Cycling UK Forum

The effect of elections on politics is often greatly exaggerated. Politicians ramp up tribalism to get the vote out.

With expenditure being cut there will be pressure to go ahead with cheapskate cycle schemes in order to be seen as "doing something". We have to be clear that often doing nothing to a road is more cycle friendly than tokenism.

"Cyclists need to be more aware of the risks around them. It frightens me to death when I see them pull out around other cyclists, completely unaware there is a car behind. "

Well I think that is positive, the idea that it's practical for cyclists to behave like pedestrians is just not realistic. In traffic a cyclist must behave like a vehicle driver. Thus on road cycle training must not be cut.

He's "not sure of the logic" of advanced stop lines at traffic lights to allow cyclists to get in front. Well neither am I. A case of being seen to be "doing something"?

But I'm worried about "The more separation you can create between cyclists and motorists the better." Could be support for the drive out to the countryside with bikes on the back and cycle round a "traffic free" path type cycling.

It's been pointed out that the woman in the front page photograph is wearing a Heart Rate Monitor as well as a wrist watch. Clearly a "must-have" for cycle commuting.

I was chatting with a touring cyclist the other day and enquired whether he cycled to work. He said sometimes he walked, but at two and half miles it took too long a time. I asked why he didn't cycle; he said it took too long to shower and change clothes.

Too many people think that although you don't have to shower and change clothes after 2.5 miles of walking, you do after 2.5 miles of cycling!

What's wrong with the clothes?

OK the rucksacks aren't so bad. But cycling between the red lines is. And I don't see many cyclists where I live wearing plastic hats just to go down the shops.

Both riders are in the secondary position, the man too close to the kerb. I suppose the woman is moving back into the secondary position after overtaking the man.

Take a look -

Cycling between the red/yellow lines at the side of the road

Trying to judge what motorists might do next is far more important than wearing a flimsy plastic hat

Some of the people in the film are still cycling. I recognise two who helped lead the rides.

If we want to stay out of hospital we have to assume that other road users are going to act dangerously.

In some countries a witness wouldn't have thought twice about contacting the police about the incident, supplying the lorry's registration number. The police would have cautioned the driver if not prosecuted. But, as is often remarked, the British seem to have a tolerance of anti-social behaviour.

Regulator wrote: CTC is campaigning for 'presumed liability' - a very different beast.

A new phrase 'presumed liability'.

And when will the membership, Right To Ride representatives in particular (I'm one) be told what exactly 'presumed liability' is?

Flinders wrote:Again I ask- what if someone does this to you as a cyclist, i.e. jumps out in front of you, and you are hurt? Is that your fault? And how far does this caution have to go? Should you never cycle so fast that you couldn't stop if a car comes out of a side road directly in front of you? When driving or cycling, do you slow down to 5mph whenever your road crosses a side road, or whenever there are children in sight even when those kids are with an adult?
A cyclist, like a driver, has to stop at pedestrian crossings and lights, and obey the speed limit. We also have to take reasonable care, slow down for obvious hazards, and be able to stop when necessary, but the law doesn't go so far as to say you have to be able to stop if someone runs, drives, or cycles immediately in front of you- that would be plain impossible.

You're not suggesting that the idea of "Strict Liability" is confused nonsense are you? (shock horror)
On the other hand if no-one went faster than 20 mph in cities, whatever incidents did occur would be a lot less serious than if they went at a higher speed.

Regulator wrote:Sorry Edwards... what you seem to be forgetting is that you only have one person's (rather illiterate) version of the events.

There's also the newspaper report:

The Argus wrote:As they crossed Spring Street she realised a cyclist was hurtling towards them and pulled back.

Of course you have to raise the question of what The Argus is basing their version of events on. Eyewitnesses are not as reliable as many people think.

If what the The Argus and the mother say is largely correct, the cyclist was coming down a side road (Spring Street) at speed due to its slope. He might have been going too fast to give way to traffic (that includes pedestrians) on the main road (Western Road). Or the mother may have over-reacted; she might had been able to continue and did not have to step back. The stepping back caused the toddler to unbalance.

It might have been the case that the mother jumped back realising the cyclist couldn't stop in time and the child tripped.

kwackers' dream world:

kwackers wrote:Sorry, my ideal world works on the opposite of 'might is right', rather than everyone obeying the rules. A utopian dream whereby vehicles will always give way to each other and pedestrians with a friendly smile and a wave...
(I did say "ideal")

I've never had much time for Utopias - they usually lead to nightmares.

kwackers' response to the real world:

kwackers wrote:Would you cross with a child next to a blind bend?

Looking at google street view, its clear that the corner is only blind for cyclists traveling too fast or on the pavement.

However close a pedestrian were to the a shop front (Argos/Berts), they would be in view for at least a second before reaching the kerb. The cyclist should have been traveling at a speed where stopping without serious incident was possible. He knew he was approaching a more major road and had to give way to traffic and pedestrians on it. He should not have expected pedestrians to give way to him.

The authorities must also share some of the blame. Instead of funneling cyclists towards the edge of Spring Street, there should be a gap where the middle of where the barrier currently is, allowing earlier visibility of pedestrians by approaching cyclists.

kwackers wrote:In an ideal world pedestrians can cross where they like

No. If the woman had crossed Western Rd at that point, she should have given way to traffic on Western Rd. But vehicular traffic leaving or entering a side road should give way to pedestrians crossing the mouth of the side road.

It's a simple rule. Walkers, riders and drivers who don't change lane or road have priority over walkers, riders and drivers who do.

Looking at google street view it appears to me that cyclists and motorists turning in or out of Spring St. should always give way to pedestrians progressing along Western Road, either on the pavement or crossing the entrance of Spring St. That's in the highway code.

If a cyclist/motorist can't stop in time to avoid a collision, they are going too fast.

The UK habit of pedestrians giving way to vehicles at such places is totally wrong.

Si wrote:Redesign or strategies for housing, business and industry positioning, and our transport networks, else it's never going to happen.

hubgearfreak wrote:i don't think intervention will be necessary or desirable. even if it's achievable - we've all seen the mess governement makes of milllenium stadiums and other relatively minor projects compared to shifting people and jobs about. however, as kwackers has stated earlier, the market will adjust itself.

That's not how the planning process works. Government decides what sort of purpose a site should have (E.g. agricultural, housing, commercial, office etc.), but it's up to the market to determine the details. That is what's lead to the green belt, among other things.

What's been missing in this country until the last decade or so has been some sort of recognition that sites which will have a lot of people coming in and out should be positioned where public transport can be cost-effectively provided. In the 80's for example business parks were usually opened on the periphery of cities.

It was quite a culture shock for me when I arrived in Germany. My workplace (and a number of others, including Porsche HQ) was 5 minutes walk from a train station served by eight trains an hour at peak times. I cycled to work though the woods on a road from which cars were banned. The car route was 10% longer than the cycle route and you were only allowed a space in the company car park if you could show you couldn't get to work by more environmentally friendly means. And that was 1988!