Cycling UK Forum

gaz wrote:

Ayesha wrote:IN the UK, a cyclist can use EITHER a cycle lane OR the roadway where both exist in parallel.

Over simplification e.g. the above statement doesn't apply to the A282 where use of the carriageway by cycles is prohibited, effectively rendering the adjacent cycle track (where there is one) mandatory.

Also doesn't apply to any other such road where there is no prohibition but no-one in their right mind would feel safe cycling along.

My worry with this idea is not a problem with 'Dutch cycling' per se, merely foreseeing an unsatisfactory compromise. Faced with the options of sorting out unsafe speed and driver behaviour or providing high quality infrastructure, councils give us yet more blue signs on pavements. Many cyclists choose to ignore this rubbish. Any subsequent calls for improved safety on that road are dismissed because cycle facilities have been provided so cyclists needn't use the carriageway. Have there been any success stories of campaigning resulting in Dutch quality segregated infrastructure in the UK?

Signed for services are great but the extra cost can significantly dig into profit margins when selling low value items. Personally, I always get proof of postage so at least I can prove that I did actually send it. Obviously a buyer doesn't care either way if they haven't received it but I do want to reassure them that I did everything right. Higher value items are definitely worth sending 'signed for'.

Probably not coincidence, there are a lot of dishonest people out there. I find stuff I've bought has had a higher probability of going missing if won at an unusually low price That said, as a seller I've found stuff sent without requiring a signature also has a habit of disappearing. Never had a problem with anything with a signature required. Funny that...

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.

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.

TrevA wrote:

Mark1978 wrote: There are none. The places which have the biggest amount of people cycling are those where they are able to cycle away from heavy motor traffic.

What about London? You see more people cycling there than in most cities, but they're mainly on-road, not on seperate cycle lanes.

The incentive to cycle in London is that it's by far the cheapest and often the quickest way to get around.

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.

But a complete change of attitude is required in order for a whole network of high quality segregated infrastructure to be built.

Problem is that those are often the only roads in those areas, so essential if certain journeys are ever to be made by cycle. It's not just cycling though, some of these are difficult to walk along and all are impossible to ride a horse along. Perhaps if a parallel path is provided for all non-motorised users, that might work. Otherwise all they have done is create a motorway out of an all purpose road. The difference being that a proper motorway would require alternate provision to be made for non-motorised users

Mark1978 wrote:

iviehoff wrote:Britain suffered some similar destruction, but patterns of development were much harder to alter, and those narrow streets remained an impediment to making our cities more livable. .

You're contradicting yourself a little there perhaps? It's not about narrow streets, it's about priorities. Groningen is arguably the best city in the world for cycling, partly because it's based around an ancient city core with narrow streets, meaning the bicycle is the best way to get around.

Agreed, I can see how some narrow streets can be an impediment in specific cases but the best places to cycle in the UK seem to be those old cities with narrow streets rather than the new towns where 20th century designers have had their way

AndyBSG wrote:Not really looking for pipe dream fantasies such as fully segregated cycle lanes on all conceivable routes but points that are reasonable and would make a real difference

Segregated cycle lanes adjacent to busy high-speed roads where these roads could provide a useful direct link between towns and villages. Often these a-roads are the flattest and most direct routes.

More alternative traffic free routes, railway routes etc.

Cycles to be considered and provided for when planning new or widening existing roads.

Reducing numbers of 'rat run' through routes where motorists could use a more suitable alternative. In rural areas someone suggested gates and this would allow access to be maintained whilst removing the incentive to shave a few seconds off journey times.

Either widen or remove narrow cycle lanes which encourage unsafe gutter riding

20mph, to be the urban norm

Allow cycle use of all bus lanes and review existing one way systems and where possible allow cycles to travel contraflow thus allowing cyclists to avoid busy urban ring roads and gyratories.

Advertising campaign to bring about greater public awareness of the needs of cyclists, the space they need, why they are 'in the middle of the road' and the need to check mirrors before opening doors.

Presumed liability(!)

Vorpal wrote:Parked cars don't leap out in front of anyone.

Agreed but the comment referred to pedestrians hit by wing mirrors whilst on the pavement.

Can we at least afford the humble pedestrian the same rights as a parked car? If a vehicle hits one of them it's clear where the blame lies. I'm speechless that the responsibility of vehicle operators not to hit pedestrians travelling along pavements could even be questioned

Tonyf33 wrote:

mjr wrote:And when I'm a pedestrian, I look behind me sometimes and walk on the right because it's only polite.

We were always taught to walk on the left at school, more so on the 3 floor stairwell at high school. Given that we drive on the left I can never understand why people walk/cycle on the right(wrong) side on tracks, footpaths etc..damn annoying

All a question of what you were taught and it seems we all got taught different things. Also, it's interesting how many times signs inconsistently advise one side or the other. If vehicles are to keep left, I think it makes sense for pedestrians to keep right, facing the oncoming traffic. The vehicles may 'only' be bikes but we all know that some cycle far too fast and pass too closely. If you're going to keep left (cycling) would you rather that the pedestrians you were approaching were facing you or had their backs to you? I live in fear of being hit from behind when walking a local path, too much inattention, impatience and poor/non existent lighting on bikes. I trust my observation more than that of an approaching cyclist. Obviously there is room for common sense. If possible I'll happily move to the same side as another walker so that a cyclist isn't faced with pedestrians on both sides of the path. Blind corners and approaching obstructions are other exceptions which spring to mind.

mjr wrote:I wasn't thinking and let a driver turn into a side road off Saint Giles yesterday instead of just walking across as would be normal for the city... and he thanked me for it. Earlier that day, I'd already had one driver refuse to turn into Little Bethel Street until I'd walked across

My driving instructor told me that I should let other traffic go rather than turn across their path. He said this applied to both vehicles and pedestrians walking along the road. This is what I have always done in car and on bike. I can't find anything in the highway code saying pedestrians should be treated in this manner, nor can I find anything to say they must be treated as a lesser category of road user. Rule 170 applies to cases where pedestrians have started to cross

watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

Just noticed this on Spa Cycles website:

Dawes Disc Brake Voluntary Recall This concerns Dawes Ultra Galaxy, Super Galaxy and Galaxy Plus 2013 and 2014 models. It has become apparent to us that the disc brakes on these bikes are not functioning as they should. Investigation has shown that this is due to a combination of misaligned disc mounts and poor cable routing.

As a company with a reputation built on supplying high quality products, we are requesting customers who bought these models from us and are experiencing braking issues to bring their bikes in to correct any problems.

Unfortunately Dawes have declined to support us in this recall and as result we will no longer be stocking or supplying disc braked Dawes bikes.

Bold move. Though all credit to Spa for taking action.