Road Safety/Cyclists. long one

[dafman]

This apparently is why cyclists do not use cycle lanes,

This Morning plodding down the A13, sorry that should be the old A13,
i came across a cyclist, cycling down the road with all the correct gear on, light’s Hi viz, helmet, the works. But next to him was a cycle lane,■■?

We both stopped at the light’s near Rainham steel, i was turning left so he stopped on my right, so me not being the brightest in the bunch asked him why he did not use the cycle lane, are you ready for this, because he would have to keep getting on and off it at every junction. Well if i had a choice i don’t think i would be cycling inches away from losing my life, because some drivers give them no room at all.

Dig them all up.

[mrflibble]

a) Off-road cycle paths are statistically more dangerous than roads.

b) Off-road cycle paths often take you on a circuitous route, forcing you to go miles out of your way, or cross loads of extra sets of traffic lights, all of which are against you.

c) Off-road cycle paths are nearly always at a lower priority than the roads they cross.

There is a cycle path parallel to the road at the end of my cul-de-sac. This road has many other cul-de-sacs branching off it. If you choose to cycle on the road, you have right of way all the way down the road. The only major danger is from people overtaking and turning left at the same time; this generally isn’t too much of a problem if you cycle defensively.

However, if you cycle down the cycle track, you have to give way at every side turning (approx. every 50m). To do this, you have to give way to traffic coming out of the cul-de-sac, and traffic coming both ways down the main road - you have to look 3 ways at once. As a result, you have to slow down to a virtual stop every 50m or so. This is a real PITA.

To cap it off, the end of the path is funneled into a 30m-long bit of pavement with iron railings down both sides; the separation between the railings is about 6" more than the width of the handlebars of my bike. If I go slightly off-course, the handlebar gets caught, the bike veers into the barrier, and I come off - possibly over the barrier into moving traffic. Coupled with that, it’s also a very busy pedestrian junction, with people approaching from 5 different directions. If I follow the Highway Code’s recommendations and use the cycle “facility”, but mis-judge who is going where, and hold someone up, then who’s fault is it? “Bloody cyclist, cycling on the pavement…”

I also recently had a “discussion” with an idiot who insisted on walking his small yappy dogs down a designated cycle path, without a lead. Every time I got near, his dogs would try to run under my wheels. When I asked him to put his dogs on a lead, he said that I “shouldn’t be cycling there”. When I pointed out the fact that it was a cycle path (and I was actually standing on a painted cycle symbol), he said that he “didn’t believe in them”.

Coupled with this are the beliefs that:

a) Just building cycle paths and forcing cyclists onto them perpetuates the myth that cycling is inherently dangerous, and that you can only use the road safely if you’re in a car

b) Building cycle paths and forcing cyclists to use them erodes the rights for cyclists to use the road in the first place, since motorists expect cyclists to just “get off the road”.

Just because a cycle path is there, doesn’t mean it’s actually useful or safe. In many cases, it’s neither.

[rob_k]

MrFlibble:
I also recently had a “discussion” with an idiot who insisted on walking his small yappy dogs down a designated cycle path, without a lead. Every time I got near, his dogs would try to run under my wheels. When I asked him to put his dogs on a lead, he said that I “shouldn’t be cycling there”. When I pointed out the fact that it was a cycle path (and I was actually standing on a painted cycle symbol), he said that he “didn’t believe in them”.

Then it’s the cue to say, get those [zb]ers out of the way or I’ll ride over them.

This world is out of control. So flaming PC.

[boots_o_lead]

There was a guest on the Jeremy Vine show earlier this year who was pushing for a change in the law where, in an accident, the driver was automatically at fault along the lines of the laws on the continent. At the time I said this was absolutely ridiculous (or words to that effect) and I stand by that. The reason…I spent some time in Germany and have seen what an organised cycling policy can be like, and it’s a good thing.

I agree that cycle paths in this country are often a joke, but the biggest problems are usually the cyclists (and before anyone climbs up on the high horse, I am not referring to anyone in particular). Until the cycling community takes responsibility for their actions and complys with the law across the board then there will always be a large amount of serious accidents. By suggesting that the rider is not responsible for any accident just encourages the idiots to continue being stupid and sends the wrong message to young cyclists.

Jules

[mrflibble]

Rob K:
Then it’s the cue to say, get those [zb]ers out of the way or I’ll ride over them.

That’s effectively what I said - “I’ll just ride in a straight line without braking (since slowing down and swerving just makes it worse), and if they get in the way, tough”. I was tempted to swerve out of their way into him, but decided against it.

Boots O’Lead:
Until the cycling community takes responsibility for their actions and complys with the law across the board then there will always be a large amount of serious accidents.

What do you suggest we/they do?

Most, if not all, of the cycling organisations and/or pressure groups promote legal cycling, and reject illegal behaviour. Some (e.g. the CTC) are trying to increase cycle training for young people after the Government cut it. On the continent, a much more significant proportion of the “older” (25+) population cycle; over here, there are very few of us. A large proportion of the cyclists around are under 21 and male- this portion of the population aren’t exactly known for their adherence to road safety standards.

I cycle completely legally, and with a fully-equipped and maintained bike. Whenever I see a cyclist coming down a pavement, or going through a red light, or cycling at night without lights, I have a go at them, and if I have a chance, I explain why. I’m not sure what else I can do to try and persuade the idiots to cycle legally.

We have a chicken and egg situation.

[boots_o_lead]

Mr Flibble

When I was in Germany the police took cycling as seriously as any other form of road transport - break the law, you get fined. Spot fines mean that the police can act quickly without creating a nightmare of paperwork.

I realise that the police in this country don’t appear to take the enforcement of minor laws that seriously , but if they did - and if we had a proper, structured spot fine system - how many times would you need to get a spot fine before you start playing by the rules. This goes for drivers as well as cyclists and would include all the visiting drivers as well.

Jules

[nodrog]

As a cyclist who as has been noted earlier “has more lights than the Blackpool Illuminations” it is good to see the amoount of response to this debate.

The answer is only through education can we crack this problem.

1st you need someone to see the problem.

2nd Someone takes responsibility.

3rd we get some action.

Look at the joined up approach of London mayor, Cycling show in London and then CTC and RHA all got together to hand out tacho folders and cycle seat covers (they were not the best, lights may have been better) at the show and at other events in London. This was to warn each of the problem that the blind sport causes.

If it can start like this and with what the likes og Grimsby Polivce are trying then we may get somewhere that is better for us all who want to try.

There are many road users lets hope pier pressure cn make the bad better and those who don’t want to know should be taken off the road.