Cycling UK Forum

Real money appears to be promised.

I hope that the stuff about the "National Cycling Network" is ignored in practice when considering "Safer Routes to School" as the NCN is an irrelevance.

Les Reay wrote:The cheapest way is simply to require cyclists to share the footpath with pedestrians and if it is wide enough, to divide it into two strips. The blue and white mandatory signs make it an offence for cyclists to go on roads, with few exceptions

An alternative, supported by cycle lobbyists, is to make cycling with pedestrians legal but not compulsory - the sign for that is either "pedestrians only - cyclists excepted" or the "no motor vehicles" sign also seen in the UK.

Auchmill wrote:you need to know how many riders there are in each category.

Supposedly that comes from the size of the impression which unlit cyclists leave in our memories compared to the impression left by lit cyclists.

Traveling 6 miles across Coventry at rush hour last Thursday I distinctly remember seeing an unlit cyclist. I can't remember a lit cyclist, nor a bus, come to that a van. Yet the roads must have been packed with motor vehicles!

Perhaps what these findings really demonstrate is that we remember the unusual (or what has emotional impact - e.g. what generates a feeling of self-righteousness) while the commonplace quickly fades from memory.

If space is needed for a bus track, it should be taken from the cars. After all it is the cars causing the problem.

Bus only infrastruture is only needed at peak times and then only when there is a bus to use it. So rationing out general purpose roadspace, at times when demand exceeds supply, by means of a charge, is a much more efficient approach. The charge should be based on the size of the patch of road used by a vehicle.

Oracle wrote:Does this mean that George R might even be considering losing a bit of scepticism,

No I'm still skeptical.
I also think there's something in between All and None. It's called Some.

The example I gave in my Thu 17 Jan 2008 10:51 post illustrated that there are crashes where it's unreasonable to lay all the blame on one person.

I'd even go further in my rejection of Old Testament thinking - I don't think people deserve to die even if they are guilty of mistakes.

There's also the factor of how well lit. There are quite a number of feeble lights out there.

Didn't the CTC run a big campaign back in the 1930's claiming that making back lights compulsory on bicycles wouldn't make a difference to the number of crashes?

This looks like a case of white van man underestimating cyclist speed:
http://www.braveheartfund.com/News.asp?Nid=240

A lot of cyclists complain about being cut up by left turning vehicles. Personally I rarely encounter this problem.

I suspect cyclists who position themselves too close to the kerb are less likely to be noticed by motorists than those further out leading to an increased risk of being cut-up. A motorist is 100% at fault, if cutting up a cyclist leads to a crash. Nevertheless I think that cyclists shouldn't take the risk of cycling too close to the kerb, not only for their own safety but to establish that it's legitimate for cyclists to be out of the gutter, so making it safer for the rest of us. So aiming safety advice to the potential victim is not always a matter of acquiescing to injustice.

Link to cyclist crashes in Sheffield 2006 (Where "right of way" is mentioned I think "priority" is meant)

I'm skeptical of the popular idea that there's only ever one party at fault.

In my opinion there's usually a lot of factors at play. Take, for example, the case of a cyclist well known to me who was killed a few years ago. He and another were freewheeling down a hill at something like 30 mph. The other cyclist was a few yards in front when he hit a pothole hidden by a puddle. The pannier of the cyclist in front came off and collided with the cyclist following who came off and broke his neck.

Naturally the coroner said the lack of helmet was to blame (helmets offering great protection against neck injuries). But the incident wouldn't have happened had there been no pothole. If the pannier were of the more modern secure type it probably would not have come off. If the second rider had been further behind he might have avoided the flying pannier.

If the front rider hadn't known that a follower was just behind he might have swerved around the puddle.

My conclusion; when speeding down a hill leave at least 2/3 seconds between you and the cyclist in front.

ianr1950 wrote:It is not a prejudice CJ I have just a fact that I see this behaviour every day but you don't believe anecdotal evidence do you.

The trouble with anecdotes is that they are based on microscopic sample sizes.
How many crashes has ianr1950 investigated? What proportion of the night time ones involved cyclists with lights, what proportion without?

I have read that a disproportionate number of cyclists have been killed in crashes involving "cement mixing lorries".

Apparently the giant mixer is loaded up with sand, cement and water and then the lorry is driven about, with the aim of getting to the building site at precisely the right moment. Building sites are often congested with plant & equipment, the mix must not be used too soon and will begin to set if it's in the mixer too long.

There's an allegation that the mixers are often driven recklessly, careering across the path of cyclists, occasionally killing one of us.

stoobs wrote:Thanks for your advice on how to "start looking" at cyclist fatalities. I was getting quite a good taste from peggy's posts. How do you know that I haven't done research (apart from my admission about the John Franklin stuff)? And isn't peggy "publishing"?

I don't that you haven't. I suppose I was getting this thread mixed up with the "BMJ Letter - actions, not research needed" thread where someone wrote "I've never had cycle training and know nothing about it."

That thread starts with a letter to the BMJ which is anti research.

stoobs wrote:You seem pretty confident about John Franklin. When are his last figures for? Are they on that link that you posted? If so, where?

I know who John Franklin is, as I'm sure many others do. I'm just not sure that he's done any recent studies, nor that he's got classification of causes. If you know different, then please let me know. That would be such a huge help.

Why ask me? I don't know much. I was suggesting that instead of just listing cyclist deaths people should attempt to look deeper.

stoobs wrote:You're obviously much more knowledgeable about this than anyone else, George. So, what year do any Department for Transport reports run to, please? Office of National Statistics?

Pass. If you are interested why don't you ask the DoT or ONS?

stoobs wrote:When is peggy posting details for?

I don't understand the question

stoobs wrote:Anyway, please could you answer those questions, George? Nicely, please

I can't because I don't know.

There's it's written:
I draw your attention to a case study the BBC picked up. The mother had lost a daughter who was killed as she cycled somewhere.

So we all sympathise don't we. But the situation was fully the fault of the daughter, not the lorry driver who was in the lorry that killed her.

She was on the inside of a lorry turning left. First lesson of cycling school: Do NOT go on the inside of a lorry turning left. All LGV's and long vehicles like buses have to turn right to turn left otherwise they can't turn the corner at all. LOGIC PEOPLE.

So we all cry when this girl knowingly cycles on the inside of a lorry turning left and I bet you anything you like her intention was to go straight on?
I've had lorries start to overtake me and before they have passed the driver has turned on his left turn indicator. Why can't lorries have mirrors and/or CCTV to over blind spots?

CJ wrote:Good grief! How cheap is a cyclist's life?

According to the report she was waiting here to turn right, when this careless person turned in from her left, right into her! And all that people can do is wring their hands about how a lot of drivers do cut that corner!

Looks to me like a substantial pedestrian refugee at the end of the secondary road would deter corner cutting. The radius of the curve corners should be reduced a lot to reduce speeds.

stoobs wrote:Also, could you expand on the relevance of that link, please - and your comment about John Franklin? Is there a specific link on there that you had in mind? (Sorry, I didn't have the time to check them all!!)

His CV
The relevance is that if you want to start looking at cyclist fatalities it would be a good first step to read up on the already published literature.

Then perhaps you might ask what investigations the Department of Transport makes and where the results are published. Do they do enough? When an aeroplane or train crashes there's a detailed investigation - why not the same for every fatality on the roads?