Cycling UK Forum

pigman wrote:sadly I'm a bit resigned to it all with a view that car rides to school will never cease unless
1. oil finally runs out
2. there's physicaly no space in which to drive/park the car (some areas are nearly there i guess, but there will always be room for one more (my) car).
3. it becomes prohibitivly expensive to run cars.

Don't be too downhearted. There's a school in Reading where a massive swing from driving to walking and cycling ocurred as the unintended consequence of a small change in parental dropping off and picking up arrangements.

This school happens to be up quite a long drive. To avoid conflict between the kids who were already arriving and leaving on foot or by bike, the school did not allow any cars to use this drive during the quarter hour before the start of the school day, and fifteen minutes after the final bell. Rather than waste that amount of time, most of the kids/parents who previously drove, opted to cycle instead.

Everyone says they're bothered about the safety of cycling, but if the alternatives become less convenient they'll do it anyway.

CJ
your case is great. Here's what happens at the primary where my kids go.
School puts out a bulletin telling parents not to drive onto site and they don't - they now park on the adjoining streets and walk their kids in (so far, so good but admittedly room for improvement). My mrs tells me that the staff continue to drive onto the school grounds where the driveway is now shared between all the kids, parents and staff motoring in. I've complained - verbally and by letter, but i don't want to jeopardise my kids' prospects too much, so I'm resigned. With each monthly bulletin comes the request not to drive in, but the staff still do.

hubgearfreak wrote:
if the government were to implement tougher fines for motoring offences, and a higher likeliness of offenders being prosecuted in the first place then the behaviour would improve, making the roads safer

The history of ever increasing severity of sanctions against behaviour the government considers unacceptable is not encouraging. Look at drugs, prohibition, speeding, using mobile phones, stealing bread. If the public thinks the law is unfair, stupid or prevents them from doing something they think they are entitled to do, then many will ignore it. I think the only campaign to have worked is the drink driving campaign, which now is in need of a re-launch apparently.

It's a combination of stick and carrot we need, and we have to address the concerns of those who are not hard-core cyclists, by providing traffic-free cycle routes, and making it so attractive to cycle that no-one would dream of going by car. How many workplaces for example have secure lock-ups, changing facilities and showers?

I wonder if the popularity of mtb-ing is because there's no danger from cars?

speeding motorway driver

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm
BBC NEWS | England | Bristol | 10mph motorway driver given ban

pigman wrote:CJ
your case is great. Here's what happens at the primary where my kids go.
School puts out a bulletin telling parents not to drive onto site and they don't - they now park on the adjoining streets and walk their kids in (so far, so good but admittedly room for improvement). My mrs tells me that the staff continue to drive onto the school grounds where the driveway is now shared between all the kids, parents and staff motoring in. I've complained - verbally and by letter, but i don't want to jeopardise my kids' prospects too much, so I'm resigned. With each monthly bulletin comes the request not to drive in, but the staff still do.

Ditto Pigman. Our kid's school is in a rural, middle class catchment and runs the same campaigns, indeed, the headmaster is a keen cyclist. The surrounding roads are still choked to the gunwales with 4x4 driving mothers - a generalisation that has to be seen to believe how true it is.
We went by kiddyback tandem from the eldests first days but given the scary driving and proximity, it's easier to walk.

I depart from many cycle activists who believe resistance is down to perception; the dangers are real in my eyes, not imaginary. The inequity is in favour of the driver and wishing it away doesn't make it any less true. There is always a way round problems but the child cycling issue will take more than a few doughty pioneers to swing the balance the other way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm

"I really didn't want to go on the motorway, but I desperately had to go to Staples for an ink cartridge," she said

Hmmm. Those ink cartridges are quite heavy so her car usage was justifed in this case. Also, you are unable to order these by post and local newsagents are not allowed to sell them. This is one of those instances where even I think that car usage and motorway building (the M32 in her case) is fully warranted.

One of the symptoms of multiple sclerosis can be cognitive impairment. If she was going through an active period of her disease (it has periods of activity and remittance), she might well have been a bit muddled - and one of the side effects of being a bit muddled is not recognising that you're too muddled to be driving.

I think a lot of the responses here are overly negative. I see a problem with basing decisions on perception rather than fact.

Continental countries demonstrate that large-scale cycling is possible. There are issues of attitude and road design over here, but the London experience shows that it can be done here too.

Statistics show that, in all countries, it's on average safer to be on the road than on a cycle path. Therefore, in terms of actual fact, you'd expect anyone prepared to ride on a path to do so on the road, unless that road was genuinely exceptionally dangerous - and most people are prepared to ride on paths.

It's also quite clear that, if you want to live a long and healthy life, the last thing you should do is switch from bike to car.

Thus, while accepting that there are specific roads that have issues, it does seem to me that we need to focus on changing perceptions more than infrastructure.

I am particularly alarmed that so many keen cyclists are becoming so negative about road riding when, as above, it does seem to me that this is contrary to the available evidence.

However, I recognise the importance of personal experience, so I thought I'd put this up for others to knock down

drossall wrote:
Statistics show that, in all countries, it's on average safer to be on the road than on a cycle path.

Is it the actual cycle path which is more dangerous or is it where the path intersects with the road? I suspect it is the latter. If you have genuine traffic free cycle paths, that don't intersect with roads, I can't see how these can be more dangerous. (there may be more cycle-on-cycle incidents due to careless riding) It would be like saying pedestrian only areas are more dangerous than pavements alongside roads. Please correct me if I am wrong, though.

I agree we need to change perceptions and attitudes. It has become ingrained that if we want to go anywhere more than a few metres from our homes we just jump in the car, or if, when we are in the car and we need to stop for something, the cash machine is my bete noir, we just pull up on the double yellows or the pavement rather than find a proper parking space which might be as much as 25 yards away.

drossall wrote:Continental countries demonstrate that large-scale cycling is possible.

there's a reason for that, the law demands that drivers take care of more vulnerable road users, as i suggested earlier should be the case here

hubgearfreak wrote:as has also been discussed here before, there needs to be in a addition, an assumption of guilt against the motorist in a car & bicycle/pedestrian accident.

drossall wrote:There are issues of attitude and road design over here, but the London experience shows that it can be done here too.

of course, congestion, huge parking costs and a failing public transport system all help.
i'd be interested to see a survey of london cyclists, as to their reasons for cycling

ie.
1, to keep fit
2, to save money
3, to save time
4, because there's some white lines painted on the roads

Auchmill wrote:Is it the actual cycle path which is more dangerous or is it where the path intersects with the road?

Yes, you're right, as I understand it, it is the junctions that are the problem. Many or most bike paths make the sight lines and other conditions worse at junctions. Since most bike accidents happen at junctions anyway, the result is more accidents.

However, most paths that are alternatives to roads do have lots of intersections. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise - the roads are there and have to be crossed. Even major separate networks such as the Milton Keynes Redways have major issues.

A simple example of the problem is where pavements are converted into paths. With cyclists on the road, the full width of the pavement is available for cyclists and motorists to see each other when the latter emerge from driveways and side turnings. With the cyclist on the pavement (now a cycle path), that vital safety distance is removed almost completely in many cases.

But remember - most people agree that these paths are acceptably safe. Since the roads are safer, they must be acceptably safe too...

Drossall - thanks for the references. Interesting, if somewhat depressing reading. Sounds like we should abandon cycle lanes and invest billions in properly designed and maintained dedicated cycle paths separate from the road system. Not likely to happen.

The only other answer is policies to restrict the amount of traffic.

In statements that concern roads being statistically safer than cyclepaths I'd be interested to know how 'safer' is defined? Does it mean that you are less likely to have a collision/off, or, rather, that any collision/off that you do have will result in less serious injuries, or, indeed, both? Anyone know?

I suspect the answer to that depends on the type of cycle path and the type of carriageway. And the culture of the road users in the area concerned.

If you believe the evidence to which drossall linked, I think you might conclude

* the severity of crashes is lower on path than on carriageways, until the path crosses a carriageway,
* a cyclist on a path where it crosses a carriageway is more likely to be involved in a crash than a cyclist who keeps to the carriageway

Restricting traffic volumes is not the only other alternative. There's slowing down motor traffic and there's allowing motorists to pass cyclists conveniently leaving a sufficient gap as well.

Peyote wrote:It isn't the infrastructure that's preventing people cycling, it's the way the infrastructure is used. There's nothing wrong with the majority of roads in this country, the fault lies with the road users.

damn! I wish I'd written that!
(and, at some point in the future, I will)