A large focussed media campaign would be a start.

To take the example of drink driving. I know that many people still do it but of people I know those of us around the 30yo mark have been heavily influenced by the campaign that was run by the government over many years (probably as we all started to drive and drink). It is normally the case that people will not drink anything if they are driving. It definately had an effect.

A similar campaign for cycling safety (aimed at all parties) could have a similar effect.

I would like to see a harder driving test and retesting.

I would like to see tougher sentences for people who kill and injur on the roads. This doesn not necessarily mean custodial sentences but automatic bans and compulsary extra training and retests.

More cycle training available to people thruogh schools and employers.

do you believe them? e.g. can you call their bluff by suggesting an sustrans traffic free / tow path type route? or some gentle MTBing… …I suspect its an easy excuse not the true reason.

poly: as I just mentioned on the other safety thread, I commute 11 miles to work by traffic-free Sustrans routes.

I simply wouldn’t consider doing that commute on the road.

It would be faster by road. I could use a road bike, I’d get less muddy, I wouldn’t swallow so many flies.

BUT.. it’d be a lot more stressful and I’d be taking my life in my hands every day. Especially as it would involve long stretches of dual carriageway.

I am an example of the cyclists you gain when you build good paths.

take a look at germany, most people cycle small distances there.

i was suprised at how many people did cycle

I cycle 40 miles a day across London. Every day I probably see and have to avoid all those things that the YouTube headcam heroes post and get agitated about all the time.
I don’t think we need segregated cycle paths, I don’t think we need draconian new rules for motorists – what we do need is
Education – for all. Children, adults, cyclists, motorists, lorry drivers, bus drivers, pedestrians!
Removal of free car parking at offices, shopping centres – anywhere
Changes in liability for collisions
Removal of police who routinely dismiss the possibility that their beloved motorist could possibly have done anything wrong
Huge increase in the costs of using cars, lets face it it’s just too cheap
Removal and crushing of vehicles parked on double yellow lines or in dangerous positions
No pointless blaming of cyclists not wearing helmets whenever they get crushed by a 30 tonne vehicle.

One thing I’ve always thought of is a ‘Priority time’ during peak times where only ‘working people’ or ‘parents with kids under 12 going to school’ can use the roads. The amount of people on the road first thing in the morning that clearly are not going to work is ridiculous. e.g pensioners and shoppers. Just have a lay in and let everyone else get to work!!!

Obviously there will be cases of emergency e.g. drive a friend to hospital. But getting to the shops for 8:50 is not an emergency.

This will:
Help people get to work quicker by any vehicle.
reduce the number of vehicles on the road during peak times.

Reduced speed limits to 20mph in urban areas.

Four simple things required for all road users:

Responsibility: for all of your actions.
Empathy: See things from other peoples perspective.
Visibility: Make sure you be seen and you can see what you are doing/where you are going and that others can see this as well.
Safety (which comes from all of the above)

I think Wiggins comments about having give and take is probably far more important than the comments about helmets which everyone seemed to pick up on.

loum – Member
Reduced speed limits to 20mph in urban areas.

I’m not sure this will work, more awareness on both sides will. There’s too much us and them at the end of the day we are all traffic.

mjsmke – how the hell would that be policed? Whilst a nice idea, it would be completely and utterly unworkable.

More people cycling is the best way to improve safety for cyclists.

Segregation – I can see the point on dual carriageways and fast A roads, but it cannot possibly happen in eg London. I believe the danger is that once bikes are segregated drivers will be even less tolerant when we, of necessity when there is no cycle lane, have to stray into “their” area.

I have personally experienced aggression from drivers who try to force me off the road and onto the cycle lane (which is a shared path with pedestrians, which I am not legally obliged to use on those occasions when I wish to ride quickly ie all the time). This is the danger – that we are “fair game” when not on a segregated path.

I favour a massive public awareness campaign highlighting the facts about car tax – ie, it doesn’t exist, roads are paid for from income tax and council tax (does therefore a high-earning cyclist have more right to be on the road than a low-earning motorist?).

I also favour penalties for cyclists who ride off kerbs or out of side roads without looking, who weave and wobble across the carriageway with no indication, who meander up to the front of the traffic at traffic lights and then sit bang in the middle of the lanes fiddling with something in their bag…

Oh, and it would be really really nice if the Police stopped parking illegally outside the police station in Tottenham Lane, Crouch End. Yesterday morning I caught two in a van in the cycle lane. I told him he was committing a traffic offence and setting a bad example. He responded by attempting to shut his window while I was speaking, sneering and being sarcastic.

also favour penalties for cyclists who ride off kerbs or out of side roads without looking, who weave and wobble across the carriageway with no indication, who meander up to the front of the traffic at traffic lights and then sit bang in the middle of the lanes fiddling with something in their bag…

They don’t even have enough resources to catch motorists who do far more dangerous things ……
EDIT: I am sure the bobbies you encountered would only be too willing to prioritise cycling offences ad let the car killers carry on their lethal way

legalise the un registered use of handguns?

kcr – Member

More people cycling is the best way to improve safety for cyclists.

Safety in numbers ,like being in herd of wilderbeest so only the old ,sick and young get eaten by the lions

More people cycling is the best way to improve safety for cyclists.

And the best way to get more people cycling is to improve safety for cyclists.

Oh.

Segregation – I can see the point on dual carriageways and fast A roads, but it cannot possibly happen in eg London.

Why’s that then? (another big thread running at the mo about segregated cycle paths by the way)

mjsmke – how the hell would that be policed? Whilst a nice idea, it would be completely and utterly unworkable.

Give the DVLA access to the Inland Revenue database to see which car owners are working etc. I agree it would be difficult to manage but it’s an idea.

but it cannot possibly happen in eg London.

Why not? Same old FUD – I don’t think it’s unrealistic to hope for better on a cycle forum. Please read – LCC Go Dutch FAQs

1/ Cyclist need to realize that they are not a threat to motorist so when they come to junction and the motorist pulls out and hits you it was not because he did not see you thats impossible unless he/she has eyes closed. The reason they pulled out is because they are looking for the threat behind you.
A/If they pull out and lorry hits them they probably dead.
B/if they do it to a car at least serious damage to there car and as cars aren’t designed for side impact still a good chance of death.
C/Pull out on front of motorbike damage to car only therefore much more likely to pull out in front of a car.
D/Pull out front of cyclist………what cyclist????????
As you approach a junction look the motorist in the eye it is nearly always obvious is he is going to pull out as he is looking straight through you. Stare at her untill you catch her eye (it nearly always happens) you have now been seen and unless you continue to stare at her they will not pull out.

Remember that off road cycle lanes are not for the benefit of cyclist they are there for benefit of motorists. They are dangerous for cyclist and pedestrains (if they share) and they will slow you down significantly. If you are on the road in town you may be getting 8/10 miles an hour. On a cycle path shared with a pedstrain you will be lucky to get 4 miles an hour, or even slower when you have to keep stopping constantly at the extra anti cycling junction. You are already taking forever (comapared to motorist) to get to your destination. So fight against cycle lanes.

On road cycling lanes have significantly increased cyclist injury and death rates (compared to same roads when they did not have lanes) entirely because councils have failed to make them wide enough. They were told to make them 1.5 metres wide but most are only 1 metre wide. Your wheel should be one metre from the curb that means you are cycling on the white line or cycling to close to the curb. The white line encouarges motorist to drive closer to cyclist ie this is my bit of the road thats yours. Complain to council and sue if you are in an accident.

Bright coloured clothing does not help you get seen. Only when you stand out will you be seen. As most cyclist ware bright coloured clothing and helmet both of which helped when they first started being used. I get seen because my helmet looks like a army style helmet. I notice on the occasional jurney into town pedestrains are always looking at it. Also I notice that motorist always give me more room when I am towing a trailer. Of course if everyone did the same they/we would not stand out. So naked cycling will garuntee you will be noticed even if every cyclist does it. NOTE the downside for men is that it would be assumed that cycling course your dick to shrink. Completly ignoring the wind chill factor. Of course the same effect will mean that everyone will believe that women will get pert breast by cycling.

Ignoring all this whining about high death rates in cities total rubbish. They quote figures for A roads in cities but the death rate on Rural A roads is 4 times higher. They are narrower and the motorists are going faster and they don’t want to part with a single mile per hour. I find Rural A roads unbelievable stressful compared to city A roads avoid if at all possible. The same drivers will give show far more respect on a back road than an A road.
Just back from Belgium car drivers showed more respect for cyclist in the city than they did for other car users. Even though the cycling left a lot to be desired. Why? The majority of car drivers are cyclists while it is the other way round in the UK.
I am bored it is sunny outside bollocks to this blog

All company owned vehicles cars vans lgvs to have the owners details on the side or back ,like buses and coaches are required to do by law.

Left turn buzzers on all vehicles over a certain size,

better educaton for cyclists and drivers of large vehicles about the left hand blind spot.

Top Gear to do an article about cyclists and larger vehicles.

Remember that off road cycle lanes are not for the benefit of cyclist they are there for benefit of motorists.

Absolute bobbins.

If you are on the road in town you may be getting 8/10 miles an hour on a cycle path shared with a pedstrain 4 miles an hour, or even slower when you have to keep stopping constantly at the extra anti cycling junction.

*checks Endomondo*

Average speed 24.3kph (~15mph) – and I’m on a MTB-turned-commuter and neither fit nor fast.

So fight against cycle lanes.

Please please don’t.

Fight against stupid infrastructure. Fight against pointless paint that adds nothing and dangerous junctions. Don’t fight against segregated safe cycle paths. They are our best hope.

(Please refer to the other thread for more of this riveting argument)

Break the cultural programming of petrol-powered mobilty aid users that their device is anything more than a convenient (for them) means of personal transport……

TBH, I’m not convinced about segregated cycle lanes. They make for a much more pleasant cycling experience IME but the problems start when you find yourself forced to share the road with other vehicles again.

The less drivers are forced to interact with cyclists the less they know what to do and ,weirdly enough, the less patient they are.

This is from my experience living in Norway.

a fresh start from everyone.

Worth repeating. Succinct and so true.

Aside from that – anything that makes us more like Holland and Denmark, from attitudes on both sides to infrastructure. Maybe less sense of entitlement in the face of conflicting interests and more ability to adapt our behaviour. Re-testing for drivers every 5-8 years and some kind of training+testing+possibly insurance for cyclists would get my support. The UK is a stressed* and densely populated** place and something has to change.

* opionion
** fact
for the sake of minimising argument creation here )

Graham S, because in the back streets of London (and probably other cities too) there is no room for properly segregated paths. We need tolerance, tolerance, tolerance. The realisation that we share a small, crowded island; some patience; some empathy.

Down the side of the A10? Yes, possible and necessary. Along the back streets of Bloomsbury? No.

What BruceWee says.

‘m not convinced about segregated cycle lanes. They make for a much more pleasant cycling experience… The less drivers are forced to interact with cyclists the less they know what to do and ,weirdly enough, the less patient they are.

Those pleasant segregated cycle lanes bring in new cyclists.
New cyclists mean more people with an understanding of cycling, more people with family members cycling, more empathy, more tolerance. New cyclists mean better faculties for all cyclists.

One thing I’ve always thought of is a ‘Priority time’ during peak times where only ‘working people’ or ‘parents with kids under 12 going to school’ can use the roads.

Or perhaps a system where parents with kids are encouraged to walk their kids to school, or use the bus, or let their kids ride to school (or ride to school with them, if young), with cars banned from a zone around the school (other than staff with a pass) ?

take a look at germany, most people cycle small distances there.
i was suprised at how many people did cycle

I’d probably use Germany as a better example than Holland or Denmark.
The Dutch have had excellent facilities for so long now, that the planners in Dutch local authorities and government grew up on cycling, cycled to school, and quite probably cycled to their office or at least to the station that morning. No showers needed, just commute on a bike, park it up and carry on with the day’s business.

Germany is very much like UK in that teh retrofit of cycling facilities is much more recent. But there’s a lot of it.

The UK is a stressed* and densely populated** place and something has to change.

* opionion
** fact

The Netherlands is right behind England in the population density league table. Fact.

Those pleasant segregated cycle lanes bring in new cyclists.
New cyclists mean more people with an understanding of cycling, more people with family members cycling, more empathy, more tolerance.

Agreed. You don’t have to use them but they’d be a good thing for all of us imo.

Down the side of the A10? Yes, possible and necessary. Along the back streets of Bloomsbury? No.

Why not? Does every one of those back streets need cars on it, travelling on both directions?

Grahams, didn’t know that – so all the more reason for us to look at their infrastructure and cycling culture?

Those pleasant segregated cycle lanes bring in new cyclists.
New cyclists mean more people with an understanding of cycling, more people with family members cycling, more empathy, more tolerance. New cyclists mean better faculties for all cyclists.

There are loads of families cycling and there is a lot of tolerance so long as you don’t get in drivers way.

I actually find Norway worse than the UK when cycling on shared roads in terms of tolerance. When you consider how far Scandinavians will go to avoid confrontation the aggression shown on the road is scary. They will do absolutely anything to get passed you.

Remember that off road cycle lanes are not for the benefit of cyclist they are there for benefit of motorists.

Absolute bobbins.
Most cycling organistions agree with that.

If you are on the road in town you may be getting 8/10 miles an hour on a cycle path shared with a pedstrain 4 miles an hour, or even slower when you have to keep stopping constantly at the extra anti cycling junction.

*checks Endomondo*

Average speed 24.3kmh (~15mph) – and I’m on a MTB-turned-commuter and neither fit nor fast

So fight against cycle lanes.

Please please don’t.
15 miles an hour my arse most people aren’t doing that ourside town. Do you stop at junctions? Are there any traffic lights in your city? Are there any motorists? It is against the law to cycle on footpaths because it is dangerous for pedestrains why has it suddenly become safe. And I don’t want to hear the shite about them being segregaed, a white line does not segragate a child from walking in front of cyclist or adult for that matter. You are showing just how thoughtless you are espcially if you are doing 15 miles an hour. What would that do to child if you hit him. Get off the pavement you don’t belong there.

Fight against stupid infrastructure. Fight against pointless paint that adds nothing and dangerous junctions. Don’t fight against segregated safe cycle paths. They are our best hope.

Get on the road where you belong you have no right to be on the pavement stressing pedestrains and putting them at risk.

Top Gear to do an article about cyclists and larger vehicles

jeez. 😕

maybe Fifth gear might be a safer bet (although only about 3 people watch that)

because in the back streets of London (and probably other cities too) there is no room for properly segregated paths. We need tolerance, tolerance, tolerance.

Sure – you need to make the back roads safe to. The Dutch get that as well – 20mph limit and removal of rat runs – all but main roads become no through road so the traffic on them is not trying to avoid a main route and ‘in a hurry’.

GrahamS – Member

do you believe them? e.g. can you call their bluff by suggesting an sustrans traffic free / tow path type route? or some gentle MTBing… …I suspect its an easy excuse not the true reason.

poly: as I just mentioned on the other safety thread, I commute 11 miles to work by traffic-free Sustrans routes.

I simply wouldn’t consider doing that commute on the road.

It would be faster by road. I could use a road bike, I’d get less muddy, I wouldn’t swallow so many flies.

BUT.. it’d be a lot more stressful and I’d be taking my life in my hands every day. Especially as it would involve long stretches of dual carriageway.

I am an example of the cyclists you gain when you build good paths.
What is a traffic-free Sustrans routes??? Are you sharing with pedestrains?

15 miles an hour my arse most people aren’t doing that ourside town.

Here’s my last commute. 18.04km in 44m:37secs
http://www.endomondo.com/workouts/kzSnvzWEO2w

Almost entirely off-road on Sustrans traffic-free routes (NCN72 mainly).

What is a traffic-free Sustrans routes??? Are you sharing with pedestrains?

Yep.

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/

Do you stop at junctions?

Of course.

Are there any traffic lights in your city?

Plenty. I use them to cross the road.

Are there any motorists?

Loads, but I’m not on the road – I’m on a proper segregated cycle path.

You are showing just how thoughtless you are espcially if you are doing 15 miles an hour. What would that do to child if you hit him. Get off the pavement you don’t belong there.

You assume too much. I have a young child of my own, I am perfectly careful around pedestrians especially children, thanks. I even get a cheery hello from the ones I see every day.

Get on the road where you belong you have no right to be on the pavement stressing pedestrains and putting them at risk.

No thanks. I’m not riding to work along a dual carriageway.

I have every right to be using designated shared use paths. And I will.
I don’t “stress” anyone – I’m polite and courteous. I even spent time picking the politest sounding bell I could find.

I haven’t read any of the thread part from the title, so first off, apologies there.

Now for my thoughts on bike safety.

The one thing that would make cycling safer, is by keeping other traffic and bikes apart. I see a bike as a pedestrian with a bit of metal. And we know to keep pedestrians and other traffic separate, because any time there’s a vehicle/pedestrian incident, the pedestrian will come off far worse. I don’t see having a bit of metal changing that, and I’m sure accident data will back me up. On country roads we tell pedestrians (quiet rightly) to face oncoming traffic so they may take evasive action if needed. Why shouldn’t the same apply to cyclists.

TuckerUK: trouble is, the pedestrian fatality rate is roughly the same as cycling, so treating cyclists like pedestrians may not be the answer.
We need to treat both cyclists and pedestrians better by making streets safer and providing safe places to walk and cycle.

I think the German way of raised cycle lanes running along side the paths and cyclist having priority over motorists so the car has to stop turning to allow the cyclist to cross over the junction. Cycle paths have their own zebra crossing type lights too which allow them quick access to cross over a road. They probably have a faster average speed due to few delays but a slower maximum speed as they low speed due the risk of accidents with pedestrians. All this will cost a lot of money to implement nationwide and won’t be popular with the public as cyclists are seen as minority.

i am shocked. I agree with something published by the Daily Mail

Now i’m in some kind of liberal tail spin.