The Times has launched a public campaign and 8-point manifesto calling for cities to be made fit for cyclists:

1. Lorries entering a city centre should be required by law to fit sensors, audible turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.
2. The 500 most dangerous road junctions must be identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and Trixi mirrors that allow lorry drivers to see cyclists on their near-side.
3. A national audit of cycling to find out how many people cycle in Britain and how cyclists are killed or injured should be held to underpin effective cycle safety.
4. Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes, providing £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.
5. The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.
6. 20mph should become the default speed limit in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes.
7. Businesses should be invited to sponsor cycleways and cycling super-highways, mirroring the Barclays-backed bicycle hire scheme in London.
8. Every city, even those without an elected mayor, should appoint a cycling commissioner to push home reforms.

What do we think?

First I’ve heard of this..

Been running since last week.

Matthew Parris chairing, no doubt…

You being sarky KT?

I think its blimmin good. Weird time of year to try to encourage people to cycle though…

I have supported it on the basis anything along this nature needs support however it seems a bit of a strange list.

I’m not a fan of the cycle lanes that I have come across, they seem to be a way of getting cyclists out of the way of road users as opposed to helping cyclists.

What I would like to see is all big cities having a subsidised cycle to work initiative that would provide secure cycle storage, showers, decent sized lockers etc. That would be ace.

You being sarky KT?

Yip, we have had a couple of threads already.

For the OP to catch up on discussion:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/save-or-cyclists-in-a-murdoch-paper-whatever-next
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-bike-rant-on-bbc-radio-bristol-now#post-3466280

(some others too but can’t be bothered searching)

Mostly a good thing on the whole (IMO) and I have pledged my support.
But it has introduced me to the phrase “the Curate’s Egg”

Just implementing number 5 on that list would do the job just fine. Maybe 2 as well, at a push.

6 is the crucial one for me.
It would mean many traffic lights could be removed and traffic speeds will increase and will stop the desperate “overtake the cyclist before the next jam” we get now as well as reduce casualties all round.

win / win as they say

5. The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.

By what percentage would you seek to improve the the training of cyclists over and above the existing statutory requirements? 🙂

I’ve got issues with the (un deliverable) requirements to add more and more gizmos to trucks. Trucks have a big blind spot but its not really worse than buses, coaches or vans (even small vans can have terrible blindspots). Its something else about trucks which causes the seriousness of the accidents when they happen. Its the coachwork, not the mirrors, that are the issue I reckon.

There is one thing above all others that would make the difference.

Introduction of “Strict Liability”, the rule that says if a driver hits a cyclist, the driver is (almost always) considered guilty. It works on the continent and in a lot of US States as well.

maccruiskeen

A mirror that allows a truck driver to see a cyclist on the inside would be well worth having – a lot of new trucks have them anyway

Crazy – legs – I learnt on a previous debate on here its actually “assumed liability”. not strict – the bigger vehicle is considered to be at fault unless they can show otherwise

mirrors could/would help – but so would some bodywork, so that when you’re sideswiped by a turning vehicle you get pushed to the side rather than knocked down and under the wheels

Crazy – legs – I learnt on a previous debate on here its actually “assumed liability”. not strict – the bigger vehicle is considered to be at fault unless they can show otherwise

Either way that’d be a bloody good start. Wouldnt take too many car drivers getting the book thrown at them before drivers started being more careful.

Introduction of “Strict Liability”, the rule that says if a driver hits a cyclist, the driver is (almost always) considered guilty. It works on the continent and in a lot of US States as well.

works in what sense – i’d rather the accident didn’t happen than that there was an arbitrary way of apportioning blame afterwards.

Theres a lack of road awareness amongst drivers as much as cyclists as to how to place yourself in traffic around a big vehicle. People frequently put themselves in a position where they can’t help but be the victim of an accident, they’ll still be the victim, the person driving will still be to blame. But with more road sense you can put yourself in a position where that accident can’t happen.

Sadly, with the proliferation of cycle lanes, many of those lanes steer cyclists into exactly the kind of road positions they should be trying to avoid

4. Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes, providing £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.

This doesnt really make sense to me. Sure you want to invest more in cycling related infrastructure but the HA network deals with very different things to what a cycle network would. Surely it would make more sense to take it from city councils where the cycling infrastructure would be utilised.

I mean youre not going to cycle from London to Manchester on a specific cycle route nor transport goods on it either!

20mph speed limits are so damn annoying. No modern cars are geared to run effectively for prolonged periods at that speed, IMO.

Driving tests that promote actual driving skills and knowledge would be my first port of call. Re-tests for anyone found negligent, no questions asked.
Tougher proof of identity to prevent sham driving tests.
Tougher penalties for any driver found guilty of causing an accident through poor driving.
Bascially I think the police need a whole lot more power to take bad drivers off the road.
I’m starting to think that I see more people holding a phone to their ear whilst driving than those who arent on the phone.

Does anyone think it would be mad to fine/ban undertakers/ last minute lane changers / tail gaters caught on camera on the motorway?

My current favourite is passing the ‘congestion stay in lane’ signs lit up on the M25, which seems the point where 80% of drivers think they are being told to change lane as quickly as possible, whether a gap in the traffic presents itself or not.

Why do so many drivers think that turning on an indicator means they have done their bit, its time to turn?

And breath.

4. Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes,

I would honestly be over the moon if the Highways Agency actually spent 2% of their funds on the roads.
As far as im aware, some of that money is earmarked for bungs and dodgy maintenance contracts. Whilts the rest goes who know where?

slimjim = proven to be wrong – you use less fuel at 20 mph – you simply need to run one gear lower usually. You will actually increase av erage speeds normally and there will be far less need for traffic lights as at 20 mph junctions can be negotiated without – also improving traffic flow

It would make life far far safer for cyclists.

ban undertakers

Who will bury the dead cyclists?

slimjim = proven to be wrong – you use less fuel at 20 mph – you simply need to run one gear lower usually. You will actually increase av erage speeds normally and there will be far less need for traffic lights as at 20 mph junctions can be negotiated without – also improving traffic flow

It would make life far far safer for cyclists.

And you use even less fuel at 5mph?… I imagine less cyclists would die too

Im all for improving conditions for cyclists (I am one), I just personally hate 20mph zones.
Im also aware how to drive at 20mph, I just dont think modern vehicles are designed to do it comfortably/easily for extended periods is all.
Im not saying they are wrong, I just hate em.
Besides, where I live ’20MPH’ actually means ‘drive as fast as you can get away with, but no lower than 50mph or your gipsy fraternity will not respect you’. apparently.

tough – it has no downside at all – average speeds will increase and it done across a lot of europe with no issues . Of course you r car can run at 20 mph – just change down a gear

There is a huge disparity of what makes a good cycle path / lane against what meets local /national guidelines, money is already there (but not enough) but why are we still seeing these utterly stupid designs that only make cyclists either confused or flounce the restructions, and the stupid design costs more.

A local authority can add up all these little bits of pathetic cycle lane and say they have 100km, but 90km is laughable at best, dangerous at worst.

My favourite-

Also, cyclists are human, humans are often stupid & jump red lights etc etc etc. I have no idea about fixing this. Maybe being flattened by a (well driven) truck may stop them.

FFS. I know how to drive. I just dont like driving Miss Daisy.
Some occassions undoubetdly call for it, but most 20mph zones are complete town planning madness.
As a decent citizen I will of courseobserve the limits, but to many others 20mph is simply a red rag.

Im all for improving conditions for cyclists (I am one), I just personally hate 20mph zones.
Im also aware how to drive at 20mph, I just dont think modern vehicles are designed to do it for extended periods is all.

Thing is so – in built up areas, where current 30mph are enforced how much of your time is spent at a steady 30mph? Its stops, starts, turns, roundabouts, junctions. Its rare that you reach and hold a 30mph speed on an urban journey, I can only think of one route that I drive where I might do that for more than a quarter of a mile. I think if you drop the urban max to 20mph it would hardly alter most urban journey times, it might even speed them up a bit if it made joining traffic easier

I guess so.
Im mainly thinking of a couple 1 mile or so stretches by me that are wide with great visibility, very straight, and littered with speed bumps..yet 20mph max. Its painful. (was a 40mph road when I moved to the area, then became 30mph, now 20mph).
And i’d say 10 to 15% of ‘drivers’ straddle the speed bumps and fly through at at least 50mph, probably making the route even more dangerous.

slimjim – it has to be done sensibly – and I would also make more 40s as well.

I was going to ask if scruff’s pic was ‘shopped, but I know it’s not!

Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.

I wonder how this would be measured too. My town put in loads of cycle lanes over the past 5 years. But they are all absolutely useless.
Wide roads get a big red stripe down the side, narrow roads? Nothing. Wide roads that narrow, get a “END OF CYCLE LANE”!

The car culture in this country means the Times campaign will go nowhere. I blame Clarkson (maybe).

FFS. I know how to drive. I just dont like driving Miss Daisy.

When I sat my driving test, five years ago, my instructor advised me that I shouldn’t be doing more than about 20mph on any (properly) residential street and I’d likely fail my test if I did.

Seemed reasonable at the time. Feels incredibly slow now.
Perhaps another good reason for frequent retests?

Acpo have said they are not going to enforce the 20mph schemes being unveiled, also if it doesnt look like a 20 mph, eg [parked cars narrowing of the road etc, motorists wont obey.

What we as cyclists need is more on road cycle routes, designated with a kerb, so cars cant wander in or park on the lane.

It would be a huge skills and work generator, as well as being good for the environmnet.

As i understand it, the main through routes such as A-roads running into town centres etc will still be 30mph most of the time, its just 20mph will be the default on everything else. You’re only doing 20mph on the connecting roads from your house.

When I sat my driving test, five years ago, my instructor advised me that I shouldn’t be doing more than about 20mph on any (properly) residential street and I’d likely fail my test if I did.

A friend of mine was very nearly failed for driving at 25mph (rather than at the limit of 30mph) in residential streets but when asked by the examiner he said that he had been taught to do that by his instructor in case children ran out between cars.

That was some 27 years ago though.

On a related note, I liked this:
Highways Agency TfL-style Road-planning (from Wheels, Pedals, Person)

20mph speed limits are so damn annoying. No modern cars are geared to run effectively for prolonged periods at that speed, IMO.

I’m in agreement with TJ (it’s alright, I’ll go wash my hands in a minute, and the dirty feelign will pass with time), my focus sits just fine at 30mph in 4th gear, which leaves me 3 othr gears to chose between for 20mph bits.

I just dont think modern vehicles are designed to do it comfortably/easily for extended periods is all.

My (driving) commute to work is approx an hour each way. It’s on a motorway for all but 5 miles. I make my average speed around 25mph.

Two hours of driving means it’s stationary for 22 hours at a time.

Neither of these extended sub-30mph activities have made it blow up yet.

my focus sits just fine at 30mph in 4th gear

Is it broken??

My Focus sits just fine at 30mph in 3rd gear. 😀

IMHO – one of the biggest things they could do is introduce penalties for cyclists in line with those of other road users.
Boils my p*ss watching how many cyclists – daily cyclists who ignore red lights, junctions, paths, solid white lines, etc and just do what they want with impunity.
See how long that lasts if they get on the spot fines, points on their car license, etc – not very methinks….

one of the biggest things they could do is introduce penalties for cyclists in line with those of other road users.

I’m pretty sure most of the things you mention are offences for all road users.

daily cyclists who ignore red lights

If you can get behind the paywall you may enjoy this article in The Times:
“If it’s safer to run a red light on a bike, I’ll carry on doing it: Cyclists can’t be expected to abide by a law that makes them – at times – less safe” (Lech Mintowt-Czyz, The Times, 9th Feb 2012)

points on their car license

?? How would that work??

Can we also put points on car licenses for other non-car offences like shoplifting?