• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cycling: How to make it safer?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
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).

What reason would you have for never agreeing to it? If red lights meant 'give way for cyclists', it would help a lot of people and (provided people obey the 'give way' law properly) harm no one. Cyclists could make their journeys faster. Car drivers would probably also see their journey times slightly improved, partly because a few seconds would be shaved off waiting behind cyclists when lights turn green, but also because the more favourable environment for cyclists would be likely to induce some motorists to swap to cycling, thereby reducing congestion for the remaining motorists. And it would massively help safety for vulnerable cyclists

Remember, cycles are much smaller and more manoeuvrable than cars. At most junctions cycles can edge forward to check if a junction is clear without getting in the way of other road users, in a way that cars can't do. Having said that, I'm somewhat sympathetic to having red mean 'give way' for all vehicles at those junctions where visibility is sufficiently good.

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?

Something like that, yes. The advantage is twofold. It means that drivers will generally be much more aware of the ways in which they pose danger to cyclists, and also of how cyclists move. (As just one example they'd better understand why cyclists often have to move out to avoid potholes in a way that cars don't.) All that awareness should lead drivers to drive more safely (and in some cases feel less hostile to cyclists). Secondly, it's likely to mean more drivers realize they actually can cycle instead of drive for some of their journeys - which obviously would give massive benefits in terms of less congestion/noise/pollution/etc. for *everyone*.

Set against that you are making people learn something they might not want to learn. I accept that is a significant problem - I have no wish in principle to restrict people in that way, and I know some people will resent it. But I think in this case the benefits so massively outweigh the disadvantages that it is worth considering.

I would also suggest that if you made the changes I'm suggesting, you'd be in a much better position to then require some kind of cycling proficiency/safety test for cyclists too - something that is in principle desirable, but would be difficult at the moment because the law and road environment is currently so unfavourable to cyclists anyway that, without other offsetting changes to benefit cyclists, introducing such a test could easily look like adding yet another burden to a group that is already disadvantaged.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

maniacmartin

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
15 May 2012
Messages
5,394
Location
Croydon
Regarding the two stage right turn, I would not use it because you have to wait for 2 phases, so it would make the turn very slow. It seems to have been designed to shoehorn the cycle route into the existing phases. Surely a better way would be to extend the green light for right turns a few seconds after the green for straight-on turns to red
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
If we ever make red lights give way for cyclists at junctions, can we please consider pedestrians?

Cyclists already weave through pedestrians at crossings (annoying but not too dangerous) or fly through because they've judged where people are and will be - without considering what happens if someone stops, turns around or they simply misjudged.

And even at a junction, what about the cyclist that goes through and encounters a pedestrian crossing ahead or to the left/right?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
If we ever make red lights give way for cyclists at junctions, can we please consider pedestrians?

Cyclists already weave through pedestrians at crossings (annoying but not too dangerous) or fly through because they've judged where people are and will be - without considering what happens if someone stops, turns around or they simply misjudged.

And even at a junction, what about the cyclist that goes through and encounters a pedestrian crossing ahead or to the left/right?

Those are fair points, but I would have thought they would be covered by the usual understanding of what 'give way' means along with the normal rules for pedestrian crossings. My hope would be that if the law/highway code became both fairer to cyclists (and therefore more deserving of respect in the eyes of many cyclists) and properly enforced, then incidents of cyclists behaving as you describe would diminish.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Because they are road traffic and should have to obey the same rules as everyone else when using the roads.

If you don't mind my saying so, that seems a very weak reason to oppose a law change that would undoubtedly make many roads safer, save a few lives, and speed up many people's journeys without - so far as I can see - adversely affecting anyone (obviously with the usual proviso if it it's enforced/respected). You appear to be opposing the idea yet not coming up with any specific bad result that it would plausibly have that might justify opposing it.

Bicycles are completely different things to most motor vehicles, and the idea that they both should be treated as the same thing in law therefore seems absurd to me.

Indeed the idea that all road traffic should obey the same laws is already contradicted by numerous examples of laws that are specific to certain types of traffic (for example: slower speed limits for HGVs etc. on some roads, cyclists not allowed to use motorways, new cars don't require MOTs).
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
Not sure about the relevance of MOTs. New cars don't need an MOT for three years, it's not that new cars don't need them. That was the same for, now old, cars.

Maybe bikes should need to be road worthy and have some sort of test, as it would benefit the cyclist to have good tyres, brakes, lights etc.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
I'd like to believe that, I really would.

So would I!

I have had my front wing dented by a cyclist that thought a Give Way sign meant that the traffic on the main road would give way to him as he flew straight through (he also tried to claim to the copper that it was my fault despite the damage being behind my front wheel and the 4 witnesses, thanks to them, that agreed to wait for the Police).

The other occasion I got hit on a pedestrian crossing by some lycra clad <oops> who thought the road was his personal race track.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
If you don't mind my saying so, that seems a very weak reason to oppose a law change that would undoubtedly make many roads safer, save a few lives, and speed up many people's journeys without - so far as I can see - adversely affecting anyone (obviously with the usual proviso if it it's enforced/respected). You appear to be opposing the idea yet not coming up with any specific bad result that it would plausibly have that might justify opposing it.

Bicycles are completely different things to most motor vehicles, and the idea that they both should be treated as the same thing in law therefore seems absurd to me.

Indeed the idea that all road traffic should obey the same laws is already contradicted by numerous examples of laws that are specific to certain types of traffic (for example: slower speed limits for HGVs etc. on some roads, cyclists not allowed to use motorways, new cars don't require MOTs).

My thoughts entirely, given the massive differences between cars and pedal cycles. If a situation arises suddenly, then I will do what is necessary to minimise the risk to myself. If that means breaking a law to deal with or minimise the potential direct consequences of a situation that poses a danger to my person then so be it; if I was called to account I would argue "necessity".

My other point is that many junctions often have a 'cycle facility' (more like cycle farce-ility that would have me giving way to everyone else, even when I would normally have right of way simply by following the usual route. It goes without following that I tend to use the usual route, and the traffic can wait; after all I am the traffic. Much as I would prefer not to hold traffic up, sometimes it is safer to position one's self further from the kerb to prevent unsafe overtaking manoeuvres; it's called "taking the lane" and the trick is to hold your nerve, but equally not to keep it up for longer than necessary...
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
Not exactly related, but this week I've nearly seen three accidents with kids on mopeds.

First was one racing off at the lights, and nearly losing control because it was wet (the day the railway had problems, due to the light misty rain). His bike was clearly modified as it was going far quicker than 30mph, but trying to show off in bad weather was not such a good idea. Wearing a helmet is one thing, but I doubt fabric tracksuit bottoms would have offered much protection (unless padded out more due to the rain absorption!)

Second was a moped that overtook me, but didn't realise there was a car coming straight for him and so he had to cut back in VERY quickly. He only made it because I saw what was going to happen and was already braking for him.

The third was his mate, who wisely stayed behind me after seeing what could have happened.. but when we got to a set of traffic lights, he then pulled out to lane two. Was it to race me at the lights? Nope, it was so he could just go straight through the red lights, despite cars coming from the right, and turn left into the same retail park his mate had already reached. And as I continued to wait, both of them then started racing around as pedestrians were walking to/from their cars.

I doubt either of them have long for this world.

Much as I would prefer not to hold traffic up, sometimes it is safer to position one's self further from the kerb to prevent unsafe overtaking manoeuvres; it's called "taking the lane" and the trick is to hold your nerve, but equally not to keep it up for longer than necessary...

That's absolutely fine. On roads with sunken drains, it's essential.

It's important for motorists (such as that women who Tweeted about having right of way) to understand that a cyclist does have right of way, while showing consideration to allow vehicles to pass whenever possible.

Where I live there are many cycle groups out at weekends. They're just fine and know the score, and people (appear to) respect them.

But I've been on a country road with two people side by side (again, this is allowed) who show no consideration by never pulling over, despite the fact that they're cycling as slowly as possible before having to put your feet down to avoid tipping over!

As I've said many times, many cyclists seem to be trying to make some sort of statement and antagonise, or even goad, motorists, as not having some form of conflict must anger them more. You only need to see the 'reclaim the streets' idiots to see them en masse, proving there are plenty of them. And suffice to say, I bet most of them are in and around London.
 
Last edited:

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,823
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
Wearing a helmet is one thing, but I doubt fabric tracksuit bottoms would have offered much protection (unless padded out more due to the rain absorption!)

If it's a nylon tracksuit, when they fall off and slide along the road, the material basically burns into the skin and is incredibly nasty.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
I'd say it was almost certainly cotton, as seems to (still) be the choice for the average chav these days.

Still not the best thing to wear if you came off though.

Surely if you're going to modify your 0.0001cc bike to do 40-50mph, so you can be 'up there' with the older people that can legally ride a motorcycle, you might just want to dress the part too.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,823
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
I'd say it was almost certainly cotton, as seems to (still) be the choice for the average chav these days.

Still not the best thing to wear if you came off though.

Even in a minor fall, you're still going to slide along the road if you're moving, and a tracksuit won't offer much in the way of protection. It'll have worn away in a matter of seconds, leaving your bare skin against the road. Very unpleasant and not a pretty sight afterwards (thankfully not speaking from personal experience).
But it's the ones in the shiny tracksuits that will have it burn into the skin, which is pretty horrendous.
 
Last edited:

PermitToTravel

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2011
Messages
3,044
Location
Groningen
And even at a junction, what about the cyclist that goes through and encounters a pedestrian crossing ahead or to the left/right?

The rest of Europe has no issues with using flashing yellow lights (possibly arrows) at a junction to signify "go but give way to any pedestrians", for both motor vehicles and cyclists. Watching half of the tits on London's roads, however, I can't imagine that being very successful here.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,823
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
The rest of Europe has no issues with using flashing yellow lights (possibly arrows) at a junction to signify "go but give way to any pedestrians", for both motor vehicles and cyclists. Watching half of the tits on London's roads, however, I can't imagine that being very successful here.

I'd love to see flashing ambers introduced in the UK for certain junctions outwith peak times and/or at night. Problem is, with the standard of driving in this country, most people would likely just think of it as being the same as a green light and sail straight through without bothering to look.
 

PermitToTravel

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2011
Messages
3,044
Location
Groningen
Ah, so no different to the way a not insignificant amount of idiots presently see red traffic lights (or level crossings)? :D
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
I'm a big fan of the German autobahns and no speed limits but given the attitude of most people here, even I would never dare suggest no limits on our motorways. It would be carnage!

Sadly, our dog eat dog mindset effectively rules out a lot of ideas that work elsewhere working here.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
I think I saw some of the police that have been deployed in London in response to the recent cyclists deaths. There was a heavy police presence checking traffic at Woolwich Arsenal station both yesterday and today. I was slightly surprised because I thought they would be patrolling intersections in central London and Woolwich Arsenal is hardly central.

Slightly amusingly the roads right outside the station are buses/taxis/cycles only, which meant the police's enforcement job there was presumably very easy: Just stop every private car that passed. There was a significant queue of cars parked up waiting for the chat with the policeman on all four times that I went past, so I'm guessing the police were doing brisk business :)

Nice to see a police presence enforcing the buses/cycles/taxis only rule - which IMO is a sensible rule in that location. I'm not quite sure it was the best use of resources if it was aimed at cycle safety though: I've never felt in any particular danger outside Woolwich Arsenal station; by contrast there's a very busy road junction with traffic lights barely two minutes walk away that can be difficult to negotiate safely.
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Yorkie, so your defence is that everyone else should watch out for cyclists but the cyclists themselves shouldnt have to!

That's not far off in some countries:

Let's say a truck is making a turn onto a high-speed four-lane street in The Hague, and rides over a cyclist in the bicycle lane. The accident is witnessed by a very reliable observer whose testimony is likely to stand up in court—say, the prime minister of the country. Who is at fault, and will have to pay damages and/or face criminal penalties? Answer: the truck driver.

• But what if the same accident occurs on a two-lane street with no designated bicycle lane, so the bicycle is riding out in traffic? And what if there are no witnesses or video evidence? Who is at fault then? Answer: the truck driver.

• What if there was a separate traffic light for bicycles at this intersection, and the cyclist was clearly running a red light? Answer: still the truck driver.

• Okay, so...what if the bicycle was coming the wrong way up a one-way street, arrived at the intersection at the same time as the truck, and despite the fact that the truck was on the right, the bicycle seized the right-of-way and dashed straight across the intersection? Answer: the truck driver would have to pay at least 50% of the cyclist's damages, unless he can prove there was no way he could have seen the cyclist.

• Fine. What if a tornado is racing through the streets of some Dutch town, picks the truck up, and hurls it into the bicyclist, who is in the middle of running a red light while going the wrong way up a one-way street, no hands? Answer: the truck driver will probably not have to pay the cyclist's damages, unless the cyclist was 14 or younger, in which case the truck driver will have to make an extra effort to prove that there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident.

To sum up: in the Netherlands, if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist, the accident is always assumed to have been the driver's fault, not the cyclist's. As explained in this FAQ from the ANWB, the Dutch tourism and car owners' organisation, "the law treats pedestrians and cyclists as weaker participants in traffic... The driver of the motor vehicle is liable for the accident, unless he can prove he was overpowered by circumstances beyond his control (overmacht). The driver must thus prove that none of the blame falls on him, which is extremely difficult in practice."

Source: The Economist
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
My first thought when it comes to making cycling safer would be to have a law where car drivers have to indicate before they turn.
 
Last edited:

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,897
Same applies with making it law for cyclists aswell really.. I see a lot more cyclists that do it to drivers to be honest!
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
That's not far off in some countries:



Source: The Economist
TheEconomist said:
To sum up: in the Netherlands, if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist, the accident is always assumed to have been the driver's fault, not the cyclist's. As explained in this FAQ from the ANWB, the Dutch tourism and car owners' organisation, "the law treats pedestrians and cyclists as weaker participants in traffic... The driver of the motor vehicle is liable for the accident, unless he can prove he was overpowered by circumstances beyond his control (overmacht). The driver must thus prove that none of the blame falls on him, which is extremely difficult in practice."

So a driver could be considered responsible for something that wasn't his fault, just because he just couldn't *prove* it wasn't his fault? If the article you quoted is correct, that would be very unfair, and against the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Much as I'd like to see more protection for cyclists, I couldn't support that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
My first thought when it comes to making cycling safer would be to have a law where car drivers have to indicate before they turn.

That seems excessive to me, since it's very common to be turning when there is no other traffic (and no pedestrians) anywhere around and therefore no point indicating. And it would be counterproductive if it led to calls for a similar law for cyclists (since cyclists sometimes physically can't indicate, eg. if they need to brake at the same time).

In general, I think it would be better to make cycling safer in a way that reduces rather than increases the legal restrictions on road users, and moves more towards treating people as responsible adults capable of making their own judgements.

That's incidentally an additional argument in favour changing the law so that red lights mean 'give way' for cyclists, unless signed otherwise - something that I think would make a massive contribution to cyclists' safety, with almost no Government spending involved!
 
Last edited:

Buttsy

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2011
Messages
1,365
Location
Hanborough
That's incidentally an additional argument in favour changing the law so that red lights mean 'give way' for cyclists, unless signed otherwise - something that I think would make a massive contribution to cyclists' safety, with almost no Government spending involved!

I'm not sure that would be entirely a good thing as no doubt you'd end up with a cyclist hitting a pedestrian and using the defence 'but I'm allowed to ride through red lights', not taking into account that it's a give way scenario. Also, my thinking is that you give an inch and eventually people will take a mile and you'd end up many years hence with car drivers going through red lights as 'I thought it was OK as there was no-one coming'.
 
Last edited:

Emyr

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2014
Messages
656
So a driver could be considered responsible for something that wasn't his fault, just because he just couldn't *prove* it wasn't his fault? If the article you quoted is correct, that would be very unfair, and against the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Much as I'd like to see more protection for cyclists, I couldn't support that.

Driver is in control of 2000kg moving at 50km/h, about 14m/s. Cyclist is in control of 100kg moving at 30km/h, about 8m/s.

Given Kinetic energy = M(V^2), the vehicle has 60 times as much energy to dissipate despite moving less than twice as fast.

Hence, drivers are massively underestimating their responsibilities.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,823
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
That seems excessive to me, since it's very common to be turning when there is no other traffic (and no pedestrians) anywhere around and therefore no point indicating.
Just because you can't see anyone doesn't mean there's nobody there. For that simple reason, I'll still signal regardless of whether I can see anyone. It also keeps you in good habits.

And it would be counterproductive if it led to calls for a similar law for cyclists (since cyclists sometimes physically can't indicate, eg. if they need to brake at the same time).
My bike has two brakes, I can signal and brake at the same time easily.

That's incidentally an additional argument in favour changing the law so that red lights mean 'give way' for cyclists, unless signed otherwise - something that I think would make a massive contribution to cyclists' safety, with almost no Government spending involved!
I don't agree.
Some cyclists already put themselves at risk by running red lights without actually checking whether anything is coming (such as the guy who came past me on Princes Street and was nearly taken out by a Citylink bus turning out of Frederick Street), I can only see that making it worse. Not to mention people cycling through red lights when the green man is on, and forcing their way through groups of people trying to cross.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Driver is in control of 2000kg moving at 50km/h
I think you've overestimating the mass a little, I'd say most cars are closer to 1500kg, unless you live somewhere where everyone drives SUVs.

Hence, drivers are massively underestimating their responsibilities.
Some undoubtedly do, but that isn't a reason to assume people are guilty unless proven otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Emyr

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2014
Messages
656
I think you've overestimating the mass a little, I'd say most cars are closer to 1500kg, unless you live somewhere where everyone drives SUVs.

I commute by bike past Altrincham's private schools and through Knutsford.

Yes they do. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top