UK sits in the slow lane over cycling safety

[mattc]

I wonder what the argument would be if, for one day, no vehicles other than Bicycles were allowed on the road. I imagine there would be no bicycle related deaths, and I wonder what the reaction by motoring lobbying bodies would be: "We don't understand it. It's too early to tell, but something other than poor driving by the motorist must come into play here."

Or alternatively, get rid of all cycles and there would be no cycle related deaths.

But plenty of deaths caused by motorists. They kill pedestrians and motorists every day - look at the stats, easily available - and cyclists aren't even a contributory factor. It's quite clear that motorists are causing most of the damage,.

That is the reality.

p.s. Nice one Riggers 

[Martin]

It really pains me that some of my CTC membership £££ goes in Geffen's pocket 

derrr; in the Netherlands almost every motorist is also a cyclist; and they have a segregated cycle infrastructure with adequate provision where it meets the road infrastructure

do we really pay him to find that out?

[mcshroom]

I pains me that some of my CTC membership £££ goes in Geffen's pocket 

derrr; in the Netherlands almost every motorist is also a cyclist; and they have a segregated cycle infrastructure with adequate provision where it meets the road infrastructure

do we really pay him to find that out?

Of course that must be it. I mean, just look at how the cycle lanes of Milton Keynes and Stevenage are packed with cyclists unlike those horrible cycle free zones like Cambridge and Oxford

[Martin]

I pains me that some of my CTC membership £££ goes in Geffen's pocket 

derrr; in the Netherlands almost every motorist is also a cyclist; and they have a segregated cycle infrastructure with adequate provision where it meets the road infrastructure

do we really pay him to find that out?

Of course that must be it. I mean, just look at how the cycle lanes of Milton Keynes and Stevenage are packed with cyclists unlike those horrible cycle free zones like Cambridge and Oxford

have you ever cycled in the Netherlands?

[mcshroom]

Yes - you?

[Martin]

Yes - you?

yes; a lot;

to avoid a flame war are you saying my synopsis of their cycling infrastructure is incorrect? if so I think it's best we walk away now 

[mcshroom]

No I'm saying having lots of dedicated separate cycle infrastructure does not mean you will automatically have lots of cyclists. Both the towns I mentioned have extensive planned cycle provision yet are not towns with high modal shares of cycling.

OTOH, others with far less segregated provision such as Cambridge, London, Oxford, Bristol have far higher modal shares.

It's not the infrastructure that is the key here, otherwise we would indeed have booming cycling levels in the new towns, and next to nothing in the older urban areas. If you removed the vast majority of the cycle lanes in the Netherlands, you would still have high cycle usage because the mindset is different.

[Martin]

agree completely

[Fab Foodie]

Yes - you?

yes; a lot;

to avoid a flame war are you saying my synopsis of their cycling infrastructure is incorrect? if so I think it's best we walk away now 

Anecdata alert ....
I spent a year or so occasionally commuting by bicycle in Holland on the regular roads through the town, it was great!  Then some 'infrastructure' was provided which actually made the commute worst and more dangerous.  Pointless, needless waste.
The point is that some that is good and works and is useful and some that is plainly wrong.  Having seen examples of the UK's attempts to provide cycling infrastructure I'd rather councils spent the money on something useful like traffic calming or bus lanes.

[Martin]

The juxtaposition of the Australia and Canada death increases with the 85% make helmets

when oh when will you learn to conduct this in Lift the Lid?

[Jaded]

When tossers stop spouting "helmet saved my life" bullshit.

[TimC]

The point is that public opinion is (as Pete O says) that cyclists need to do something about their own safety when it is far more complicated than that.

As long as we have cyclists nodding away like lapdogs whenever helmets are mentioned (and probably saying "they should be wearing hi-vis too") then we have lost the argument with the world.

It is more complicated than that, and adopting the mentality of the persecuted and lashing out and anyone and everyone who might question your position or try and broaden the discussion is unlikely to lead to any workable solutions that don't significantly restrict, in this case, cycling.

Many roads are a hazardous environment for cyclists, and it makes sense to educate those cyclists who use - or might wish to use - those roads to do some things to mitigate those risks. It is patently obvious that many (not a majority, but a very significant minority of) urban cyclists seem to be poorly educated about how to do this; improving one's visibility is just one aspect. Riding techniques another; education, whether through formal training or through blitz campaigns like we're seeing right now, may well do a considerable amount to reduce cyclist casualties. Educate drivers also, and increase efforts to prosecute those who wilfully endanger others, but the idea that the onus is on everyone other than the cyclist to reduce the risk to cyclists isn't credible or maintainable; everyone has to take responsibility for themselves while we collectively work to improve things for all.

[Jaded]

London does seem peculiarly bad, its got that South East feel about it - the thrusting must get ahead at any cost attitude that infects the roads. Hopefully it won't be used as the basis for change and a holistic countrywide approach is. Some roads are hazardous for cyclists. Many is a term that can mean many things.

If as you say the problem is seen to be what equipment cyclists wear and use and how they behave then there will not be any improvement as it will be the cyclists that have to improve. cf. the Police going out to sort out road safety and concentrating on cyclists and what they are wearing. Sending out non-cyclists to educate cyclists doesn't seem to work that well. Drivers will probably only be educated with a change in the law. A change in the law will be affected by pubic opinion. Public opinion is strongly that cyclists should wear helmets and hi-vis.

[TimC]

I think that attitude you mention is the single biggest problem on UK roads, whichever category of road user we're talking about. We seem to be collectively impatient, intolerant, invincible, and untouchable! We need to address the macho aggressiveness that seems to have infected us all; removing that would make much of life more pleasant. In the meantime, we do need to find ways of practical self-defence that the more timid amongst us can employ that make them feel more confident and safer using our rather intimidating roads.

[mattc]

Many roads are a hazardous environment for cyclists, and it makes sense to educate those cyclists who use - or might wish to use - those roads to do some things to mitigate those risks.

What are these hazards, Tim:

Slippery white lines? Potholes? Other cyclists? Escaped lions?

[TimC]

I take it you are intimating that the only source of hazard to cyclists is drivers of motor vehicles. I would suggest that the presence of vehicles at all, however well driven, is a hazard, especially when combined with various other environmental issues such as rain, ice, wind, and your potholes and white lines etc, and that the hazards presented by all these factors - including those drivers who aren't too clever - is exacerbated by lack of experience and education on the part of actual and potential cyclists, and that this can and should be addressed. That is not to suggest that drivers and their role in the hazards presented to cyclists shouldn't be addressed also - they should, and urgently and with vigour - but to suggest that urban cyclists can do nothing to improve their own chances of survival to a healthy old age is not a credible argument.

[mattc]

OK, so I guess there are 3 main problems with your post:

I take it you are intimating that the only source of hazard to cyclists is drivers of motor vehicles.

They are by far the biggest danger. But of course they aren't the only hazard, I clearly did not say that. (Statistics show - time and time again - that cycling is NOT a dangerous activity , even before you bring in the exercise-related health benefits).

the hazards presented by [] those drivers who aren't too clever  is exacerbated by lack of experience and education on the part of actual and potential cyclists, and that this can and should be addressed.

Have you considered comparing this with rape prevention? Judge Blames Rape Victim who wore a short skirt.

A bit extreme? well no, the basic concept is the same.

... to suggest that urban cyclists can do nothing to improve their own chances of survival to a healthy old age is not a credible argument.

Well that's fine, but noone is making that argument, so you're wasting your breath!

In summary:
I'm happy to educate riders in survival skills; but to say this is as important as removing dangerous driving is just plain wrong.

[TimC]

Y'know what? I can't be arsed. I will educate those cyclists and motorists I'm responsible for. The rest of you can sink or swim as your own skills, abilities, and capacity for blaming anyone else you can will allow for.

[Veloman]

But plenty of deaths caused by motorists. They kill pedestrians and motorists every day - look at the stats, easily available - and cyclists aren't even a contributory factor. It's quite clear that motorists are causing most of the damage,

In summary:
I'm happy to educate riders in survival skills; but to say this is as important as removing dangerous driving is just plain wrong.

So what would your solution to the challenge be?

[spindrift]

Two quick points, Hi Vis doesn't seem to make any difference:

http://www.nowbath.co.uk/news/research-says-cyclists-cant-prevent-dangerous-overtakes-53548/

and the police offering "advice" about helmets and hi vis doesn't really make much sense when they decide not to prosecute a motorist who killed a cyclist as she drove along with her hand over her eyes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511334/Author-killed-cycled-country-road-female-driver-dazzled-winter-sun.html

[Ham]

OK, so I guess there are 3 main problems with your post:

I take it you are intimating that the only source of hazard to cyclists is drivers of motor vehicles.

They are by far the biggest danger. But of course they aren't the only hazard, I clearly did not say that. (Statistics show - time and time again - that cycling is NOT a dangerous activity , even before you bring in the exercise-related health benefits).

the hazards presented by [] those drivers who aren't too clever  is exacerbated by lack of experience and education on the part of actual and potential cyclists, and that this can and should be addressed.

Have you considered comparing this with rape prevention? Judge Blames Rape Victim who wore a short skirt.

A bit extreme? well no, the basic concept is the same.

... to suggest that urban cyclists can do nothing to improve their own chances of survival to a healthy old age is not a credible argument.

Well that's fine, but noone is making that argument, so you're wasting your breath!

In summary:
I'm happy to educate riders in survival skills; but to say this is as important as removing dangerous driving is just plain wrong.

You know, I hate having my fate in other's hands. Drivers, cyclists, I frankly don't give a proverbial. That's why I try to ride so that I can make the choices. Clearly I can't mitigate for every option every time, but if it means slowing down until I'm certain that the car is not going to pull out, that's what i do. So for me, and everyone like me, education is as important as removing dangerous driving. Get over it.

And as far as judge blames rape victim etc, there's a difference between the opinion of a judge and talking to your daughter saying don't go THERE like THAT, knowing that to do so increased the likelihood of unwanted attention.

[mattc]

and the police offering "advice" about helmets and hi vis doesn't really make much sense when they decide not to prosecute a motorist who killed a cyclist as she drove along with her hand over her eyes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511334/Author-killed-cycled-country-road-female-driver-dazzled-winter-sun.html

This demonstrates the problem perfectly. Ham can't simply slow down for every motorist that MIGHT run him down due to simply not paying attention to the road.

[As I posted below, I'm happy with teaching good road skills - but not at all happy about lectures from those in authority about hi-viz and helmets.]

[Veloman]

Two quick points, Hi Vis doesn't seem to make any difference:

http://www.nowbath.co.uk/news/research-says-cyclists-cant-prevent-dangerous-overtakes-53548/

But that could be because the driver has seen the cyclist, wearing whatever, and 1-2% choose to pass within 0.5m of the cyclist.  As the author admits, the effect of visibility at junctions was not part of the experiment and neither was riding at night when hi-viz might be expected to have a benefit, due to reflective strips, compared to no reflective strips.

I think at best the research shows that 1-2% of drivers will pass very close (0.5m) to a cyclist no matter what.  It would be interesting to see the exact distribution of passing distance for each item of clothing, as it would be useful to see overall passing distance for the whole 5690 sample size.  Perhaps the 1-2% was the right side tail of the distribution curve.

"Our study suggests that, no matter what you wear, it will do nothing to prevent a small minority of people from getting dangerously close when they overtake you."

But what about the behaviour of the remaining 98-99% of motorists?

[Peter]

Two quick points, Hi Vis doesn't seem to make any difference:

http://www.nowbath.co.uk/news/research-says-cyclists-cant-prevent-dangerous-overtakes-53548/

and the police offering "advice" about helmets and hi vis doesn't really make much sense when they decide not to prosecute a motorist who killed a cyclist as she drove along with her hand over her eyes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511334/Author-killed-cycled-country-road-female-driver-dazzled-winter-sun.html

[/b]
God help us.  Presumably that is now an official admissable defence - "I couldn't see" because of the sun, or because I was blinking, or because I wasn't looking.  If you can't see, you stop!!!  There really is no hope, is there.  I do wish there was a way to get that re-opened.

[spindrift]

It's a Godawful load of old bollocks, there would be literally nothing you could do, you cannot mitigate against drivers like that, and Catherine Jones is presumably still driving round.