Practice makes people better at any other skill. Why would riding a bike in traffic be any different?

Because as others said, experience will increase your confidence which may mean you ride in places that a less experienced rider would avoid completely (big roundabouts, busy roads, dual carriageways etc).

You might be safer than an inexperienced rider on the same road, but you’re not safer than the inexperienced rider who avoided the road altogether and stuck to a traffic-free route.

A simple analogy is skiing.

Very few inexperienced skiers are killed in avalanches – because inexperienced skiers don’t generally venture off-piste into potential avalanche zones.

Remember to factor in the health risks of not cycling everywhere and not being very fit 😉

Remember to factor in the health risks of not cycling everywhere and not being very fit

This is very true – in overall public health terms the benefits from cycling massively outweigh the individual injuries or deaths.

That’s one reason the BMA was originally against helmet compulsion*, the decrease in the number of people cycling it was supposedly cause would be a far greater loss to public health than the slight win of less head injuries.

.

*(before politics forced them to change their position).

On a related subject, why do foreign drivers leave more space? Is it that they are more used to bikes on the continent or is it simply that a LHD car provides a better view of us bikers?

Errrr… surely if you drive on the opposite side of the road to the UK you’re in the same relative position?

I’ve noticed that cycling in France and Spain can be a lot more pleasant too. Both those countries have very low levels of people cycling for transport, so it’s not the safety in numbers thing.

It could be that both countries have a long and illustrious history of being good at road racing, which fosters a culture of respect… in which case, expect the “Wiggins Effect” to kick in about 50 years from now. 🙄

Because as others said, experience will increase your confidence which may mean you ride in places that a less experienced rider would avoid completely (big roundabouts, busy roads, dual carriageways etc).

You might be safer than an inexperienced rider on the same road, but you’re not safer than the inexperienced rider who avoided the road altogether and stuck to a traffic-free route.

Well of course avoiding accidents takes both experience and judgement. I’d say judging the safest route is part of gaining experience. I still choose traffic free options where appropriate and avoid 70mph dual carriageways despite being experienced. Over confidence is just another pitfall to be avoided.
Anyway traffic free routes aren’t risk free. Most routes have frequent junctions with roads or driveways which is where many accidents happen. Routes like well surfaced canal towpaths or former railways can be good because they are flat and have good sightlines and few intercections. Other farcilities less so.

In Milton Keynes over the past decade, there have been six deaths to off-road cyclists against just one (a child) on the alternative road network, where main roads largely have a 70mph speed limit and there are large roundabouts at all major junctions. Even when account is taken of relative distance cycled, the death rate for the cycle paths is significantly greater than for the roads.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/sustrans1.html

Before anyone invokes Cyclecraft in support of their argument, please, please read this.

The MK stats quoted are skewed by the fact that cycle use here must be ten times what it is in the rest of the country. The provision of cycleways is so good that large numbers cycle every day.
Also, the letter is from 1998. I’ve lived in MK for the last 10 years and know of no deaths during that period on the cycle ways, but do know of at least 3 on the dual carriageways, one of whom was an experienced time-trialler.

The idea that you pass a ‘test’ and then there are no further capability tests involving a potentially lethal process is at odds with most other forms of hazard.

As a cyclist i like to think that my ‘driving’ awareness and manners are good.
At my previous employ, we went on a one day police driving course, after six hours with the instructor, i can say that my driving has altered somewhat.

The main issue for me seems to be the ‘culture’ of motoring that has developed on this island, it has taken many years for speeding to be at least recognised as a problem.
The legal system sends out a very strange message regarding driving, the paltry ‘fines’ for bad driving that may entail death or serious injury, it is surely time to be a lot stricter with poor driving, the minimum demand is that people pay attention whilst behind a wheel, but a rolling ‘testing’ programme would do no harm– would increase employment, reduce incidents, and hopefully change a laissez fair culture.

Lol. MrAgreeable’s link doesn’t work due to the forum swear filter 😀

Go here and you will see the post: http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/

that is some ‘blog’ — franklin the enemy eh ? responsible for deaths !

The anonymous blogger has high opinions of himself, he wants segregation, apartheid, — i cannot believe the guy has thought much beyond the end of his nose !

The sooner that driver behaviour is modified to accommodate all road users then the better for all. Mr cat seeks to blame the victim– wonder what he has done to promote road safety in the last thirty years ?

Hmmm.. I largely agree with the views in that blog to be honest.

I think Cyclecraft is a great book and it teaches very useful road skills and techniques. And I’m very much in favour of the Right to Ride on the roads.

But to me Cyclecraft is a survival guide. It suggests techniques to lessen your chances of getting squished on our hostile roads. To me it doesn’t say “Our roads are perfect for cycling” it says “Our roads are terrible for cycling but here’s how to cope with them as best you can”

If we want to get more people cycling then I am 100% convinced that the way to do it is to build more safe traffic-free routes.

No parent is going to give their 10 year old a copy of Cyclecraft and happily wave them off down the dual carriageway to school.

so by teaching kids to avoid roads,only go on paths, how is that a help ?

is there a dedicated cycle path from chepstow to peterborough , because according to that analysis, that is what you need !

You say give a kid a book and off down the dual carriageway, thats being a bit silly really isn’t it ?

The onus is on those who control the lethal weapons to do just that !

so by teaching kids to avoid roads,only go on paths, how is that a help ?

Is it more helpful to prevent your kids riding to school because there is no safe route available to them? Because that is what largely happens at the moment.

Does your local school look like this:

And isn’t it more likely that it would do if the kids could ride to school safely like this:

(Source: Photos from Hembrow)

is there a dedicated cycle path from chepstow to peterborough , because according to that analysis, that is what you need !

Only if you ignore all the bits where he says he entirely supports Right To Ride and Vehicular Cycling but just doesn’t want them to be the only option.

You say give a kid a book and off down the dual carriageway, thats being a bit silly really isn’t it ?

Not really. If you want people to ride regularly as a normal form of transport then it should be as accessible as walking and not something that can only be done in relative safety by adults that have been specially trained and own appropriate safety equipment.

If you want people to ride regularly as a normal form of transport then it should be as accessible as walking

Motoring isn’t as accessible as walking, and that’s fairly popular.

Anyway there is plenty of pedestrian training going on. I have spent many hours training my daughter, and I will have to do so for a good few years yet I imagine.

Just because it’s not formal training doesn’t mean it’s not happening. When she learns to ride a bike I’ll do the same. Now, if parents aren’t training their kids in cycle roadcraft, there should be training available, no? After all you are a road user, and there are quite a lot of actual rules to obey, even if you don’t consider general safe behaviour.

Forgotten what I was replying to.. but training is important.

Motoring isn’t as accessible as walking, and that’s fairly popular.

Not with children. I hardly see any kids driving themselves to school 😀

Now, if parents aren’t training their kids in cycle roadcraft, there should be training available, no?

Of course.

but training is important.

I didn’t say it wasn’t.

But I still wouldn’t trust a highly trained ten year old to cycle along a dual carriageway or even just a busy roundabout, would you?

graham s , most people walk before they run, you get confidence and experience by doing things not avoiding them.

Here and now in the uk, with our ancient infrastructure and its ad hoc developments,those idealistic cycle paths are not going to be possible in many places, we can however do things about behaviour, and the driving under different conditions etc, this idea that the motorist is absolved of responsibility is erroneous, the message of segregation just encourages such attitudes– as we know when cycling on a road next to a ‘path’ –…

you seem to want to take extremes, dual carriageway to learn on !!

a first year medic is not expected to perform brain surgery ?

cycle paths that are properly built, are great, but since roads are already there and do the same function it would be folly to duplicate in all instances. The motorist must be responsible for their actions, and since the penalties are so light for infringements they treat it accordingly.

That blog is all stuff that needs to be said IMO.

Franklin is the epitome of a self-proclaimed expert. I’m not aware of any studies as to how effective Cyclecraft is at keeping riders safe, and there’s no vehicular cyclist utopia full of people with funny little helmet mirrors cycling in harmony with motor vehicles. There are some good indications that some of the advice in Cyclecraft, such as riding in a “primary position” near the middle of the lane, actually causes conflict. Just have a look at Martin Porter’s blog for examples.

His presentation of statistics is cherry-picking of the highest order. In that article linked above he gives a total of the number of accidents without any attempt to place this into context of journeys made, etc. Just like Mike Penning’s assertion that British cyclists are safer than Dutch ones. Yes we do have fewer cycling accidents in the UK, but that’s just because hardly anyone cycles. We probably have fewer surfing accidents than Hawaii too.

Franklin focuses disproportionately on cycle paths, ignoring all the other measures that Holland puts in to benefit cyclists and pedestrians like 20 mph limits or stopping up residential rat-runs. He also draws a false comparison between Dutch paths and the crap we have in the UK. The Milton Keynes Redways are a case in point – they have loads of gradient changes, blind corners, and require you to stop and carry your bike up steps or merge with 60 mph roads. Franklin’s oft-cited article never mentions this, instead he makes out they’re an exemplary facility.

Franklin’s dogma – that riding on the road is just a question of assertiveness, training and experience, and then everything else magically falls into place – is what’s led us to the current situation where cycling for transport(even in MK) is only done by a tiny proportion of the population.

What’s “blaming the victim” – is it saying that vulnerable road users should be put in a situation where they’re subjectively and objectively safer, or telling them to MTFU, cycle assertively and get on with it?

unbelievable– you blaming JF for the motoring culture, defensive riding is the only way to stay safe on the roads, and as others have said, drivers have no probs with assertive riders in the main, this idea that we should be off the roads where possible is really regressive, it reminds me of the out of sight out of mind theory, any cyclist who is on the road would be ‘asking’ for trouble.

Why do you not turn your ire on the real culprits,the motoring lobbies, the motoring press in all its forms, Top Gear etc– or are you a motorist who wants unhindered driving ?

you get confidence and experience by doing things not avoiding them.

Most kids learn to ride on the pavement, not the road. That’s where I learned, probably where you learned too. Yet somehow we still managed to transfer those skills to the road when the time was right.

Here and now in the uk, with our ancient infrastructure and its ad hoc developments,those idealistic cycle paths are not going to be possible in many places

And yet in other countries with equally ancient infrastructure they manage just fine.

cycle paths that are properly built, are great

Agreed.

since roads are already there and do the same function it would be folly to duplicate in all instances

“all instances”? Well yes, obviously. How about we start with just 5%?

The motorist must be responsible for their actions, and since the penalties are so light for infringements they treat it accordingly.

I’m not sure how true this is. Motorists don’t go out intending to kill cyclists. They are unlikely to think “Well, I was going to kill that cyclist, but there’s a £10,000 fine now so I won’t”.

Penalties for driving offences should be tighter, I agree. There shouldn’t be people legally driving around with more than 12 points. Regular retesting should be introduced.

But none of that would encourage me to set my daughter on her bike to go to school. But a traffic-free route would.

See the trouble with this debate is that the anti-segregation lot seem to think that supporting segregation means you are against cycling on the road. I’m not (and neither is the author of that blog). I’m all for cycling on the road.

But then you and I are already cyclists DESPITE the current conditions. We are not the target audience.

If you ask non-cyclists what’s the number one thing that would tempt them to ride to work/school/shops/park/whatever then the vast majority will answer safe, traffic-free routes.

Read this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/03/britons-unmoved-cycling-campaigns

Of course I want tougher penalties for motorists who kill too, but it’s not black and white. If you do something every day, even if it’s potentially got serious, life-changing consequences for getting it wrong, you become blase about it. That’s why factories and work places and trains and planes have multiple safety measures designed into them.

Modern roads are very safe places to drive. On a motorway you have good lines of sight, bland non-distracting backgrounds, markings to show you how far from the car in front you’re supposed to be, a rumble strip at the side to wake you up if you doze off. All of these have been implemented because at some point traffic engineers have realised that telling people to be sensible in a stern voice isn’t an effective long-term solution to road safety.

If you ask non-cyclists what’s the number one thing that would tempt them to ride to work/school/shops/park/whatever then the vast majority will answer safe, traffic-free routes.

if you ask non swimmers what they would like, pretty sure they would plonk for a safe place in which to learn!

Do you ever stand at the side of a motorway and think– thats madness going at 80 mph– yet when you are amongst it , it feels very different?

This is the same for all, jumping off top board, riding on the road should be scary if only for awareness sake, FWIW i did ride to school when i was 8, along a busy road for four miles each way. Ok traffic was a bit lighter then, but the inherent risks were the same– how many kids walk to school ?– very few, its too dangerous say the doubters !!

the inherent risks were the same

Well, no they weren’t, because as you rightly said “traffic was a bit lighter then”.
Quite a lot lighter in fact:

how many kids walk to school ?– very few

Around 47% of Primary school kids and 38% of secondary school kids, according to the National Travel Survey 2010. And I suspect more would if they had safe routes.

Okay let’s put it another way, can you explain to me how providing a network of safe usable traffic-free cycle routes would decrease the number of people cycling?

Drivers have no probs with assertive riders in the main

It’s the in-the-main that’s the problem. Drivers don’t have difficulty passing at a safe distance or speed ‘in the main’ but the consequences when they do are too great for that to be good enough.

Taking primary position in traffic in London where it is not safe/sufficiently wide to filter and I’m keeping pace with slow moving traffic I’ve had people both undertake (where I’m in a straight on lane alongside a left turn lane) and overtake and then simply try to pull across into the space I’m in.

My view is that cycling on the road is relatively safe. CTC’s current strategy is detrimental to efforts to encourage more people to cycle as their campaign is sensationalist. They’d do better by demonstrating how safe cycling is.

Just because your more likely to be injured than a car occupant doesn’t make an activity relatively dangerous.

Motorcycling is also safe. It can be made safer by riders attending bikesafe courses and other advanced training. Riding byways also dramatically improves motorcycling skills.

It’s worth noting that motorcycling is 20 times safer than horseriding:

http://www.bookofodds.com/Accidents-Death/Transportation-Accidents/Articles/A0497-The-Dangers-of-Hog-Horse-Accidents

There was also a recent research at the Conquest hospital in E Sussex that found 37 people were admitted with musculoskeletal injuries due to dogs in a two month period:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22310043

“Although owning a dog confers numerous health benefits, dogs can cause falls resulting in musculoskeletal injury and fractures. We conducted a prospective observational study over a two-month period to investigate the incidence and epidemiology of dog-related musculoskeletal injury. All patients attending the Emergency Department, trauma ward or fracture clinic were asked whether their injury was caused by a dog. Thirty-seven patients were identified. There were 26 fractures, 10 soft-tissue injuries and one head injury. Seventeen patients were admitted to the hospital and sixteen cases required an operation. Older people were statistically more likely to sustain a fracture (p=0.0003) or require hospital admission (p=0.02). Mechanisms of injury are discussed and can be classified into direct or indirectly caused by the dog. The most common injury mechanism was being pulled over by a dog on a lead. Injury avoidance strategies are discussed. We conclude that dogs are a potential hazard, particularly to the elderly and the morbidity associated with these injuries may offset the health benefits conferred by dog ownership.”

They’d do better by demonstrating how safe cycling is.

You can’t argue that cycling is safe while you’re still 20 times more likely to be hurt doing it than you are driving. What if you don’t cycle, but don’t lead a sedentary unhealthy lifestyle either? What incentive have you got?

You can’t argue that cycling is safe while you’re still 20 times more likely to be hurt doing it than you are driving. What if you don’t cycle, but don’t lead a sedentary unhealthy lifestyle either? What incentive have you got?

The post illustrates precisely why the CTC’s campaign, and “cycling is dangerous arguments” are detrimental and sensationalist. You use the argument that it’s 20 time more dangerous. Shock Horror!! it’s twenty times more dangerous, we’re all gonna die. It’s twenty times very little = very little. It’s not like the roads are strewn with corpses from RTA’s.

Scaremongers would have us believe that motorcycling is dangerous yet it’s significantly safer than horseriding.

“What incentive have you got?” – Why not focus on the positives instead of scaremongering? Biggest incentive is surely that you might have some fun? Tell that person that both driving and cycling is relatively safe (which it is) and they may choose to cycle. Now assume cyclist road deaths are halved, both driving and cycling remain relatively safe, would you attract that person to cycling by telling them its ten time more dangerous than driving?

Daresay someone will roll out the research that says safety concerns put people off cycling. Maybe that’s because scaremongering campaigns have misled the public into percieving cycling to be more dangerous than it actually is!

Funny you should say that. A serious RTA was a weekly occurrence on the A417 between Gloucester and Leominster when I drove it daily. After a while the police started leaving the burned out smashed up cars on the roadside. So that particular road actually was littered with the remains of crashes.

It was a shocking road though so not particularly relevant to the debate, except for the fact that my experiences driving it would not make me want to cycle it!

It’s not like the roads are strewn with corpses from RTA’s.

Well no, but over 200,000 people are injured on our roads every year.
You can hardly consider that “very little”.

I agree that a focus on how awfully dangerous cycling is could be detrimental. But we do have to be realistic. If the campaigns were “Hey come cycle on the road, it’s great fun and it gets you fit” then there would still be a lot of people saying “Well hang on, isn’t that kind of dangerous?” regardless and the campaigns would seem dishonest.

Bear in mind that the main driving force behind the Dutch cycling revolution was the 1973 “Stop de Kindermoord” (Child Murder) safety campaign, with pressure groups highlighting road deaths and pushing for better conditions.

French roads are generally quieter than ours, but they aren’t that different, especially if you are out in the countryside. But cycling in France is a lot better than here.

It’s because most drivers behave like the best drivers do here. They brake, back off, and overtake with good space. It’s really not rocket science.

I firmly believe that most people blast by not because they are rude, nasty, or want to endanger us. It’s just never occurred to them to do otherwise.

Hence education being paramount imho.

I don’t go around banging on about how dangerous cycling is. I know the odds of a serious accident happening to me are minute, and apart from anything else I’d look like a hypocritical fool – I cycle to work every day and I’ve just SORNed my car. But you have to admit that it takes a philosophical attitude to near-misses and close passes to keep cycling on most urban roads.

You can paint cycling in a positive light, even have some minor successes doing this. In Bristol we’re up to about 10% of journeys made by cycling after the council spent a lot of money promoting it – although we have a relatively large number of cycle paths too, some great, some useless. The down side is that you also see a lot of people cycling on pavements, making their own infrastructure if you will.

Unfortunately, most people have already made up their own minds. To sell cycling as “safe” you’d also have to overcome the conflicting voices. It’s not a proven approach and we’ve had a decade or more of people promoting cycling without actually backing it up – either with changes to the law or changes on the ground.

If you really want to get into the reasons why people do or don’t cycle there are interview transcripts and more on Dave Horton’s blog.

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/

Let’s keep that “over 200’000” injuries in perspective. Only 23’122 were fatal or serious injuries in 2011. And to keep that 23’122 in perspective a broken pinky counts as a serious injury but it’s hardly life changing.

How many people does anyone know that have been seriously injured in a car crash? Not many.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2011/rrcgb2011-00.pdf

Serious injury definition on page 4 at

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/road-accidents-and-safety/reported-road-casualties-gb-notes-definitions.pdf

I firmly believe that most people blast by not because they are rude, nasty, or want to endanger us. It’s just never occurred to them to do otherwise.

I think that’s close. Not so much that it has’t occured to them. But because there is a collective pressure to make progress. And bicycles are merely obstacles that should be passed quickly.

Many people feel nervous passing cyclists. They know the danger. And they generally know when they are cutting it close. Yet they feel they should pass. Because that is what’s expected of them. There’s very much a pack mentality on the roads, and everyone sucumbs to it in some way or other, no matter how self-controlled we believe ourselves to be. Dare I say it, it’s not entirely the fault of the indiviual that steps too close to that line, but that of the society which encourages them to do so.

I think that applies to both physical infrastructure and education in equal measures.

But cycling in France is a lot better than here.

I have to wonder if a part of that doesn’t relate to Le Tour. Cyclists have always been ‘heroes’ in France – ride through a the French hills and you get a smile and a shout of ‘Allez’. Despite the last few months the press reporting has still been along the lines of ‘Bradley Wiggins is great but the cyclists I see every day are shits’.

The inconsiderate close pass maybe you can educate about but the attitude that sees someone literally try to move into the space that you’re in, or accelerate towards you on a narrow road and just expect you to get out of the way, is a more fundamental attitudinal shift. I don’t buy the ‘posters and adverts’ thing at all – it’s a complete cop out. Lets spend the money on something tangible.

I’m assuming this thread, somewhere references this blog post on relative safety measures on road and rail

Cycle touring in France is great. Very few people cycle for everyday transport in France though, which makes me wonder whether we’re seeing a one-sided view of the place.

Also how do we replicate this effect to create more favourable conditions for cycling in the UK? We’ve cleaned up at the Olympics, the world champs and the Tour, but the drivers on my commute aren’t giving me any more space.

Let’s keep that “over 200’000” injuries in perspective. Only 23’122 were fatal or serious injuries in 2011. And to keep that 23’122 in perspective a broken pinky counts as a serious injury but it’s hardly life changing.

The September 11 attacks in the US only resulted in 3000 deaths, 510 UK soldiers have been killed in action in Iraq and Afganistan combined in 10 years.

Last year there were 173 fatal accidents at work reported by the HSE

However, c2000 deaths p.a. on UK roads is just acceptable collateral damage is it? Even after people have killed in a car we rarely even take their licence away for long

Cycle touring in France is great. Very few people cycle for everyday transport in France though, which makes me wonder whether we’re seeing a one-sided view of the place

I’ve wondered the same thing – I don’t have any experience of urban cycling in France. However, cycle touring in France is more pleasant than cycle touring in the UK. Good piece on Paris with photos of some infrastructure and mention of fact that zero fatal cycle accidents there last year

I firmly believe that most people blast by not because they are rude, nasty, or want to endanger us. It’s just never occurred to them to do otherwise.

I think that’s true of some. But there are plenty of others who deliberately pass close to “teach that uppity cyclist a lesson. Who does he think he is riding in the middle of the road like he has a right to be there? He doesn’t even pay road tax.. blah blah blah”

Just the other week Carlton Reid (editor of Bike Biz, IPayRoadTax, and numerous other bikey websites) was deliberately hit from behind by one such a motorist.

And to keep that 23’122 in perspective a broken pinky counts as a serious injury but it’s hardly life changing.

Mmmm… that may be technically true, but it’s hardly representative of the injuries sustained by people in that category which, as you pointed out, are defined as:

“An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an ‘in-patient’, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.”
— http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/road-accidents-and-safety/reported-road-casualties-gb-notes-definitions.pdf

However, c2000 deaths p.a. on UK roads is just acceptable collateral damage is it?

Well at 82 killed or seriously injured per billion miles it’s acceptable to me. Room for improvement but a 1:30’000 chance of being killed on the roads seems OK to me. My personal risk will in fact be far lower as the overall risk includes high risk groups like motorcyclists, young drivers, and drivers with alcohol in their blood.

Anyone who finds that 1:30’000 level of risk too much could always do their traveling by rail and bus which are far safer than cars.

I’ve cycled across Paris, and it’s ‘kin ‘orrible. Crap cycle lanes galore and nothing where you need it.

We’ve cleaned up at the Olympics, the world champs and the Tour, but the drivers on my commute aren’t giving me any more space.

Roads at commute time are totally different to roads at other times…