For cyclists:
Obey the rules
Filter only stationary or crawling traffic
Have proper brakes
Wear high viz
Have decent lights with at least one bright steady one*
Look over your shoulder a lot
Don't take anything for granted
For motorists:
Don't just swing past as if they aren't there
LOOK
They have every right to be there and they have right of way if they are in front of you
Not all of them jump red lights just like not all of you drink and drive
Anything else? I find it odd that we've had motorbike safety campaigns for both sides for years, but nothing for cyclists.
* I'm amazed at how invisible cyclists can be when they've just got a tiny slow flasher on, against a backdrop of other bright lights.
for motorists:
If you've just overtaken a cyclist, they haven't then vanished from the face of the earth. They may actually catch you up.
Always check for cyclists when letting other cars out of junctions.
Only overtake cyclists when necessary - ie not when there is slow moving traffic in front of you.
Do not overtake cyclists on the approach to a roundabout.
[i]Wear high viz[/i] - don't agree. Wear clothing that makes you visible.
Wouldn't help, people who don't give a fig still won't give a fig
Eye contact with drivers.
Cycle a fair distance from the edge of the road.
For cyclists:
Don't ride in the gutter. Establish a position in the road appropriate to the conditions.
[i]Wear high viz[/i] - Don't agree with that at all. Why dictate what people wear?
Cyclists
Don't always think that the ASL is the best place to be, sometimes it makes more sense to sit in the line of traffic.
Don't ride in the gutter
Don't filter through traffic if you don't know the sequence of lights
Don't expect drivers to know what you're going to do
Drivers
Give us room
Don't park in cycle lanes
Don't try to overtake a cyclist at a left hand junction
If there's a parked vehicle then I obviously need to move round it so let me out - you would do the same for a car.
I have bright lights so I can see in the dark, you have bright lights why can't I.
I could go on.
Motorists:
For god's sake, it is not the end of the world if you have to wait five seconds to get past someone moving slightly slower than you. You're only going to get stuck at the next set of lights anyway.
Give people on bikes plenty of space, don't overtake if you can't see it's definitely safe to do so.
Cyclists are *allowed* to ride two-up, they do it cos it's safer and makes your overtake shorter. If it's not safe to get past two riders it's generally not safe to get past one.
People on bikes are PEOPLE, with kids and loved ones, remember that. Also whilst you won't die if you hit us, we will make a right **** mess of your paintwork and bump up your insurance premium, so there's that.
Cyclists:
Remember, you are soft and squishy and everyone in a car hates you and wants you to die.
Cyclists - if a vehicle longer than your house is pulled up at a red traffic light, or moving slowly in traffic, don't ride up the inside of it EVER!!!
seconded on the bit for motorists about the variations on inappropriate overtaking. Especially in town, bizarrely.
I stay in a relatively low populated town, but sections of road I sometimes go along are lethal. Revved overtakes just before a roundabout (so cut back in as soon as they pass, sharp braking all round), and squeezed overtakes with road / pedestrian pinch points fast approaching.
"You don't /have/ to overtake - and look ahead to what's on the road ahead."
"Cyclists aren't travelling as slowly as you think - especially in town traffic"
I think an information film needs to be the icing on a bigger cake.
For all the investment in cycling infrastructure theres been and all the further investment thats being called for.... I think the most valuable thing would be to stop investing and actually arrive at a consensus on what the strategy and the advice should be - make it a national strategy and make sure the people who devise and implement cycle provision are all similarly qualified to do so and are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
At the moment we've got a cycle provision that steers cyclists in to road positions that are ripe for being killed, cycle provision thats so dumb and prescriptive that cyclists can only really ignore it, cycle provision that isn't maintained and provision that isn't complete - theres a signed cycle route in glasgow that leads riders into a fenced cup-de-sac - the signs have been there for a decade.
The infrastructure is at odds with the public information campaigns - lanes steer you to the left of traffic, signs on buses and trucks steer you away from the left of traffic. Cycle lanes push cyclists into the gutter, the advice is claims space in the traffic.
I think if the cycling lobby should be campaigning for anything it should be a campaign to stop making provision and not start again until it's going to be done properly. Maybe a 3 year moratorium then in year 4 spend 4 years budget on correcting the mistakes of the past.
Its ridiculous really - there are acres of internet dedicated to poorly executed cycle infrastructure, either because its hilarious, derisory or dangerous. The people who design motorway slip roads don't **** it up completely, in a different way, every single time. Theres presumably a set of agreed conventions about how a slip road should be designed and some letters after than name of the person who designs and specifies it. How is there a situation where people are designing traffic infrastructure without seemingly without qualification or strategy.
If we had a coherent strategy and it was applied then a pertinent then a film could have some effect.
But in absence of that - a public information film not about cycling particularly:
Be Careful
Be Polite
Something unexpected might happen
If it does be nice about it.
Cyclists - if a vehicle longer than your house is pulled up at a red traffic light, or moving slowly in traffic, don't ride up the inside of it EVER!!!
The size of the vehicle is irrelevant - the blind spot in my SWB sprinter is big enough to hide a 17 ton truck - passing any vehicle on the left is problematic - even if vehicles could see you thats not where drivers are looking, filtering past traffic on the left is dumb even if you're riding on a painted stripe on the tarmac that implies you have permission.
Whilst probably not absolutely technically accurate they make the point clearly enough.
This:
And this (but put the metal pavement railings in).
A film or ad campaign would cost probably as much as half a mile of crap cycleway in sommewhere-on-sea and I think would do far more good across the whole country.
A film or ad campaign would cost probably as much as half a mile of crap cycleway in sommewhere-on-sea and I think would do far more good across the whole country.
not if it doesn't prevent the construction of crap cycleway
I'd ask that drivers think of cyclists like children, they need to be given more consideration due to their vulnerability. This is where I get annoyed at comments from senoir Cops and politicos in london, who say [b][i]we[/i][/b] have to be more careful. [b][i]We[/i][/b] don't destroy trucks, buses and cars...They destroy us.
biggest thing IMO is can the cyclist be seen by the drivers, this doesn't mean hi vizz it means are you in the right position to be seen
[url= https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/403095693859889153 ]@IanWalker[/url]: "In light of recent cycle deaths, let's take a moment to remember the hundreds of thousands who've died this year from not exercising enough"
This is the key message. Cycling is near-enough as safe as walking, and if more people did it we'd have fewer premature deaths.
We, as cyclists, could also do with being less militant. Well, some of us. Anger doesn't build bridges between commmunities.
I think the positives have to be stressed:
The only people who report enjoying their commute are those who walk, run or ride. Fitness /health benefits. Consistent journey times, etc.
Cycle on pavements. If roads are deemed that unsafe that any pedestrian walking on them should FACE oncoming traffic, there's absolutely no way a cyclist who is less able to quickly jump out of harms can be safe cycling on them.
Don't undertake cars especially if there turning left
Don't undertake cars especially if there turning left
Do learn the difference between undertaking and filtering.
if in doubt, give it a clout
Cycle on pavements. If roads are deemed that unsafe that any pedestrian walking on them should FACE oncoming traffic, there's absolutely no way a cyclist who is less able to quickly jump out of harms can be safe cycling on them.
I do sometimes wonder if cyclists should run contra to traffic, or be able to choose to. Not in towns but on rural roads. So ride with the traffic in towns - ride with or against as you see fit in the country. Similarly as a pedestrian I'd normally walk towards the traffic on a country road but its not always the best place to be so I often cross if being on the right means I'm hidden from oncoming traffic.
Do learn the difference between undertaking and filtering.
Its undertaking if you get hit, its filtering if you live.
cyclists:
all vehicles and pedestrians are trying to kill you
you are invisible no matter what you wear or flash
occupy your space
look into their eyes
assume the worst
don't get wound up
I thnk you could just run a video of a scrote riding a BSO down the Highway towards Limehouse on any evening then we could all watch said scrote pulling wheelies with his hood up whilst listening to music via earphones and texting his latest bit on the side.
The just have a strap line stating..
"Don't ride yer bike like this, you'll die"
That'll do it I reckon.
Drive a car first and learn how to use the road properly in a "safer" environment.
I thnk you could just run a video of a scrote riding a BSO down the Highway towards Limehouse on any evening then we could all watch said scrote pulling wheelies with his hood up whilst listening to music via earphones and texting his latest bit on the side.The just have a strap line stating..
"Don't ride yer bike like this, you'll die"
That'll do it I reckon.
That implies that killed cyclists are generally at fault. This isn't the case, and the cyclist described above doesn't fit the 'type' of rider we see being killed.
Make riding on the pavement legal, only that's because I have to ride on it if I want to live to see my next birthday
This is where I get annoyed at comments from senoir Cops and politicos in london, who say we have to be more careful. We don't destroy trucks, buses and cars...
Hmm. Perhaps we should start. Where can I get me some dynamite?
We, as cyclists, could also do with being less militant. Well, some of us. Anger doesn't build bridges between commmunities.
With all due respect, **** that shit. If we don't get angry we'll get nothing.
You're right in that stroppy helmetcam riders yelling at dickhead drivers gets us nowhere though. The anger needs to be directed productively, we need to properly convey it to politicians and traffic engineers and the police and those in charge of the justice system, etc.
Anger doesn't build bridges between communities.
it starts the ball rolling though. in some situations you need to shout to get people to listen.
Not this one though, which is already filled with shouting.
You're right in that stroppy helmetcam riders yelling at dickhead drivers gets us nowhere though.
That's what I meant by not being angry. I didn't mean just accepting things as they are, of course.
A D lock makes a great weapon? no? oh ok.
for cars:
bikes are allowed to filter, watch for them.
overtake only when it is safe alear ahead to do so.
bikes are faster than cars, they will catch you and overtake you, get over yourself -defo in london
bikes:
ride in an assertive but not agressive position
dont filter at junctions unless you know the light sequence
lights on in nbad weather, dusk and night and make sure they work well.
I think an ad campaign would be good, something like the old traffic light safety one where the chap in a bowler hat crosses the lights and forgets his brolly OR where Charlie the cat shouldnt play with matches.
ride off road- its fun and nobody wants to kill you !!!!!
I'm going to say this again - some of you have no real understanding of risk. Cycling isn't particularly unsafe - not compared to walking. For example in London during 2012 there were 69 pedestrians killed against 14 cyclists, and 1,054 pedestrian and 657 cyclist serious injuries.
On that basis pedestrians should be banned from London streets, surely?
So I'll look for a job located that's connected to my house only by trails, shall I? I'd be one of the lucky ones if I found one...
Cycling isn't particularly unsafe - not compared to walking. For example in London during 2012 there were 69 pedestrians killed against 14 cyclists
Are you SURE you're not quoting misleading stats? Is there nothing missing from that picture?
How many pedestrian journeys were made and how many cycle journeys..?
EDIT I found this without looking too hard:
In their fourth Travel in London report, TfL estimate that 500,000 cycle trips (where cycling is the dominant form of transport in the trip) take place every day in London (for 2010). This compares to 5,900,000 estimated walking trips.
and this
there were 2,609 cycling KSIs in London per one billion trips in 2010. For pedestrians, there were 425 KSIs in London per one billion trips in 2010. For fatalities, there were 56 deaths per one billion trips for cyclists. For pedestrians, the total was 27 deaths per billion trips
From http://fullfact.org/factchecks/cyclist_safety_dangerous_pedestrian_walking_KSI_rate_olympics-27711
I'd still say my Wheelie'ing scrote Vids the best idea so far... 😆
Yes, I'm immensely sure, I got those figures directly from the TfL document [url= http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/collisions-and-casualties-on-londons-roads-2012.pdf ]here[/url] so I've gone to the source document and you've found second hand stuff. Over to you?
Next time I'm in Palestra shall I go and have a chat with the guys?
IIRC...
Per trip, cycling looks bad compared to walking. Per km, it's about the same.
always assume EVERYONE is trying to kill you. ride accordingly.
Yes, I'm immensely sure, I got those figures directly from the TfL document here
The stats are correct, but not meaningful, because cyclists travel further per journey.
I find it odd that we've had motorbike safety campaigns for both sides for years, but nothing for cyclists.
From THINK!, the same campaign that did all the motorbike ones:
"Get some lights on your bike etc etc... GET YOURSELF SEEEEEN!"
found it so you don't have to put up with my singing
I can't be arsed any more, I shall just cycle through London tonight on my way home, on my Brompton, wearing jeans!!!! with a nice rapha cap keeping the rain out of my eyes, and I'm fairly sure that I'll be fine.
The stats are correct, but not meaningful, because cyclists travel further per journey.
My journey from home to work is the same length, regardless of how I get there 🙂
Yes, but if I work 5 miles from my house I don't tend to walk it very often...
have we had
"Women, for goodness sakes, dont cycle"
yet?
Or drive?
Yes, but if I work 5 miles from my house I don't tend to walk it very often...
But, if the only thing putting you off cycling was perceived danger, finding out that it was no more dangerous than walking might encourage you to cycle.
If I could give one bit of advice to London cyclists it would be cars will hurt you but HGVs will kill you
My journey from home to work is the same length, regardless of how I get there
The stats are correct, but not meaningful, because cyclists travel further per journey.
Yes, but if I work 5 miles from my house I don't tend to walk it very often...
In London (and I know that's not the only place to live but it's what the stats relate to) the alternative is unlikely to be walking or driving, it's a mixed mode journey.
You could also ask the question as to whether risk relates to distance travelled or time spent. I spend the same time to walk 4 miles as I do to cycle 10. How do you account for that?
Look - [url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100246626/boris-dont-ban-cycling-with-headphones-youll-make-people-die-younger/ ]some science m'kay[/url] - from the Telegraph of all places
Cycling's good for you and the health benefits outweigh the dangers.
Helmets and headphones are an irrelevance.
Lights are a legal requirement, and stuff that gets you seen (which might be as simple as ankle bands on jeans) is a really good idea.
Wearing black head to toe is probably more dangerous for a pedestrian than it is for a cyclist with decent lights. (anecdote I know but I get surprised by more peds than bikes when I'm in the car)
Overly bright lights that dazzle are counter-productive - point them down and don't be a dick. They blind other cyclists as well as drivers.
You could spend millions each year on safety films and change nothing. They'd have no long term impact - whereas that money spent on infrastructure goes on being useful. If you MUST then the focus should be on drivers - there's been masses of 'take care of yourself' crap for years.
Has everyone taken [url= http://toys.usvsth3m.com/boris-johnsons-cycle-safety-test/ ]Boris Johnson's Cycle Safety Test[/url]?
I would love to see a big public awareness campaign around helping road users understand each other and not leap to anger and physical reaction. A real push to change attitutes. Tricky, but attitudes are at the core of questions like "Why can't we be more like Copenhagen?"
Top of the head ideas:
"Is it worth it?" Show 20mph zone - cyclist doing 15-20mph, traffic and parked cars ahead - Is is worth overtaking? Cyclist pulls past to front of queue at lights - they're gone straight afterwards or maybe you have to overtake - is it worth getting angry?
"Don't worry - be happy" (or something slightly less trite "chill the **** out you moody shit" perhaps). A series of quick burst montage of tiny clips (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz style) of the reactions and decisions of a happy, aware, considerate person commuting (different versions for car truck/van taxi, bike, foot) and another person getting angry and aggressive in reaction to the same events - show that the only difference is in everyone's mood (and those they affect - scowls on other's faces), not on journey time - or show it's negligible - unhappy person shows up at 8:55 fuming; happy person shows up at 8:56.
And something along the same lines as the binge drinking ads showing awful, drunk behaviour - "You wouldn't [i]start[/i] a night like this..." Take bad road behaviour seen every day and show people on foot in supermarkets (airports, pubs, post offices etc) barging past to get one person ahead, people getting angry and acting aggressively in reaction to the slightest inconsequential things, threatening behaviour, swearing in people's faces - "You wouldn't do this in a pub..." Show it to be ridiculous and shameful.
I think ned's winning the bid to make these films.
There was an advert with people behaving like road raging drivers whilst on foot, but it was only for an insurance company which was a shame.
It's still basically the NiceWayCode though isn't it? The sort of twunts who speed at 40mph on residential streets, who use their cars to force you out of the way, the stony faced school run mums who only care about getting little johnny to school, the 2m uninsured drivers, the Emma Ways, the kind of idiot who drives on the motorway by driving full pelt up to the car in front then slamming on the brakes.
None of them are going to pay the slightest bit of attention. The one and only thing that will get those people driving differently is fines large enough to matter and the thought that someone is going to take their licence away.
While we're on NiceWayCode type interventions, a sign of how far we have to go.
Yesterday two different, sensible, experienced female riders told me of abuse they'd had. Both riding in normal clothes, with a smattering of hi-viz, and helmets on sensible bikes (possibly both bromptons). The antithesis of the "Lycra Lout" stereotype.
Rider 1, Katie, got a blast of the horn and v-sign from a female driver for daring to take the lane on a narrow residential street that's used as a rat run.
Rider 2, quietly spoken female, had a driver who called her a **** from his open window and said something about her ****ing stupid helmet for having the temerity to cause him to slow down by turning right.
Nice.
For motorists:
"If you jump red lights, use mobiles, drive dangerously, or threaten other road users by driving aggressively, we will prosecute, and prosecute hard."
[i] Yes, I'm immensely sure, I got those figures directly from the TfL document here
The stats are correct, but not meaningful, because cyclists travel further per journey. [/i]
Also, presumably pretty much everyone who drives and cycles, does a bit of walking too.
If I were to include a single piece of advice in a cycling safety video for cyclists it would be to assume everyone in a vehicle is a ****nut.
if I were to provide advice for drivers it would be pretty much the same thing.
Something I try to do, although I'll admit that I don't always is:
[i]Act and treat others how you'd like them to act towards and treat you[/i]
[edit] I'm amused that you don't term Katie a "quietly spoken female" 😉
[img] 
[/img]
One for drivers pulling out of side streets. At least make eye contact with the cyclist approaching on the main road. It's [b]very[/b] reassuring to know that you know that I'm there.
Rule 1 surely is still the most important
If we could sort out people being dicks, that would be an excellent start
Needs editing to make it a bit more punchy
jumps to 2.30 to get to the meat and potatoes
On my commute I generally see equal bad practices from drivers and cyclists. I see a lot of cyclists who glare into the car even when they have been passed very safely. Some cyclists look for confrontation.
I'm amused that you don't term Katie a "quietly spoken female"
You know her well enough to know that description wouldn't stand up in court. Those incidents were both on the same day this week. Pretty awful really. Woman at work was really quite shaken up.
Earlier in the week I was thinking that people drivers were being a bit more careful round cyclists, but after the commute in this morning, I might not be quite so hopeful.
As regards different types of drivers I reckon that the worst, in terms of aggression, are mid 20s to mid40s women, followed by minicab and construction lorry drivers.
It is quite clear though, that there is no effective policing of road use in London in any shape or form, and when it does happen it is overwhelmingly biased towards motorists.