Forum menu
[img] 
[/img]
Hmmmmmmmmmmm I'd probably have been on that cycleway not the road from Druidhs pic- and I [i]am[/i] a militant cyclist
Look at that part of the route in context though. Imagine approaching it from the East. The cycle path wanders across roundabouts, requiring several dismounts.
IMO the whole 'cycle lanes' debate is so far off the point it's on the moon.
The problem is that motorists choose to have no consideration for cyclists. No-one forces them to endanger our lives, nor do circumstances make it likely, they choose to. Defining the problem really is that simple isn't it?
Behaviour change is required, which comes from changing attitudes, which comes from education.
As per seat belts and drink driving, and also smoking, making it socially unacceptable/lower status is a rather effective technique.
If we can bring about those changes then I'm sure we can bring about better attitudes towards cyclists.
Those that refuse to change behaviour should be penalised.
In principle this is all very simple. It would also be cheaper than all the £££ needed to put in separate facilities.
I suspect the current heightening of the issue has come from the sudden growth of cycling. In time, drivers will come to get used to it - they'll have to. So long as growth in cycling continues (which, looking at oil prices, looks likely), then the balance of power will eventually fall in our favour...
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.
Maybe not, but he would have had to cross the lanes (however many there were) of traffic to access the bike path on the opposite side of the road, and there was also a side road which you had to give way to if using the bike path. No way would I have been using the bike path there (meanwhile there was a perfectly good parallel motorway which was just as convenient for motorists to use as the bike path was to cyclists).
Right you are druid - it is just a little further west along the same road.
Looks like 3 lanes to cross and a shared use path to me (complete with "Cyclists Dismount") signs at the narrow bits.
It does not necessarily require dismounts but its the usual UK pishness at the junctions it also disappears further down leaving you on the wrong side of the road.
- I found this as well
It does not necessarily require dismounts
Strolling around on Street View I could see Dismount signs. Whether anyone actually obeys them might be a different matter. 🙂
...I have tried to read a lot of this, but have to admit to not reading every letter....
I am Dutch and have years of experience cycling in holland, on the road, from the age of about 5.
And yes, it is MUCH safer there (eventhough we never wore helmets) due to attitude of drivers and road infrastructure. MOST dutch people are cyclists, even my friends 90 year old granddad still cycles around the village for transport. Even some of the most unfit people I know in holland still use a bike regurlarly, hence the attitude of car drivers (also cyclists) is different.
When I moved to the UK I was in for a major shock as to how unsafe cycling on the road can be and how 'on the ball' you need to be as a cyclist.
I now teach cycling in schools, mainly year 6. I focus a lot of attention on the fact that drivers do not treat cyclists the way they should and often do things they should not do. As in, "the car should do A, but what may he do? And how can we avoid a potential accident?"
Just because an accident/crash may be the car drivers fault, this does not mean the cyclist could not have avoided it. I see these as two different things. (A crash being one partys 'fault' does not necessarily mean the other party could not have avoided it)
As I tell the kids, you may have right of way, but this is not worth much if you end up in hospital.
I am not saying that the cyclist in this case could have avoided the accident, I simply do not know the full story. However, if one of my child cyclists were to overtake a parked car I would expect them to look ahead and behind first to judge if it was safe to do so. With a road narrowing and a car behind I would have expected them not to pull out to overtake (but then they are very inexperienced cyclists and always taught to be on the safe side).
But yes, I'd say the driver was at fault (from what I've read), he should never have attempted to overtake the cyclist. Drivers should be more aware of cyclists. My husband (a driving instructor) feels a lot of driving instructors could do more to make their pupils 'cyclist aware'.
Clipping another car's wing mirror can be a minor incident, clipping a cyclist's bars can be fatal.
..And yes, continental style laws may well help with drivers attitude. I think as mentioned before, drivers need to be better educated with regards to cyclists (as most aren't cyclists themselves). We still wont have the infrastructure like holland....
brooess - MemberIMO the whole 'cycle lanes' debate is so far off the point it's on the moon.
Road engineering of which cycle lanes are a part is absolutely central to the debate. Its only a part of it but its an important part.
Our roads are engineered to facilitate rapid passage of cars not safe passage of bikes. a lot of bicycle fatalities could be stopped by changes to road engineering.
Here is a classic example of poor road engineering that increases the danger to cyclists.
http://g.co/maps/acnq4
plenty of room to put in a cycle lane separated by kerbs but instead we get a crosshatched central area and the bollards that narrow the road. addied to that thebollard on the pavement one side stopping the cy clsts escape route there. When it was put in cyclists were up in arms - the solution - paint a bit of tarmac and put up signs telling drivers not to overtake at the bollards! Better road enginering could eliminate that hazard
here is the sign - conveniently hidden in the bushes
http://g.co/maps/9j4ez
I am going to make a collection of "cyclist dismount" signs I think. No legal standing and often in really stupid places
brooess - MemberSo long as growth in cycling continues (which, looking at oil prices, looks likely), then the balance of power will eventually fall in our favour...
Oil prices have been increasing steadily for years now, with only minimal growth in cycling. Look at the recent idiocy over petrol shortages to see how set in our ways we are.
The cities that have seen growth are ones which have terrible traffic, flat terrain, terrorist attacks on public transport (London) or have actually thrown a relatively small amount of money at cycling, including some infrastructure (Bristol, London again).
Attitude changes are great, but it's relatively easy not to neck five pints before driving, or connect a buckle at the start of a journey. Both hit the self-preservation button nicely.
And people still do both! I remember one mate of my dad's who always used to connect the seat belt in his Jaguar (to stop the warning beep), then sit on top of the thing.
glitchybump
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.
On my commute to work I pass several houses, all with full driveways, who stick their extra vehicle on the street, in a dotted cycle lane. Would there be any objections if their right to do this was taken away?
[i]Road engineering of which cycle lanes are a part is absolutely central to the debate. Its only a part of it but its an important part.[/i]
Let's be realistic though - it's not going to happen.
My town and surrounding areas had a big push for cycle lanes over the past 10 years, but I think I can accurately say no cyclists were consulted in their usefulness. Some are on footpaths - yay, separate cycles from cars! but... it's about a mile of footpath past a SCHOOL! Kids all over the path = unusable.
Others, where the road is wide enough - big wide red paint.. the road narrows.. "End Of Cycle Lane" ! Miles of utterly utterly pointless red paint.
Prime example [url= http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=50.852657,-1.054191&spn=0.00126,0.003184&hnear=Funtley+Rd,+Fareham,+United+Kingdom&t=h&z=19 ]here[/url]
Follow that road in either direction and you'll see the red paint stop where the road gets narrower and more dangerous (and down hill!). I used to ride that road before there were any lanes painted and it was perfectly safe.
DEz - I agree with you - it needs to be done properly not thast sort of stupidity.
However it is a part of the solution - road engineering in various forms. along with legislative changes and education
Would there be any objections if their right to do this was taken away?
Undoubtedly there would be from the residents.
But you're absolutely right: cars (legally but annoyingly) parked in cycle lanes is one of the things that often renders them completely useless.
Worth a read: [url= http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/time-joinedup-strategy-cycling/17592 ]Jon Snow's take[/url] on [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3393497.ece ]yesterday's Government inquiry into cycle safety[/url].
As usual, a lot of words but little sign of action or will amongst those in government.
However, if one of my child cyclists were to overtake a parked car I would expect them to look ahead and behind first to judge if it was safe to do so. With a road narrowing and a car behind I would have expected them not to pull out to overtake
I don't agree with teaching this. I take your point about staying out of hospital and the lack of experience of the kids, but this approach just panders to the keep cyclist out of the way attitude and isn't helpful to the cause or to the individual cyclist riding like that, as they won't learn to ride assertively and defensively. Cyclist have a right to use the road, to claim a lane when necessary, and should be trained to do that. They shouldn't be expected or trained to stay out of the way, only making progress when there is nothing coming from behind that would have to slow down and/or go around them - IMO.
I agree feenster. But wow, what a difficult job: teaching kids to cycle safely on the road...
On my commute to work I pass several houses, all with full driveways, who stick their extra vehicle on the street, in a dotted cycle lane. Would there be any objections if their right to do this was taken away?
Im just as guilty of this as everyone else.
But I do often think about this nessarily from a cycling point of view but a general point of view.
It appears that our roads are all very narrow but in many cases this isnt true there are just parked cars.
If in 1940s/1950s they had made it illegal to park on the road, unless expressly allowed, I dont imagine there would have been much of a fuss.
People would have realised they needed to build driveways or some way of storing cars on their land before buying one.
However you now cant go back.
People [u]can[/u] be favourable about measures to roll back on-street parking or decrease the amount of carriageway given over to road traffic.
This was built near where I used to live. It used to be a normal two-lane residential street:
[img] 
[/img]
www.homezones.org.uk/challenge/southville.htm
People were a bit ambivalent about it, but an [url= http://www.transport.uwe.ac.uk/southville.pdf ]independent study[/url] also found that they recognised the benefits in terms of calmer traffic, more pavement space, etc.
Stuff like this works better than parking permit schemes or double yellow lines because you get something back in return. It might be your road not being used as a rat-run any more, an increase in the value of your house, or just some nice planters outside your front door, but you (and your family) get something in return for losing road capacity and parking space.
Interestingly, here in Newcastle they've just been modifying this junction on Scotswood Road.
What they've done, is to add a splitter island to separate the right turning traffic from the two lanes of traffic going straight on. Obviously, there's now not enough room for the painted cycle lane, so it's been removed approaching the junction.
They have added a drop kerb to allow bikes in the cycle lane to transfer onto the shared use path, but anybody that decides they want to stay on the road is now going come into conflict with cars in the inside lane.
Can't really blame parked cars on this one.
Interestingly, here in Newcastle they've just been modifying this junction on Scotswood Road.
Ooh that's part of my route. But I use the shared-use pavement. 😀
No idea why anyone tries to mix it on that dual carriageway when the pavement is good, wide and normally deserted (as shown nicely in that Street View).
It's part of my route too.
I mainly use the road, as I don't like having to stop at the crossing points on the shared use path. The length of road from that junction into town is actually OK - the road was designed with the cycle lane so it's plenty wide enough for both lanes and the cycle lane without conflict. Well, until a new splitter island is introduced, anyway...
The length from that junction to Scotswood Bridge is another matter (although I still use it...)
Feenster - we try and teach the kids common sense and staying safe within their ability. Some are as young as 9 and really cannot judge speed or distance, defensive riding is not really an option for them. When kids are a little older and some can then be quite capable, we will teach them more assertive riding. Things like signal right turns major to minor where they will need the skills of judging speed and distance and be assertive. Not all kids I get are capable of this though, some can't even ride a bike effectively.....yes even at 9, 10 or 11 years old.
Also, the roads are a complicated place, people probably take about 45 hours of lessons to learn to drive (I know, some take a lot less, but you get my point). I get 6 hours with the kids, I try my best, but can't possibly prepare them for everything, it is just a starting point.
I also aim to bring as many kids back as I take out.
I think far more cyclist training is needed, most people don't become brilliant drivers without training either. And an 'experienced' driver or cyclist is not necessarily a good one. I know many people who are very experienced drivers, but nor really any good.
I mainly use the road, as I don't like having to stop at the crossing points on the shared use path.
Hmm. Doesn't bother me. There are only 3 on my stretch and more often than not the road traffic is stopped at the red lights anyway so I figure it makes little odds.
the more I think about this case the worse it gets. If I was to force another car of the road as I was overtaking because I clipping an on coming car and the occupants were killed. I don't think the system would have given a collective shrug of the shoulders (even if I never exceeded the speed limit in the incident) and stamped the case file "Shit Happens Case Closed". The only assumption you can make is as cyclist we have no more rights than a stray dog.