Cycle lanes

[flatters]

I had a letter printed in the last edition of The Northern Wheel on cycle lanes which I would like to share. It followed an article on the position of a cycle lane where a cyclist was killed when they were sandwiched between 2 buses. The gist of the letter is as follows:-

Plans were being displayed in the local library for a township plan for the area. I was looking at the plans from a cyclists perspective and queried the cycle lanes with the Council engineer. They were mainly on wide roads and on the dangerous narrow sections where they were need most they were missing. I queried this and his response was a bombshell… “Oh people think cycle lanes are there for the benefit of cyclists, well they are not! They are used to make wide roads narrow so as to slow cars down”.

I now see preposterous cycle lanes in a new light. The setting up of cycle lanes with the wrong objective is a dangerous measure. It puts the needs of traffic calming before the safety of cyclists and it further alienates motorists against the most vulnerable of road users.

My view is, rarely are cycle lanes for us and, where they are dangerous, we should avoid them.

[Pedalling Pete]

For the benefit of Gerry and others, the "Discretionary Strip" is a strip at the edge of the road which can be used at your discretion, I guess! It has no bike sign, so can be used by anyone. It is separated from the main carriageway by being a different colour, or as a raised section where brickwork used, and/or perhaps using white dotted lines. You might use it to squeeze inside a stationary car to reach an advanced stop line - OK. But use it in moving traffic, and you find pedestrians waiting to cross the road, cars squeezing inside others turning right, and on a sharp left turn you have cars cutting the corners and using the space of the Discretionary Strip. It is also too narrow to make safe turns on bends faster than maybe 10mph. Because of rubber left by cars, in the wet the bends are lethal for cyclists. Likewise the raised brick sections have a sloping brick between levels - wonderful in the wet for cyclists who wish to commit suicide under the wheels of a passing motor vehicle. And it was all done with our money, and by folk who claimed they knew about cycling because they were cycle planners. Having delivered this disaster, there was little interest by the planners in collecting feedback, and of course no money available to reverse the engineering. We are stuck with a discredited scheme for maybe a generation.

[phooey]

I ride between surrey and south london and most of the route is cycle lane free. Bus lanes in london where it isn't too congested to make any progress are ok, but cycle lanes are an afterthought.

The answer I think would be to give cyclists 'right of way' over motorised transport and Very Heavy penalties for those who endanger cyclists.

I was run off the road last week by a skip lorry which overtook me on the approach to a central island feeding me the kerb. When I caught him up 4 miles down the road " Well you shouldn't get so close to ME " ...???

[nigel]

I agree with Phooey -and probably many more cyclists- that motorists who endanger lives should be dealt with VERY harshly. Some time ago there were mutterings in the press that the law might be about to change to come in line with many European countries where in a case where a motorist injures a cyclist, the motorists guilt is presumed unless proven otherwise. Motorists went ape and I haven't heard much about it since. All motorists understand that if they knock a pedestrian over on a crossing, then they are in trouble -whether or not the lights were in their favour. Until motorists understand that they are looking at serious penalties for knocking cyclists over, then nothing will change -certainly not their attitude regarding cycle lanes.

Are there any cycle planners out there who are ALSO cyclists? If so please do us all a favour and explain the reasoning for some of the absurd markings on our roads that go by the name of 'cycle lanes'. Or do you just have an surplus of paint to get rid of?

[france tourer]

I ride about 30 miles aday to work and back through london.I have two lights on the front of my bike and two on the back i also wear a hi viz jacket.I spend most of the journey in the cycle lanes at the side of the road.The biggest problem to cyclists and all other road users is the idiots on bikes who have no lights,take no notice of red lights, and think no one else has a right to be on the road.Let the c.t.c campaign against these idiots and make the roads safer for everyone.I am not a car driver i am a die hard cyclist who is after a bit of respect of other road users.Lets make all road users care for each other like they do in france.

[CJ]

France tourer - there may well be fewer unlit cyclists in Paris, I don't know, but if that's the case one reason may be that it's illegal to sell a new bike in France without lights on it. But the main difference is the French newspapers don't pay motoring bigots to whip up public hatred against us.

Accept the fact: in Britain to be a cyclist is to join a downtrodden minority. The naughty boys who ride on pavements and unlit are our suicide bombers. CTC however, has no lines of communication with those people. All we can reasonably do to modify their behaviour is campaign to meet their needs: get somewhere better for them to ride and to get lights (not merely reflectors) on new bicycles - like in France.

An argument can even be made that the worse the cycling terrorists behave the greater is the incentive for "the authorities" to talk to the good guys of cycling, i.e. CTC. Well it worked for the IRA!

Important note: the opinions expressed here are merely my private rantings and have no connection whatsoever with CTC policy!

[france tourer]

C.J
As far as i am aware it is still illegal to ride a bike on the road without lights at night.It is also illegal to go through a red light.
I am a member of the c.t.c and i still say if we get rid of these idiots off our roads then we will gain a lot of respect off other road users.
The c.t.c could use their power to petition the home secratary to take some of these idiots through the courts and make an example of them.Maybe then they will clean up there act
I stiill beleive the abuse i get off other road users is caused by these idiots.One other thing is that these are not a minority in london

[AHB]

Perhaps lightless cyclists could be fined then given a voucher to take to a cycle shop/police etc to have lights fitted (fine >= voucher value).

[Pedalling Pete]

The posting seems to have moved away from Cycle Lanes to lighting in respect of conspicuity; but anyway: The bigots who rant about bikes without lights might like to consider two points.

First, how come they were able to see after dark that the cyclist had no lights? Obviously the cyclist was visible to them! So how important were the lights?

Secondly, are there no cases of motorists being "in collision with" cyclist in daylight? The majority of crashes happen in daylight. So what caused that crash? The motorist "Didn't see you"! So there was nothing that the cyclist could have done to prevent the motorist hitting them in broad daylight. The same factors causing the crash must apply after dark - the motorist is simply not capable of seeing a proportion of cyclists whether light or dark. Yet after dark it is always the cyclist's fault - because they have no lights. Statistically this must be untrue. The motorists' insurers will in each case argue that this particular case resulted from the failure of the cyclist to show proper lighting. The police will find that a law has been contravened, regardless of whether this was a relevant factor in causing a crash.

The reality is that lights won't prevent you being hit by a motorist after dark; but they might help in obtaining compensation if it can be shown that your lights were compliant with the law.

[Anthony]

Oh for heavens sake. Are we to start defending numpties who cycle without lights?

You can see cars without lights at night as well, but I'm sure we would all be up in arms if a cyclist was run over at night after pulling out of a junction by an unlit car.

I know that these boards are going to be fairly pro-cyclist, but isn't some introspection about the behaviour of cyclists warranted?

As well as commuting to work on a bike most days, I also occassionally drive a car. I have to say that some of the riding and the lack of lights at night seems indefensible.

[AHB]

I think only rear lamps were being questioned: Vehicles going faster than walking speed need Front ones to let others see them.

The CTC originally objected to compulsory rear lamps because it absolved the driver of driving at a speed allowing them to stop within the range of their headlamps.

As they lost having no rear lights is bad (and illegal)(no front light bad in either case)
NB For this to be effective solid cage vehicles (cars/lorries) would have to be forbidden from having tail lights (except license plate lamps) but motorcyclists and cyclists could optionally use tail lamps.

You can't guarantee that a tail lamp will never fail: so whose fault is it if car hits the cyclist then? Does the cyclist lose compensation even though their lamp was working when they began their journey?

[pwward]

I don't think I would mind the law about lights on cycles so much if it was not used so often by motorists to excuse crap driving. Most of the people with out lights seem to be poor, students (badly organised) and youths (no sense of their own mortality). I noticed even more cyclists without lights in Sweden, Denmark and Holland but then there is more cycling and better separation of bikes and cars there and less need for lights due to this maybe?

[CJ]

Put this in yer pipes and smoke it:

For three years W Sussex police logged presence, or not, of lamps in reported cycle "accidents" at night. Only one in ten were unlit.

I think that despite our bias, we would agree that more than 10% of cyclists are unlit.

So how important are lights?

I believe for that reason ("wrong" result!) this study was never published - I posess a leaked internal document.

What it probably proves, in fact, is that cyclists who ride on dangerous roads make sure they have all the gear but get squashed anyway, and that naughty boys who have no lights ride on the footway and the side-streets where they are nevertheless comparatively safe. Risk compensation - it really works both ways!

[phooey]

I don't need a study on statistics to tell me what common sense is - or what I have witnessed on many occaisions in the last 25 years.

Ride without lights at night on the road - you are asking for it and my sympathy lies with the innocent party.

Car/ van / truck drivers who treat cyclists like vermin need a long spell travelling by bus and a severe ( and expensive ) re- test before getting a licence to drive again.

Furthermore....

in the 'right' circumstances, I have no problem with a cyclist crossing a red light.

nor anything else doing the same come to that.

My view is cyclists keep the volume of cars on the road down, easing congestion for the car bound commuter, they suffer in the cold / rain / wind / up big hills, and help reduce emissions etc........I think they deserve a little slack for that.

Make sure it's safe to go - inconvenience no-one and whats the problem with 'doing a red ' ??

I drive a car / ride a motorcycle, have driven artics and coaches.

I don't think I've ever had a blast of road rage because a pedal pusher didn't stop at the same red I had to....?

[mike6]

Phooey, you say there is a "right" time for going through a red light, but there is not a "right" time for cycling without lights.
I just cannot see how you can claim to be right on both counts.