CYCLISTS ARE OWN BIGGEST DANGER

[pwa]

And in cities there are enough potential users of these facilities to make the investment seem like money well spent. We are sometimes a bit slow to update infrastructure in the UK.

[[XAP]Bob]

The idea that "cyclists are own biggest danger" is clearly wrong

Danger on the roads comes pretty much exclusively from people in big metal boxes.

There is some danger of just falling over, but in reality the risk to pedestrians and cyclists from each other is pretty much negligible, since both are inherently limited in the amount of energy they can bring to any situation.
Put the power of tens, if not hundreds, of horses at the whim of someone with a ton or two of hard metal - and the energy involved goes up an insane margin...

10mph is about 4.5m/s

Cyclist: 100kg, 20mph => .5*100*9^2 = 4kJ
Motorist: 1500kg, 30mph => .5*1500*13.5^2 = 135kJ

And many motorists aren't limiting themselves to 30, even where they should, and as than number ramps up the energy gets much much higher.


Yes - we can reduce the *risk* by our own behaviour, and the infrastructure can also reduce or increase the *risk*, but the danger is brought in by those with far too much energy for the simple task of moving from A to B

[BigFoz]

While I agree that some cities have real issues with both aggressive drivers and aggressive (or over defensive cyclists - sort of pre-emptive strike cyclists). and segregation might assist in safety, it does horribly reinforce the whole "Get off my road" attitude of drivers.

[[XAP]Bob]

While I agree that some cities have real issues with both aggressive drivers and aggressive (or over defensive cyclists - sort of pre-emptive strike cyclists). and segregation might assist in safety, it does horribly reinforce the whole "Get off my road" attitude of drivers.

No - the segregation should be to get the cars off the people's roads.

That's what motorways are for after all

[reohn2]

.....Yes - we can reduce the *risk* by our own behaviour, and the infrastructure can also reduce or increase the *risk*, but the danger is brought in by those with far too much energy for the simple task of moving from A to B

To paraphrase Chris Boardman.
When someone's walking around town with a loaded gun,you don't issue everyone with bulletproof vest.You take the gun away from the gunman.
It was said in regard to helmets but is equally applicable to anyone driving dangerously/carelessly drivers are not being held accountable for their actions.
That doesn't mean cyclists shouldn't be careful and considerate to other road users but the victim blaming in this country stinks! IMHO

EDIT:- as for cycling infrastructure.
I welcome it.
On the condition that it's built to the same standards other roads are built to and not the hotch potch of ridiculous half baked idiocy cyclists are subject to presently..

[Penfolds11]

Money badly spent. I have never believed in segregation. Would have been better spent on enforcing road traffic laws.

In theory I'd agree.

The news that over the past four years the police have lost 16,600 officers due to budget cuts (that's the equivalent of every officer in seven entire Police Forces) means that the latter is becoming increasingly difficult and consequently the only chance we have of remaining safe, given the unwillingness of many car/van/lorry drivers to police themselves, is to be taken out of the firing line and onto segregated cycle lanes.

Too many cyclists are being killed on London streets and until the government of this country (whoever they happen to be) treat the lives of the general public as a valuable commodity and facilitate the enforcing of safe driving in the capital this will only get worse.

A civilised society should not need segregated cycle lanes so its a poor reflection on this country that we do need them in London.

[pwa]

I cannot see London or any other UK city becoming car / lorry free in the next few decades. It isn't going to happen. So how do we improve city cycling? Yes, better driving is important. And sometimes separate cycling infrastructure (without lots of stopping and starting) would help. But we should also look after ourselves and show the responsible behaviour we would like to see from other road users. Nobody is arguing with the fact that when a car or lorry collides with a cyclist it is the weight / speed of the motor vehicle that produces the injuries, but that does not always mean that the cyclist has not contributed to the accident.

I ride more or less as I was taught when I did my Cycling Proficiency course in the 1960s. I stop at red lights, I don't ride the wrong way down one way streets, I signal and so on. And when I see criticism of "cyclists" I feel annoyed that I am being blamed for things I do not do myself. And I feel let down by the cyclists who do all the things we are being criticised for. Bad driving is something we need to eliminate. But bad cycling is a problem too, and it does expose the people who do it to an increased level of risk.

The newspaper headline is simplistic rubbish designed to stir up a controversy, but we do have a part to play in keeping ourselves safe.

[kwackers]

And when I see criticism of "cyclists" I feel annoyed that I am being blamed for things I do not do myself. And I feel let down by the cyclists who do all the things we are being criticised for.

Why? Do you feel the same when you're driving and see another driver do something stupid?
Accept the reality, cyclists aren't being blamed for doing stupid things, they're being blamed for using the roads.

Once you get past the usual RLJ'ing argument then you need to deal with 'Road Tax', insurance, license plates, riding two abreast, riding in the middle of the road, not using the cycle lane, wearing headphones and a whole swath of other things.

Once we've fixed that lot to the satisfaction of the DM brigade then it'll all be OK - or probably not...

[pwa]

I'm sure we've all had conversations with non-cyclists that end up with them listing all the things cyclists do that they shouldn't. And mostly they are things I don't do myself. Cycling on the pavement, jumping red lights, not having lights at night. I say "I don't do that" and wait for the next item on their list. Some of the "faults", such as riding 2 abreast, are bogus, and I say so. But others are bad practices that make all of us look bad. The average non-cyclist does not know, when they see 3 or 4 cyclists going through a red light, that plenty of others never do that. It drags us all down in the eyes of non-cyclists and makes it easier to believe that we might be to blame for our own problems.

I am also a motorist, but that is a majority status amongst UK adults, so most of the adult population understand that there are different types of motorist. Generalisation is something people do more freely with groups they do not themselves belong to. Cyclists are still a bit of a minority, so it is a temptation to stereotype us.

Maybe things are different in London, but I don't hear that "get off the road" stuff very often around here.

[Bikefayre]

My biggest gripe here in Scotland the cycle lanes do not join up or worse exit onto a blind or narrow bit of road. Also find people love to use them as dog toilets and bottle banks!

[mjr]

I think Armitt and MacNamara should resign in disgrace for their comments - and cyclists should boycott London Taxis, National Express, DHL and UPS.

Generalisation is something people do more freely with groups they do not themselves belong to. Cyclists are still a bit of a minority, so it is a temptation to stereotype us.

Yes, and it will happen whether or not we reduce the number of bad cyclists. We'll never get them all, just like there are still drunk motorists on the roads, even after years of ever-harsher punishments.

Of course, accosting rule-breaking cyclists yourself isn't a solution because then as well as them breaking a rule, you're also breaking Rule 147 ("do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse").

Maybe things are different in London, but I don't hear that "get off the road" stuff very often around here.

I hear it middlingly-often, but it seems uncorrelated with whether there's a cycleway nearby. In one recent example, someone wrote a letter to the paper complaining that cyclists were holding up the traffic on a river bridge and should stick to the cycleway... but there is no cycleway across that bridge yet (it merges back into the road on sharp bends on each bank), as he was told by a couple of letters the next week!

[kwackers]

Maybe things are different in London, but I don't hear that "get off the road" stuff very often around here.

It's a long time since I cycled in London so I've no idea. What I do get constantly though is people with no patience and particularly ignorant and angry people doing dangerous stuff because there's a cyclist directly in front of them.

These boil down to the same old things:-

Overtaking on a blind bend.
Overtaking and cutting across to turn left.
Not waiting until I've passed before turning out of a side road.
Starting to overtake and then pulling left to force me to drop back/change lane.
Overtaking on the wrong side of road furniture (particularly bollards).
Undertaking on single lane roundabouts (despite me being in the middle of the lane).
Overtaking on single lane roundabouts.
Overtaking when there's stationary traffic ahead and often deliberately moving to the far left to stop me undertaking (even when there's a cycle lane there).
Oncoming traffic overtaking slower/stopped traffic and being deliberately intimidatory (i.e. accelerating at you).
Punishment passes.

The above doesn't happen because they once saw someone RLJ - it happens because I'm in 'their way'.
(And I'm not a slow timid rider, I ride an average of 20mph and to a pattern that's well described in 'Cyclecraft'.)

The only times I've actually had anyone have a go at me with the usual daft excuses it has been people I know and they're pretty easy to make short work of.

[danhopgood]

"I think Armitt and MacNamara should resign in disgrace for their comments - and cyclists should boycott London Taxis, National Express, DHL and UPS."

I was surprised and initially disappointed by John Armitt's comments - as I've had huge respect for him. But doesn't he have a point? He's obviously put all cyclists in the same "menace" category, which is not true. But it can't be ignored that there is a problem - particularly in London - of a minority of cyclists behaving recklessly, which is changing the attitude of the majority of road users. And it's affecting the "good" cyclists too. The Editor of New Civil Engineer magazine this week said he'd just stopped cycling to work in London - partly of the result of the danger posed by the increasing numbers of reckless cyclists on the road.

There's bad behaviour on all sides. More enforcement is a big part of the answer in my view. When the Police had a big crack down on behaviour at junctions at the Mayor's instructions, what happened? There weren't any accidents.

[kwackers]

which is changing the attitude of the majority of road users

No it isn't.
Motorists have been berating cyclists (and pedestrians) ever since they were allowed to drive without a flag waver in front of them.

All that's happening is their narrow motorist centric view is being allowed to reinforce itself with no feedback telling them they're wrong. Articles like this do nothing to change their perception and everything to encourage it.

A good example is rule 170.
As time goes on the number of motorists who think the correct behaviour when turning into a side road that has pedestrians crossing is to give it the horn and shout abuse increases. Those same motorists who don't think they need to give way to pedestrians crossing roads are often the most vocal when it comes to complaining about pedestrian behaviour.
As time goes by pedestrian and cyclist 'rights' are being eroded by what's increasingly seen as acceptable behaviour encouraged by articles like these - after all if it's in print it must be right mustn't it? The fact most motorists think cyclists bring their demise upon themselves and the fact it's enormously at odds with the reality is proof of the yawning chasm between perception and reality of the motoring fraternity.

Stopping bad cycling is a laudable aim but it won't stop the rot. Education and policing of motorist behaviour will.

[admin]

The UK's "lycra lout" stereotypical "cyclist" is a product of the UK's road conditions. To survive on the UK's roads as a regular cyclist you are forced to be assertive, and this often appears to others as aggression. Sometimes, when the cyclist feels that their life is threatened, the "fight or flight" reaction does indeed result in "fight". You have to be tough and a little bit fearless to "take the lane" in front of lorries, buses and taxis. It works, to an extent, but ordinary people just don't cycle on roads any more. "Cyclists" are thus an easily-sterotyped minority "out group", and individual cyclists are held responsible for the collective actions of their "group".

"Cyclists" are not a group with collective responsibility, any more than "motorists" or "railway passengers" or "red heads" are.

Meanwhile, over in Denmark and the Netherlands, there is almost no aggression at all. Because motorists are kept well away from cyclists, and because cycling is treated as a first-class mode of transport, with investment to match. The Dutch still have lycra-clad racing cyclists, and no doubt some of them cause annoyance to other people. But the overwhelming majority of people on bicycles are just ordinary people pedalling to get somewhere. That's because their cycleways allow anyone to ride anywhere, without any fear or assertion or aggression required. Almost everyone uses a bicycle for transport, but very few would consider themselves to be "cyclists" in the sense used as a collective term in the UK.

I think the new "crossrail for bikes" in London will be hugely beneficial to the city. They will allow ordinary people to ride bicycles for transport much more often, and so the "lycra lout" image of cycling will be diminished. We must forget the crap cycle lanes we've been given in the past, and embrace this new capital investment in long-lasting sustainable transport facilities. Bicycles are the most efficient mode of urban transport possible!