Helmets Anyone?

[kwackers]

and if they are not up to the mental and physical challenges of the carriageway, how are they expected to cope with the greater levels of skill and physical effort needed to use cycle paths?

So cycling on a pavement/cycle path requires more skill and physical effort than dealing with fast moving traffic on the roads?

I can't believe you're serious...

The risks of cycling on roads are small (provided you're prepared to accept the odd minor incident) - but they get much larger if you're unhappy in traffic. People who are having problems dealing with it are much more likely to be pressured into making mistakes with possible fatal consequences.

Whilst there are many crap cycle paths there are also lots of decent ones that are fantastic for a leisurely ride, especially with one's family.
Being forced to use them is wrong, but so is claiming they have no place.

[drossall]

I wouldn't say they have no place - I use them myself. However, we have to keep the underlying realism that says that, on average, they are more dangerous than the road, almost irrespective of design. I see your argument about inexperienced riders, and instinctively I'd definitely support it.

In practice, though, we'd probably both be wrong, because almost all cycle paths make junctions harder to handle, and that's where inexperienced riders may be especially likely to make errors.

[Cunobelin]

Personally I have no problems with cycle paths as they can be a superb facility.

Especially along sea fronts! If theres one place where I would like to be able to relax a bit and enjoy the view while cycling, thats it. For me at least.
It does rather sound as if this incident happened in a location where that wouldnt be an appropriate way to proceed, though!
I wonder, also, what the mothers response would have been if the cyclist had been an adult. And before anyone jumps on me, that isnt intended to be seen as criticism of the mother.

This is why I think the "dominance of the vehicle" was a little heavy handed.

There will be accidents where one participant is totally responsible, both may be totally responsible, or it may just be a freak occurrence where neither could have avoided the accident.

One of my great joys is to see young and learning cyclists with family groups on the Cycle Path between Holbrook and Gosport.

A little more caution is required, but learning has it's downfalls (literally) simply make sure you learn from them!

[kwackers]

I wouldn't say they have no place - I use them myself. However, we have to keep the underlying realism that says that, on average, they are more dangerous than the road, almost irrespective of design. I see your argument about inexperienced riders, and instinctively I'd definitely support it.

In practice, though, we'd probably both be wrong, because almost all cycle paths make junctions harder to handle, and that's where inexperienced riders may be especially likely to make errors.

It's this junctions business I have problems with.

I've spent no small amount of time cycling with Ms Kwackers who's just won't cycle on the road (and to be honest with her wobbly cycling I wouldn't expect her too either). But when it comes to crossing roads with her cycle, there's absolutely no problem and why should there be? She's had years of crossing roads as a pedestrian, when she's crossing with her cycle if visibility is bad she'll get off and walk, otherwise she'll happily tootle across.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to assume a cyclist is somehow much more in danger crossing the road then riding with it. Most cycle accidents I've seen (were details have been published) happen with cyclists actually on the road rather than crossing it, and indeed the couple of incidents I've had (and all the near misses) have happened whilst on the road. In cases where I've taken cycle lanes and crossed roads to get from one to the other I've never had an issue nor would I expect to.

Ultimately inexperience of dealing with traffic is the issue, cyclists who skirt round the outside of islands or aren't assertive, ride in the gutter, haven't the experience to deal with queued traffic, don't know how to deal with traffic lights safely etc etc. There's a lot to learn. On the other hand a cyclist on a cycle path has only the mechanics of cycling to worry about, essentially in all other respects they're behaving like pedestrians and probably have years of experience to draw upon.

[drossall]

I'm not assuming anything, let alone being disingenuous. I'm just telling you what statistics consistently say. RoSPA for example (second bullet) - tell me that they are being disingenous!

We'll never reduce accidents by relying on methods that fly in the face of the available evidence, just because that doesn't fit our preconceptions.

[kwackers]

I'm not assuming anything, let alone being disingenuous. I'm just telling you what statistics consistently say. RoSPA for example (second bullet) - tell me that they are being disingenous!

We'll never reduce accidents by relying on methods that fly in the face of the available evidence, just because that doesn't fit our preconceptions.

By second bullet you mean this one?

75% happen at, or near, a road junction

And?

With one exception the couple of 'hits' I've had, and all the near misses have happened near junctions. But I wasn't crossing a road - simply riding past a junction that someone decided they could get to before me.
This is a common theme and has nothing to do with cycle paths or cyclists crossing roads.
If I'm barking up the wrong tree point me to the data in the report you linked to that shows the 'junction' incidents were cyclist crossing rather than being in the proximity of.

[iaincullen]

But the dangers from poor cycle facilities do not necessarily come from crossing roads. As the current thread elsewhere about the toddler with a fractured skull after being knocked over by a child cyclist on a shared path shows.

John Franklins well known letter to Sustrans mentions casualy rates for the extensive off road network around Miltom Keynes.

"In Milton Keynes over the past decade, there have been six deaths to off-road cyclists against just one (a child) on the alternative road network, where main roads largely have a 70mph speed limit and there are large roundabouts at all major junctions. Even when account is taken of relative distance cycled, the death rate for the cycle paths is significantly greater than for the roads. The same is the case for serious crashes. Even the official statistics, for all their shortcomings, have included 23 serious injuries on cycle paths over the decade, against 21 on main roads; the actual path total is much higher. Milton Keynes Hospital has treated some 2,000 cyclists over the decade for injuries relating to the cycle paths, and less than one-third that number for roads covering a larger geographical area."

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/sustrans1.html

Off road facilities have their place but their limitations need to be recognised. I use a half mile section of shared footpath on my regular commute to avoid a fast dual carriageway. This half mile has only 1 pedestrian gate access on it and no road junctions. Typically I pass between 0 and at most 4 pedestrians on it.

Shared footpaths facilities with much pedestrian traffic and frequent junctions or garden gates etc or badly designed off road cycle routes will always be more dangerous than roads at anything other than very low speeds.

[drossall]

iaincullen - I think you are supporting me, although you've lost a closing quote, which makes kwackers' words seem to be mine?

I'd agree with what you are saying - driveways are after all mini-junctions.

When a cyclist crosses a road between paths, it is a junction, just the same as crossing between two side roads.

[iaincullen]

iaincullen - I think you are supporting me, although you've lost a closing quote, which makes kwackers' words seem to be mine?

I'd agree with what you are saying - driveways are after all mini-junctions.

When a cyclist crosses a road between paths, it is a junction, just the same as crossing between two side roads.

Sorry. Yes it was a misquote. I've edited it.

[Pete Owens]

and if they are not up to the mental and physical challenges of the carriageway, how are they expected to cope with the greater levels of skill and physical effort needed to use cycle paths?

So cycling on a pavement/cycle path requires more skill and physical effort than dealing with fast moving traffic on the roads?

What are you suggesting the mental and physical effort is required to ride along a road? It is just a matter of riding along a smooth wide tarmac surface that will have been designed to accomodate much wider and more cumbersome vehicles than you are operating. The basic rules of the road are very straight forward and can be taught to pre-teenage children.

I can't believe you're serious...

Absolutely so.

On paths you have to constantly stop and start - increasing the physical effort. The surface is likely to be rougher - increasing the physical effort. The path will almost certainly be narrower than the road - increasing the skill level. It is likely to have sharp bends unexpected gradients - increasing the skill level. You will have to constantly be aware of other path users in very close proximity behaving unpredictably (toddlers, dogs on leads) - increasing the skill level. You will typically encounter bollards, steps, barriers of various designs, bus stop shelters, bins, trees and so on.

And all that is before you reach your first junction.

[Pete Owens]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to assume a cyclist is somehow much more in danger crossing the road then riding with it.

It is not an assumption; it is based on a large body of empirical evidence. For a list see:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Note this is not just crap UK facilities, but includes studies from places where cycle are built to proper standards. It is an inherent problem caused by making junctions more complex and arranging for some vehicles to approach them from unexpected directions.

[kwackers]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to assume a cyclist is somehow much more in danger crossing the road then riding with it.

It is not an assumption; it is based on a large body of empirical evidence. For a list see:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Note this is not just crap UK facilities, but includes studies from places where cycle are built to proper standards. It is an inherent problem caused by making junctions more complex and arranging for some vehicles to approach them from unexpected directions.

Would I be safer on the road rather than a cycle path? Probably. Would you? I've no idea, but I suspect probably also.

But I've watched people, both elderly and indeed even relatively young people cycling in heavy traffic and imo being in extreme danger.

If you're fearful of traffic and cycle along at some peoples preferred rate of 4-5mph you shouldn't be on the road. I've some video footage taken taken just a couple of weeks ago of someone trying to cycle around an island at just such a speed, how they made it round I haven't a clue - the traffic were like a swarm of bees around them.

You may not like cycle paths but for some people they're a godsend. The dangers of crossing roads at their junctions are no more difficult than turning right on a busy road and indeed should be safer since you have time to make the correct decision as opposed to watching the junction getting nearer and feeling compelled to make a decision regardless.
Using the RoSPA data Drossall kindly provided we can see most cyclists are at danger near junctions, probably because they either make such rash decisions or are simply not seen by motorists using those junctions.

Using your arguments we can make a case for the removal of footpaths and insist pedestrians walk in the road and obey traffic laws. After all it would prevent them having to cross roads.

The data you've provided is 10 years out of date (minimum - most going back 20, 30 and even 70 years) and mostly not U.K based, so there's probably a need for a proper study taking into account whether cycle paths increase cycling use and therefore accidents. And is it a complete set of all research on this subject - or is it (like many other 'summaries') simply a subset chosen to support a viewpoint?

[drossall]

No, I don't think it's out of date or biased. For one thing, John Franklin, who wrote the survey, is the author of the RoSPA-backed Cyclecraft manual, and a nationally-recognised cycle-safety expert with a reputation to protect.

More fundamentally, this h-word thread hasn't actually mentioned h-words for several pages so I'm not going to start a trend. However, that debate consists of throwing different statistics at each other. That doesn't really seem to happen with cycle paths. Almost all the available studies say the same thing, except in specialised cases; the division is simply between people who take account of the statistics, and those who either ignore them or don't know them. I'd expect studies to take exposure (number of cyclists) into account, and that's explicit in the discussion of how many actually ride on the road in the Milton Keynes ones, for example.

I fully recognise why you say that cycle paths have benefits for inexperienced riders. I even choose to use them myself at times. However, when I drive, I do not use safety as my prime criterion to decide between the A(1)M, M1 and A6, and I would look funny at anyone who tried to use my route choice as evidence of which offered least risk. I'll do the same for my cycling choices.

In fact, as a cyclist, my life expectancy is so much better that I can afford the extra risk of using a cycle path if I fancy it. Just don't try to tell me I should be on the path because it's safer!

[Cunobelin]

More fundamentally, this h-word thread hasn't actually mentioned h-words for several pages

OK then........

Had the child been wearing a helmet then the head injury would not have occurred!



THudguard:

Learning to walk in a world of hard surfaces can turn a special moment into a heart rendering incident in a flash. It's normal for young children to sustain bumps and bruises occasionally as part of exploring; the problem is this kind of fall is very common in even the safest of homes and gardens. The damage to a falling toddler's hands and knees can be an acceptable form of pain for learning but a head injury can be traumatic for both infant and parent.

"Over 500,000 children's head injuries are recorded each year !" (DTI)

Thudguard is a revolutionary new product, an infant safety hat, designed to help absorb and reduce the impact of head injuries due to a fall or collision. It is suitable for babies and toddlers aged 7 months to 2+ years.

Thudguard helps cushion the Forehead, Side of the head, Back of the head and most importantly, the fontanelle

Thudguard is the only product of its type in the world that complies with safety standards and the only product endorsed by Children's Accident & Emergency Experts.

[aesmith]

In practice, though, we'd probably both be wrong, because almost all cycle paths make junctions harder to handle, and that's where inexperienced riders may be especially likely to make errors.

I don't know if this is the same issue, but cycle paths certainly give you more junctions. One path that I sometimes use (often choose not to) runs alongside a main road but the path is marks as "give-way" at every side road and driveway, seven or eight of them in around a mile or so. On the road you just ride past those with right of way over traffic emerging or entering the side roads. On the path you have to give way at each. Crossing the side road through a queue of cars all jostling ready to pull out into the main road is not that easy.