Cycling: How to make it safer?

[jon0844]

As a motorist, I try to give cyclists roomn and try to be aware of all road users at all times.

Likewise. My problem with cyclists is when I'm a pedestrian and I consider myself at risk (having had various run ins), not when I'm in a car when I've never had a problem.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Though I would add to that, don't have the front one angled upwards blinding everyone going the other way, as a few do.

exactly, point it at the road so you can see any potholes

 

[jon0844]

only yesterday, I nearly hit a guy who sailed straight through a red light without looking and rode straight into the path of my bus as I passed the green light going the other way. I saw that he hadn't been slowing down and wasn't looking, so was braking already.

Indeed. It's isn't just cyclists, but a lot of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists that simply don't realise that they're only lucky to still be in one piece because of other people being more alert than them - not because they're actually taking care.

It's when you allow things to get so bad that there are more and more idiots that aren't alert that you start to suddenly notice more things going 'bang'.

When I walk, I'm looking around for idiots that might hurt me. When I drive or cycle, I'm considering every other vehicle a potential threat and scanning, almost Terminator style, what they might do next and where they're going.

If you just switch off, you're no longer able to keep one step ahead.

Bar a plane falling out of the sky on your head or other freak incidents, almost all accidents are preventable.

 

[radamfi]

The fact that we are even debating is very sad. The only option is to copy the Dutch solution wholesale. The Dutch have done all the experimentation so we don't have to. But I don't expect the UK to ever see sense so I'm learning Dutch to have a better life in the Netherlands.

 

[90019]

Indeed. It's isn't just cyclists, but a lot of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists that simply don't realise that they're only lucky to still be in one piece because of other people being more alert than them - not because they're actually taking care.

There are some junctions in Edinburgh where it's almost guaranteed that people will walk out into the road in front of you without looking.
During the festival, it's not unusual for there to be messages over the radio about pedestrians walking about in the road in the city centre.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

speaking as a cyclist, I think it's important to avoid accidents and really helmets are only of use once you've had an accident.....

And even then they may offer no protection at all. Cycle helmets are 'tested' for impacts of upto 15mph, by their manufacturers, and accredited to a set standard based only on those tests.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

exactly, point it at the road so you can see any potholes

Ah, yes, poor road surfaces.
I also keep a watchful eye open for those drain covers whose grilles include slits wide enough for a cycle wheel and are aligned parallel to the kerb - a very great hazard.

It's noticeable that some of the deepest holes or other damage to the road surface is also on routes which carry the largest and heaviest vehicles (for obvious reasons, perhaps). That creates the dangerous conflict of large vehicles in the same place as cyclists moving left and right to avoid the dips.
There are some good examples on London's Euston Road and Edinburgh's Queensferry Road.

I find that cycling on busy bus routes creates quite a few challenges (such as Euston Road or Princes Street) where there are very many bus stops which serve different bus routes. Consequently, the busses are continually alternating between lanes, to pass one bus then to pull in for its own stop. A cyclist in the left of the left hand lane also wants to pass the stopped buses, and so is also weaving in and out of the 2 lanes. Add a few potholes, drain covers, taxis and delivery vans, and you have a recipie for conflict!

Anyway, here's a daft ASL I saw in north-central Manchester a few days ago, in advance of a pavement! - with no cyclists to be seen anywhere apart from me:

[click to enlarge]

There are some junctions in Edinburgh where it's almost guaranteed that people will walk out into the road in front of you without looking.

Yes. It seems to be true pretty much anywhere I go.

 

[radamfi]

The Dutch almost never wear helmets. Only racing cyclists going at speed will sometimes wear helmets.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

But if you want a case study, how about New Zealand?

A very poorly written study, with obvious, undeclared, bias.

More relevant would be the studies that have shown countries with compulsory helmets for cyclists have a higher accident rate than countries without.


I see cyclists every day doing some very, very dangerous things (jumping red lights at busy junctions, cycling up the inside of lorries indicating left etc). At the same time I often see car drivers doing very, very dangerous things. I'm not entirely sure what the answer is, but it strikes me that more accountability for every road user might helpful.

 

[radamfi]

Making helmets compulsory means that you have to carry your helmet everywhere you go. How does making cycling inconvenient encourage cycling? It can only reduce cycling.

 

[jon0844]

I say you let people make up their own mind on whether to wear a cycle helmet (or perhaps make it compulsory only for children, who can wear one going to/from school or to see friends).

But, you also make it so that if a cyclist dies in an accident as a result of head injuries, and the lack of a helmet is deemed a contributory factor, whoever hit them is not liable to a more serious charge.

When I cycle now, it's nearly always on off-road cycle paths and as a result I don't even own a helmet. I'd feel rather upset to get done for the tiny amounts of time I'm on a road, but if I knew that I was going to be doing so for any length of time - I'd wear one for my own self preservation, law or not.

 

[EM2]

I've also noticed a growing trend of not only bikes with no lights, but not even a rear reflector!

 

[gordonthemoron]

This is the front light I have, can see very well with it. I have a rear light which is a similar quality

 

[radamfi]

But, you also make it so that if a cyclist dies in an accident as a result of head injuries, and the lack of a helmet is deemed a contributory factor, whoever hit them is not liable to a more serious charge.

I don't see why the punishment should be different whether the cyclist dies or not. If the motorist knocks over a cyclist and it is his fault, then there should be a set punishment for that offence, regardless of the outcome.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I say you let people make up their own mind on whether to wear a cycle helmet (or perhaps make it compulsory only for children, who can wear one going to/from school or to see friends).

But, you also make it so that if a cyclist dies in an accident as a result of head injuries, and the lack of a helmet is deemed a contributory factor, whoever hit them is not liable to a more serious charge.

When I cycle now, it's nearly always on off-road cycle paths and as a result I don't even own a helmet. I'd feel rather upset to get done for the tiny amounts of time I'm on a road, but if I knew that I was going to be doing so for any length of time - I'd wear one for my own self preservation, law or not.

Did you read post #36?

 

[jon0844]

Did you read post #36?

Maybe ensure there are proper independent tests on cycling helmets to establish those that are more suitable/safe?

Or are we to conclude that they don't really make much difference and are pretty much a waste of time? Thus there's not much point in having one at all?

Maybe cyclists that would like to protect themselves more should use a motocycle helmet instead?

 

[90019]

Maybe cyclists that would like to protect themselves more should use a motocycle helmet instead?

There's at least one I see around Edinburgh every now and again who does.

 

[radamfi]

The Dutch are the experts. They don't wear helmets in the Netherlands, yet their safety record is massively better. The rate of serious or fatal casualties per billion km involving motor vehicles is more than 8 times worse in the UK. Providing segregated routes improves safety much more than wearing safety clothing.

http://drawingrings.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/what-weve-got-to-learn-from-netherlands.html

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Maybe ensure there are proper independent tests on cycling helmets to establish those that are more suitable/safe?

Or are we to conclude that they don't really make much difference and are pretty much a waste of time? Thus there's not much point in having one at all?....

The problem is two fold, firstly that the tests are conducted by the maker and secondly that the 'tests' only demonstrate protection for impacts of 15mph or less.

In other words, even if it was tested by an independent body, they might be good if you fall off your bike, but if you get hit by a van, you might as well be wearing a woolly hat.

....Maybe cyclists that would like to protect themselves more should use a motocycle helmet instead?

Might be worth considering, if it wasn't for most motorcycle helmets costing more than your average bicycle.

 

[Butts]

When I was a child I was knocked into "mid-air" by a motorist in Chandlers Ford (turning right just past the precinct) - I had no head protection and the collision was my fault.

Some say I have never really recovered, and judging by my postings, have been afflicted by lifelong mental incapacity

Did anyone on here "go over the handlebars" as a child by ramming the front brakes on - that was almost a "rite of passage" and no one wore helmets.

 

[gordonthemoron]

yes, but I just hurt my hands when I hit the road. These days I mainly fall off sideways, resulting in damaged feet and a broken nose last time (concussed for a week)

 

[jon0844]

(Bike helmet testing) The problem is two fold, firstly that the tests are conducted by the maker and secondly that the 'tests' only demonstrate protection for impacts of 15mph or less.

In other words, even if it was tested by an independent body, they might be good if you fall off your bike, but if you get hit by a van, you might as well be wearing a woolly hat.

(Motorcycle helmets) Might be worth considering, if it wasn't for most motorcycle helmets costing more than your average bicycle.

Some bikes can cost that of a motorcycle - perhaps even a small car!

I guess it's all down to what price you'd put on your own safety, and only each individual can assess that.

Agreed that a cycle helmet can only do so much if you're suddenly side swiped by a van.. but as discussed, a good cyclist will already see everyone as a potential danger and be taking precautions.

I don't know the circumstances of every fatality in the last two weeks, but know that at least one death was down to both a cyclist and lorry jumping red light.. and whenever I see a lorry having taken out a cyclist, I do initially wonder if a cyclist was undertaking.

 

[90019]

When I was a child I was knocked into "mid-air" by a motorist in Chandlers Ford (turning right just past the precinct) - I had no head protection and the collision was my fault.

That explains a lot.

 

[jon91]

Another person who has swallowed the myth about smoking and lung cancer.
Many lifelong smokers live until their 80's or 90's with no significant health issues other than the usual advancing age issues.
I am 58, have been smoking literally 40 years and have a full medical every two years which I am happy to pay for - to satisfy myself both that I remain in excellent health and that I am right in my long held suspicion that this smoking/lung cancer business is a load of baloney.
Many people each year diagnosed with or dying of lung cancer are people who have never touched a cigarette in their entire life.

Are you serious? A load of baloney with hundreds if not thousands of peer-reviewed papers supporting it...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To answer the original question that started this thread (An unusual thing to do, I know)

• Government and local authorities start taking cycling seriously, and designing roads for pedestrians/cyclists/buses first, and cars second. This is in any case the priority that things should be in if we are ever to have a sustainable transport system.
• Change the law so that red lights in most cases means 'give way' rather than 'stop' for cyclists. (There's quite a few junctions where it would make sense for red lights to mean 'give way' for all vehicles, not just cycles, but that's another story).
• Driving licenses only available after passing a cycling proficiency test (other, obviously, than where that's impossible for medical reasons).

Before anyone misunderstands me on my second point: 'Give way' does not mean 'rush through the junction ignoring the lights and ignoring all other road users'. The former is fine, the latter is obviously dangerous, inconsiderate, and wrong.

 

[Zoidberg]

...

• Change the law so that red lights in most cases means 'give way' rather than 'stop' for cyclists. (There's quite a few junctions where it would make sense for red lights to mean 'give way' for all vehicles, not just cycles, but that's another story).
• Driving licenses only available after passing a cycling proficiency test (other, obviously, than where that's impossible for medical reasons).

...

Regarding the first point above, I'll never agree to that. Why should cyclists be afforded such leeway? But I favour a left turn on red being permitted for everyone where the road is clear (allowing for exceptions at specific junctions).

And regarding the second, can you clarify, please. Do you mean that before one qualifies for a licence to drive a motor vehicle one must pass a cycling proficiency test?

 

[90019]

• Driving licenses only available after passing a cycling proficiency test (other, obviously, than where that's impossible for medical reasons).

Only if it also rules out cycling until you get a car licence.

 

[radamfi]

In the Netherlands, cyclists can usually turn right on red, but that is because the cycle path usually cuts the corner, like a footpath does in the UK.

For other turns, cyclists mostly do a two stage turn, or preferably, enjoy a simultaneous green where bikes in all direction cross at the same time, minimising the temptation to jump the lights. That could easily be implemented in the UK but the government is too lazy to change the law.

 

[jon0844]

I wouldn't say lazy. There's a huge cost. Do you know how much a simple pedestrian crossing can cost these days? Try upwards of £100k and you're getting warmer.

I think it's more a case of prioritising, but perhaps the increase in deaths will bump such ideas up the ladder.

Look at the TfL YouTube page for some things that being done already, at roundabouts, junctions and even bus stops.

 

[radamfi]

I've very familiar with what TfL have been doing. I work in transport planning and I know colleagues who have been working on the TfL cycling projects. TfL are in the unusual position of actually having some resources. However, they still choose to ignore the obvious Dutch example, or emulate them in a poor quality way.

The new stretch of the cycle superhighway in east London is the best infrastructure in the UK, but is still seriously lacking.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2013_11_01_archive.html

Just look at, for example, their bus stop bypass. It is clear, on this occasion, that they have seen the Dutch example, but they still do it in a substandard manner, despite space being available to do it properly.

The two-stage crossing on Stratford High Street is particularly embarrassing.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2013/08/tfls-terrible-two-stage-right-turn.html

If TfL had arranged to get the law changed to allow a simultaneous green, it would have been a breeze.