[Closed] Another Cyclist Dead. Another Ruling of Accidental Death.

"there but for the grace of god go I"

That's the crux of it. That's the problem right there. People think it's not wholly under their control. And it is.

People these days seem very reluctant to accept responsibility. And a lot of people drive as negligently as Mr Strong. By blaming him they would be damning their own approach to driving, and they are disinclined to do that.

The acceptance of poor standards of care and attention is the whole of the problem. The crucial aspect of this case is how clearly it demonstrates that it is so pandemic as to now totally undermine any legal protection that vulnerable users should (and technically probably do) have.

My problem with all of this is the comparison with other situations where negligence of one person results or is the main contributory factor in another person’s death. In almost every such case you would expect to have the book thrown at you if you were the perpetrator. However, introduce a car and bike to the scenario and the mindset of the legal system and media completely changes - IMHO this is wrong.

Get on a bike and from a legal perspective, the value of your life evaporates.

aracer your shotgun analogy isn't the same. I'd explain but you've said you're ignoring me 😛

The collision happened in November and no charges have been brought - I think we can safely say that the motorist has got off scot free.

http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/case-study/reverend-michael-malleson-died-after-being-knocked-road-narrowing-heaton-newcastle-301111

To those suggesting the CTC should be doing more, what exactly do you suggest they should be doing that they're not already? Hardly like this is an isolated incident...

http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/case-studies

"there but for the grace of god go I"

That's the crux of it

...introduce a car and bike to the scenario and the mindset of the legal system and media completely changes

Yep, I think you're right Bez and Papa.

The [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html ]Cycling Silk article[/url] mentioned earlier shows how common this is in legal circles. In fact his entire blog reports it with depressing regularity.

TJ - Its not an accident, someone made an error

TJ - you need to buy yourself a dictionary. The word accident doesn't mean there was no error involved. Here is the thefreedictionary.com definition:

n.
1.
a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
b. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.
c. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.
2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
3. Logic A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.

TandemJeremy - Member
With an inquest veredict of Accidental death it will be almost impossible to get either a civil claim or a criminal prosecution. the coroner could have recorded unlawfull killing which would have allowed both.

Although I agree with other comments that a lack of paint wasn't the route cause - I would say my experience is inconsiderately parked cars cause me more problems on the road than drivers overtaking in the wrong place - and it would certainly be wrong to ignore that part of the problem.

antigee
exactly - but the question is why is this unusual? rhetorical - because we as a society on the whole values the use of the car above human life...

cycnic-al - do we know the family had representation and wished this line to be questioned?

My point is - every time a judge says a cyclist's death was not the fault of a motorist the STW (and I believe other cylcing fora) burst into outrage based on the limited information that the press have potentially misreported, claiming that the judge/jury/coroner is clueless and biased - when in fact they have sat through all the evidence in detail, listened to 'arguments' from both sides and made a dispassionate decision. Obviously the Judiciary could save a lot of money if all cases were simply tried on STW.

Poly - on the contrary - if someone has made an error then it is not an accident as it is not in this case. It may be unintentional but it was not an accident. An accident means it was unforeseeable and there was no fault or mistake made hence why the police refer to RTCs not RTAs

I've seen some proper cock end like cycling on the continent as a consequence of this [presumption of guilt of motorist]

Me too, here in Copenhagen and also in Holland where I lived before, but I haven't seen anyone die from cock end like cycling, so I think it's a small price to pay.

Incidentally I see Donk has alerted the Cycling Silk to this case (good job Donk), and Silk has replied:

"If the report is accurate then I am appalled at the way in which the police and the Coroner have been apologists for bad driving. Like so many cyclists I have been subjected to countless near misses through this type of restriction and sadly it is inevitable that, if drivers continue to squeeze past islands like this, tragedies will happen. Blaming everything but the driver is really shocking."
-- http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/another-sentence-for-causing-death-by.html#comment-form

"[i]I would say my experience is inconsiderately parked cars cause me more problems on the road than drivers overtaking in the wrong place[/i]"

Let's try a scientific test of that theory by eliminating the variables.

Test 1: A road with inconsiderately parked cars and no traffic other than you on your bike.

Test 2: A clear road with no parked cars, but with drivers overtaking in the wrong place.

If Test 1 turns out to cause you more problems then Test 2 then, well, SHould Have Gone To Specsavers.

Sorry, but whilst inanimate objects make the environment more awkward than it otherwise might be, they're not causes of problems. If a driver cannot negotiate a bicycle on a road with parked cars without hitting the bicycle then that driver is not fit to be on the road.

what DrJ said.

AND...a change to a European style system of protecting cyclists would not give them carte blanche to ride without care, just make drivers increasingly cautious.

when in fact they have sat through all the evidence in detail, listened to 'arguments' from both sides and made a dispassionate decision

and made a decision that fits societies current norms - in this case have accepted that it is ok for poor driving to kill someone - my understanding is that the coroner could recorded a "narrative verdict" possibly suggesting that the pinch points be removed or that driver training is improved (i'll pass on the helmet)

An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.

Because Coroners generally seem to prefer "Unlawful killing" for cases like Murder or Manslaughter where there was some intent to cause harm.

So I'm OK with firing off my shotgun as I mentioned above then, as I have no intent to cause harm?

every time a judge says a cyclist's death was not the fault of a motorist the STW (and I believe other cylcing fora) burst into outrage based on the limited information that the press have potentially misreported, claiming that the judge/jury/coroner is clueless and biased - when in fact they have sat through all the evidence in detail, listened to 'arguments' from both sides and made a dispassionate decision

Well in this particular case, I'd love to know what additional evidence there is which we haven't heard about which could possibly make the motorist totally blameless (as the judge concluded). I'm really, really struggling to think of anything, so I'd appreciate your input here.

Unless of course you think the direct quotes used and facts reported by the press are inaccurate?

aracer, heard of wilful recklessness?

this is why we need the "Driver Presumed Guilty" law.

heard of wilful recklessness?

You're referring to the car driver attempting to overtake through a width restriction?

So the change in page length hasn't got rid of the need for glitchy bump?

AND...a change to a European style system of protecting cyclists would not give them carte blanche to ride without care, just make drivers increasingly cautious

those that oppose this seem to do so mostly on the grounds that it would give cyclists a charter to scratch cars and damage wing mirrors
with impunity - property above life

wilful recklessness?

isn't driving into a small gap with a cyclist already in that said small gap exactly the same?

Does anyone know how many Highway Code rules you have to breach before your actions, leading to the death of another road user, are considered to be [i]"careless or inconsiderate driving"[/i]?

Or is it determined some other way?

I think there's a key difference in that the sole function of a gun is to kill and maim; whereas the function of a car is to provide transport, and it just happens to be able to kill and maim.

Extremely few people people have cause to use a gun to fulfil their work or leisure needs; whereas very many have cause to use cars, hammers, knives, chainsaws and all manner of other potentially lethal things.

Guns are a poor analogy.

I think there's a key difference in that the sole function of a gun is to kill and maim; whereas the function of a car is to provide transport, and it just happens to be able to kill and maim.

Ah, but the function of my shotgun is to kill rabbits and pigeons, not people, so you can't go round claiming it's just doing what it was designed to. Plenty of pigeons to kill in my town centre.

Though if you like, how about if I'm using my chainsaw to chop down a tree and don't notice somebody walking by as I swing it around?

Guns are a poor analogy.

though it is still

wilful recklessness?

Is it not?

Though if you like, how about if I'm using my chainsaw to chop down a tree and don't notice somebody walking by as I swing it around?

Not the same because you did not see the person so you would not have to adjust your behavior to protect the person.

Try

Though if you like, how about if I'm using my chainsaw to chop down a tree and [s]don't[/s] I notice somebody walking by as I swing it around and continue to do so regardless?

"Until people in this country bother to understand how the legal system works threads like this are bound to be full of this sort of drivel."

It's true that some people are seeing the coroner's verdict in an ill-informed light, but I think focusing on that completely misses what's going on here.

The sequence of events is fairly clear, and it would appear that no blame has at any stage been laid at the driver's feet (literally, in this case).

Let me pick some quotes from the article to illustrate what reaction of The Powers That Be (media, police, local authority etc) actually gave:

"Motorist Joseph Strong was driving behind him and saw him pull out, prompting him to pull over to give the vicar enough room."

Here we have the media painting the driver in a positive light despite the events showing beyond any argument that the vicar didn't have enough room.

"But a central reservation caused the road to narrow, and Mr Strong’s Skoda car clipped the kerb of the reservation as he tried to pass. His car turned slightly towards Mr Malleson, an experienced cyclist, and lightly clipped his handlebars. The “scuff” prompted Mr Malleson, who was not wearing a cycle helmet, to lose his balance and fall to the ground."

Here some inanimate object has intervened, seemingly unpredictably, whereupon a series of minor and by implication excusable events have occurred - just a clip, a turn and a light clip. The cyclist, for his part was "prompted to lose his balance". Not "knocked off his bike" but "prompted", as if by some benign power of mild persuastion.

"PC Stuart Cockburn told the hearing he was concerned by cars being allowed to park where the road narrows."

I don't know about you but I couldn't give a flying fig about that. There's nothing unsafe about inanimate cars and inanimate traffic islands here, given that the driver has observed the cyclist from well before each of them reached the line of cars.

The PC chooses not to apportion blame with the driver but with the parking.

"He told the inquest: 'I don’t think that area of road is appropriate for parking. I have made enquiries with Newcastle City Council’s Highways Department and told them of my concerns.'"

That's as may be, and it may be perfectly fair, but to consider it relevant in this case is a clear demonstration of how reluctant the police are to put these things down to poor driving and human error.

The PC continues in a fashion that blatantly and shamelessly excuses the motorist entirely:

"Mr Strong has observed Rev Malleson ahead of him. He observed Rev Malleson had to move out in the carriageway to overtake the parked cars and he decided to give him plenty of room. Unfortunately, Mr Strong’s wheel hit the kerb of the reservation and it caused the car to go slightly to the left as Rev Malleson was coming slightly to the right. That’s caused the two of them to come together and the car has scuffed Rev Mallesons’s handlebars."

Every single phrase in there is toe-curlingly favourable to a motorist who clearly failed to judge the scenario in an even remotely safe manner. Despite all this apparent observation, they still collided. The PC says that the driver "decided to give him plenty of room" yet they still collided, despite his car going only "slightly to the left". If that is plenty of room then my cock is eight feet long. Objects do not collide if there is "plenty of room" between them - I think we can agree this is basic physics. What the PC says is indefensible horse manure, yet in legal terms it carries immense weight.

"Returning a verdict of accidental death, coroner David Mitford said neither Mr Strong, who was not speeding in the 30mph zone, nor Mr Malleson were at fault. He said: 'I have been concerned about the situation with the parked cars and I have noted that the Cockburn took it upon himself to go to the local authority.'"

The coroner has not simply returned a verdict of accidental death. He has (apparently) explicitly said that neither road user was at fault. Quite how two road users can collide fatally without either of them doing anything wrong is of course unfathomable to most of us, but Mitford agrees with the PC that the root of all trouble in this instance is a row of parked cars. He implies that the correct response to all this is to ask for some yellow paint. Not to address dangerous and negligent driving, but to apply some paint.

"'The local authority have said they will make changes to the road. They’re going to be made as soon as possible but in accordance with financial constraints. 'I think life is more important that finance but at least those steps are being taken'."

And then, despite the entire of the blame for someone's wholly unnecessary death being apportioned to the absence of two strips of paint, there's a palpable sense of casualness about the whole remedial process.

Now, if you want to get hung up on the points of what technical verdicts a coroner can return, then fine. But, let's be honest, it's irrelevant (unless a verdict of accidental death precludes certain prosecutions, in which case hell yeah it's important, and hell yeah we should be pissed off).

Here someone has died because a motorist has driven unsafely, and not one person has been found to be at fault. No-one at all. There is no trial, no conviction, no appropriate sentence. There is no comment made about why this insidious type of careless driving is so dangerous. The problem is, apparently, parked cars.

Every single aspect of this case, the way it has been dealt with, and the way in which it has been reported, is sickening in the way it demonstrates that vulnerable road users will stay vulnerable for some time, and that most people are absolutely fine with that.

And it's about time most people weren't fine with that.

I just wanted to repost this before it gets drowned in a sea of the usual drivel. Spot on.

Bez gets it.

Analogies like these are pointless really as it's so easy to distinguish them from the RTC in question.

EDIT back to the thread title - is there a consistent stream of "accidental death" verdicts for cyclists killed in RTCs?

"[i]Ah, but the function of my shotgun is to kill rabbits and pigeons, not people[/i]"

But your job doesn't require you to kill rabbits or pigeons and if you were interested in that as a leisure activity then there are very specific points of legislation relating to it, which are not related to cars.

"[i]Not the same because you did not see the person so you would not have to adjust your behavior to protect the person.[/i]"

That's SMIDSY then. Your responsibility is to see people as well as to act when you see them.

Can we just not bother with analogies? They don't work here. The problem is not one which can be served by such an inherently simplistic approach.

The European Assumed liability referred to above would not have any relevance in this as its simply about civil liability -other than it sets a tone. it does not apply to criminal cases.

So in this instance the family could claim damages under assumed liability and the driver would have to show it was not his fault - which the coroners verdict would help him to do. It would make no difference to the chances of criminal charges

As TJ says, "Strict liability" is not the same as "presumption of guilt". Criminal cases wouldn't be affected by it at all.

http://www.roadpeace.org/change/safer_streets/stricter_liability/

Apparently most people in the Netherlands don't even know what this is; it's more applicable to countries which have better safety than the UK, but still don't have the necessary separate infrastructure to get cyclist casualties down to the mere handful each year that happen in NL.

"necessary separate infrastructure"...or driver awareness/education?

I dno't like bike paths...

"necessary separate infrastructure"...or driver awareness/education?

I dno't like bike paths...

back to the thread title - is there a consistent stream of "accidental death" verdicts for cyclists killed in RTCs?

There certainly seems to be, anecdotally at least, from stories reported here and in other cycling forums and press. And [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/causing-death-by-careless-driving-some.html ]the sentences of those that are convicted often seem overly lenient too[/url].

As others have pointed out, the possible coroner verdicts are limited so a ruling of "accidental death" is perhaps not [i]quite[/i] as apologetic as I first assumed - on its own - but the case seems to have provoked little more than a collective shrugging from the police, coroner and journalist involved.

So, ballbags to arguing about this and that.

What gives? If we assume the legal framework is fundamentally capable of supporting vulnerable road users (even if sentencing guidelines and police powers might need tweaking) then what could be done to address the culture of inattentive and blinkered road use?

Headway? Brake? CTC? - Are any of their campaigns really aligned with this? Many discussions are focused on infrastructure or on sentencing in severe or fatal incidents, but [url= http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=556 ]I'm more interested in how you stop the rot before someone gets killed[/url].

Would be good to see some stats on coroner's verdicts, and also prosecutions/sentences for RTCs invloving deaths of peds and/or drivers too.

I don't like bike paths...

A feeling shared by a lot of people. However, it's hard to get away from the conclusion that countries with decent quality separate cycle infrastructure (not white lines painted on the road) such as Denmark, the NL and Germany are safer places to cycle.

In the meantime, it's really good to see people like [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/ ]Martyn Porter[/url], [url=www.roadpeace.org/]Roadpeace[/url], Sustrans and Carlton Reid trying to change society's attitudes.

But I can't help feeling that unless some top-down intervention takes place, we'll be stuck on the margins forever.

We all know that speeding is illegal, and most people would accept that it makes driving more dangerous, but conviction rates for it were woeful until the right to trial by jury was abolished.

Oh I can see that MrA, I guess like many I'd rather see cyclists retain a right to use roads and that drivers are punished/educated properly, rather than get segregated...bike paths seem the thin end of a wedge in that regard.

necessary separate infrastructure

Yes, let's not bother improving road safety, we'll just move bikes off our roads.

This way drivers can continue not paying proper attention to other road users, and can drive about dangerously, relaxed in the knowledge that they can go about their business without the inconvenience of needing to have consideration for anyone other than themselves.

Perhaps more attention should be given to those cases where the cyclist is "only" injured- but could easily have been killed e.g. http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Careless-driver-fined-for-injuring-cyclist-in-collision-17042012.htm- the fine is laughably small and the words of the driver "I touched the cyclist with my wing mirror and she fell" sound chilling- as if he is surprised at this outcome.

Anyone following the select commitee hearings on cycle safety today? For a summary see twitter @CTC_Cyclists

Some encouraging some, some stuff to make you dispair.

"[i]Anyone following the select commitee hearings on cycle safety today?[/i]"

Same old same old from most of the participants. Infrastructure and segregation, not changes in behaviour and respect. Very city-focused.

what could be done to address the culture of inattentive and blinkered road use?

There isn't a quick fix, is there?

In the book "Traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt, he cites studies which found that drivers can fail to register up to 1/3 of the things they see when behind the wheel. You can't force drivers, doing the same lengthy commute in and out, every day, to become more attentive.

Another classic there squadra. (extra dash at the end of your link by the way)

SUV driver attempts to overtake a cyclist on the brow of a hill, surprised to find traffic coming the other way and thus runs the cyclist off the road.

I see he even used the old "blinded by the low sun" defence, even though it was 1pm.

"[i]There isn't a quick fix, is there? [/i]"

Of course there is: Paint. And cameras on trucks.

Except they're not fixes, they're just quick and they look like fixes. Paint just makes things worse.

No, there's no quick fix.

GrahamS - going back a couple if hours (I've been out) to the question of prosecutions after inquests, I wonder if if is not absolutely set in stone. I'm just thinking of PC Harwood who is now being prosecuted for manslaughter, a decision made after, and to some extent as a result of evidence heard at, Ian Tomlinson's inquest. Doesn't mean it'll happen here, but suggests the holding and conclusion of an inquest does not prohibit a criminal prosecution. I wouldn't be surprised if public opinion had some bearing on the CPS's change of heart in that case (although evidence heard at that inquest was, I think, the official reason for the review). I doubt this case will attract the same publicity, but who knows?

I guess like many I'd rather see cyclists retain a right to use roads and that drivers are punished/educated properly, rather than get segregated...bike paths seem the thin end of a wedge in that regard.

This is veering into a whole other thread now, but the assumption that countries with lots of cycle infrastructure somehow marginalise cyclists is wrong.

If, as in some countries, 1 in 5 people cycle, it means that more people know a cyclist, work with a cyclist, and feel outraged when something bad happens to a cyclist.

I've seen Dutch reports of less serious collisions which couldn't contrast more with the typical UK press story. Drivers called reckless, murderers, etc. Not really very helpful but it indicates a completely different underlying attitude to the sort of stuff the UK press dishes up.

fair enough MrA, but with some of (I have no idea how many) the UK's drivers seemingly thinking they own the roads and cyclists shouldn't be there, I think bike-paths could take on a different role here.

The starting culture re. cyclists in those countries is very different from the start.

what could be done to address the culture of inattentive and blinkered road use?

Punitive sentences combined with the driver-presumed-guilty rule. Being a pinko liberal, I'd normally be against this sort of thing but it really is the only quick solution. I'd suggest handing down an automatic life driving ban for anyone who seriously injures or kills a cyclist due to careless driving, accompanied by a lengthy prison sentence for dangerous driving.

Ironically car travel is safer now than it's ever been, due to roads being increasingly designed for idiots. The prime example is motorways, which I believe have the lowest accident rate per mile of any type of road. They're wide, straight, featureless and even the markings on them are designed specifically to make you feel that you're going slower than you really are.

So while car travel is getting safer, it's not being done in a way that makes drivers more alert to more vulnerable road users, or more amenable to driving slower, or changing their lifestyle so commuting diatnces are shorter.

I doubt this case will attract the same publicity, but who knows?

I've so far seen it discussed (in appalled tones) here, on the [url= http://newcycling.org ]Newcastle Cycling Campaign[/url], by Carlton Reid, and the Cycling Silk. Even the comments on the newspaper article question the sense of it.

But sadly I doubt it registered at all outside the cycling community. 🙁

The starting culture re. cyclists in those countries is very different from the start.

A key difference was the way they campaigned for road safety. Campaigns like the Times one are focused on "cyclists", but "cyclist" in the UK is synonymous with "slightly odd man in hideous static-electric clothing". The NL's campaign was specifically focused around children, and the numbers killed in cycling accidents.

Nothing against segregated bike paths here.

I'm very happy that my commute to work is almost entirely on segregated cycle paths taking a nice direct route through the country park and alongside the Tyne with no greater hazard than suicidal wildlife and the odd dog egg. ([i]*whisper* I don't even wear a helmet for it[/i])

I would not commute by bike if I had to mix it up on the A-road - it is scary enough by car some mornings.

But segregation isn't a full answer. Bike paths can't go everywhere. Sooner or later you have to use the road.

Waht the experience of toehr coutries seems toshow is that tehr eare a number of strands to making cycling a safer - based around a rebalancing of priorities away from cars and towards cyclists and pedestrians

Road engineering solutions including segregated cycleways in appropriate places,

20 mph urban limits with cyclists having priority enshrined in law in appropriate places

Assumed liability that the least vulnerable in an RTC is assumed at fault for civil liability unless they can show otherwise

More rigorous enforcement of driving law

Waht the experience of toehr coutries seems toshow is that tehr eare a number of strands to making cycling a safer - based around a rebalancing of priorities away from cars and towards cyclists and pedestrians

Road engineering solutions including segregated cycleways in appropriate places,

20 mph urban limits with cyclists having priority enshrined in law in appropriate places

Assumed liability that the least vulnerable in an RTC is assumed at fault for civil liability unless they can show otherwise

More rigorous enforcement of driving law

It is a fallacy to believe this can be done without taking road space and convenience away from car drivers.

"[i]fair enough MrA, but with some of (I have no idea how many) the UK's drivers seemingly thinking they own the roads and cyclists shouldn't be there, I think bike-paths could take on a different role here. The starting culture re. cyclists in those countries is very different from the start. [/i]"

This. The British are very good at pointing at arbitrarily drawn lines and citing their rights whilst pointing to them - and in Britain we're also very good at putting lines in without really thinking too hard about their effects (when was the last time you saw a cycle lane that was as wide as you'd like it to be?). In mediterranean areas drivers often pretty much ignore the paint on the road and IME there's much less bullishness about owning designated patches of tarmac.

Also, infrastructure requires money and land. In rural areas of England it's very hard to see how any beneficial infrastructure could be added in most locations.

Any solution which enables road users to share existing space in safety is universally applicable to all locations.

Blimey, are we all agreeing, and on topic? 😮

Also, infrastructure requires money and land. In rural areas of England it's very hard to see how any beneficial infrastructure could be added in most locations.

You have to take a bit of the road away to provide space for cyclists. thats what they did in the Netherlands. either literally by separating a piece of road with lines or kerbs - or metaphorically with 20 mph limits where the cyc list has priority

Cycle campaigning in the UK has traditionally settled for token concessions like those awful dotted optional lanes because that's all we thought we could get.

There's also a dearth of expertise and knowledge at the planning level, with odd, wonky solutions being implemented when they should be aiming for best practice or nothing.

Looking at my Twitter feed there now seems to be a lot more confidence, more ability to campaign effectively ([url= http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/300-cyclists-stage-diein-at-minicab-firm-7674969.html ]the "die in" at Addison Lee[/url] will have garnered a lot more coverage than a petition with 300 signatures) and more understanding of why countries with high cycling levels are they way they are (i.e. not just going [url=

http://www.grassyknolltv.com/2012/amstel-gold-race/profile.gi f" rel="nofollow" >

]"But there's no hills in Holland"[/url])

Any one heard of [url= http://www.roadpeace.org/change/ ]Road Peace?[/url]

In rural areas of England it's very hard to see how any beneficial infrastructure could be added in most locations

Well the National Cycle Network is a bit of a mixed bag, but it stretches over 13,000 miles. If a charity and a few apathetic local authorities can create something as extensive, imagine what a mandatory allocation of part of the Treasury's infrastructure budget could do.

You have to take a bit of the road away to provide space for cyclists.

Agreed - but very hard to implement in many areas.

e.g. round my way the rural bits have plenty of narrow NSL roads where there just isn't sufficient tarmac to pinch any space for a cycle lane.

Whereas in the city the main problem tends to be parked cars taking up road space and complicated junctions with no easy solution for bikes.

Any solution which enables road users to share existing space in safety is universally applicable to all locations.

I have to disagree there, in some places shared space is very effective, in others it appears that cyclists and pedestrians get drafted in as human traffic calming measures. Even if these spaces are safer, it can be hard for people to perceive them as such.

A cycle path doesn't have to be a strip up the side of a road.

Car parking on the street is not a god-given right. In some places it's quite an outrageous use of free public space. If you plonked a caravan or a speedboat on the road outside your house, you'd rightly be shoed.

GrahamS - Member

You have to take a bit of the road away to provide space for cyclists.

Agreed - but very hard to implement in many areas.

e.g. round my way the rural bits have plenty of narrow NSL roads where there just isn't sufficient tarmac to pinch any space for a cycle lane.

Then the road ends up as a single track road with passing places. and a 30 mph limit and yo take the bikes along that one leaving an alternative route bike free for cars to whizz along

Whereas in the city the main problem tends to be parked cars taking up road space and complicated junctions with no easy solution for bikes.

it can all be done with teh politicalwill.

An example of the first - cars drive along it as if its single track road using the cycle lanes to pass another car coming the other way - but obviously the cycles have priority in the cycle lanes
http://g.co/maps/hyevs

An example of the second - complex junction with trams main roads and bikes - along most of the road leading to the junction there is a cycle lane in the raodway - at the the junction the cyclists are taken onto a separate lane separated by kerbs and controlled separately from the cars.
http://g.co/maps/6my6e

"[i]You have to take a bit of the road away to provide space for cyclists.[/i]"

That's not viable IMO. Very few roads have enough space for two vehicular lanes plus two cycle lanes. You end up either losing segregation in at least one direction or you end up (as is normally the case) with all the lanes being a bit too narrow for each of their users. The sad thing is that for the most part the road has to deal with only one vehicle in each direction at a time - an overtake is an exception rather than the rule - and in this context again it makes more sense not to segregate.

"[i]I have to disagree there, in some places shared space is very effective, in others it appears that cyclists and pedestrians get drafted in as human traffic calming measures.[/i]"

Possibly, but again - as I interpret it - that's a fairly infrastructure-oriented response.

In some places shared space doesn't work; the main example IMO being dual carriageways. But my point is that if a shift in attitudes and consideration can be achieved then this benefits everyone. This is quite different from a solution based on infrastructure and segregation, which benefits people only where such measures can be applied (generally cities, primarily because of the cost/benefit ratio) and, I believe, is actually detrimental to those in areas where they are not applied.

"[i]Well the National Cycle Network is a bit of a mixed bag, but it stretches over 13,000 miles.[/i]"

My experience is that the NCN is either just bog standard roads with some blue signs (ie nothing to give additional defence from motorists), mostly via circuitous backstreets; or it's unmetalled surfaces with lots of gates and pedestrians.

Either way the routes often aren't ideally suited to making rapid progress and so are generally poorly suited to what most of us would perceive as "road riding". Great for days out with the kids and stuff, or shorter commutes, but not for everything.

That's all just IME, of course.

Bez - Member

"You have to take a bit of the road away to provide space for cyclists."

That's not viable IMO. Very few roads have enough space for two vehicular lanes plus two cycle lanes. You end up either losing segregation in at least one direction or you end up (as is normally the case) with all the lanes being a bit too narrow for each of their users. The sad thing is that for the most part the road has to deal with only one vehicle in each direction at a time - an overtake is an exception rather than the rule - and in this context again it makes more sense not to segregate.

thats the point - you a have to take away a bit of road see my google map link above.

If you are serious about improving cycle safety you have to take away some of the road from cars and give it to bikes.

Then the road ends up as a single track road with passing places. and a 30 mph limit and yo take the bikes along that one leaving an alternative route bike free for cars to whizz along

That's the thing though TJ. In more rural areas there often isn't a huge choice of roads, so there isn't an alternative route and turning the main route into a singletrack 30mph would absolutely cripple local transport.

The only real option there is to build more roads, or perhaps paths specifically for bikes - which as you say there isn't the political will to do, especially when the country is short of money (though some would argue it would be a good way to create some jobs!)

My experience is that the NCN is either just bog standard roads with some blue signs (ie nothing to give additional defence from motorists), mostly via circuitous backstreets; or it's unmetalled surfaces with lots of gates and pedestrians.

My commuting route that I described earlier is an NCN one ([url= http://www.sustrans.org.uk/what-we-do/national-cycle-network/route-numbering-system/route-72 ]NCN72 mainly[/url]) and it is great. Yes there are five gates and a couple of road crossings, but think how many time you stop on a road for traffic lights, junctions, etc. Yes there are peds, but they are generally friendly and far less likely to kill me than cars.

[url= http://www.bikebiz.com/index.php/news/read/minister-for-road-safety-loses-his-marbles-live-on-parliamentary-tv/012942 ]has anyone posted this ?[/url]

^ Laugh if you like, but I've seen people on here using similar reasoning to claim that cycling in the Netherlands is more dangerous than cycling in the UK.

That's the thing though TJ. In more rural areas there often isn't a huge choice of roads, so there isn't an alternative route and turning the main route into a singletrack 30mph would absolutely cripple local transport.

No it would not - it would reduce average speeds for cars a bit but increase cycling! Bikes are transport!

Its just one solution - once again I find it weird that on a cyclist forum all these excuse are made as to why cyclist cannot get a fair share of the roads and that any solution that might inconvenience a car driver in the slightest is totally impossible.

if you want to make cycling safer and more popular yo have to rebalance the road usage away from the car. this will mean cars are sometimes inconvenience slightly

Can we just not bother with analogies? They don't work here.

Is that because in the analogies the person causing the death would be charged with manslaughter and the inquest would return a verdict of unlawful killing? There isn't a huge inherent difference with them apart from that (what the weapon is usually used for is pretty much irrelevant IMHO - we've surely established that the important point is whether the person involved intended any harm - this coroner's verdict makes it clear that the inherent risk involved in somebody's actions is also irrelevant to guilt).

Anyway - I have a quick solution. It might not solve all the problems, but it would have saved at least one life (that or gave the police something to charge the person who killed them with which even they couldn't ignore). Make it illegal to overtake cyclists at width restrictions like this, along with appropriate signage (like the normal "no overtaking" sign, but with a bicycle on the left). Far, far more useful than some strips of yellow paint to stop cars parking - it's indicative of the inability of all those involved in this case to determine the real causes for the death that they're suggesting preventing the cars parking is a solution rather than this.

Actually, looking at the road there, can anybody explain to me what the parked cars have to do with anything, and how preventing them parking there is likely to make any difference to cases such as this? He wasn't overtaking parked cars when he was hit, so ISTM they're pretty much irrelevant.

if you want to make cycling safer and more popular yo have to rebalance the road usage away from the car. this will mean cars are sometimes inconvenience slightly

At the moment though, the attitude is such that bikes are a mere inconvenience and in a lot of areas there simply aren't the numbers of cyclists to justify it (in the eyes of town planners, Government etc - not me, I'm a fan of the build-it-and-they-will-come idea).

Example - there's a road I ride on daily that has a newish cycle lane down the side which in theory has narrowed what was previously 2 narrow car lanes down to one wide car lane and a decent width bike lane. However, because it's little more that a line of paint, cars ignore it anyway and the ones that do take heed of it are seen as causing congestion because they're now taking up the space of two cars. If that lane were full of bikes, it'd be accepted. But it isn't so cars ignore it.

We're now in a chicken / egg situation. Cars will only deal with cyclists as other human beings when there are too many of them to ignore - witness London in summertime. However reaching that critical mass is difficult because of the perception of danger. Once more people start cycling, it's seen as more normal and people change their attitude accordingly. It's getting it to that state of normality and articles in the press going on about "lycra-clad" lefty hippy weirdy beardy treehuggers rather than normal people going about normal daily life just exacerbates the problem. 🙁

Make it illegal to overtake cyclists at width restrictions like this, along with appropriate signage (like the normal "no overtaking" sign, but with a bicycle on the left)

You mean like it's illegal to drive while on the phone, drive while DQ'd or unfit through alcohol/drugs, speed, jump red lights etc etc?
Enforced in the same way that the above offences are? ie they're not.

It might make a few people think a little bit more. Most simply won't care.

it would reduce average speeds for cars a bit but increase cycling! Bikes are transport!

It would half the average speed of cars for a pretty marginal increase in cycling.

once again I find it weird that on a cyclist forum all these excuse are made as to why cyclist cannot get a fair share of the roads

I'm not an apologist, but I do think you have to be realistic with your demands.
What you describe goes well beyond a "fair share" in my opinion.

if you want to make cycling safer and more popular yo have to rebalance the road usage away from the car. this will mean cars are sometimes inconvenience slightly

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I think we just disagree on our definition of "slightly". 😀

Graham S - the narrow "car each way" into single track with cycle lanes ( and did yo look a the picture of it I posted a link to?) is an extreme case. People are saying you cannot have a cycle lanes for whatever reason - I am merely showing you can. It would not halve average speeds - it would only make a small difference.

Unless you are prepared to take away a bit of road from car drivers you will never get any improvements.

Make it illegal to overtake cyclists at width restrictions like this

His manoeuvre apparently (from what we can suppose from the article and Street View) violated several Highway Code rules, but that appears to have been completely ignored.

I'd like to think if it actually broke a specific law then they might have taken it more seriously, but somehow I'm not convinced. 🙁

aracer we agree on the important points...I CBA arguing the legal technicalities.

TJ: okay lets apply this to a road we both (hopefully) know: the A68.

Major connecting road between Edinburgh and Northumberland. The majority of which is NSL single-carriageway with one lane in each direction.

Example: http://g.co/maps/hh9ee

It'd be a lovely cycle this road - this bit is just at Catcleugh Reservoir on the edge of Northumberland National Park.

But right now I wouldn't touch it. I drove this road a lot and I've seen a fair few crashes and some terrible driving on it.

If you singletracked it, reduced it to a 30mph and added dual cycle lanes, as per your link, then you'd effectively cripple that road for the vast majority of its users. Halving the speed on it and adding considerable danger to all the blind bends and summits on it.

That doesn't seem justified for the extra dozen or so cyclists that such measures [i]might[/i] possibly encourage.

And most likely you'd find that your measures were widely ignored and unenforceable anyway.

I think we are at cross purposes. The single track with cycle lanes is for road where there is no space to put a cycle way alongside the road. someone claimed their local roads had no room for cycle ways. My point is there is always a way to do so. there are many ways of providing a cycleway

That road does not need the single track and cycle lane each way. See the bit on the left? Plenty room to put a cycleway in there that is two way for bikes. Like the A9 cycleway

See the bit on the left? Plenty room to put a cycleway in there that is two way for bikes.

Okay, but that's pretty much what I said earlier: [i]"the only real option there is to build more roads, or perhaps paths specifically for bikes"[/i].

But the expense of that would be enormous and difficult to justify in such remote areas.

Also, look half a mile further down that road and you'll see the "bit on the left" is a drainage ditch: http://g.co/maps/9gq84 , or a crash barrier and dry stone wall: http://g.co/maps/j8n3s