Spot on!
-
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?
- Thread starter 43074
- Start date
- Status
Spot on!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
PermitToTravel
Established Member
What are the situations where it is safer to run a red light? The only one I can think of is if you've positioned yourself in a blind spot after passing stationary traffic with an insufficient gap to return to. This situation will not occur if you do not overtake anything before you can see and assess the road space you will return to when the manoeuvre is completed.
Less regulation would be lovely, for all road users, but I think you are being hopelessly optimistic about the driving/cycling abilities and attitudes of many people.
Less regulation would be lovely, for all road users, but I think you are being hopelessly optimistic about the driving/cycling abilities and attitudes of many people.
ExRes
Established Member
On sunday we travelled along the A24 from Dorking towards Leatherhead, 3 cyclists stuck out their arms, signalling I presume, then went straight across 2 lanes without any of the 3 of them looking behind themselves, I had to jump on the brakes from 50mph, the road speed, to stop from running the 3 idiots over and 3 cars behind me had to do the same to stop hitting me and creating a domino effect, do the cyclists on here consider that if I'd smashed into these 3 fools that I would be responsible ?
I don't know how the "cyclists on here" could possibly comment on an incident we've not witnessed.
There can be two sides to a story though, and safe overtaking doesn't always occur, sadly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
oh come on, I can think of some roundabouts where the majority of car drivers don't signal!
I sometimes need to turn out of a road into another road which many car drivers turning off a roundabout seem to think they should enter without signalling! I suspect D6700 could guess which one I'm talking about!
It's a society problem, not a case of more of a problem for car drivers than cyclists. Also, you should bear in mind that it's not quite so easy for cyclists to indicate!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You're against strict liability laws? Well it would be in line with the Railway Byelaws!
PermitToTravel
Established Member
Some people drive cars like ****s. Some people ride bikes like ****s. Some people ride trains like ****s.
Why does this need to be a tribal war?
Why does this need to be a tribal war?
ExRes
Established Member
Well I'm awfully sorry yorkie, I realise I should have been filming the incident while I was driving
I've described the incident and asked what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable question, do people only comment on this forum if they've actually witnessed something ?
Having spent a little over 15 years working in London I've seen horrific behaviour by cyclists which always seems to be blamed on drivers and while I fully accept that some driving is equally awful I fail to see why cyclists regularly consider themselves to be above the law and totally blameless, I also fail to see why my life was regularly at risk from cyclists while walking on the pavement between St Pancras and Kings Cross Thameslink
I've described the incident and asked what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable question, do people only comment on this forum if they've actually witnessed something ?
Having spent a little over 15 years working in London I've seen horrific behaviour by cyclists which always seems to be blamed on drivers and while I fully accept that some driving is equally awful I fail to see why cyclists regularly consider themselves to be above the law and totally blameless, I also fail to see why my life was regularly at risk from cyclists while walking on the pavement between St Pancras and Kings Cross Thameslink
Well the question stated you would be responsible. If you were fully adhering to the rules regarding overtaking, and if they immediately traversed two lanes instantly then, of course you wouldn't be responsible.
So I'm puzzled by the question.
If you're talking London, it is my experience that people who adhere to all the rules of the road are in the minority, irrespective of what type of vehicle they are riding/driving. It's a different world to the roads of York.
If roads were safer and not congested with cars then why would a cyclist do anything but cycle on the road? People who cycle on the pavement for no apparent reason are often just nothing more than a chav who has stolen a bike, but then gets re-labelled a 'cyclist'. At least that's my experience anyway. It was not unusual for me to see certain people with a different bike each week. The other day some chavs (including someone who I used to see with a different bike each week) said they'd race me to Tesco - they 'won', but almost got run over as they didn't follow the rules of the road. I wouldn't expect that to reflect badly on me though, just because they chose the same mode of transport as me.
90019
Established Member
I can't agree with you on that.
It's not unusual, in my experience, to see people cycling on pavements on what I'm pretty sure is their own bike.
Your experience is bound to be different to mine, and in York it's usually advantageous and safe to be on the road, so why wouldn't you use the road? Make it dangerous and gridlocked and some people are, sadly, going to cycle on the pavement at times.
tsr
Established Member
I must say that it takes an extreme risk, such as high-speed conflicting movements by vehicles with very limited visibility, to make me even consider riding on a pavement where it is not absolutely clear that it is a segregated/shared cycle route. I would rather keep my focus on road traffic rather than swerve around pedestrians, dogs and obstacles which are there, and probably fall onto the carriageway anyway! Not to mention the legal side of things. Riding on the pavement is also generally slower and more boring for me.
I have ways of dealing with gridlocked traffic which, whilst entirely legal, are really only suitable for someone with experience and who knows to work around the pitfalls of overtaking frustrated drivers or getting too close to vehicles. Weaving in and out of traffic without posing a major safety risk is a hard-to-grasp skill, and one which must not be taken lightly.
Generally, I find far less inappropriate/illegal pavement riding in London than elsewhere. Perhaps it is because the streets are often crowded, at least frequently if not continuously.
I have ways of dealing with gridlocked traffic which, whilst entirely legal, are really only suitable for someone with experience and who knows to work around the pitfalls of overtaking frustrated drivers or getting too close to vehicles. Weaving in and out of traffic without posing a major safety risk is a hard-to-grasp skill, and one which must not be taken lightly.
Generally, I find far less inappropriate/illegal pavement riding in London than elsewhere. Perhaps it is because the streets are often crowded, at least frequently if not continuously.
Outside my office in south Liverpool is part of the Trans Pennine Trail and there is a pretty good and clearly marked cycle way. I always make sure to look both ways before crossing. There are still some inconsiderate cyclists but they are by far outnumbered by far by motorists who speed, don't indicate... yadda yadda. I could go on. I am neither a motorist or a cyclist.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
This caught my attention:
When the lights change to stop eastbound traffic on Euston Road, much of which will turn left into St Pancras Road, pedestrians immediately take the opportunity of crossing, against the 'red man', and not realising that the next phase of the lights is to allow westbound traffic to turn right from Euston Road into St Pancras Road.
This Wednesday, during evening rush hour around 5:45, I and other cyclists were at the front of the westbound traffic when the light went green (and so with a string of taxis and other vehicles following close behind), when scores of pedestrians wove their way across the road not looking at the oncoming traffic - more of them than usual, some quick on their feet, but some slowly, with wheeled cases. I shouted repeatedly to bring their attention to the traffic bearing towards them, but some just trundled on. The 'red man' was still showing.
It's a junction where you'll often hear, horns, bells and shouts, and all directed at the pedestrians.
There are plenty other places like this, though this must be one of the worst for consistent crossing without looking in large numbers. I do with that the refurbishment of the two stations had included a substantial foot crossing between them.
Similarly, I often see pedestrians simply step out into a road without looking - sometimes perhaps there is no audible sound of a car so they don't feel the need to look when it is a cyclist coming towards them, but I often see them do this while I'm driving, sometimes they are on the phone and not attentive to their surroundings. I remember one man repeatedly stepping backwards into a busy road, back onto the pavement, then onto the road again, back and forwards a few times, all while completly distracted by his phone call.
But one of the bigest hazards on the roads has to be drunks stepping into the road without looking, whether it is a cycle or motor vehicle travelling towards them.
As for vehicles overtaking cycles, it should only be done where it is safe to do so, and at a right rurn coming up, whether any indication is given or not, overtaking is not a safe manoeuvre.
One of the best examples of pedestrians presenting a hazard to cyclists is between St Pancras and Kings Cross on Euston Road (the mainline stations, not the old Thameslink station).
When the lights change to stop eastbound traffic on Euston Road, much of which will turn left into St Pancras Road, pedestrians immediately take the opportunity of crossing, against the 'red man', and not realising that the next phase of the lights is to allow westbound traffic to turn right from Euston Road into St Pancras Road.
This Wednesday, during evening rush hour around 5:45, I and other cyclists were at the front of the westbound traffic when the light went green (and so with a string of taxis and other vehicles following close behind), when scores of pedestrians wove their way across the road not looking at the oncoming traffic - more of them than usual, some quick on their feet, but some slowly, with wheeled cases. I shouted repeatedly to bring their attention to the traffic bearing towards them, but some just trundled on. The 'red man' was still showing.
It's a junction where you'll often hear, horns, bells and shouts, and all directed at the pedestrians.
There are plenty other places like this, though this must be one of the worst for consistent crossing without looking in large numbers. I do with that the refurbishment of the two stations had included a substantial foot crossing between them.
Similarly, I often see pedestrians simply step out into a road without looking - sometimes perhaps there is no audible sound of a car so they don't feel the need to look when it is a cyclist coming towards them, but I often see them do this while I'm driving, sometimes they are on the phone and not attentive to their surroundings. I remember one man repeatedly stepping backwards into a busy road, back onto the pavement, then onto the road again, back and forwards a few times, all while completly distracted by his phone call.
But one of the bigest hazards on the roads has to be drunks stepping into the road without looking, whether it is a cycle or motor vehicle travelling towards them.
As for vehicles overtaking cycles, it should only be done where it is safe to do so, and at a right rurn coming up, whether any indication is given or not, overtaking is not a safe manoeuvre.
Last edited:
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That's all very true, and regrettable. It's also irrelevant to my proposal. I am not suggesting that anything you've described should be legal. I'm suggesting that red lights should mean *give way*. Give way, does not mean 'dash through without any consideration for other road users', it means the same as it's always meant: (Roughly) slow down enough to be able to check if the way is clear (of both vehicles and pedestrians) and only proceed if you can cross the junction without inconveniencing other road users, or getting in the way of road users that may have priority, etc. etc.
A cyclist who runs a red light without any thought for other vehicles or pedestrians is clearly behaving dangerously.
A cyclist who carefully checks the way is clear before edging past a red light in order to cross a junction, thus getting out of the way of the junction before other traffic arrives behind him, is acting safely - indeed, is acting more safely than one who waits until the lights change and as a result then has to compete with cars and lorries that have arrived behind him to cross the junction. He's also incidentally making more efficient use of the road space, most likely allowing the traffic behind him to get through the junction a little bit faster too.
It is absurd that the law makes no distinction between those forms of behaviour, making both of those cyclists into criminals. What I am proposing would make the safe behaviour legal, while the dangerous behaviour that you've described continues to be illegal. In other words, it would make 'what is legal' correspond much more closely to 'what is safe'.
90019
Established Member
I understand what you mean, but my worry is that some people will just use it as an excuse to completely ignore traffic lights. More than currently do, anyway.
Worst of all, and where I come from this turns out to be the majority of bad road users on bikes, is the DDOB - Disqualified Driver on Bike.
The police need to be enforcing the road rules more consistently, including fining the DDOBs for both their infringements on the road and their unlicensed driving - riding a bike is considered driving under the Australian Road Rules and is subject to the same disqualifications.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Strict liability not only works, it's actually Best Practice. End of story.
It is entirely appropriate that a person in charge of a two tonne death machine is charged with the appropriate level of responsibility for their actions.
Making a driver's license harder to get should also be considered as an improvement, historically this is way too easy in the majority of English-speaking countries.
Having had a quick glance at this thread it appears that there is some misunderstanding about what "presumed liability" actually means. There is a good explanation here which corrects the common misrepresentation of the concept:
http://www.happycyclist.org/?p=429
To quote a section on the difference between liability and guilt:
"Guilt, when used in the phrase innocent until proven guilty, is a concept that relates to criminal law. In criminal law, where offences can lead to imprisonment, fines, and other sanctions imposed on someone by society, it is right and proper that society, represented by judges, juries and/or magistrates, needs to be certain that the defendant is guilty of an offence before those sanctions are applied. That is the standard of certainty that is required in criminal law, in which cases are brought against individuals by the state.
Civil law on the other hand, deals, among other things, with disputes between individuals. This is not about the state imposing sanctions on a party; it is about settling arguments between two parties, and the court is acting merely as an arbiter. In road traffic collisions, civil law deals primarily with deciding who should pay what proportion of the costs of putting things right after the incident. If some things cant be put right, then it is concerned with who should pay what amount of compensation to whom. This is what is meant by the term liability: who is liable to pay for what. In many cases, an important factor in deciding liabilities is the question of blame, or who was at fault, but in many other cases, it is not possible to establish who was to blame or at fault. It is for this reason that decisions in civil cases are said to be made on the balance of probabilities, and it is really rather important to understand what this means"
http://www.happycyclist.org/?p=429
To quote a section on the difference between liability and guilt:
"Guilt, when used in the phrase innocent until proven guilty, is a concept that relates to criminal law. In criminal law, where offences can lead to imprisonment, fines, and other sanctions imposed on someone by society, it is right and proper that society, represented by judges, juries and/or magistrates, needs to be certain that the defendant is guilty of an offence before those sanctions are applied. That is the standard of certainty that is required in criminal law, in which cases are brought against individuals by the state.
Civil law on the other hand, deals, among other things, with disputes between individuals. This is not about the state imposing sanctions on a party; it is about settling arguments between two parties, and the court is acting merely as an arbiter. In road traffic collisions, civil law deals primarily with deciding who should pay what proportion of the costs of putting things right after the incident. If some things cant be put right, then it is concerned with who should pay what amount of compensation to whom. This is what is meant by the term liability: who is liable to pay for what. In many cases, an important factor in deciding liabilities is the question of blame, or who was at fault, but in many other cases, it is not possible to establish who was to blame or at fault. It is for this reason that decisions in civil cases are said to be made on the balance of probabilities, and it is really rather important to understand what this means"
I think people get a bit carried away with the 'strict liability' thing, as if making that law in the UK is the silver bullet would make everything OK.
The Hembrow blog explains this well:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html
"Strict Liability has, at best, a very small role to play in keeping cyclists in the Netherlands safe." Below this is a picture with the caption: "Does this mother think it's safe for her children to cycle here because "strict liability" offers financial compensation should a car hurt her children, or could it have something to do with the existence of that cycle-path ? This is what is meant by subjective safety."
The Hembrow blog explains this well:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html
"Strict Liability has, at best, a very small role to play in keeping cyclists in the Netherlands safe." Below this is a picture with the caption: "Does this mother think it's safe for her children to cycle here because "strict liability" offers financial compensation should a car hurt her children, or could it have something to do with the existence of that cycle-path ? This is what is meant by subjective safety."
thetangoman
Member
So you are saying that a country lane is softer than a city road and you won't get a head injury if you fall off or get hit by something :roll:
It is funny the way some people bring up helmets in any debate on cycling when there is little evidence for their effectiveness on a population scale, and little evidence that cyclists are any more at risk from head injuries than a number of activities in which nobody even considers advocating helmets.
This site is pretty much saying not to bother with helmets (http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-wear-bike-helmets) but some of the data seems rather suspect and I expect I'll be making my son wear one until he's old enough to make his own, educated, decision.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Out of interest, why do you think the data is suspect? I had a quick flick through it. There's a lot of data and figures there which I have to admit I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of, but on a quick read-through, there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to doubt the source of his figures, and my impression is that the guy is being very upfront and honest about the difficulties of interpreting the data, and the variety of data available.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
The data does generally show that countries that do not enforce helmet use have lower incidences of cycle related head injury, however the last study I looked at had not corrected for the fact a lot of countries with no helmet rules are considerably more cycle friendly than the UK.
Anecdotally, I know of a number of cases where helmets have prevented some potentially life threatening traumatic brain injuries.
Anecdotally, I know of a number of cases where helmets have prevented some potentially life threatening traumatic brain injuries.
There's no conclusive results which makes the article little more than click bait. There are lots of assumptions made, like helmets putting off cyclists which is turn makes it unsafe for others. Or that a helmet was worn in an accident but might not have made a difference.
I see no relevance of there being other situations where people don't wear helmets either. We don't wear seat belts on trains or buses, so does that mean we should stop people being forced to use them in cars?
I see no relevance of there being other situations where people don't wear helmets either. We don't wear seat belts on trains or buses, so does that mean we should stop people being forced to use them in cars?
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
The data isn't clear, but the incidence of head injuries have been declining. In South Australia, when helmet use was about 40% head injuries were declining just as fast as they were when helmet use became 90% (i.e. the increase of helmet use did not show a statistically significant reduction in the number of head injuries). Similar results were seen in Nova Scotia, and New Zealand.
Interestingly, in Melbourne there were 1554 child cyclists of which 442 wore helmets voluntarily. After the introduction of compulsory helmet legislation there were only 42 more helmet wearing child cyclists, but a reduction of 649 child cyclists overall.
Interestingly, in Melbourne there were 1554 child cyclists of which 442 wore helmets voluntarily. After the introduction of compulsory helmet legislation there were only 42 more helmet wearing child cyclists, but a reduction of 649 child cyclists overall.
Helmet promotion is designed to deliberately deter people from cycling in English speaking countries. If you are a racing cyclist doing 25 mph then I can see why a helmet might be desirable, but surely not when doing 10 mph like most cyclists? If someone doing 10 mph needs a helmet then someone walking at 3 mph needs one too! The only difference between a cyclist and a pedestrian is the cyclist spends more time close to motor vehicles. But that can be fixed by building proper infrastructure. Once we have Dutch standard infrastructure, then we can debate helmets.
Surely until you get bikes away from motorised vehicles you keep the helmets? No point talking about a reality that doesn't yet exist.
Pedestrians should be spending a lot less time in close proximity to vehicles, but those who are drunk probably would benefit from wearing one - but nobody would ever suggest that obviously.
Pedestrians should be spending a lot less time in close proximity to vehicles, but those who are drunk probably would benefit from wearing one - but nobody would ever suggest that obviously.
The point is, helmet promotion gives the impression that cycling is dangerous. Statistically, even in the UK, cycling is safe. Travel insurance covers cycling as standard. Whereas if you play sports like football or rugby on holiday you are likely to have to pay more.
The main reason for building Dutch style infrastructure is to make cycling convenient and comfortable. It does make cycling even safer, but mostly it makes it *feel* safer.
The main reason for building Dutch style infrastructure is to make cycling convenient and comfortable. It does make cycling even safer, but mostly it makes it *feel* safer.
Last edited:
On the contrary, helmet protection gives the impression the cyclist is taking safety seriously. The laws should be the same for cyclists as they are for motorbikes and for the fact that they are both road vehicles.
- Status