Cycling UK Forum

A few years ago, at the height of the holiday season, someone put up a sign on the A55 as it approaches the Menai Bridge, saying "Anglesey Full".

Mike Sales

Kwackers, I realise, on a second reading, that you think that the measure of safety is the number of dead, and also that you assert that the roads really are getting safer for cyclists. Most people don't agree. They would be appalled at the idea of allowing a child today the freedom which I and my contemporaries were given without question, not all that many years ago. The figures that you rely on say that the roads were MORE dangerous then. How do you account for that?

Mike Sales

Kwackers, again, on which official figures do you base your assertion that our roads are the safest in Europe and getting safer?

Mike Sales

Kwackers, do you really think our roads are amongst the safest in Europe, and getting safer? If you don't mind me saying so, you are swallowing DoT (or whatever it is called these days) propaganda. How do you measure safety? Road deaths per mile driven? or, since we are discussing cyclist safety on a cycling forum, is it deaths per mile cycled?
What figures lead to to say that our roads are so safe?

Mike Sales

Losing the right to the road is what I fear most, and it seems to me that we have been heading towards that for most of my cycling life.
Sustrans is an example of what some charities worry about when they consider accepting money from the Government. If they get too close and too dependent then their ability to criticise is castrated. Doesn't Sustrans get most of its money from government? It would be interesting to know. In any case, Sustrans was set up to promote cycle paths, and cycle paths are what the authorities want to give us, rather than tackle motorists. Naturally they are more attractive to politicians than a club, which however imperfect, is at least a democracy and can be directed by its members. After all, the Bolshie bloody cyclists ignore facilities if they don't like them.

Mike Sales

Its interesting to think about the number of road dead acceptable in the past. I understand that in the Thirties are fraction of the number of motorists killed about 13,000 people a year. This included a much larger number of cyclists, a larger proportion too. Pedestrian and child deaths would have been higher too.
Incidentally, there could have been no argument about who paid for the road, until the explosion in car numbers.
Why did we put up with this slaughter, carried out by a tiny part of the population. Class deference may be part of the explanation, but also, we felt much safer then. Given that we cyled and walked much more, perhaps our death rate per mile cycled or walked was in fact better than today. As well, cyclists must have encountered many fewer cars so we could relax much more. Personally, though I believe I handle traffic well, and have a reasonable life expectancy, I feel this is because of some skill, a lot of experience and constant concentration.
When traffic statistics are quoted as "rates" we should always ask "per what?" e.g. cyclist deaths per car mile, or per bike mile.

Mike Sales

Kwackers, is it your case seems that the problem with my case is that what I suggest would not work? You go through various parts of your commute experience and decide that NO change would be best. The examples where you mention lanes you make it clear that you would not really use them. Are you sure you are arguing in favour of cycle facilities? My case is that cycle facilities make things worse, yours seems to be that they are irrelevant and neutral in effect.
Do you want to be forced off roundabouts? If so why do you use them?
Here are a few examples of facilities we might agree are negative in effect.
Those on road lanes which lead a cyclist going straight on to a position left of a left turn lane.
The decreasing number of cyclists like you means that those remaining will be more at risk.
Cycling on facilities is almost always slower, which decreases cycling's utility.

But most important,facilities make it less likely that the better policies will be adopted.

I agree that getting any improvement will be very hard, but that does not mean we should not make the case for a saner transport policy. If you are really the fatalist you seem, why are you in this discussion at all?

Mike Sales

Well said Third Crank. Throughout this thread you have made the best sense, in my view. All I would want to add is that I think cycle facilities of most types, in the British road context, are an excuse for not doing the things higher up the hierarchy. Facilities make the better solutions less likely.

Mike Sales

I see the AA is publishing Sustrans's glossy "Cycling in the UK". A match made in marketing heaven.

Mike Sales

I have indeed never ridden on Dutch or German facilities. I have tried Swedish. I got completely lost because the signing was of British quality.
CJ wrote, "The lesson for riding on paths in all those countries is that drivers will give way to you at side junctions, assuming you come from the same direction as other traffic they're looking out for." When British drvers are as good as that then it will be reasonably easy to build decent facilities, perhaps. But whilst they, and the highwaymen persist in their current attitudes cycle facilities will continue to be a dangerous insult, designed to get us out of the way, with no thought given to cyclists' convenience or safety. I cannot believe that decent facilities can happen until the ideas behind tem

I'm not convinced by the idea that there can be an ideal and acceptable facility, and its just that ours are so grudgingly implemented that spoils a good idea. Without extensive and expensive flyovers and underpasses the road traffic and the segregated traffic still have to cross each others' path at many junctions. Accidents anyway tend to happen at junctions, when vehicles cross each others path, giving chances for accident. Segregated paths multiply the crossing points, increasing the opportunity for mistakes to happen. Studies generally show that facilities increase cyclist accident rate, not reduce it, even in the Netherlands etc. I have just read above that cycle routes get right of way over there, at least sometimes. In Britain it is almost always the bike traffic which has to give way.
I can't really accept the nursery slope idea of facilities. They are more complex and do not encourage correct road cycling. I remember my astonishment when a series of Mountain Bikers came fast down the path towards me, on their right hand side. I only just got out of the way in time. Perhaps the generally abysmal standards of road cycling we see are caused, at least partly, by the irregular bevaviour learned off the road. Certainly one cannot learn general traffic skills in an environment where there are no cars, lorries etc. Facilities are infantilising. Remember "Cyclists Dismount".
What really bugs me about facilities is that they make things worse for me. They do increase aggression towards road cyclists, and if there is anything in the safety in numbers theory, cannot help road safety. Those of us who eschew the use of facilities get a worse deal. Drivers are more and more expecting cyclists to cede right of way to cars, even when it is the cyclist's. To make things harder for those whom are already cycling is not the obvious way to increase cycling numbers.
Perhaps when motorists learn better manners cycle facilities will not be a worse option, but pending the second coming facilities are being used to get us out of the way, instead of improving the road environment.
When segregation is glossed as "separate but equal" we should hear echoes of old South Africa.
As you might have gathered, I'm convinced on cycle lanes.

Mike Sales

ianr1950 sees no need to justify his assertion that the figures which show helmets don't work are fiddled. He goes on to admit he was wrong, so I guess he is right, in that sense, since he has withdrawn the allegation. I am pleased that he has finally admitted this, though the admission took some extraction.
I am not clear what he is puzzled about; if it is my reference to risk homeostasis, may I recommend "Risk" by John Adams. His website is full of interesting ideas which should be of interest to all cyclists, and in fact everyone. http://john-adams.co.uk/

Mike Sales

I was stopped at the upright of a T junction one night and since this was before standlights, (I was turning left) my light was out. A police man in his car passing on the horizontal yelled, "Your light's out." "Its a dynamo," I replied. "Get it fixed" was his answer. He was passing slowly enough for this conversation, but I could not think of a reply in time.

Mike Sales

Never have, never will. If they make them compulsory I will take my punishment.
Why do we choose to imitate a cycling culture like USA, Australia, or NZ, not Netherlands, Denmark or Germany? GRW tells us what Oz is like. Few cyclists, high death rate, only the keenest cycle. In North Europe many cycle, few die, cycling is normal transport. Please note, I am not saying that wearing foam hats leads automatically to the Anglo-Saxon cycling culture, but surely, the more cycling is seen as an activity which needs tight lycra and high athleticism and is so dangerous it needs protective gear, then the fewer ordinary people will try it. I'm with Hubgearfreak on that.
Myself, I wear lycra with the club on Sundays, or if out for a longer fun ride, but I also use a bike for all everyday transport. I've only just learned to drive at an advanced age in order to chauffeur my mother.

Mike Sales