Forum menu
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
It would half the average speed of cars
Cars can average 60 in national zones on country lanes? I think you are mistaken.
complain to the CPS, they have to look into any complaint on sentencing.
Cars can average 60 in national zones on country lanes? I think you are mistaken.
Cars can average 30 on a 30mph singletrack road with blind hills and corners? I think you are mistaken. 😀
I don't honestly know what the average speed is on the A68. I've seen people do over a ton on stretches of it, but likewise I've been stuck behind tractors and HGVs on it.
complain to the CPS, they have to look into any complaint on sentencing.
There was no sentence to complain about though. It is just a coroner's verdict at an inquest. The motorist wasn't charged.
I didn't say that cars could average 30 on
. I was saying that I don't think the average would be halved.singletrack road road with blind hills and corners
And yes I have seen cars doing a ton on roads with limits of 60 and 70 (I have myself). As I have started to cycle on the road more and more I have realised that this is a) stupid and dangerous and b)as a yorkshire man not very good on the wallet. Which would suggest that a complete change in attitude is required.
How about we go all "Animal Rights activist" on the people who knock over and seriously injure/kill cyclists.
"[i]If you are serious about improving cycle safety you have to take away some of the road from cars and give it to bikes. [/i]"
I disagree emphatically.
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.
If he broke a specific law like this they'd have to take it more seriously. His statement would be an admission of guilt.
I understand that lots of existing laws are broken, but a lot of drivers don't even realise there is a problem with overtaking cyclists like this - an explicit law and signage to go with it would at least solve that one. The implication is that the driver involved in this case is normally law abiding - in which case there's a good chance he would have waited given such a law.
still glitchy bump
Bez - Member"If you are serious about improving cycle safety you have to take away some of the road from cars and give it to bikes. "
I disagree emphatically.
How else are you going to do it? while cycle lanes are not the only answer cycle lanes and renginnering roads are a part of the answer and without taking road away from the cars then you cannot do this effectively.
I didn't say that cars could average 30
Yes, and I didn't say they currently average 60. See? 😀
If he broke a specific law like this they'd have to take it more seriously. His statement would be an admission of guilt.
Mmmm yeah maybe - but look at the [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/6303427.stm ]infamous Daniel Cadden case[/url]: cars observed by police breaking the law to pass a law-abiding cyclist. Result: cyclist arrested!
not sure if more and more signage is the answer - bypass near here has rows of 4m+ panel signs advising drivers that dual lane sections end (3 lane rd) but many still leave it to longer than the last minute to pull in and fill that gap
if we truly believe that many drivers don't know how to handle this type of situation then regular retesting is an option - road conditions have changed a lot in last few decades
oh and the car probably had a brake - irrespective of laws and signs it was an option
look at the infamous Daniel Cadden case: cars observed by police breaking the law to pass a law-abiding cyclist.
Because (shock horror) the plod didn't understand the law. Which is why (apart from reminding drivers) I was suggesting the signage - they could hardly also miss that could they?
Though I suppose (a la Cadden) they could decide to charge a cyclist using the road through such a gap, and hence holding up cars for a few seconds, with obstructing the "traffic". 🙄
Because (shock horror) the plod didn't understand the law.
It wasn't just the plod though - he was actually convicted (before it was overruled at appeal).
I think I have seen advisory signage about pinch points before though. It would interesting to audit if it actually made any difference.
It wasn't just the plod though - he was actually convicted (before it was overruled at appeal).
Yeah - but you were complaining about the plod not stopping the motorists breaking the law - not a lot the rest of the legal system could do about that one. Caddon is of course just another example of the institutional cyclistism we're all complaining about in this thread.
i like the idea above of re-testing. especially hazard awareness.
I would have retesting every 5 years for everyone, mandatory retest after 6 pts, jail time for drink driving the norm, random breath tests - roadblocks set up at pub kicking out time and test everyone,
Good vid gwaelod. I'm becoming increasingly convinced by the argument offered earlier that good segregated cycle lanes increase the number of people cycling which makes it safer even when not actually in those lanes.
i like the idea above of re-testing. especially hazard awareness.
It does seem odd that in most other walks of life, people put in charge of potentially fatal heavy machinery are required to take refresher courses and retests. But you can drive cars for a lifetime based on one poorly remembered test when you were 17 where you had to drive properly for 25 minutes.
But you can drive cars for a lifetime based on one poorly remembered test when you were 17 where you had to drive properly for 25 minutes.
...in a really limited range of conditions, on a small number of roads, all of which you'd probably driven before - possibly involving no width restrictions at all, and almost certainly not involving any where you come up behind a cyclist just before one.
It really is pish, but I struggle to see it changing, as part of the institutional problem is that making driving more difficult for all motorists is seen as a vote loser (though at least the voters tend not to mind so much making life a bit harder for 17yos)
"[i]How else are you going to do it? while cycle lanes are not the only answer cycle lanes and renginnering roads are a part of the answer and without taking road away from the cars then you cannot do this effectively. [/i]"
IME/IMO the good cycle lanes are the ones which are additional to and separate from existing roads, primarily those which provide a cycle route that broadly follows a fast/busy dual carriageway (which is just about the most dangerous type of road for a cyclist).
I've yet to see a cycle lane reclaimed from existing roads that provides a compelling benefit (though plenty that appear to make things more dangerous). Generally you get most or all of the following problems in some measure:
- motorised traffic in the cycle lane because the remaining lane is too narrow
- more motorised traffic passing too close because the cycle lane is too narrow but the painted line implies an acceptable margin
- cycles restricted to the part of the road most heavily populated by potholes, metalworks and debris (despite being the most vulnerable users to all of these hazards)
- unfit priorities leading to either higher risk of accidents or impossibility of making good progress
- cycles forced into segregated flow that leads them into dangerous positions (eg up the inside of traffic to an ASL)
- cyclists being less able to make a right turn or claim the lane because they are segregated
I'm not wholly against cycle paths. But I think I *am* wholly against those that are painted on existing roads. I would contend that anything that takes tarmac from cars (actually shared use, rather than cars, and it's an important distinction) and ascribes it solely to cyclists is bad for all parties.
As for "how else?", I suggest drastically reducing our tolerance of close passing, inattentiveness, distraction, impatience, excessive speed and ill-judged manoeuvres. Which is something that will take some time - though I'd like to see it accelerated by significantly higher use of short driving bans and points for non-fatal, non-injury and even non-incident cases of these sorts of things.
I would far, far rather share the road with more responsible road users than stick with the staus quo and be pushed into a ghetto.
Yes, and I didn't say they currently average 60.
Yes but you implied that by halving the speed limit to 30 this would also halve the average speed. WHich is what I was saying I disagree with.
Mmmm yeah maybe - but look at the infamous Daniel Cadden case: cars observed by police breaking the law to pass a law-abiding cyclist. Result: cyclist arrested!
Ha! I went to college with Mr Cadden; whilst I think the police were out of order arresting and charging him, if ever there was a bloke who could talk himself out of a pardon and into the noose...
And the stretch that he was cycling on has a really, REALLY decent cycle path purpose built along side it, so I have little sympathy.
I'm not wholly against cycle paths. But I think I *am* wholly against those that are painted on existing roads.
Me to and that is not what I am suggesting -
We want more space for bikes on roads - the only place this can come from is from the space currently used by cars and / or from pedestrians.
yes a painted line is useless and sometimes worse than useless - thats not what I am arguing for. Waht I am arguing is a rebalancing of our road system - there has to be losers adn winners A proper cycleway, a proper engineering of junctions and 20 mph urban limits are not. However to do these three things requires cars to be given less priority ie to lose some space on the road.
compare these two roads
http://g.co/maps/7dsmv
http://g.co/maps/rs528
Both similar sized roads in similar sized cities in similar sort of locations locations One has some road space dedicated for cyclists the other does not One has the junctions engineered to give cycles a safe crossing, the other does not.
We should be aiming towrads the first one. Not the bikes get their own traffic light so the do not have to contend with cars trying to turn theu them - usually its just an earlier green for the bikes note the kerbs at the junctions to prevent care getting into the bike lane at the junction
If you go along eh road a bit yo will see a 20 mph side street - no cycle lance cos the bikes have priority
Cycle trails that follow many of the disused urban and rural railways would be a start. I would prefer to see cycle routes being separate from the roads - CPO of various strips of land to provide interconnecting routes. Better to make cycling safer and encourage the young to take to two wheels in safety and engender a culture shift than try and re-educate those committed to using cars.
Yes but you implied that by halving the speed limit to 30 this would also halve the average speed. WHich is what I was saying I disagree with.
Halving the speed limit AND making it singletrack (as per TJs suggestion). Yes I think that would probably would halve the average speed on the road.
What speed would you take a blind summit at on a busy singletrack road?
And the stretch that he was cycling on has a really, REALLY decent cycle path purpose built along side it, so I have little sympathy.
Apart from the obvious facts (that he has no obligation to use that cycle path and was using the road in a perfectly legal manner) he apparently would have had to cross three lanes of busy traffic to access the path for the brief time it went the same way as the road, and the appeal court agreed that his speed (20mph) was too fast for a shared use path like that anyway.
Cycle trails that follow many of the disused urban and rural railways would be a start.
Support Sustrans then. That is what many of their best routes do (including my local stretch of the NCN 72 that I mentioned earlier).
Apart from the obvious facts (that he has no obligation to use that cycle path and was using the road in a perfectly legal manner) he apparently would have had to cross three lanes of busy traffic to access the path for the brief time it went the same way as the road, and the appeal court agreed that his speed (20mph) was too fast for a shared use path like that anyway.
All of which, if true, would be fine and dandy... But I know otherwise. Three lanes of traffic? In Telford? Not there sir. Shared use path? Deserted, segregated dedicated cycle path seperate to the carriageway. Militant cyclist. Gives cyclists a bad name, IMHO.
- cycles restricted to the part of the road most heavily populated by potholes, metalworks and debris (despite being the most vulnerable users to all of these hazards)
The council painted one of the 'white line' cyclepaths on a main road near my parents' house. Main route to two secondary schools for 2/3rds of the town. When they first did it there were gaps every 15/20 metres where the line met the drains. Thankfully it was redone pdq and is now a whole 45cms wide!
Not sure how you can decide he was "militant".
He used the road in a perfectly legal manner and got erroneously arrested and prosecuted for it. I'd fight that and I'm about the least militant person you'll meet.
I anything I'd say he did a lot o good for cycling because he firmly established legal precedent that cyclists are not required to use a cycle path and have a right to use the road.
Got a Maps link to the road in question? Had a quick shufty myself but I can't see one matching the description in the case (reports mention the B5072 but that doesn't have solid white lines - though it does have three lanes and a segregated shared use cycle path on th opposite side of the road).