Cycling: How to make it safer?

[EM2]

My one idea for improving cyclist safety is mandatory lights front and rear at ALL times. It makes cyclists much easier to see for other road users.
However, there also has to be the will to punish those that do not comply.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Through being one of nature's permanent pedestrians, I've formed the opinion that a bad cyclist and a bad motorist are as bad as each other.

I've had more cyclists jump reds than motorists. I wouldn't mind, but I was crossing at the time!

 

[ExRes]

Yes indeed. But if the motorist's stupid stunts had gone wrong then it's still the cyclist (or pedestrian) who would have been hurt or killed. The motorist and witnesses would have to live with that experience but it's probably better than being in the hospital or the morgue.

This is exactly the reason why motorists have a heavier responsibility for road safety.

Only if it's the motorist that's at fault, that's totally obvious to anyone, if the cyclist is the one performing stupid and careless acts then they bear responsibility themselves, it's not down to a motorist to expect, for example, a cyclist to ignore red lights or suddenly appear travelling in the wrong direction on a one way street

 

[edwin_m]

Only if it's the motorist that's at fault, that's totally obvious to anyone, if the cyclist is the one performing stupid and careless acts then they bear responsibility themselves, it's not down to a motorist to expect, for example, a cyclist to ignore red lights or suddenly appear travelling in the wrong direction on a one way street

You're missing the point here.

Quite simply whoever's fault it is, the motorist will normally be uninjured and the cyclist or pedestrian will quite often be in hospital or worse. Stupid behaviour by cyclists normally endangers only themselves, but stupid behaviour by motorists endangers others. Therefore motorists have a greater duty to avoid stupid behaviour.

And a good driver will anticipate, as far as possible, stupid behaviour by other road users, ranging from young children on the pavement through to other motorists.

 

[ExRes]

You're missing the point here.

Quite simply whoever's fault it is, the motorist will normally be uninjured and the cyclist or pedestrian will quite often be in hospital or worse. Stupid behaviour by cyclists normally endangers only themselves, but stupid behaviour by motorists endangers others. Therefore motorists have a greater duty to avoid stupid behaviour.

And a good driver will anticipate, as far as possible, stupid behaviour by other road users, ranging from young children on the pavement through to other motorists.

I don't really think I'm missing any points whatsoever, of course a motor vehicle will cause more damage in normal circumstances, did I say otherwise ?

Cyclists NORMALLY only endanger themselves, although in London I've witnessed cyclists taking emergency measures to get themselves out of trouble by heading straight for the pavement and tough luck on any pedestrian thoughtless enough to be in their way, don't forget as well the motorist who swerves to avoid said cyclist, opening up the possibility of any number of innocent parties being drawn in

I fully agree that a good driver will anticipate, but anticipate to what level ?, expect every set of lights to have people ignoring them ?, expect people appearing from one way streets in the wrong direction ?, expect to see a cyclist riding the wrong way round a roundabout, which i've seen in London, if we all expected the unexpected then the roads would be at total gridlock 24 hours a day because we'd all be too scared to move

Motorists should obey the law and be hit hard if they don't, likewise cyclists have a responsibility to both themselves and others and should not presume to put themselves above the law which many do

 

[edwin_m]

From page 81 of: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ment_data/file/269601/rrcgb-2012-complete.pdf

Reported accidents involving pedestrians and one vehicle, single vehicle fatal accidents:

Pedal cycles: 2
All motorcycles: 10
Car: 212
Any vehicle: 366

I suggest this demonstrates conclusively that the risk to pedestrians from motor vehicles is overwhelmingly more than from cyclists.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My one idea for improving cyclist safety is mandatory lights front and rear at ALL times. It makes cyclists much easier to see for other road users.
However, there also has to be the will to punish those that do not comply.

I can see several problems with this.

Firstly, cycle lights are never going to be as bright as car lights. On a sunny day (like, today, in London), a typical cycle light will be all but invisible. It will have zero impact on anyone's ability to see the cyclist - so having one is useless.

Secondly, think about the burden you'd be imposing on cyclists: It's not like a car where all cars have lights fitted and all the driver has to do is flick a switch. To get a cycle light, you have to buy one, attach it and some light fittings to your bike. The presence of the lights will make your cycle heavier - so slightly harder work to pedal it. You can't leave the lights on the bike as they can easily get stolen, so you'd have to carry them around with you whenever you leave the bike. And the lights require batteries that you'd need to replace regularly. Quite a lot of - frankly, useless - extra effort to impose on someone who only ever cycles during the day and therefore does not currently own any lights.

And then the final problem: All this extra work would inevitably cause quite a few daylight-only cyclists to swap to driving instead. That means more pollution, probably more deaths caused by polluted air in big cities - even before you think about the extra accidents and congestion caused by having more cars around. And - worse - there are good reasons to think that cycling becomes more dangerous when there are fewer cyclists (because drivers are then less experienced at sharing the road with cyclists, and so more likely to drive in ways that harm cyclists). That all means that imposing compulsory lights during daylight is likely to cause more accidents than it saves!

Definitely not a good move, IMO.

 

[EM2]

I can see several problems with this.

Firstly, cycle lights are never going to be as bright as car lights. On a sunny day (like, today, in London), a typical cycle light will be all but invisible. It will have zero impact on anyone's ability to see the cyclist - so having one is useless.

I passed a cyclist yesterday on the Mile End Road that had lights on during the day. He was visible ahead of me for a good two hundred metres, and for the same behind in my door mirrors.

Secondly, think about the burden you'd be imposing on cyclists: It's not like a car where all cars have lights fitted and all the driver has to do is flick a switch. To get a cycle light, you have to buy one, attach it and some light fittings to your bike. The presence of the lights will make your cycle heavier - so slightly harder work to pedal it. You can't leave the lights on the bike as they can easily get stolen, so you'd have to carry them around with you whenever you leave the bike. And the lights require batteries that you'd need to replace regularly. Quite a lot of - frankly, useless - extra effort to impose on someone who only ever cycles during the day and therefore does not currently own any lights.

A lot of extra effort to make themselves visible and help save their lives?
You can buy a rear light, with the attachment, in Poundland http://www.poundland.co.uk/my-cycle-5-led-back-bike-light although they seem to be out of front ones at the moment.
The amount of extra effort to pedal is infinitesimal, and a few seconds to detach lights and drop them in a bag is no great hardship.

And then the final problem: All this extra work would inevitably cause quite a few daylight-only cyclists to swap to driving instead. That means more pollution, probably more deaths caused by polluted air in big cities - even before you think about the extra accidents and congestion caused by having more cars around. And - worse - there are good reasons to think that cycling becomes more dangerous when there are fewer cyclists (because drivers are then less experienced at sharing the road with cyclists, and so more likely to drive in ways that harm cyclists). That all means that imposing compulsory lights during daylight is likely to cause more accidents than it saves!

Definitely not a good move, IMO.

You really believe that? The casual cyclist on a £200 bike is going to chuck it all in for a £800 car plus tax plus insurance plus servicing, because a few lights are too much effort?
:roll:

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Only if it's the motorist that's at fault, that's totally obvious to anyone, if the cyclist is the one performing stupid and careless acts then they bear responsibility themselves, it's not down to a motorist to expect, for example, a cyclist to ignore red lights or suddenly appear travelling in the wrong direction on a one way street

To be pedantic, while you may not *expect* - say - a cyclist to ignore red lights, you should always be *alert* to the possibility of any other road user not following the highway code (that applies equally to drivers and cyclists), and always be ready to stop if that happens. Obviously that doesn't change the fact that a cyclist who ignores a red light, and so runs into other traffic, is clearly in the wrong, but it doesn't exempt the driver from the responsibility to look out for that.

For example, I fairly clearly remember, when learning to drive, being taught to look both ways when emerging onto a one way road, just in case a car (you didn't really think about cycles in those days) was driving the wrong way along it. And similarly to glance at every turning you pass, just in case something was emerging, even though you had priority. That all seems to me like standard, safe, defensive driving.

 

[GB]

While I don't necessarily agree lights should be on at ALL times I will say...

You don't need cycle lights "as bright as car lights", you only need them bright enough to better grab a drivers attention.

You can pick up a pair of LED lights for around £15.

Lights add next to no discernible weight to a bike so I find it very difficult to believe that you would notice them to the extent of making you pedal harder.

Your right in the fact if you leave them they may get stolen, but a pair of cheap decent LED lights are usually quick detachable and small enough to take them with you. Batteries usually last a long time too.

You might only cycle in the day when it bright, but what happens when your out and about and it clouds over and the heavens open?

 

[Emyr]

bright enough to better grab a drivers attention.
...
You can pick up a pair of LED lights for around £15.
...
Batteries usually last a long time too.

Bright, Cheap, Long-lasting: Pick two.

 

[EM2]

You can pick up a pair of LED lights for around £15.

You can get USB-rechargeable lights with a 7-lumen output for £30 a pair, thus negating the batteries issue.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Secondly, think about the burden you'd be imposing on cyclists: It's not like a car where all cars have lights fitted and all the driver has to do is flick a switch. To get a cycle light, you have to buy one, attach it and some light fittings to your bike.

Strange, my bike came with lights fitted, mind you it is dutch.

I also don't think there is any point in having lights on in daylight as it is unlikely that they would be noticed by drivers, pedestrians or other cyclist. However they should be used at night and hi viz is also a good idea

 

[JamesRowden]

My one idea for improving cyclist safety is mandatory lights front and rear at ALL times. It makes cyclists much easier to see for other road users.
However, there also has to be the will to punish those that do not comply.

Cyclists wearing luminous jackets should be far more effective than having lights lit during the day :-? The jackets are also less hasle and don't require any energy to operate.

 

[gordonthemoron]

and another point about hi viz. Wearing a dark rucksack ontop renders them useless (more or less)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A lot of extra effort to make themselves visible and help save their lives?
You can buy a rear light, with the attachment, in Poundland http://www.poundland.co.uk/my-cycle-5-led-back-bike-light although they seem to be out of front ones at the moment.
The amount of extra effort to pedal is infinitesimal, and a few seconds to detach lights and drop them in a bag is no great hardship.

You are forgetting that, just because you might find something trivial, doesn't mean that everyone else will. There are lots of people have basically no DIY skills and will regard needing to pick up a screwdriver and read the instructions on how to fit an attachment to their a cycle as quite an obstacle. And you might happen to know where you can get bike lights in poundland - that doesn't mean everyone else knows, or even has a poundland located conveniently for them!

You really believe that? The casual cyclist on a £200 bike is going to chuck it all in for a £800 car plus tax plus insurance plus servicing, because a few lights are too much effort?
:roll:

You are forgetting that many casual cyclists will already be drivers too. If it's a choice between going to the effort to buy lights, fit them to your bike, carry them round with you, versus nipping out in a car that you already own, then yes, that's enough of a barrier that quite a few people will opt to drive.

In the end, you are proposing putting extra obstacles in the way of people doing something that has clear benefits for themselves and society. You might think of those obstacles as minor - and maybe, they would be for you. But they are still obstacles, and they will put some people off.

My partner occasionally cycles. Never at more than about 5 or 6mph. And almost never on roads - she's too worried about traffic and, unless it's a really quiet residential street, she usually pushes her bike until she gets to a cycle path. And never at night. So for all practical purposes, she's not much different from a pedestrian. Are you seriously saying, she should no longer be allowed to do that, unless she goes and buys like lights and learns how to fit them onto her bike (or gets someone else to do that) first?

 

[gordonthemoron]

IMO buying bike lights in poundland is a waste of time, cheap rubbish. You should buy the most expensive & powerful ones you can

 

[jon0844]

From page 81 of: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ment_data/file/269601/rrcgb-2012-complete.pdf

Reported accidents involving pedestrians and one vehicle, single vehicle fatal accidents:

Pedal cycles: 2
All motorcycles: 10
Car: 212
Any vehicle: 366

I suggest this demonstrates conclusively that the risk to pedestrians from motor vehicles is overwhelmingly more than from cyclists.

I'd report anything involving a car, but I've been clipped many times by cyclists that ride on a narrow pavement - only hurt a couple of times (but not seriously, just bruises) but I've never reported them. Not even sure how I could? The police would probably laugh at me, especially given my description would be next to useless.

Of course, I would never suggest the figures would ever get to that of a car or other vehicle, but I suspect in London alone there are a fair few pedestrians involved in some sort of collision with a cyclist every single day.

The problem in London used to be the couriers desperate to make a delivery at any cost, but now it's the Boris bikers, and if they're cycling fast from behind and you suddenly stop or turn then you're bound to be hit sooner or later by someone. I am sure the cyclist would argue that it's just another idiot pedestrian that doesn't know where s/he is going, to justify the incident to themselves.

Let me make it clear, many cyclists are not like this. Many cycle very slowly indeed, accepting that they can't predict what people will do. The issue is, you don't know any of that unless you see them coming towards you.

 

[ExRes]

Anyone have the stats for how many motor vehicles there are on the roads compared with the number of cycles ?

 

[jon0844]

Firstly, cycle lights are never going to be as bright as car lights. On a sunny day (like, today, in London), a typical cycle light will be all but invisible. It will have zero impact on anyone's ability to see the cyclist - so having one is useless.

Well, they probably could be. Some cars are now coming with LED lights - and they're bright enough even for full beam. Not sure the wattage of those, but I am sure you could get (and probably can get) LED lights that are almost as bright as a car headlamp. Obviously you'd need a fairly big battery, but it would depend on the desired running time. I doubt it would be that heavy (comparable to a battery in a smartphone or tablet, not a car battery).

Secondly, think about the burden you'd be imposing on cyclists: It's not like a car where all cars have lights fitted and all the driver has to do is flick a switch. To get a cycle light, you have to buy one, attach it and some light fittings to your bike. The presence of the lights will make your cycle heavier - so slightly harder work to pedal it. You can't leave the lights on the bike as they can easily get stolen, so you'd have to carry them around with you whenever you leave the bike. And the lights require batteries that you'd need to replace regularly. Quite a lot of - frankly, useless - extra effort to impose on someone who only ever cycles during the day and therefore does not currently own any lights.

Theft is an issue, but my lights unclip. However, I am not sure that lights are of that much interest these days. If everyone had them, they'd be even more pointless to steal - especially as they're not that expensive. What's more, you'd have to steal the light and the holder. Is it worth getting caught for a light, when you'd probably go for the whole bike?

The batteries last for ages on most cycle lights. LED lamps can probably run a few days on a single set, so assuming you remember to turn them off then you'll probably go weeks or even months.[/QUOTE]

There are far too many 'ninja's on the roads. I am sure there are more accidents in the winter months, not because of poorer weather, but simply because you have cyclists going home in the evening rush hour - in the dark.

Lights are a real lifesaver. They're not there to help you see so much, but to be seen. Hence why we've finally made it law to have daylight running lights on a car. So it's considered good to see a car even in the daytime (as the lights will catch your eye amongst all the other 'noise') but not a bike? A vulnerable cyclist that doesn't see the point in having lights or any protective gear?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anyone have the stats for how many motor vehicles there are on the roads compared with the number of cycles ?

Probably a difficult one to work out. Think of all the children who have bikes, or adults that have old bikes they use every now and then? Given they're not registered, I suspect we'll never know.

I'd imagine there are probably as many bikes as cars, but that would still be meaningless as loads of bikes might be rusting in sheds and never used.

 

[gordonthemoron]

What's more, you'd have to steal the light and the holder.

My battery powered non-fixed lights have brackets that can be replaced from Evans and probably other dealers. I have bought several brackets so I can fix the to my 3 bikes and my girlfriends. It's cheaper than buying lights for each one

 

[jon0844]

Strange, my bike came with lights fitted, mind you it is dutch.

I also don't think there is any point in having lights on in daylight as it is unlikely that they would be noticed by drivers, pedestrians or other cyclist. However they should be used at night and hi viz is also a good idea

More bikes should have some sort of lights built in, like the hire bikes, but I'd still fit a secondary headlamp as the cheap lights aren't going to be much use in the daytime. Still, you do at least solve the security problem so it's better than nothing.

I've got a pretty good CatEye light on mine, which I can adjust the brightness of and have steady or flashing, but it's about 6 years old so I bet the newer lights are considerably better.

In fact, I've seen some cyclists (dressed to suggest they're in cycling clubs) that have lights that I'd have sworn from a distance were motorcyclists with ordinary lamps.

I guess at the end of the day, you have to consider what price you put on your OWN safety.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cyclists wearing luminous jackets should be far more effective than having lights lit during the day :-? The jackets are also less hasle and don't require any energy to operate.

I'd say both. If I shone a torch towards you, you'd notice it. I doubt you'd notice my HiVis vest.

That's a good point. As I mentioned those ninjas earlier, I should have added that the clothing is just as bad in many cases.

Mind you, that's something pedestrians could perhaps be more aware of at night when crossing roads without lights (thanks to councils in some areas turning lights off overnight). If you're wearing dark clothes, you're effectively invisible.

Perhaps some people at 2am want to be unseen though...

 

[gordonthemoron]

In the 60s/70s there used to be public information films for pedestrians shown in cinemas that recommended the wearing of light clothing on dark nights

 

[jon0844]

You are forgetting that, just because you might find something trivial, doesn't mean that everyone else will. There are lots of people have basically no DIY skills and will regard needing to pick up a screwdriver and read the instructions on how to fit an attachment to their a cycle as quite an obstacle. And you might happen to know where you can get bike lights in poundland - that doesn't mean everyone else knows, or even has a poundland located conveniently for them!

If someone can't fit a light (and that assumes Halfords and the like won't do it for you, for a few quid) then God help them if they get a puncture or a problem with the chain etc.

In the end, you are proposing putting extra obstacles in the way of people doing something that has clear benefits for themselves and society. You might think of those obstacles as minor - and maybe, they would be for you. But they are still obstacles, and they will put some people off.

My partner occasionally cycles. Never at more than about 5 or 6mph. And almost never on roads - she's too worried about traffic and, unless it's a really quiet residential street, she usually pushes her bike until she gets to a cycle path. And never at night. So for all practical purposes, she's not much different from a pedestrian. Are you seriously saying, she should no longer be allowed to do that, unless she goes and buys like lights and learns how to fit them onto her bike (or gets someone else to do that) first?

If you're always off road, using cycle paths, or off road, then you don't need lights I guess.

And you don't need lights if you're only out cycling in the daytime - although I'd argue that if you're cycling on a road then you should fit lights as they'll provide you with some more safety (we can argue how much, but anything is better than nothing, no?).

Why are some people so against doing things that might help save their life. Surely not everyone wants a Darwin award? It's not that 'the man' is out to spoil your fun, or force you to do something, but rather that people can see what offers a safety benefit - lighting, helmets, protective clothing, reflectively clothing, a bell/horn or whatever.

Seat belt laws are mostly to protect people are they not? Of course, plenty of people ignore the law and take the risk.

 

[gordonthemoron]

quite, my cateye front light is really bright so I can see where I'm going, the fact that other road users can see me is a secondary benefit

 

[EM2]

In the end, you are proposing putting extra obstacles in the way of people doing something that has clear benefits for themselves and society.

No, I'm proposing additional aids that will assist with their safety.
Jon has answered the other points more than thoroughly.

 

[Nick W]

Why are some people so against doing things that might help save their life. Surely not everyone wants a Darwin award? It's not that 'the man' is out to spoil your fun, or force you to do something, but rather that people can see what offers a safety benefit - lighting, helmets, protective clothing, reflectively clothing, a bell/horn or whatever.

We want Britain to become a country in which people feel that cycling is just like as simple as walking, but faster so viable instead of driving. This will increase the health of the nation, reduce pollution, and save lives.

We accept that cyclists will have to carry lights and a lock with them, and that these will add time to the trip but we don't want people to be burdened to the extent that safety savings are lost in reducing the the number of cyclists.

Sure, I have reflective clothing which I might use for a long trip, but for a 10-20 minute daily end to end journey, forcing people to wear such clothing will dissuade people.

Plus in some places, the longest journey from the edge to the centre or back is 10 minutes anyway, These are places where people don't need to drive at all on a daily basis unless their circumstances are exceptional (not all can physically ride).

Regarding any presumed liability, I certainly don't like the idea of this. But the assumption seems to be the other way round, that the cyclist is to blame. For example, if a cyclist isn't in the cycle lane, the police will often take no action. This would be the case, even if the cycle lane was about to disappear, the cyclist wanted to turn right or go straight ahead, the cycle lane was in the "door zone" [Just the other day I had someone open a door all the way as I was cycling downhill at about 25mph. It was scary, but being wise, I was twice the width of the door from the car so zoomed past unscathed].

What I would like to see, however, is that any motorist or cyclist is liable if he/she delays in preventative action. For example, if a cyclist is in the middle of a motorway (and clearly to blame), any driver who didn't immediately slam the brakes would still be equally liable. (This is an extreme example, but too many people reach for the horn/bell before the brakes.)

 

[Johnuk123]

If a cyclist is in the middle of a motorway (and clearly to blame), any driver who didn't immediately slam the brakes would still be equally liable. )

Great idea, so after the motorist has caused a massive multiple vehicle pile-up he would have the satisfaction that he'd done the right thing.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd report anything involving a car, but I've been clipped many times by cyclists that ride on a narrow pavement - only hurt a couple of times (but not seriously, just bruises) but I've never reported them. Not even sure how I could? The police would probably laugh at me, especially given my description would be next to useless.

The statistics I quoted were fatal accidents - for which I suggest under-reporting isn't an issue.

 

[EM2]

The statistics I quoted were fatal accidents - for which I suggest under-reporting isn't an issue.

I would think that it's obvious that a collision with a 1000kg-plus large metal box travelling at a reasonable speed is more likely to be fatal to a pedestrian than a collision with a much lighter, much slower bicycle.