Cycling UK Forum

drossall wrote:meic - it's fine as long as it is an alternative. I certainly enjoy off-road paths. However, some cyclists fear them because:
* Statistically cycle faciliities seem to be less safe than roads
* There will never be a complete cycle network matching the roads
* Nevertheless some drivers and authorities seem to want to compel cyclists to use facilities regardless of the issues

Just remind me please, how many cyclists have been killed or injured on cycle facilities? I'm sure you can justify the comment that cycle facilities are, statistically, less safe than roads.

mhara wrote:. Some cars slowed down.

We have to find a way of persuading all drivers to use speeds appropriate for the roads they're travelling on. But how ???

I cycled home last week from a few days camping and came across a big RTA about 5 miles from home. Ambulances, fire engines, police and air ambulance all in attendance. I was able to turn off just before and noticed four lengths of one metre threaded rod in the rod. So as to stop them poking in motor car tyres I picked them up and tied them across my rear panniers. Not another vehicle passed close to me on the way home. Should I have had a wide load sticker as well?

On topic; I was prefering B roads and lesser when I started cycling in late July, but have found the quieter A roads ok and the coffee at truck stops is strong and cheap. No truck stops down B roads.

diapason wrote:My idea to reduce speeding:
.................
Thoughts?

N

And equally draconian laws for cyclists breaking the law.

Jac wrote:I got on a motorway
.......
No body in their right mind would choose to cycle on a motorway!!!!

You are not joking. I got myself on the 'new' A5 leading to the M54 a few weeks back and was frightened. I carried my bike up under an overbridge and hoiked it, and my four panniers, over the parapet onto the minor road above.
I've got an uptodate map now!

Interesting point about walkers being marginalised. Many roads these days have barriers and fences which cordon walkers off from vast areas of the road space and mean you have to walk a long way around to cross a road. It's like the traffic lights now that take account of the weight of traffic, but not of the weight of pedestrians, and which mean you can wait up to 45 secs for the lights to change. If the traffic is still heavy after this time they will cancel your button press. You have to actually press the button again and potentially wait another 45 secs and so on ad infinitum. The only reason you're pressing the button is because the traffic is too heavy to cross without stopping the traffic.

Oracle wrote:Just remind me please, how many cyclists have been killed or injured on cycle facilities? I'm sure you can justify the comment that cycle facilities are, statistically, less safe than roads.

Sorry, I have been away. Check this from the respected cycle safety expert, John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft.

There's a recent article in a civil engineering magazine about these barriers that James mentioned. The author claims that one of the main benefits of them is that they require you to cross at a 90 degree angle to traffic, so that you are most likely to see any cars approach in your peripheral vision. So they are safer in that way, but only because walkers are at the bottom of the chain here.

The Green Cross Code tells you, for your own safety, to wait until absolutely everyone else has gone by, and then you can cross. It fits with the ideology behind these crossings that make you wait if the traffic is too heavy, and then cancel your signal. If you're on foot, you are treated as less important than anyone in a vehicle. Just watching walkers skitter across roads like rabbits reinforces this point. A walker is expected to behave as if the driver has no responsibility to them at all, and that they really oughtn't to be on the roads.

I sometimes think of trying to cross a roundabout or traffic light on foot as I would on a bicycle- there are no crossings provided at all most of the time where I live, and as a car would really be the easiest way to cross. I wonder what would happen?

I don't feel entirely safe on local roads, but what really makes me want to change (or hit) things is if I walk the same route. It's cyclable, but truly miserable on foot.

Oracle wrote:I'm sure you can justify the comment that cycle facilities are, statistically, less safe than roads.

Latest research, much the same result, from Denmark (the Copenhagen study). People feel safer on cycle paths, so cycle more, so get healthier, so live longer, and hence cycle facilities increase life expectancy. However, in actual fact the cycle facilities increase the casualty rate, so it would be safer to forget them and stick to the road, which would produce the same health benefits without the extra risks.