Cycling UK Forum

Guardian article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... calderdale

Quoting from the article:- "While this is a useful guide, we're also very keen to stress that even the apparently less safe areas aren't actually unsafe, and that it's still much better for your health to cycle than not to cycle, wherever you live," said Chris Peck, the CTC's policy coordinator. "It's important that people are not put off cycling."

So - why not publish the quide by giving the relative health benefits across the different areas? By publishing safety ratings A to E anyone in D or E would be quite entitled to see that as a valid reason to not cycle.

To change the data to something a good deal more positive all that is needed is to create a "typical" driver and a "typical" cyclist. Their relative healths could then be compared. I suspect the main problem is that the "danger" faced by cyclists in zones A and E are really so similar that it would be hard to distinguish any difference across the country.

Yet I can't help feeling that zones A to E are counter productive.

Oh dear. A suggestion that helmets and high-viz are not the way forward (from an MP's working group, no less)... combined with the suggestion that safety in numbers will greatly reduce injuries.

Perhaps there is hope after all!

No doubt the article is trying to dispel the perception that cycling is dangerous.

In many councils there's a tension between the Road Safety department and the Cyclist Training department. The Road Safty people tend to think that cycling is enherently dangerous, so to help meet their targets they feel that they should discourage it (the hidden motive behind helmet promotion?). Yet I think it safe to say the more that cycling is discouraged, the more dangerous it is for those people who remain cycling.

But wasn't there a big sing-song recently about the objectives being changed to cycle participation, rather than cycle accidents (hence forcing them to meet targets by encouraging riders, rather than suppressing them)?

I'm sure I remember something of the sort - it was from the CTC I think.

Should we organise a peteition that all road vehicles are painted in flourescent yellow for safty reasons?

No longer Hnery Ford - any clour provided it is black,

But your Rolls must be flourescent yellow

EdinburghFixed wrote:But wasn't there a big sing-song recently about the objectives being changed to cycle participation, rather than cycle accidents (hence forcing them to meet targets by encouraging riders, rather than suppressing them)?

I'm sure I remember something of the sort - it was from the CTC I think.

I think you are refereing to the possibility that targets will be changed from being absolute to being relative to the amount of cycled miles. This hasn't come in yet but hopefully will soon. This will mean a change from an increase in cycling meaning council's failing to make targets (as there will be a rise in crashes/ incidents/ KSIs etc) to targets being met by positively encouraging cycling as this will reduce the number of incidents per cycled mile. It is great news for forthcoming Local Transport Plans - lets just hope it makes it through to final guidance/ legislation.

When does the research about the pope's religous views come out?

askeans wrote:When does the research about the pope's religous views come out?

The researchers are still investigating bears in woods at the moment I think.

the way some drivers act 10 pin bowling comes to mind

askeans wrote:When does the research about the pope's religous views come out?

Has anyone thought of asking him?

Before anyone does, I vote for Bhuddist.

Gazza

Having lots of cyclists on a road is like having mobile traffic calming.

Every day I ride from Edinburgh (lots of cyclists) to Fife (I seem to be the only cyclist).

Despite the Fife section being under 1/6th of my total distance I would say around 1/2 the 'incidents' I experience are with Fife drivers.

However, when the official line has been that increasing cycling participation will increase deaths (the 'flood of inexperienced riders' theory), it's quite encouraging to have "official" (or at least, endorsed) work showing that the best way to reduce cyclist casualties is to increase numbers.

Thing is, if you look back in time I'm sure you'll never find that people cycled 10, 20 miles to work. People lived near where they worked or took the bus.

People cycle a mile or two, but not the sort of mileage the people on here do.

So I don't think you'll ever get to a situation where people stop driving and do the same distance using a bike. In London it may happen, but people tend to use folding bikes and trains.

What will happen is people move nearer their job, or a get a job nearer their home.

gilesjuk wrote:What will happen is people move nearer their job, or a get a job nearer their home.

...and then cycle...