Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by Mick F »

AndyBSG wrote:
Psamathe wrote:I believe that the current economic situation in the UK is already providing a massive incentive for people to adopt cycling.


I spend a LOT more money on my bike and cycling than I do on my car!
I think I do too.
I'm a bit OCD with accounts and diaries and lists, I must check ..................

I know that I go for months without opening the bonnet on the car, but only days without maintenance on the bike.
Mick F. Cornwall
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by Bicycler »

mjr wrote:
Bicycler wrote:Yep, the Great British public did not stop cycling because traffic, they stopped cycling because they got cars and those cars were more convenient to use than their bicycles. Long term strategies to encourage greater cycling would have to look at discouraging motor vehicle use or prioritising cycle travel. But I think we're getting away from the OP, which asked how to improve safety of existing cyclists.

I'm beginning to wonder if we should replace most of this thread with links to David Hembrow:
David Hembrow wrote:Right up through the 1980s and early 1990s, The Netherlands had slightly higher car ownership than the UK, which was to be expected as cars were more easily affordable in The Netherlands than in the UK

Don't know who Mr Hembrow is but he certainly seems to have strong opinions about this subject. If considering the history of car vs bicycle use we'd have to look at the post war years. Bicycle use was a minority pastime in the UK way before the last 30 years.
Otherwise, I think we agree that convenience is a relative measure. I think both incentives and disincentives have a role to play if the target is to shift people from cars onto bikes. If cars were currently too inconvenient for short journeys parents wouldn't drive children to schools and would walk to the shops. Down my street is a primary school catering to local children living less than a mile or so away. Watching out my window an hour or so ago, I'd say a slight majority drive.
Last edited by Bicycler on 13 Feb 2014, 5:30pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by Bicycler »

andrewk wrote:Improve conditions for cycling but not by making conditions worse for motorists. I am strongly against reduced speed limits, chicanes (so called traffic calming measures) and other anti car measures.
This isn't a zero sum game. It is possible to improve the lot of cyclists without bashing the motorist. The cycling lobbyists who are bent on bashing the motorist and introducing anti car policies are IMO misguided and fuel antagonism between the two. A consensus to improve conditions for cycling will not be achieved if one sets out to alienate the majority.
It is possible to introduce measures that are pro car and pro cycling, eg. Segregated cycle lanes, restrictions on HGVs in urban areas. Education and enforcement though never popular is IMO needed both for motorists and cyclists.

Utility transport is a zero sum game. Travel is by one means or another. Road space is limited and decisions have to be made which have the effect (intended or otherwise) of prioritising one form of transport over another. Even with safety, these same decisions are made. You view lower speed limits as anti-car, I view unsuitably high car speeds as presenting an unnecessarily high level of risk to other legitimate users of the road. Time and again, lowering of speed limits has produced demonstrable reductions in road casualties. Decisions are made and they always favour one over another. Segregated cycle path? Great (I'm genuinely in favour). Which part of the road will be taken? Parking spaces? The pavement? Do pedestrians now have the conflict with cyclists rather than cars? Is the new path more or less convenient for the cyclist than the road? Which has priority ie. who are you prioritising? No-one has sought over the past half century to produce anti-cycling measures (the aim was just to improve traffic flow) but that has been the result. Similarly, attempts to redress the balance are not a 'war on the motorist' but nor can we change without affecting the motorist.
User avatar
TrevA
Posts: 3551
Joined: 1 Jun 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by TrevA »

AndyBSG wrote:
Psamathe wrote:I believe that the current economic situation in the UK is already providing a massive incentive for people to adopt cycling.


I spend a LOT more money on my bike and cycling than I do on my car!


I don't. Just had my car serviced - £386 (new front and rear discs and pads). I do 8000 miles a year in the car. A tankful of fuel lasts 400 miles, so I fill up 20 times a year @ £65 per time = £1300 a year. Insurance £175, VED £170. That all adds up to about £2000 per year. A spend probably a fifth of that on my 3 bikes. Coincidentally, I also do about 8000 miles a year cycling.
Sherwood CC and Notts CTC.
A cart horse trapped in the body of a man.
http://www.jogler2009.blogspot.com
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by Mark1978 »

Bicycler wrote:Don't know who Mr Hembrow is but he certainly seems to have strong opinions about this subject.


http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/ is his blog. I don't know if he makes a living out of being an expert on this, but it's certainly a 'business' for him.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by mjr »

Bicycler wrote:
andrewk wrote:Improve conditions for cycling but not by making conditions worse for motorists. I am strongly against reduced speed limits, chicanes (so called traffic calming measures) and other anti car measures.
This isn't a zero sum game. It is possible to improve the lot of cyclists without bashing the motorist. The cycling lobbyists who are bent on bashing the motorist and introducing anti car policies are IMO misguided and fuel antagonism between the two. A consensus to improve conditions for cycling will not be achieved if one sets out to alienate the majority.
It is possible to introduce measures that are pro car and pro cycling, eg. Segregated cycle lanes, restrictions on HGVs in urban areas. Education and enforcement though never popular is IMO needed both for motorists and cyclists.

Utility transport is a zero sum game. Travel is by one means or another. Road space is limited and decisions have to be made which have the effect (intended or otherwise) of prioritising one form of transport over another.

Well, yes, but it's not exactly a zero sum game. Even for utility transport, there's some scope to choose to travel more or less: both in number of trips (for example, combining two trips in similar directions because fuel is expensive) or in distances (for example, driving to several edge of town retail parks instead of the town centre because it's seen as "easier").

Both bicycler and andrewk are correct I think: high speed limits are anti-non-motorised-users; but measures like humps that mainly penalise cars without delivering unique benefits for walking or cycling aren't great. I've just seen a hump mentioned as helping to launch a car into some children and killing them http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.co ... e-streets/ (but apparently the children were partly to blame for playing with a bicycle, not wearing body armour and not following the highway code. Grrrrr)

Stuff like speed humps shouldn't be necessary: the police should enforce the traffic laws and motorists who campaign irresponsibly against speed cameras should be laughed out of the debate.

As a car driver, I don't think lowering speed limits is anti-car. I like guidance on what's an appropriate maximum speed for an area, which these days contributes to computers routing me appropriately and in-car information displays. In some places, I don't think a motor lane being returned to walking and cycling is anti-car because if short single-person trips don't use cars, there's more space for other cars. Look at the space difference: Image

We've tried building our way out of congestion for far too long and it's finally getting serious academic weight showing it doesn't work, like http://www.npr.org/2011/07/09/137708751 ... re-traffic - Only a madmen keeps trying the same action and expecting a different outcome. It's time to try something smarter: congestion charges and redistribution are probably key parts of it.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by Bicycler »

Agree wholeheartedly. Though I wasn't trying to defend unhelpful traffic calming measures; speed humps, pinch points and so on, I'd happily see a suitable speed limit imposed, observed and enforced. We really do need to get away from the idea that lower speed limits are designed to impede, frustrate and extort money from drivers. I don't think many realise how little difference the 30/20 limit change makes to urban journey times and how much they have to gain if more people choose alternate transport methods
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by Mark1978 »

It's very very difficult to change. For decades we've built up our towns and cities entirely around car usage, with pedestrian and bike facilities being shoehorned in around the edges. Changing that is extremely difficult as everyone who lives in these areas is geared up (no pun intended) to deal with the environment that favours car use. So if your local town is somehow magically transformed into Assen overnight there would uproar as we wouldn't be prepared to deal with it.
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by squeaker »

Bicycler wrote:20mph, to be the urban norm

As for why, there is is a far more eloquent argument here than I could ever muster :)
"42"
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by Mark1978 »

20mph in urban areas isn't as simple as putting up signs, putting up speed cameras or 'traffic calming'. The environment itself needs to change such that drivers will themselves feel that 20mph is an appropriate speed and not want to exceed it. Currently UK roads are designed to maximise speed, e.g. large radius curves on junctions etc. If there's one thing we can learn from the Dutch is that one measure on it's own is not a silver bullet, you have to do all of them.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by mjr »

Lots of urban environments are already not suitable for 30mph and in those, it is a simple matter of changing the 30 signs to 20 and enforcing them. That in itself should encourage more people to walk and ride the streets which in itself will change the environment a bit and encourage most drivers to slow down. Maybe in the longer term, the remaining "fast" roads can have corner radii tightened and so on, but one step has to come first and that seems like the best one to do first.

This approach has already been done to lots of roads, with roads that obviously used to be 40mph being reduced to 30 mainly by resigning (Norwich A1074 Dereham Road between Larkman Lane and Guardian Road, for example), similarly 50s cut to 40s and 60s to 50s (much of A370 Weston-super-Mare to Bristol). It should be done where lots of people live too, along with the other changes: rat-run-busting, liveable high streets, greenways, school routes and space on main routes and junctions.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by AlaninWales »

mjr wrote:Lots of urban environments are already not suitable for 30mph and in those, it is a simple matter of changing the 30 signs to 20 and enforcing them. That in itself should encourage more people to walk and ride the streets which in itself will change the environment a bit and encourage most drivers to slow down. Maybe in the longer term, the remaining "fast" roads can have corner radii tightened and so on, but one step has to come first and that seems like the best one to do first.

This approach has already been done to lots of roads, with roads that obviously used to be 40mph being reduced to 30 mainly by resigning (Norwich A1074 Dereham Road between Larkman Lane and Guardian Road, for example), similarly 50s cut to 40s and 60s to 50s (much of A370 Weston-super-Mare to Bristol). It should be done where lots of people live too, along with the other changes: rat-run-busting, liveable high streets, greenways, school routes and space on main routes and junctions.

Really? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/f ... 25288.html was in a 20mph zone. Drivers and the CJS attitudes need to change drastically!
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by Mark1978 »

Gateshead Council introduced a 20mph zone through Birtley, but how many drivers stick to it, probably zero.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by mjr »

AlaninWales wrote:
mjr wrote:Lots of urban environments are already not suitable for 30mph and in those, it is a simple matter of changing the 30 signs to 20 and enforcing them.

Really? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/f ... 25288.html was in a 20mph zone. Drivers and the CJS attitudes need to change drastically!

Indeed! I'm not saying that everything is going to be perfect overnight, but that was a 20mph one-way street of terraced houses by a park which already had traffic calming and that criminal appears to have been doing 39mph when his car launched off the speed hump. The road was already physically unsuitable for higher speeds, hence the crash. For some people, even the prospect of a crash isn't enough: fine them, track them, take their driving licence away and if they still keep on, imprison them because they are a danger to the public.

This is an enforcement problem: Lady Justice Rafferty previously quashed imprisonment for a driver who ran down a motorbiker because they were fiddling with their heater controls http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-15296091 - it does make me feel that that Lady of Injustice should be pensioned off ASAP.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Cycling Safety - What Needs To Change?

Post by squeaker »

mjr wrote:This is an enforcement problem: Lady Justice Rafferty previously quashed imprisonment for a driver who ran down a motorbiker because they were fiddling with their heater controls http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-15296091 - it does make me feel that that Lady of Injustice should be pensioned off ASAP.

Pensioned off sounds too good for her :evil:
"42"
Post Reply