Edinburgh actually increases risks. Poor provision is not worth having IMO. I do understand the opposite argument tho and thats the position sustrans takes but having been run off the road because I was using poorly designed provision I feel very strongly about this.
I think poor cycle provision as often seen in Edinburgh actually increases risks.
Scotland has it's own cycle design standard guidelines
The whole country needs a massive culture shift. Then we might get a generation of people working in local government who actually [I]want[/I] to make cycling safer/more pleasant.
One thing that might (force!) motorists to respect cycling more would be an assumed liability law, like most of Europe has. It would also be massively cheaper to implement than loads of shitty half-arsed cycle lanes!
Must be covered in gravel and broken glass.
Must cross multiple driveways with no indication of priority.
Must give way to every minor road joining the main road.
Must stop suddenly.
Must require dismounting and crossing 2 busy roundabout exits/entrances to go straight ahead.
May have parked van blocking completely (optional)
Ta orena
One thing that might (force!) motorists to respect cycling more would be an assumed liability law, like most of Europe has.
No. Presumed liability is a good thing, but it's demonstrably misguided to use it to try to drive behaviour change.
https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/bez-selling-a-dream-at-the-cost-of-reality/
be an assumed liability law
Liability isn't the problem, it's lack of enforcement and laughable punishment. Making a person automatically liable is pointless if they're rarely prosecuted and, even when they are, the punishment is often barely more than an annoyance.
People aren't put off committing robbery because of the presumed liability when they're caught in someone's home, they're put off because the punishment is a deterrent but more importantly the social stigma is huge.
Clunk click every trip, don't drink and drive. They're successful because by and large, society thinks you're a womble if you don't adhere, even though you're very likely to get away with it if you do.
Run over a pedestrian and drive off, chances are you won't be caught. Hang around and confess and likely you'll get more sympathy than the victim "because it was an honest mistake", despite the fact you willingly got into a machine that kills more people than violent crime every year and piloted it through a busy town centre whilst thinking what to have for tea. If it goes to court you'll maybe end up with a 4 figure fine, possibly having to get the bus, maybe a few weeks at her majesty's pleasure, but almost always, a whole lot of empathy.
In belgium you get beeped by many motorists for not using an available cycle lane, even when the road's better for riding. The rest of the time they're highly considerate to cyclists. I dunno, people like to see perceived rules followed?
So, shit cycle lanes can be worse than none. See the York Road obstacle course into Leeds. Besides the usual bunny-hop challenges it has actual bus stops in the middle...
In belgium you get beeped by many motorists for not using an available cycle lane... I dunno, people like to see perceived rules followed?
In Belgium it's not a perceived rule, it's actually against the law to ride on the road if there's a cycle lane/track.
Edinburgh has some really poor bits of "infrastructure" (Haymarket junction is a dangerous disgrace). The only time I've actually been knocked off the bike by a car was while cycling on the A8 cycle path!
The problem with "something is almost always better than nothing" is that I don't really see the incremental improvements happening. We still seem to be getting fobbed off with the same half baked, disconnected engineering, which just shouldn't be happening any more.
and low countries cycle facilities are properly thought out to a much greater extent than ours so little excuse for not using them
There is almost none of the on road or roadside Edinburgh cycle provision I use. Most of it is too dangerous as it keeps you too close to the kerb and or makes you leave and join the road at stupid angles in stupid places. I suspect its part of the reason Edinburgh has a high rate of cycle casualties. this is where you end up if you take the incremental approach. The offroad Edinburgh cycle provision on the other hand is excellent and extensive ( offroad a in old railway lines and through parks - not MTB) and there is the odd bit of really good road design for cyclists
Maybe if the Term 'Death by Dangerous Driving' was replaced with Murder and/or Manslaughter people might see it differently.
This happened just a few days ago up here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/localnews/2641673-newcastle%20upon%20tyne/30&link_location=live-reporting-stor y"> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-44028968?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/localnews/2641673-newcastle%20upon%20tyne/30&link_location=live-reporting-story
A woman Dead a Child critically injured and this is the result so far.
"A 36-year-old man driving a Ford Focus was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and driving while unfit through drink or drugs.
He has been released under investigation."
If' he'd been drugged up/drunk and stabbed them would the result be the same?
EDIT Sorry that doesn't help with Cycle provision TJ It just boiled my piss a touch.
The whole country needs a massive culture shift. Then we might get a generation of people working in local government who actually <em class="bbcode-em">want to make cycling safer/more pleasant.
I'd argue that the culture shift should be around getting A-B more pleasant... regardless of method.
Mostly pissed off motorists are just people who travel by car in shit conditions and infrastructure... just lie pissed off train users and bus users and plane users and yes cyclists
In belgium you get beeped by many motorists for not using an available cycle lane, even when the road’s better for riding. The rest of the time they’re highly considerate to cyclists. I dunno, people like to see perceived rules followed?
Well, yes its the law but other road users are pissed off if you take away part of their road and replace it with something not being used.
The fact it's dangerous to use... well probably doesn't enter into it from the motorists view.
I remember another long dead thread where it was suggested motorists need to be polite and such because they are driving weapons that kill people... well bikes also kill people but half the time not directly.
The car, bus truck that has to swerve out of the way due to a cyclist is a danger but the real trigger was the cyclist who thinks one way is for other vehicles and traffic lights don't apply to bikes etc.
All in all I find more inconsiderate cyclists per cyclist than car drivers per car driver... and I'm biassed towards cyclists so god knows what the non-cycling public think.
In my experience those drivers are angry you’re not using a car/doing 70 in a 50, generally having the audacity to inconvenience them in some minor way. They’ll just as happily run you off the road if there’s a cycle lane or not, if you’re on a bike or on foot etc. Poor infrastructure isn’t the reason some people are dicks.
In my experience those same people are the same on a bike, horse, motorbike
Nah, not the same thing at all. Cycling is only unpleasant if it seems dangerous or you have a run in with a ****tish driver. That doesn't really happen (as often!) when you're in a car. If motorists are pissed off it's because there's loads of traffic (of which they are part of the problem!) or they're late as they haven't allowed enough time. The solution is just to leave early, stick on the tunes & air con and relax a bit.I’d argue that the culture shift should be around getting A-B more pleasant… regardless of method.
Mostly pissed off motorists are just people who travel by car in shit conditions and infrastructure
EDIT: actually one thing you could do would be to put lights (with RL cameras!) on EVERY junction/roundabout. That'd get rid of most of the arguments on the road I reckon!
Yeah, you're probably right. I wonder if the presumed liability were criminal as well as civil if it'd be any different? Any reason that couldn't happen?No. Presumed liability is a good thing, but it’s demonstrably misguided to use it to try to drive behaviour change.
low countries cycle facilities are properly thought out to a much greater extent than ours
I await correction here, but as far as I'm aware the quality of Belgium's cycle infrastructure mostly falls well short of the stuff over the border.
Yeah, you’re probably right. I wonder if the presumed liability were criminal as well as civil if it’d be any different? Any reason that couldn’t happen?
Yes: it would contravene the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" which is the bedrock of British law.
Unless your name is Cliff Richard .
Nah, not the same thing at all. Cycling is only unpleasant if it seems dangerous or you have a run in with a **** driver. That doesn’t really happen (as often!) when you’re in a car. If motorists are pissed off it’s because there’s loads of traffic (of which they are part of the problem!) or they’re late as they haven’t allowed enough time. The solution is just to leave early, stick on the tunes & air con and relax a bit.
<div>Try Amsterdam or Copenhagen... where cyclists are the problem for each other and pedestrians...One of my mates lives outside Copenhagen and is a keen club cyclist but he like me hates being a pedestrain not because of cars but because of bikes ... its only a small minority but that small minority throw the rest into chaos...</div>
<div></div>
<div>The UK has more cars... and less bikes per capita so the situation is reversed but ultimately most drivers are not maniacs but there are so many you see more.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Everything applies to all modes of travel in some ways.... but a lot of it is just because of shit infrastructure... Planes and trains are stressful.... because they don't care... I sat on a plane last week that landed on time at Heathrow that for some reason had a load of Americans with connecting flights from Paris. They were very stressed as the pilot announced they were waiting to disembark because they had been offered a gate he didn't like... so 1 hour later some had probably missed their flights ...</div>
<div></div>
<div>Of course they could have taken an earlier flight... and stopped overnight in Heathrow...etc. but in the end the polite was just a bag of shit who wanted his preferred parking space and didn't give a shit if his passengers has 12 hours to the next flight so long as he didn't need to actually walk somewhere.</div>
<div></div>
<div>It didn't really affect me but you could see the passengers with connections getting more and more irate every time the pilot informed them of his personal standoff...</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>The solution is just to leave early, stick on the tunes & air con and relax a bit.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Like too many cyclists they are self entitled and happy to quite rules when they work for them or just to make a point yet quite happy to flagrantly flaunt these and ride down a one way the wrong way or ride through lights.</div>
<div></div>
<div>I followed two in the car on Saturday meandering along a lane without looking back... I wasn't in any rush (and the AC was on) and the bloke on the outside kept waving me to pass... obviously he didn't want a car behind him perhaps and he got more and more agitated... but I'm hardly going to take his word it's safe if I can't see myself.</div>
<div></div>
<div>After about 5 minutes was the first proper safe place to pass 2 abreast (when you have bikes on the back and don't want to start passing with the next blind bend a hundred feet away).... you could almost see his words stick in his throat as he turned sideways and saw the bikes. Really if he didn't want me behind he just had to stop riding 2 abreast for 15 seconds ... but I'd argue if he wasn't self entitled and clearer thinking he'd have done that anyway, regardless of his inalienable human right to ride 2 abreast because at the end of the day I'm sat in a big protective bit of metal and he isn't.</div>
<div></div>
<div>This last bit is the part I don't get ... legislation is what it is but ultimately it can't protect against stupidity.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Despite many crashes on my bikes the closest I got to death was on a road bike due to my own stupidity ... I had right of way I just hadn't counted on the diesel on the road though my stupidity went through my head as I slid under the bus between the wheels....</div>
<div>It was a bit of a wake-up call ... though immediately afterwards I still blamed the bus a few similar if less immediately fatal accidents made me question my riding.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
Try Amsterdam or Copenhagen… where cyclists are the problem for each other and pedestrians…One of my mates lives outside Copenhagen and is a keen club cyclist but he like me hates being a pedestrain not because of cars but because of bikes
My Dutch, cycling, friend has just moved out of Amsterdam to Haarlem because of all the "bloody cyclists".
The car, bus truck that has to swerve out of the way due to a cyclist is a danger but the real trigger was the cyclist who thinks one way is for other vehicles and traffic lights don’t apply to bikes etc.
A theoretically valid point, but is this a significant thing in practice? I can think of one such (consequential) incident in recent years—not that I would claim that this is the only one, of course.
The truth is that something is (almost always) better than nothing
Disagree, for the reasons stated by Bez and TJ.
Not far from me, there was a section of urban (ish) A-road with a 40mph limit on it that had some of the traffic islands and centre hatchings removed and cycle lanes painted down each side. It's considerably more dangerous now than it was before they had the cycle lanes. Drivers assume that the barely-minimum-width lane (full of debris, glass, potholes, puddles and occasionally parked cars) is all a cyclist needs and that their nearside wheels just have to be the other side of that line and all is good.
I've had more close passes in the year since they put the lane in than in the 6 years before it was there. Also hoots, gestures etc if you dare stray outside of it, even if it's obviously to avoid a massive puddle.
Shit infrastructure is a recipe for disaster. It gives drivers yet another excuse as to why they hit the cyclist ("oh but he weaved out of the cycle lane...") and it does not encourage novices, those more nervous of traffic, kids etc to cycle since it offers zero protection - worse than that it offers the [b]impression[/b] of protection while actually making conflict more likely.
All in all I find more inconsiderate cyclists per cyclist than car drivers per car driver… and I’m biassed towards cyclists so god knows what the non-cycling public think.
What rot, I suggest you keep your eyes open next time you drive and observe the poor driving and law-breaking that goes on around you.
bike riders who just want to get to work or pop down the shops would welcome any sort of cyclelane. It's the bells in lycra who think they are Lance Armstrong who consider cyclanes beneith them and expect a billiard table smooth surface.
What rot, I suggest you keep your eyes open next time you drive and observe the poor driving and law-breaking that goes on around you.
If you are incapable of overcoming your bias take some sort of clicker counter.
There are way more cars than bikes so count total cars and total bikes and cars flagrantly braking the rules vs bikes. The point of this is two-fold... firstly the cycling infrastructure is crap... but more importantly this is what most voters see... Your average voter doesn't cycle... what they see is how their bias towards cyclists is made.
Despite living on a cycle path we still have 10 cars pass our house for each bike... but of 100 cars very few are driving illegally... whilst every 2nd or at best 3rd bike is on the pavement.
I could move to the one way 1/2 mile away.. I don't think I ever saw a car going the wrong way on that bit of road... but I see every 2nd or 3rd cyclist going the wrong way.
For the latter there is a very good reason.... the bike lane ends at the bottom of the one way... the legal way is to then go up the hill on a really crap bit of 2 way main road that's pretty dangerous. The one-way is the same width but it's one way and doesn't have trees and hedges encroaching the road.
When I ride with my 8yr old we always go the wrong way up the one-way... or ride on a pedestrian only footpath on an alternate route. I'd not even consider him riding up that bit of road.
bike riders who just want to get to work or pop down the shops would welcome any sort of cyclelane. It’s the bells in lycra who think they are Lance Armstrong who consider cyclanes beneith them and expect a billiard table smooth surface.
Although there is some truth in that bad cycle lanes are worse than non in many cases.
It's the way we build cycle lanes AROUND everything else...
Take the hill above... it is what it is... but the reason there is no cycle lane is because there isn't room... it's a major A road with barely room for 2 busses to pass at this point ... no pavement for a good section either.
We have hundreds of miles of cycle lanes in my town but non of them really go anywhere and few of them join up without the most dangerous sections of road being the join up.
I asked Suffolk County Council road planning team what standards they work to over a year ago. Despite repeated prodding they havent replied yet.
Steve, what you've said there is that you see a lot of bike-riding that goes against the rules, and then you've explained precisely why people do it: the infrastructure is both unsafe and convoluted. You've even gone so far as to say that you exhibit that same behaviour for the same reasons.
So your claims that people behave better when they drive cars are somewhat misleading: the reality is that when we drive cars the rules don't significantly disadvantage us in terms of either safety or convenience given the infrastructure at hand, so when driving we perceive no real need to break those rules.
And that really sums up the thread: bad infrastructure encourages bad behaviour from *everyone*. Unsurprisingly, good infrastructure has the exact opposite result. There are research studies which confirm this, and none which identify "cyclists" as a unique species that's genetically predisposed to break the law.
bike riders who just want to get to work or pop down the shops would welcome any sort of cyclelane.
Really? I cant see them lining up for the one not far from my house. Possibly because it goes on the pavement for 10m and then spits them back onto the road at the point where the cars have managed to accelerate back up to full speed after the lights.
Not overly useful.
and expect a billiard table smooth surface.
Some of the ones near me are bad enough they are actually a fun ride on my hardtail. Okay for me but I cant see them appealing to the average commuter.
Despite repeated prodding they havent replied yet.
Think Murray cover the key points. Although I would add "for every lane of a sensible length have one of about 5m to use up budget"
Steve, what you’ve said there is that you see a lot of bike-riding that goes against the rules, and then you’ve explained precisely why people do it: the infrastructure is both unsafe and convoluted. You’ve even gone so far as to say that you exhibit that same behaviour for the same reasons.
So your claims that people behave better when they drive cars are somewhat misleading: the reality is that when we drive cars the rules don’t significantly disadvantage us in terms of either safety or convenience given the infrastructure at hand, so when driving we perceive no real need to break those rules.
And that really sums up the thread: bad infrastructure encourages bad behaviour from *everyone*. Unsurprisingly, good infrastructure has the exact opposite result. There are research studies which confirm this, and none which identify “cyclists” as a unique species that’s genetically predisposed to break the law.
Bez, I think that's part of the story....
However many cyclists also feel "entitled".... for whatever reasons.
Lots of examples for permissive land use in Surrey Hills... where cyclists are specifically trying to extend trails onto private land where the owner is specifically against it... or Swinley with the Ground Nesting Bird stuff.... the point of this is the arguments that people come up with as to WHY the rules don't apply. Look at the recent STW faux pas... (pretty relevant to me as that is my self powered route to Swinley). I'm not a member of the Trail Action Group but they have an uphill battle... from those who "flagrantly disobey the rules" ... I'm not talking a bit of cheeky ... I'm talking the shouting obscenities at the MOD and completely ignoring them... result a F**cking big fence...
I'm not saying the infrastructure doesn't drive behaviour but there are other things in play as well...
In places red light jumping and dodgy commuter racing is endemic .... and the two are probably more connected with each other than infrastructure. In fact as I mentioned earlier it's pretty bad in Amsterdam and Copenhagen both of which have excellent cycle provision. I used a Ferry in Amsterdam for a week (same time for work) and the same people showed up cycling recklessly all week. (Yes, Lycra clad on race bikes... but for them this is everyday... even your Porsche owner doesn't think they can push the car to the limits day-in-day out without consequences. Parents with kids on the bikes are just pushed out of the way and cut up as the racing commuters scrabble to be on the ferry and first off.... so despite a huge percentage of commuters using bikes with an excellent cycling infrastructure there is a real battle and tension between a not insignificant number of the "cut 30secs off the commute this week crowd".
The reason I think is a combination of feeling entitlement and lack of consequences...
Why is this important ???
Cyclists are a minority .. especially of VOTERS.... if we want good infrastructure then we need the voting populace on our side not viewing us as some crazy rule breakers....
The car, bus truck that has to swerve out of the way due to a cyclist is a danger but the real trigger was the cyclist who thinks one way is for other vehicles and traffic lights don’t apply to bikes etc.
All in all I find more inconsiderate cyclists per cyclist than car drivers per car driver… and I’m biassed towards cyclists so god knows what the non-cycling public think.
Motorists kill 4 or 5 people every day in the UK, and are responsible for almost all the pedestrian death and injury. They are the primary source of the damage on our roads and pavements. If you want to reduce harm, it's the cause of the absolute number of incidents that matters, not your perception that a higher percentage of cyclists are "inconsiderate". I disagree with your analysis, but even if it was true, the road stats show that all these dangerous cyclists are not actually causing much harm.
Man, that Infrastructure Design document makes for some bizarre reading. Nearly everything it says shouldn't be done or used is, all the recommendations are pretty much ignored!
There's no mention of the "permitted cycle route" thing either. You know, where they just randomly paint a cycle symbol on a piece of road like they had a spare bit of white paint to use up.
I don't think you can equate Captain Rad building trails in the woods with Mrs Miggins going to the shops or Johnny Shoreditch commuting to his job at the moustache wax shop. (Yeah, I can do stereotyping too.) They're totally different, just as going karting at Buckmore Park is nothing like taking a Ford Focus to Tesco to pick up the week's supply of Frosties and microwaveable curry.
(Anecdotally, in my experience if you want a close pass when you're out riding on the road, you can be pretty confident of getting one from a driver who's strapped a pair of full suspension bikes to his car, so I don't buy any correlation between going mountain biking and understanding the issues around cycling as transport for people who don't actually care much about bikes. Threads on this forum regularly illustrate this point.)
Your anecdotes apply to other things as well. In fact when you mentioned red light jumping and racing I initially thought of driving, because that's what I see near me. And regular commuters barging past families is not unique to cycling, either: travel on busy trains and you'll see it there, too. Bloody pedestrians. Or are they trainists? Taxonomies are hard, huh.
Don't get me wrong: I cycle in London on and off, and frankly a not insignificant people there ride like total doglobbers on the nice bits of proper infrastructure. But we're still talking about an environment which beyond those key routes is still hostile to less assertive people, and we're talking about a huge city where there will inevitably be a lot of doglobbers.
Of course some people will behave with a certain attitude towards rules and/or (far more importantly) other people, and you'll never change that. The vehicle changes the nature of the rules that people break, and it changes the consequences of their behaviour. And the infrastructure does exactly the same.
Motorists kill 4 or 5 people every day in the UK, and are responsible for almost all the pedestrian death and injury. They are the primary source of the damage on our roads and pavements. If you want to reduce harm, it’s the cause of the absolute number of incidents that matters, not your perception that a higher percentage of cyclists are “inconsiderate”. I disagree with your analysis, but even if it was true, the road stats show that all these dangerous cyclists are not actually causing much harm.
My perception is irrelevant because in our democracy everyone only gets one vote.
responsible for almost all the pedestrian death and injury
the road stats show that all these dangerous cyclists are not actually causing much harm
The two are a logical fallacy...
Most injuries caused by cyclists are not reported as such and fatalities the cause of death may well not be physical contact with the bike itself... more likely the car/bus that had to swerve.
If you go to the hospital with an injury and say you got hit by a bike they treat the injury and it's unlikely to be reported as a traffic incident... if you say you got hit by a car they report this as a traffic accident.
If you want to reduce harm, it’s the cause of the absolute number of incidents that matters, not your perception that a higher percentage of cyclists are “inconsiderate”.
Politics rarely works like that .It's what your average voter (retired, non-cyclist, driver) perceives that is important.
Care to cite any evidence to support your claim about it being "more likely" that people on bikes cause deaths by forcing people in cars (who are, by apparent implication, driving responsibly rather than swerving as a result of failing to observe things properly)? In theory these should be recorded in STATS19 so I can check later if you like.
I kept a close eye on pretty much every media-covered cycling incident for two or three years and, as I said above, I can only recall one that matches your hypothesis.
As for the theories about voting habits, I'd seriously question the psychology which you must think is at work there. Audacious analogy klaxon, but Rosa Parks wouldn't have converted a white person to vote for integrated transport by giving up her seat. That's not how social hegemony works.
Care to cite any evidence to support your claim about it being “more likely” that people on bikes cause deaths by forcing people in cars (who are, by apparent implication, driving responsibly rather than swerving as a result of failing to observe things properly)? In theory these should be recorded in STATS19 so I can check later if you like.
It's anecdotal but it's not more likely... depending how you define more likely.... and driving responsibly equally open to interpretation. The cyclist can have a very good reason for suddenly swerving into the road as the wheel swallowing grate appears but is someone driving irresponsibly not expecting that? (Again crap infreastucure ultimately to blame)
kept a close eye on pretty much every media-covered cycling incident for two or three years and, as I said above, I can only recall one that matches your hypothesis.
Again debatable depending on bias.
There are those who would claim that the car/bus etc. is always to blame and who says what the media choose to report...if the car hits the pram then the reason the car swerved is less sensational than the dead baby...
I can think of two serious injuries off the top of my head (both DH cyclists on the road - perhaps a pattern) OK Rachel was in the US at the time but The Don clearly accepted his liability yet I don't remember any media "cyclist hits car"... reportage.
As for the theories about voting habits, I’d seriously question the psychology which you must think is at work there. Audacious analogy klaxon, but Rosa Parks wouldn’t have converted a white person to vote for integrated transport by giving up her seat. That’s not how social hegemony works.
It's a fair point and you could equally site the Kinderscout mass trespass or even getting to the root of democracy the suffragette movement... (though lets avoid horse incidents) but both of these whilst true are more fundamental... (and two of them a North-South divide if separated by the Atlantic) and supported by major political parties.
Other US examples (if opposing) are the continued success of the US Gun lobby...or the "pro-life .. pro-death penalty" lobby... the point being you have to vote for a package.
Anyway, the point is going back to cycle lane legislation... and local implementations ....
For most of the voting population this is at most an also-ran issue if that.... way behind pensions, tax and the price of food or access to free medicine (or not).. if a major party was to put this in a manifesto how many would view this as more important than their pension/tax/NHS?
it’s not more likely
Oh. It's just that you said it was more likely 😉
yet I don’t remember any media “cyclist hits car”… reportage.
That sounds like a different type of incident to what you were initially referring to, though. (I know of several incidents where people have ridden into motor vehicles and injured or killed themselves.) Got links? I don't know who you're referring to (sorry).
For most of the voting population this is at most an also-ran issue if that
Right. Which confirms what many people know from experience: that whether you ride in strict compliance with the rules regardless of safety or convenience, or you pragmatically disobey some in certain circumstances, or you just behave like a dick, it won't affect the politics of changing transport infrastructure. So the whole "cyclists are bad therefore people vote against cycling" theory is bogus.
Got links? I don’t know who you’re referring to (sorry).
You can just google Neil Donahue ... but the average voter won't know who he is anyway... so
Right. Which confirms what many people know from experience: that whether you ride in strict compliance with the rules regardless of safety or convenience, or you pragmatically disobey some in certain circumstances, or you just behave like a dick, it won’t affect the politics of changing transport infrastructure. So the whole “cyclists are bad therefore people vote against cycling” theory is bogus.
I don't the argument is "cyclists are bad therefore...." from my perspective this is about the pro-cycling/anti-car sentiment...
The way to get better infrastructure (IMHO) is to do something that doesn't impact the major issues people do vote for and to do so in a way that doesn't threaten, inconvenience them greatly or even enhances their lifestyle.
The pro-cycling lobbies seem to be mainly to varying degrees anti-car... something that is threatening to car users... lots of whom vote. Consistent messaging is important... but I see so many anti-car / pro-cycling posts and replies etc. it's depressing... instead publicise the benefits to everyone of a better cycling infrastructure... far more people use pavements and cars than bikes.
A sucessful pro-infrastructure argument should IMHO concentrate on the positives ... address why cyclists have to use the pavements, take the one-way the wrong way etc. and by putting in a proper cycling infrastructure that inconvenience to their lifestyle is reduced.
Even before that you are changing their experience.... instead of classing every cyclist on the pavement a dick they might appreciate it's simple pragmatism...
Mostly the problem I perceive is not even that any injury occurs.... perhaps they are just given a fright once by a cyclist being a dick and after that every cyclist they see being pragmatic is classed in the same mould.
What seems to be missing is a consistent and balanced middle ground.... an argument about how a better infrastructure for cycling benefits everyone, not just cyclists because most people will support what makes their life better first and what makes oner people's life better second.
What seems to be missing is a consistent and balanced middle ground…. an argument about how a better infrastructure for cycling benefits everyone, not just cyclists because most people will support what makes their life better first and what makes oner people’s life better second.
You can't have been checking the front page today 🙂
You can just google Neil Donahue
Hmm. Can't find anything relevant (despite changing the spelling). Anything useful I can add to the search?
<h2>Bio</h2>
Prof. Neil Donahue received a B.A. in Physics from Brown University in 1984 and a PhD in Meteorology and Atmospheric Chemistry from MIT in 1991. His thesis was "Non-methane Hydrocarbon Chemistry in the Remote Marine Atmosphere" and his advisor was Ronald G. Prinn. Prof. Donahue was a Postdoc and Research Scientist at Harvard from 1991 - 2000 with James G. Anderson and thereupon joined Carnegie Mellon University. He is currently Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering and the Director of the Steinbrenner Institute for Environmental Education and Research.
He sounds cool tho.
Most injuries caused by cyclists are not reported as such and fatalities the cause of death may well not be physical contact with the bike itself… more likely the car/bus that had to swerve.
How do you know all about these injuries that weren't reported?
I'd like to see any evidence that there are significant numbers of unreported pedestrian fatalities caused by cars swerving to avoid bicycles!
I assume the Rachel you mentioned was Rachel Atherton. So that incident seems to be her on the wrong side of the road and piling into an oncoming vehicle, resulting in only her being injured, which isn't the type of incident I thought you were referring to (ie someone on a pedal cycle causing a reaction which then injures someone other than themselves).
Still can't find anything for Neil Donoghue (other than a priest of the same name in relation to a car driver being on the wrong side of the road and hitting another head on; except that unlike Atherton he was obviously packing more than 10kg of machinery, so he killed the other driver as well… still, cyclists huh).
You can always see for your own personal interest his but as I said, unless the general public are aware then it's not going to change any hearts and minds.
You can’t have been checking the front page today
That's great ... just the sort of approach we need.. the problem being who is going to read it. (Well hopefully some people who can do some advocacy)
The problem is the lack of this sort of thing in mainstream press and social media responses.
Mainstream press just seems to usually want a biased article one way or another... and I think this has gotten worse (in general) due to social media. Some are worse than others but regardless of subject it seems a successful article nowadays is one that will have strong opinions arguing on their forum.
A thousand people slagging each other off seems a "successful" article... way more than 100 people saying "what a fabulously balanced article"...
What seems way more prevalent on cycling is some accident and 90/100 responses being either "F**ing drivers" or "F**ing cyclists" ... with the 10% lost in the background ... It might be that it's more than 10% of actual people but the point being it's not more than 90% of responses....
Either way ... I didn't just go and compile statistics on this 90% and 10% are just my impression... and my point is that's not relevant because what matters is perception over fact. It's the impression people come away with even if the facts are incorrect.
Gah, a half hour video that broke Safari—you like giving me an uphill task, don't you 😉