The Times Campaign for safer cycling

[pete75]

Here are some safe cycling tips the Times missed...


http://www.britishpathe.com/video/cycli ... ry/cycling

[reohn2]

.............To bring it back to the top of the thread, The Times campaign is merely asking for slightly better conditions for cyclists, not natural parity.

Or promoting cyclist to fourth class citizens and not the now fifth class.
The ones causing the most damage,death and heartbreak are the motorists,its the lawbreaking element of that section of road user that needs to be removed from the road,for the sake of the rest of us!

[Phil_Lee]

.............To bring it back to the top of the thread, The Times campaign is merely asking for slightly better conditions for cyclists, not natural parity.

Or promoting cyclist to fourth class citizens and not the now fifth class.
The ones causing the most damage,death and heartbreak are the motorists,its the lawbreaking element of that section of road user that needs to be removed from the road,for the sake of the rest of us!

But they won't even mention that in the TImes, in case they upset their car selling advertisers.

Maybe we should be campaigning for strict product liability - the maker and seller of a car would be responsible for any deaths, injuries or damage caused during the life of the vehicle?
They'd then be so relieved when we toned down our demands so that only the actual user of the vehicle suffered the liability, that they'd probably support it as the better alternative

[Vorpal]

I do percieve that many of the posters here are on the same side. When are we going to stop tolerating people bickiring about wether should wear helmets, and start camapaigning on the simple maxim "for economic reasons as well as social or environmental, all transport users should meet all their external economic, social or environmental costs" (Rod Eddington) or "if you break summat, pay for it" (Steve Kidd)

To bring it back to the top of the thread, The Times campaign is merely asking for slightly better conditions for cyclists, not natural parity.

We are on the same side, though we may disagree about the particulars. That conditions need to improve is easy for us to agree upon. It's the how that is hard, and sometimes controversial.

It is important that we not waste too much time and energy bickering about things like segregation, helmets, and how dangerous we can make cycling look.

However, it is also important to acknowledge our differences in opinion and discuss them. There are several reasons for this.
1) there is a lot of experience in cycling and campaigning on this forum, and some valuable opinions
2) any arguements we can raise, will be raised by others who possibly have less interest in common ground
3) discussing them helps people rationalise and articulate their ideas and feeling about the topics and aspects of the arguments

This forum is a much better place to bicker than the national papers, which would just make everyone think that there's nothing in it if cyclists can't even agree.

[Vorpal]

I will try to illustrate my point of view with numbers.
Suppose we have no cycle tracks and 100 cyclist deaths per year and 2000 lives saved by the health benefits of cycling being 20 to 1 compared with years lost due to accidents, net result 1900 lives saved.

Suppose we have many cycle tracks and 50% more cyclists, safety in numbers I think calculates at 118 deaths, lives saved by avoiding prematures deaths 3000, net result 2882 lives saved.

Suppose cycling doubled, 132 deaths and 4000 saved from premature deaths, net result 3868 lives saved.

The best outcome is having many good quality cycle tracks and more people cycling. We have data showing the high risk locations. Of course there will be many situations were on road may also be provided. It is finding the best solution for the location, CROW standards provide good guidance when to provide off road, on road or other options may be best.

From what I have seen it appears the best solution in many ways is to copy the Dutch and try to improve where possible. It is possible to get the total below 100 and have 50% more people cycling but it may not be easy.

On what evidence do you base the assertion that more cycle tracks will result in more people cycling?

[Cunobelin]

Already covered by another thread but now we have "wear a cycle helmet or you are no better than a football hooligan" as part of the campaign.

That has turned my off switch....

[Regulator]

...Most of Europe have 'strict liability' ... [/quote
Are you sure about that? ...

I think we are amongst only 3 or 4 countries in Europe who do not have it.
http://www.roadpeace.org/change/safer_s ... index.html

Just to clarify - most European countries do NOT have strict liability. They have a presumption of liability, which is a very different legal concept.

It doesn't help that organisations like RoadPeace, the AA and some cycling organisations don't appear to understand (or be bothered with) the difference.

[reohn2]

But they won't even mention that in the TImes, in case they upset their car selling advertisers.

Exactly!

Maybe we should be campaigning for strict product liability - the maker and seller of a car would be responsible for any deaths, injuries or damage caused during the life of the vehicle?
They'd then be so relieved when we toned down our demands so that only the actual user of the vehicle suffered the liability, that they'd probably support it as the better alternative

You're more optimistic than me

[al_yrpal]

Another two page spread in The Times today focussing on Boris's plan to get traffic engineers to review the 14 dangerous junctions in London and the campaigns to improve them. Also a small piece about the £23 million spent in Bristol on cycle racks and a cycle path that pedestrians take a leisurely stroll along.

Several prominent letters on the letters page.

They are certainly maintaining the campaign with more and more well known people adding their voices including the chief executive of Halfords.

Anyone can post comments at www.thetimes.co.uk/cyclesafe , so rather than discussing it here get your voices heard by the campaign and see what others are saying.

Al

[Pete Owens]

Providing cycle tracks helps to save lives, getting more people cycling and helps pedestrians.

If you want to see why NL is better for cycling you need to look at the many things they do differently - not the one thing (building cycle paths) they do the same.

NL is safe for vulnerable road users despite not because of facilities. This is self evident in the case of pedestrians.
In the NL they make their roads inherently safer by following the hierarchy of provision wheras in the UK the only measures they are prepared to consider are cycle paths - from the nastiest multilane roundabouts right down the the quitest culs-de-sac.

Dutch towns DO discourage motor traffic (from restricting movements through residential areas, not building high capacity roads etc); The UK encourages it (the assumption is that traffic is necessary for prosperity). - thus Dutch towns become safer.

Dutch towns DO reduce vehicle speeds (from home-zones, traffic calming, town wide 30kph limits); The UK is only just starting to get this message. - thus Dutch towns become safer.

Dutch Engineers DO design junctions to reduce vehicle speeds (tight radius junctions, continental geometry roundabouts...); British engineers optimise vehicle throughput and speed. - thus Dutch roads become safer.

The Dutch DO reallocate road space to create space for people; The British reallocate the other way to cram extra vehicle capacity - thus Dutch towns become more attractive for people.

The above explains entirely the safer and more attractive nature of walking and cycling there rather than here.

Only after doing all the above do they consider cycle paths; while for the UK this is the only measure they will consider. And the only reason that those cycle paths are remotely workable is due to the measures above. Those Dutch cycle paths still increase the risks for cyclists at junctions (just as ours do) - the only reason they appear to be safer is that the roads that they are crossing contain much less and slower traffic.

[thirdcrank]

It's not about preventing the injuries in the first place and to the extent that it's the insurers who pay up, it's sometimes argued that it increases carelessness, rather than reducing it.

Except that drivers lose their no claims bonus; that, apparently, makes a difference.

anothereye

I'm sorry to come back to this because I'm not having a go at you. I'm truly grateful that I have never known what it's like to be bereaved by a traffic collision. Although I have had quite a bit of experience of the aftermath of fatal collisions, your own experience is more personal than mine and much more recent. Prevention is obviously infinitely better than any amount of prosecution, compensation, retribution, whatever afterwards. I've briefly explained why I think it may be that being indemnified by insurance may not make people take more care when driving. I also know that people like to protect their NCB. Having said all that, I cannot believe that anybody who had been bereaved, or seriously injured themselves in a traffic collision whould get any comfort whatsoever from being told that the driver had lost their no claims bonus.
============================================================================
============================================================================
PS Added as an edit to keep the post count down

I see that on his Cycling Lawyer blog, Martin Porter has come to the inevitable conclusion about the way the coverage in The Times is going.

[Steady rider]

On what evidence do you base the assertion that more cycle tracks will result in more people cycling?

NL 27% cycling
Denmark, Germany, etc
Uk data on miles cycled per type of facility, and other info, will post later

[anothereye]

... I cannot believe that anybody who had been bereaved, or seriously injured themselves in a traffic collision would get any comfort whatsoever from being told that the driver had lost their no claims bonus.

3rdCrank; I'm behind on posts & am meeting with Roadpeace in a few weeks time so will discuss it then if not before.
There is little comfort in knowing that a driver who has killed has lost their no claims but there is a belief that drivers will be more careful if they know this is a possibility. The desire of all the bereaved I've talked to is to prevent another life being lost.

[Steady rider]

Pete Owens » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:26 am

Lets not overlook they also have an 80km/hr (50mph) general speed limits for most county roads and have a lower drink drive limit, 0.05

But they do not ask there people to cycle next to HGVs if they can help it.

Anyway, the Times, its doing a good job except for including helmets.

London doubled its cycling levels and NZ halved theirs, guess who required helmets.

[al_yrpal]

Lots more stuff in The Times this morning. Cycling discussion on the Daily Politics this lunchtime. Debate in the Commons on 23rd Feb. This campaign is taking off. And, this in my email this morning.

Dear Reader

Thank you for supporting The Times Cities Fit for Cycling campaign - we are making headway, but we need your help.

A parliamentary debate on the measures called for by The Times’s campaign has been scheduled for February 23. For this debate to have real impact we need as many MPs as possible to attend.

Only you can make that happen: we have just two weeks to write to our MPs telling them why they should attend. Please take a moment to write via our campaign page thetimes.co.uk/cyclesafe

We also need to spread the word and ask as many people as possible to write to their MP. Please help by posting the link to our public page thetimes.co.uk/cyclesafe and forwarding this e-mail to friends, family and fellow cyclists.

You are one of 23,000 people who have signed The Times Cities Fit for Cycling manifesto - this campaign has generated radio and TV coverage the length and breadth of the country as well as official backing from all quarters. But we need to keep the pressure on ministers to bring about real change.

We will update you on progress in the next couple of weeks. With your help, we can make Britain's cities fit for cycling.

Please stifle the cynicism, and sign up to add your voices.

Al