So much for a Road Safety organisation

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Post Reply
brianleach
Posts: 633
Joined: 14 Jul 2007, 2:10pm
Location: Winchester, Hants

So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by brianleach »

stewartpratt
Posts: 2566
Joined: 27 Dec 2007, 5:12pm

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by stewartpratt »

They've been taking a fair old pasting recently on Twitter (https://twitter.com/RSGB_NE). Just two threads with plenty of critical replies -

https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/486830331203686400
https://twitter.com/RSGB_NE/status/486405574515376128

- there are many more :)

Though, perhaps they are listening -

https://twitter.com/RSGB_NE/status/486992540369825795
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by Cyril Haearn »

That's a good one, stop at all stop signs! I think I am the only driver (and cyclist) who does that.

I even stop for an instant longer than "necessary". Really irritates the normal drivers behind me :-)

What really makes me sick is the police and others encouraging things that are not in the law book at all: helmets, lights on in the daytime, etc. They should use their time for enforcement, they would always have plenty to do.

Here in Germany they could stand at any stop sign and they would have to punish almost all drivers and cyclists.

Maybe that would help the average driver (and cyclist) learn to read.
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
User avatar
stephenjubb
Posts: 674
Joined: 20 Jan 2008, 12:23pm
Location: East Yorkshire

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by stephenjubb »

Nothing wrong with it. If more cyclists followed it ( helmets obviously a persons own preference) roads would be safer.

They quote

Where pedal cyclists in the region are partially to blame for collisions, contributory factors are usually failing to look properly,
cyclists entering the road from the pavement, being careless, reckless or in a hurry, and failing to judge the other vehicle's path or speed

I see so much of this in London and in Hull some cyclists do contribute to their own accidents.

Coming out of doctors the other day, at end of a bus junction a middle aged lady rather than wait, she rode on a pavement with all other pedestrians for a 100 yards then onto road.

If some "supposedly responsible adults" do not set an example then what does that say to the younger generation?

Drivers can be bad but so can cyclists. In London where I commute other cyclists can be more dangerous. Many times I've nearly changed direction only for a cyclist to be doing a close overtake and I would have hit him and I not followed the rules I used as a driving instructor which is mirrors ( and shoulder check on a bike) before changing direction.

They are wrong on the cycle lanes some are good some are bad.

Perhaps from the communication they've received they may revise their thoughts. Maybe they are non cyclists and need to consult the CTC.

I hope any negative comments do not detract from them becoming disenchanted, they are doing a good thing albeit some parts of it need re-interpretation.

And although legal riding two aside whilst legal does make drivers angry. Although legal it is just better avoided even if there are x reasons why it should be allowed.
Last edited by stephenjubb on 24 Jul 2014, 1:46pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pugwash
Posts: 114
Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 12:57pm

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by Pugwash »

More than unbelievable - utterly infuriating - Poorly designed - Victim blaming - Incorrect. - Even the backtracking does not go far enough.

Please do not forget the organisation concerned have taken public money to do this and appear not to have consulted anyone.

Charities such as the CTC and Sustrans would have done this for a lot less even possibly for free.

If I was a tax payer in the area I would be contacting my councillor or doing a freedom of information request for the cost.
stewartpratt
Posts: 2566
Joined: 27 Dec 2007, 5:12pm

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by stewartpratt »

stephenjubb wrote:Nothing wrong with it. If more cyclists followed it ( helmets obviously a persons own preference) roads would be safer.


There's no evidence that hi-viz makes roads safer.

Riding in single file makes a group longer to pass, which in some scenarios makes the pass more difficult to execute safely. Sometimes riding two abreast makes a safe pass more difficult, sometimes it makes it easier, and sometimes it prevents an unsafe pass where no safe pass is possible.

The instruction "If there is a cycle lane, use it!" is so painfully ill-advised from a safety perspective that I don't have the energy to explain it, but https://twitter.com/bollocksinfra is worth a look.

I could also list certain scenarios where using hand signals is less safe than not doing so.

Their advice is all about things that frustrate the significant minority of narrow-minded people who only see cycling from the driving seat of a car, and is all stuff that seems superficially sensible, but much of it is at best complex on closer inspection, some of it is quite flawed, much is pretending that the vulnerable have responsibility for things fundamentally out of their control whilst undermining the little control that they do have, and little if any is actually based on evidence and data.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by Bicycler »

stephenjubb wrote:And although legal riding two aside whilst legal does make drivers angry. Although legal it is just better avoided even if there are x reasons why it should be allowed.

Eh? It is allowed. If there are x reasons why it is beneficial at times then surely it is not good advice to tell people never to do it.
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by Mark1978 »

You can't obstruct the highway when cycling by dentition you are using the highway for it's intended purpose. If you'd stopped and sat down in the middle of the road perhaps that would be obstruction.
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by Mark1978 »

Who is this road safety GB NE anyway. From the looks of it it's a motoring organisation trying to put cyclists in their place.
User avatar
stephenjubb
Posts: 674
Joined: 20 Jan 2008, 12:23pm
Location: East Yorkshire

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by stephenjubb »

Bicycler wrote:
stephenjubb wrote:And although legal riding two aside whilst legal does make drivers angry. Although legal it is just better avoided even if there are x reasons why it should be allowed.

Eh? It is allowed. If there are x reasons why it is beneficial at times then surely it is not good advice to tell people never to do it.


Ah, you may be right, wrong choice of words.

I just avoid it wherever possible because it just cheeses off car drivers ( who think it is illegal) and I don' need the grief.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by Bicycler »

stephenjubb wrote:
Bicycler wrote:
stephenjubb wrote:And although legal riding two aside whilst legal does make drivers angry. Although legal it is just better avoided even if there are x reasons why it should be allowed.

Eh? It is allowed. If there are x reasons why it is beneficial at times then surely it is not good advice to tell people never to do it.


Ah, you may be right, wrong choice of words.

I just avoid it wherever possible because it just cheeses off car drivers ( who think it is illegal) and I don' need the grief.

Thanks for the clarification. I can understand that view. there are certainly drivers who get annoyed at cyclists they perceive to be doing something wrong regardless of whether they actually are or whether it affects the driver in any meaningful way. Though you could use the same logic for supporting the "get in the cycle lane" advice.

Mark1978 wrote:Who is this road safety GB NE anyway. From the looks of it it's a motoring organisation trying to put cyclists in their place.


Oh Mark, you just don't understand! They are one of those groups of "anti-driver ideologists" giving the false impression that we should care about road safety: http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Road-sa ... story.html

Now I realise that road safety is all about punishing law abiding motorists and raising money :roll:
User avatar
stephenjubb
Posts: 674
Joined: 20 Jan 2008, 12:23pm
Location: East Yorkshire

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by stephenjubb »

stephenjubb wrote:
Bicycler wrote:
stephenjubb wrote:Though you could use the same logic for supporting the "get in the cycle lane" advice.

Indeed correct. However, I can choose not to ride 2 abreast however on the cycle lanes some are dangerous or one cannot make progress and I have had drivers tell me to get in the cycle lane when it wasn't suitable. In these situations I'll take the abuse and igore them.

The worse was in Inverness on the A9, I'd done a 65 mile trip from Ullapool and just did not see it.

Drivers were quite correct that in that instance I should have been on the cycle track, but I received with looks of venim shouts of get on the f???ing cycle track. Talk about shocking.

The roads in a way are like nature the bigger vehicles rule in a way in that it is us and pedestrians get injured, so we have to do everything in our power to prevent injurys.

Its does the cause no good with bad practice from some so called "cyclists" who ride on the pavement.

I find a good way to view angry drivers is to try and think poor so and so, driving that car. It does get hard though with lots of abuse, but I get little but then up north there is less traffic.

If it is a flash car I think no thanks, I would have to work 100s of hours extra to afford it when I could work a fraction extra and cycle tour rather than pay for a flashy tin can.

Its a great mindset, I never get jealous of anyone in a porsche or rolls royce! If they like those things fair play, I just won't get envious. Lifes too short.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by Bicycler »

stephenjubb wrote:The roads in a way are like nature the bigger vehicles rule in a way in that it is us and pedestrians get injured, so we have to do everything in our power to prevent injurys.

Its does the cause no good with bad practice from some so called "cyclists" who ride on the pavement.

On my way to where I used to work I usually used the road through a busy junction. Several people told me the road was two busy to cycle on. When there were roadworks on the road making it an unpleasant single lane I chose to use the adjacent shared use farcility. The same several colleagues told me I shouldn't have been riding on the pavement. None would accept the existence of shared use paths, having never heard of them!

We can't win. They just want us to disappear. Helpfully we're halfway there because we are already invisible :wink:
mike_dowler
Posts: 102
Joined: 21 Aug 2013, 1:39pm

So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by mike_dowler »

One thing I noticed was the statistic about [s]accidents[/s] collisions per distance travelled. Clearly this will disfavour cyclists who, on average, travel more slowly than motorists. (Thus, with equal numbers of each on the roads, and equal numbers of collisions, the collision rate would be higher for cyclists). So, what is the best metric to use for assessing collision rates? Time? Distance? No of journeys?

Edit: ok, strikethrough clearly doesn't work. Just pretend it's there.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: So much for a Road Safety organisation

Post by [XAP]Bob »

For transport it's per mile, for leisure it's per hour
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Post Reply