Author Topic: Cycle paths and increased risk.  (Read 19290 times)

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #50 on: 29 April, 2008, 05:50:20 pm »
Bugger - I'm so overloaded I just realised I'm not the Mike that wrote that quote Domestique quoted - it was the other Mike ;D .

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #51 on: 29 April, 2008, 05:57:20 pm »
Quote
Even the laws here are perfectly good.

Thats why the CTC offer legal representation as one of the main reasons for joining. 
When you ride a bike you have no option but to break the law by say undertaking stationary traffic, no matter how slowly or carefull you do it. Any accident and thats down to you. Sorry Mike but thats not right. The law doesnt cover cyclists nearly enough imo.


The legal representation isn't due to a lack of law here (not that I'm saying the law couldn't be improved) but more a case of ensuring that as a member you have access to a decent lawyer who will assist you in fighting the other party's legal representative.

As a motorist (car and motorcycle) my insurance policies also have an additional "legal representation" policy tagged on.  It's also tagged onto the house insurance (I think) as well as some of the other policies and memberships I have.

I don't need any of those since the law covers me.  But when it's me as a member of the public standing in court and fighting all the clever lawyer people, it's easy for them to twist strange sub-clauses and so wriggle off of the hook.

Unfortunately (even though I do believe we should have the change in the law here so drivers have to prove their innocence rather than us prove their guilt) I don't think much will change in the UK - WITHOUT an additional cultural change towards cyclists.  We'll still get drivers mowing down cyclists at a point where the cycle path crosses the road, and prove that it was the cyclist's fault because of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.   

The cultural change will only really occur once we get more people out there on bikes.  In itself that is a catch 22 point :(  (Although the spiralling cost of fuel may help us as we go into the improved summer weather).

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #52 on: 29 April, 2008, 06:09:14 pm »
Thats why the CTC offer legal representation as one of the main reasons for joining. 
When you ride a bike you have no option but to break the law by say undertaking stationary traffic, no matter how slowly or carefull you do it.

Filtering on a bike is not illegal, regardless of whether you under or overtake.  You're not forced to break the law at all on a bike.

The legal assistance does not prove your point in the slightest, as pointed out well by nutty.
Your Royal Charles are belong to us.

Domestique

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #53 on: 29 April, 2008, 06:19:20 pm »
Well you learn something everyday, undertaking is in fact legal  ???

I honestly dont think you will see a significant rise in cycling numbers, outside of London, without infastructure and laws to protect. Untill that happens motorists, and their insurance lawyers will get away with murder, quite litrally   :(

Quote
The cultural change will only really occur once we get more people out there on bikes.  In itself that is a catch 22 point   (Although the spiralling cost of fuel may help us as we go into the improved summer weather).

I think thats a nice note for me to stop posting on this thread.


oldcobblers

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #54 on: 29 April, 2008, 10:14:49 pm »
Given your previous on the subject, I think there's probably little point in debating with you.  The details are out there if your mind is open.
Excuse me? My previous on the subject? I've not done many posts so have been able to check back.  Nothing on the subject written by me.  I'm asking questions.  Open minded enough for you?

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #55 on: 29 April, 2008, 10:51:17 pm »

<snip>

Quote
The cultural change will only really occur once we get more people out there on bikes.  In itself that is a catch 22 point   (Although the spiralling cost of fuel may help us as we go into the improved summer weather).

I think thats a nice note for me to stop posting on this thread.


Ironically, on turning up for my weekly Keep Fit session at the local church I found a nice new shiney Appollo (Halfrauds Special).  Yup, one chap has been converted to cycling purely through the cost of petrol consumed by his 2 litre people carrier (he does have three daughters so the people carrier does make sense).

Please don't give up on the thread Domestique.  I know this seems a one sided conversation with you on one side (pro path pro law change?) and others on the other side (bentmikey and me?) but I don't see that as the case - I am genuinely interested in your opinions (and I also DO see the need for paths where appropriate*, law changes, changes in perception so that what the public think is needed is addressed appropriately).

I'm also keen to get more people interested in a "steering group" behind me as I try to really get working with Southend Council on their cycling "stuff", you, as well as any other Southend Cyclist are the people I want to get more involved with as your views do count.


* edit:  the two words in italics were added after the following comment quoted me as I saw I could be taken out of context.

oldcobblers

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #56 on: 30 April, 2008, 12:24:40 pm »
...
Quote
The cultural change will only really occur once we get more people out there on bikes.  In itself that is a catch 22 point  ...

...


...  I know this seems a one sided conversation with you on one side (pro path pro law change?) and others on the other side (bentmikey and me?) but I don't see that as the case - I am genuinely interested in your opinions (and I also DO see the need for paths, law changes, changes in perception so that what the public think is needed is addressed appropriately).
..

The above sums up my position on the subject perfectly.  Well done NC.

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #57 on: 30 April, 2008, 01:04:09 pm »
Hhmmmm.... that highlighting has made me realise that my comment could be taken out of the context I intended it.

What did I mean?
 - Law changes - Yes
 - Change of public perception towards cycling being dangerous and requiring dedicated infrastructure - yes
 - Paths - Yes where appropriate.

Where is appropriate?
 - Alongside busy roads with high traffic flow, if the traffic cannot be reduced/calmed.
 - Short cuts linking cul-de-sacs and other non-through routes for motor traffic.
 - Leisure facilities or pleasant links through parks and open spaces.

What does this mean in reality?
 - In an urban situation, such as Southend, measures should be taken to encourage cycling and to educate the public that cycling is relatively safe and can be undertaken NOW with no need to wait for anything.  This is being progressed through many little schemes, such as cycle training and school work.
 - Traffic should be reduced, especially in residential areas.  This could be achieved by "soft measures" such as car sharing schemes amongst employers or "Walking buses" on school routes, it could also be achieved via a more engineering solution such as closing roads or creating short one way sections so that traffic in that area is only for that residential area and not there as a through route.  Traffic calming, such as 20mph zones, could also be used.  If correctly undertaken then not much will be seen on the road, other than a reduction in vehicles.
 - Then we can start looking at dedicated cycle lanes and paths alongside the more major roads, if required, to make sure that all the various cycle friendly areas are joined up and people can really start to move around.

oldcobblers

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #58 on: 30 April, 2008, 06:50:35 pm »
No worries, NC.  Your clarification as given above is EXACTLY how I originally interpreted your other post.

We are as one, sir!

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #59 on: 30 April, 2008, 07:05:37 pm »
Nutty - that's exactly where I stand on the matter, as well.

sas

  • Penguin power
    • My Flickr Photos
Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #60 on: 30 April, 2008, 09:40:10 pm »
A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Bicycles, found via the Urban Velo blog. 177 pages, focussed on the USA, but it looks like it might be interesting if anyone's got time to read it.
I am nothing and should be everything

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #61 on: 30 April, 2008, 10:48:04 pm »
"Walking buses" on school routes

Drifting well off-topic but PedBikeTrans tends to think that walking buses are counter-productive and that other measures are better.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

pdm

  • Sheffield hills? Nah... Just potholes.
Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #62 on: 30 April, 2008, 11:03:28 pm »
A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Bicycles, found via the Urban Velo blog. 177 pages, focussed on the USA, but it looks like it might be interesting if anyone's got time to read it.
Can't say I agree with all their ideas of painted on cycle lanes - some look decidedly suspect given the attitude of some drivers....

One thing that does strike me is that its a lot safer to cycle here in the UK than over the pond....
The per capita cyclist death rate over there seems to be almost 3 times what it is here. Then again, the motor vehicle per capita death rate is also over 3 times what it is here....

Spikey

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #63 on: 01 May, 2008, 02:49:37 pm »
Can't say I agree with all their ideas of painted on cycle lanes - some look decidedly suspect given the attitude of some drivers....
Are there any safety statistics regarding on-road cycle lanes and ASLs.

<RANT>
IMO, on-road painted cycle lanes are almost always dangerous for a variety of reasons (in no particular order):
1) They are often too narrow and encourage drivers to overtake even closer
2) Often too short to be of any use.
3) Often double up as parking/loading etc.
4) They are often poorly surfaced with a variety of hazards including pot-holes, iron work etc
5) They are often on the left approaching junctions and encourage cyclists to dangerously undertake lorrys and buses.
6) They often cause drivers to be less aware of cyclists.
7) Often placed in the door-zone.
8 ) When they are well designed (wide and clear of the door zone) they coincide with the natural road position for drivers, making them especially susceptible to being driven in.
9 ) Mandoratory lanes (solid lines) are rarely (if ever)  enforced, meaning that there is little/no deterrant to driving/parking in them. Advisory lanes (dashed lines) are even worse.
10) Often end short of junctions or pinch points causing a dangerous reintergration of traffic.
11) ASLs encourage cyclists to overtake/undertake through narrow gaps, leaving them in dangerous position if the lights change prior to reaching the ASL.
12) ASLs are often blocked by drivers and rarely (if ever) enforced.
13) They encourage the view that cyclists should be segregated and not mix with other traffic.
14) They cause significant increase in conflict and agression when either:
   a) cyclist chooses to not use them (for any of above reasons)
   b) drivers block them by driving/parking in them

Over the last couple of weeks I have had 2 near misses involving drivers, unnecesarily swerving at me into a cycle lane. On both occasions I had anticipated the possibility and had enough room to escape collision. On both ocasions my complaints were returned with abuse and dangerous driving.

I have also had several drivers gradually push me out of cycle lanes into the door-zone.

So far this week, my commute has been delayed every morning by drivers unnecesarily blocking or partially blocking a mandoratory (solid white line) cycle lane.

I have lost count to the number of drivers I have seen blocking or partially blocking advisory cycle lanes (dashed lines) or ASLs.

IMO Most roads would be a lot safer without cycle lanes, thereby encouraging traffic to share rather than fight for road space.
</RANT>

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #64 on: 01 May, 2008, 04:40:45 pm »
"Walking buses" on school routes

Drifting well off-topic but PedBikeTrans tends to think that walking buses are counter-productive and that other measures are better.

Personally I don't like the walking bus approach either.  There's one school in Southend that has an official car park for the 'bus' FFS >:(  Surely having lots of kids + cars + non road is the most dangerous scenario of the lot.   I also don't like the idea that they breed whereby you're not allowed on the 'bus' unless you are wearing hi-viz - that makes it seem as though walking is dangerous.

But, at least it is getting some cars off roads.  On my morning commute I often see 3 of those things.  That's around 60 to 90 kids, so around 60 to 90 cars fewer than without.

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #65 on: 01 May, 2008, 08:01:16 pm »
I also don't like the idea that they breed whereby you're not allowed on the 'bus' unless you are wearing hi-viz - that makes it seem as though walking is dangerous.

To be fair, I think that's to allow the 'driver' of the bus to easily keep track of the 'passengers', not for any visibility-to-other-traffic reason...
Life is too important to be taken seriously.

Re: Cycle paths and increased risk.
« Reply #66 on: 02 May, 2008, 01:43:43 am »
When I was at school and on a school trip the function of the teacher seeing us all was thanks to the uniform*.  No requirement for hi-viz.





*In particular the the grey and yellow bobble hats :sick: