Another Cyclist Dead. Another Ruling of Accidental Death.

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

singletrack road road with blind hills and corners

. I was saying that I don’t think the average would be halved.

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.

“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.

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 infamous Daniel Cadden case: 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)

“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. “

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).

Hmmmmmmmmmmm I’d probably have been on that cycleway not the road from Druidhs pic- and I am a militant cyclist

http://g.co/maps/8jkb3

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

http://g.co/maps/pvj2b

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 – Member

IMO 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