Cycling UK Forum

I like this:
"A sign at a roundabout or where a road narrows that reads “motorists, give priority to cyclists” would have a massive impact on road safety by giving a clear instruction to both parties. It would cost little to implement and, in most cases, I doubt it would have much effect on traffic flow. In my opinion that simple signage, indicating a change of priority, would do more good for cyclists than 1,000 miles of cycle lanes that take me miles out of my way".
Chris Boardman in the Times today

I assume the Times's campaign is tempered by not wanting to frighten motorists. Pointing out that most cycling injuries are caused by drivers probably wouldn't go down well. On the other hand, asking for segregated facilities probably does. Ah, but who would pay for them? Licence fees for bikes, of course.

Um, pardon?

Fortunately, the gentleman who said that wasn't identified as anything to do with the CTC.

Noticed just such signs in Edinburgh whilst visiting recently.
They should be much more widely used.
Only yesterday was riding past pedestrian traffic island & prevented car from overtaking.Was gestured at furiously when the were able to pass to 'Get over & Out of Their Way'!!

snibgo wrote:I assume the Times's campaign is tempered by not wanting to frighten motorists. Pointing out that most cycling injuries are caused by drivers probably wouldn't go down well.

Frighten them from what? Buying the times?

snibgo wrote:On the other hand, asking for segregated facilities probably does. Ah, but who would pay for them? Licence fees for bikes, of course.

See point 4 of their manifesto "2% (£100M) of Highways Agency budget for cycle routes".

anothereye wrote:For the 3rd day running I've bought the Thymes, I'm bothered by "cyclists: look out for parked cars, they might suddenly open their doors .... Look out for wing mirrors as well as through the back windscreen to see if anyone in the car might be about to open a door" (p6 of today's guide). So they don't want to encourage us to give 3ft clearance (might slow down the traffic flow).

see tip *5 here:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... .ece#tab-5

So they don't want to encourage us to give 3ft clearance (might slow down the traffic flow

).

They are saying watch out if a person is in the vehicle for the possiblility of the door opening. About 7% of cyclist road accident occur (at least in one report) due door opening.

It is fairly good advice to watch out and focuses the cyclists attention to a possible danger.
At the same time the cyclist would normally be passing about 3 to 4 feet away depending on circumstances.

Those 12 safety tips are interesting, being mostly flawed or plain wrong. I was amused by #4: "Avoid roads without safe cycle lanes". So I should avoid cycling to the shops then. Or cycling around my village. Or cycling anywhere at all, unless I wheel the bike many miles to the nearest "safe cycle lane".

snibgo wrote:I assume the Times's campaign is tempered by not wanting to frighten motorists.

Yeah, sorry, my point wasn't clear.

I was trying to say that the campaign is focused more on convincing motorists that cyclists need infrastructure to get out of the way of motorists, rather than that motorists should change their behaviour.

Steady rider wrote:

So they don't want to encourage us to give 3ft clearance (might slow down the traffic flow

).

They are saying watch out if a person is in the vehicle for the possiblility of the door opening. About 7% of cyclist road accident occur (at least in one report) due door opening.

It is fairly good advice to watch out and focuses the cyclists attention to a possible danger.
At the same time the cyclist would normally be passing about 3 to 4 feet away depending on circumstances.

I agree.
What would also be a good idea is if motorists were educated to the reasons why cyclists ride in the way they do ie;2ft to 3ft away from the curb and or parked cars,why they ride in a primary middle of the lane position at certain times,stipulating those times/occasions,etc,etc.
It wouldn't be a bad idea to educate motorists firmly that cyclists and pedestrians are squidgy and soft and their lives and the lives of their families can be ruined in a split second by hard 1 to 2ton metal vehicles who's drivers think their lives and time is more important than those softer "targets".
And to let them know that if they come into contact with said squidgy unprotected humans they will be heavily fined or imprisoned, lose their driving licence and will need,after a lengthy ban,to sit their driving test again, to prove to the rest of the society they live in that they can be trusted to drive!
Rather than the shambles of law and disorder we now experience where the small but not insignificant lunatic few are allowed to get away literally with murder.

I've no doubt that its the perception of how dangerous the roads are in this country that prevents more widespread use of bicycles in their various form such as is seen on the continent and that harsher penalties,backed up by a willingness of the authorities to implement those penalties would go a long way to eleviating those negative perceptions.

EDIT:-
Lets also not forget that there is misguided perception by an element of motorvehicle drivers that cyclists shouldn't be on the road at all.
The continued tiresome misguided road tax,insurance and riding licence arguements,to as they see it reinforce their misplaced and illegal mindset.
We (cyclists) have every right to use the road,to use a bicycle is perfectly legal by law,it is their misconception thats illegal and to try to use that misconception to force us off the our roads.
It would do us good not to forget that simple fact and to fight tooth and nail against anyone or organisation to stop us.
In the case of newspapers its my belief,we should always read between the lines

snibgo wrote:Those 12 safety tips are interesting, being mostly flawed or plain wrong.

The problem is that cyclists don't agree on what is right. There is no single voice. We all think we know, but then we argue with someone else who says differently. That's what keeps this board busy...

Helmets, RLJing, cycle paths, lights, road position, you name it, someone here will disagree with someone else. So it's a bit unreasonable to expect The Times to get it "right".

What they are doing is getting cycle safety onto the agenda. It may not matter what they actually say; some motorists are going to be thinking just a bit more next week.

And almost anything is better than being ignored, not seen, and thus SMIDSYd...

The CTC, LCC or a university could invite a few speakers who would have to detail their proposals to improve road safety and especially for cyclists. Any commercial interest declared.

The proposals would need costing or an estimate as part of a presentation. Issue where opinions are divided could also be discussed. The primary objectives would be accident avoidance all road users, minimising cyclist accidents, making the road environment as safe and cycle friendly as possible. Long and short term means to achieve the goals.

Each proposal (or part of ) could be voted on at the end of the meeting to see how socialy acceptable it appears. Guest speakers could be invited from the CTC RTR list and the CTC pay for their attendance and for the meeting venue or the DfT could contribute to costs.

drossall wrote:...........What they are doing is getting cycle safety onto the agenda. It may not matter what they actually say; some motorists are going to be thinking just a bit more next week.

And almost anything is better than being ignored, not seen, and thus SMIDSYd...

But what happens when something more newsworthy comes along?Cycling is dropped like a stone.
The Times is there to sell newspapers and thats all! I wish could be proved wrong,time(s) will tell.

Steady rider wrote:The CTC, LCC or a university could invite a few speakers who would have to detail their proposals to improve road safety and especially for cyclists. Any commercial interest declared.

The proposals would need costing or an estimate as part of a presentation. Issue where opinions are divided could also be discussed. The primary objectives would be accident avoidance all road users, minimising cyclist accidents, making the road environment as safe and cycle friendly as possible. Long and short term means to achieve the goals.

Each proposal (or part of ) could be voted on at the end of the meeting to see how socialy acceptable it appears. Guest speakers could be invited from the CTC RTR list and the CTC pay for their attendance and for the meeting venue or the DfT could contribute to costs.

You're not a salesman by any chance?

Safety tip #11 is plain wrong: at 13 mph, a bike's stopping distance is rather more than 2 metres.

True, the others are more debatable. Cycling in the door zone is okay provided we make sure that anyone in the car has seen us. Cycling in gutters is fine, provided we signal at junctions and watch out for pedestrians. That's what they say, with pictures. Government and Cyclecraft say different.

I too considered this rather a short stopping distance, Bicycle Science, old edition, page 200, lists stopping distances,
12mph - 5.7 feet, calculated value,

The 2m is probably more of a calculated value than would occur in practice, probably also they mean braking distance, thinking/reaction time may be 0.6 secs say, at 12 mph (19kmh perhaps, 5.4m/sec, 0.6 x 5.4 = 3.22m + braking distance = probably 7m.

The 2m is an error but not a big issue and Bicyc Sc may have led them up the wrong path.

Having been a Times reader most of my adult life, I finally kicked it into touch about 18 mths ago as not worth the effort of opening it to read. (Somebody above mentioned that The Times is the daily paper of the élite. Of course, the ad used to be "Top people take The Times" but that was a long time ago.) As the online version is behind a pay wall, all I've read is what's been quoted on here. Nothing has tempted me to shell out for a copy.

I get the impression that after the first couple of days, the problem has been a lack of paper-selling copy. They know that their general readership isn't interested in the underlying issue of drivers being more considerate of cyclists and even less interested in the type of debates cyclists have about driving standards.

I can appreciate the line that at least the issue is getting some long-overdue national publicity but I suspect many Times readers will only remember the bits which confirm their own thinking. (eg taking as read the need to wear a helmet.) Nothing sells newspapers like a bit of controversy (apart from sex, that is) so if this starts a brief debate in the paper's formerly reknowned letters page, so much the better for the circulation figures. I don't think this is going to be the catalyst for change. I hope I am wrong.