|
|
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
[Note: I have not been on Blackfriars bridge, and the article seems
quite vague on the "problem" with this particular cycle lane....] Scandal of our deadly cycle lanes The dangerous road layout that has claimed one life in London is now being promoted across the country as a model of good design Mark Townsend Sunday May 23, 2004 The Observer Vicki McCreery had predicted the journey home might kill her. Days before she was crushed by a five-ton bus, she had told friends a new cycle lane over Blackfriars bridge in London would claim lives. As hundreds of people gathered for her funeral in north London yesterday, relatives demanded to know why a lane meant to protect cyclists from other road users had cost the 37-year-old physiotherapist her life. The lane had been in place barely two weeks before she died almost instantly following a rush-hour collision near the crest of the bridge. Safety campaigners are stunned that permission was granted for a narrow cycle lane sandwiched between two fast-moving carriageways and one of London's busiest bus routes. Worse still, a steady convoy of buses is allowed to veer across the thin path reserved for cyclists. As McCreery forecast, a fatality was inevitable. Her death has already become emblematic for groups which claim the tragedy exposes the hypocrisy behind government initiatives to raise the number of cyclists. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has promised a 200 per cent increase by 2010, a figure already dismissed as too ambitious. Failure to convert more people to two wheels is blamed largely on the introduction of lanes similar to that on which McCreery died. Those cyclists courageous enough to use Blackfriars bridge admit to shuddering as they reach its northbound approaches. As McCreery would have done in her final moments, they talk of feeling intensely exposed as dense commuter traffic flashes by on their right while buses undercut them on their left. 'She felt intimidated by the new crossing. She was extremely concerned about her safety, but it was the only route she could cycle home,' said a friend. Despite the design's obvious risks, it has emerged that the layout at Blackfriars is encouraged by the government - recommended as a best practice design in traffic advisory leaflets distributed to local councils. Road safety groups claim similar layouts, described as 'death traps' by users, are being rolled out across Britain. Near-identical replicas of the design can be found from Bristol to Brighton. Residents near each site are amazed that tragic accidents have not happened yet. Their warnings of more deaths may prove fruitless. More than 14 months ago safety campaigners warned Transport for London that changes to the Blackfriars cycle lane could prove dangerous and might not solve the route's inherent danger. They cited the case of grandfather Kim Thi, who died 15 months ago after being struck by a motorbike at almost the exact point where a bunch of tulips now marks the place where Vicki McCreery died. Shortly before her death, she had seen a fellow cyclist knocked off her bike by a bus. McCreery, the senior physiotherapist at St Thomas' Hospital, south London, offered to be a witness for the shaken but fortunate fellow cyclist. In other European countries similar collisions are unlikely. Denmark and Holland are among those offering cyclists segregated tracks. High kerbs and special filter lanes ensure traffic cannot get near them. Failure to mimic such designs partly explains, say road safety groups, why UK cyclists are 10 times more likely to be killed or injured than those in Denmark. Danish cyclists would find it astonishing that UK law still allows motorists to drive on to many cycle lanes. They too might question the continued practice of squeezing such lanes on to busy roads that can barely accommodate two lines of traffic. Such practices, maintain experts, help explain the stream of casualties among British cyclists. This month at least seven have been killed after being struck by traffic. Most stood no chance. The toll is relentless: every two and a half days a cyclist is killed. During the same period 115 are injured. Latest figures reveal that 141 cyclists are killed each year. More than 17,000 are injured. How many of these accident happen in cycle lanes is unclear: the government does not collate such figures. Nor does it have a central database on cycle lane designs which have been condemned as dangerous. Roger Geffen, campaigns manager at the national cycling body, the Cyclists' Touring Club, said a cultural shift was needed so that local authorities considered cycle lanes more carefully. They had 'been left to the most junior planning officers, and we need better guidance on dealing with major junctions.' Tony Russell, who advises councils on safer cycle lanes for the club, said: 'There are situations where designs put the cyclist in a more dangerous position. Most accidents, though, are caused by motorists not being careful.' McCreery's husband, Sandy, knows all too well the risks posed by errant drivers. He runs Middlesex University's MA course in spatial culture and has studied city centre traffic dangers. In an eerily prescient passage he once wrote: 'Allowing hard, heavy speeding vehicles to come into contact with fleshy mortals is a recipe for disaster.' This week he will take his wife's ashes to her native Australia. On his return, he plans to visit Blackfriars bridge for the first time since Vicki died. They married just over a year ago and had talked of starting a family. Meanwhile, experts from Transport for London will go on investigating whether the new layout, initially verified in an independent safety audit, needs updating. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the solution.
Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Nathaniel Porter wrote:
I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used and you don't have the right to ride on the road. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
"MSeries" wrote in message ... Nathaniel Porter wrote: I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Which is wrong IMHO. IIRC Ireland has similar rules. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
MSeries wrote:
Nathaniel Porter wrote: I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used and you don't have the right to ride on the road. This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle farcilities and then vote us off the road altogether. -- Cheerful Pedalling John Mallard |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
"bikerider7" wrote in message om... [Note: I have not been on Blackfriars bridge, and the article seems quite vague on the "problem" with this particular cycle lane....] Scandal of our deadly cycle lanes The dangerous road layout that has claimed one life in London is now being promoted across the country as a model of good design Mark Townsend Sunday May 23, 2004 The Observer Vicki McCreery had predicted the journey home might kill her. Days before she was crushed by a five-ton bus, she had told friends a new cycle lane over Blackfriars bridge in London would claim lives. As hundreds of people gathered for her funeral in north London yesterday, relatives demanded to know why a lane meant to protect cyclists from other road users had cost the 37-year-old physiotherapist her life. The lane had been in place barely two weeks before she died almost instantly following a rush-hour collision near the crest of the bridge. Safety campaigners are stunned that permission was granted for a narrow cycle lane sandwiched between two fast-moving carriageways and one of London's busiest bus routes. Worse still, a steady convoy of buses is allowed to veer across the thin path reserved for cyclists. As McCreery forecast, a fatality was inevitable. Her death has already become emblematic for groups which claim the tragedy exposes the hypocrisy behind government initiatives to raise the number of cyclists. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has promised a 200 per cent increase by 2010, a figure already dismissed as too ambitious. Failure to convert more people to two wheels is blamed largely on the introduction of lanes similar to that on which McCreery died. Those cyclists courageous enough to use Blackfriars bridge admit to shuddering as they reach its northbound approaches. As McCreery would have done in her final moments, they talk of feeling intensely exposed as dense commuter traffic flashes by on their right while buses undercut them on their left. 'She felt intimidated by the new crossing. She was extremely concerned about her safety, but it was the only route she could cycle home,' said a friend. One must also take responsibility for ones own safety. If there was a section of road that you believe was dangerous, why not get off before it and walk past that bit? Surely its madness to cycle on a bit of road you believe to be dangerous, just because someone painted the words 'cycle lane' on it? -- Tumbleweed Remove my socks for email address |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Tumbleweed wrote:
One must also take responsibility for ones own safety. If there was a section of road that you believe was dangerous, why not get off before it and walk past that bit? Surely its madness to cycle on a bit of road you believe to be dangerous, just because someone painted the words 'cycle lane' on it? I've cycled this, though well out of rush hour (mid-afternoon on a saturday of a bank holiday weekend, so probably about as non-busy as you can get). I was conscious of being very vulnerable between two lanes - cycling over the bridge with a lane each side made it feel quite precarious. I know the bridge (and it's traffic) well, since I drove in/around london very frequently as an engineer (and will likely do so again shortly) - where I would assume from the conditions when I cycled it to be fairly innocuous and reasonably safe, I had mental images of what it's REALLY like in normal traffic as I cycled over it, and they were none too pleasant, and downright scary! I also had to deal with a bus that I followed through the junction on the south side heading north, which stopped in it's bus stop to the left of the cycle lane, while I caught up and cycled past. I found that quite concerning, and initially I hung back while I made sure it was probably going to stay put till I was past it, then cycled past as fast as I could to get in front (and thus hopefully within the driver's field of view). Also, I found being quite slow on the initially stage where you climb to the top of the bridge makes things worse. The cycle lane is quite wide (as cycle lanes go) but being a solitary cyclist with so much car/bus/van space around you feels unsafe. I spent a lot of time looking in my mirror/around me as I crossed the bridge, expecting at any moment to have to deal with idiot drivers of larger vehicles cutting across my path. I was surprised when this didn't happen. I think I'd have to seriously evaluate if there's a better way to cross the bridge if I ever cycled it again - whether that's staying in the far left lane until you get to the far side of the bridge before moving right to avoid going down the slip road, or dismount and cross as a pedestrian, I don't know... as I said, more investigation would be needed. On the other hand, there's not really any excuse for not being aware of what's around you on a multi-lane road like that, especially since it's very common in london to have cars/buses/taxi's cutting other cars/buses/taxi's up - the bus really shouldn't have pulled across the cycle lane without looking (and seeing) a cyclist. I have to say, if I was as concerned as she seemed to be, I'd have been on foot - it's quite common for me to revert to pedestrianing around junctions that I don't feel safe cycling, but I can understand the resentment that would lead to not wanting to be forced to be a slow bike-pushing pedestrian by a bad cycle lane. -- Velvet |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
"John Mallard" not_me@all wrote:
| MSeries wrote: | Nathaniel Porter wrote: | I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the | solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never | lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means | of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. | | Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used | and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Also in Holland IIRC. | This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will | realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle farcilities | and then vote us off the road altogether. But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up like Holland and Denmark. -- Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
| This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will
| realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle | farcilities and then vote us off the road altogether. But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up like Holland and Denmark. It's 'cos impatient/late buggers like me like to get there at more than 12mph. On my (v. short) commute I try and keep my speed at 20mph. There's no way I could do that on most cycle paths and it would be the height of stupidity to do it on a shared use footpath, even if it was deserted enough to be possible. Added to the reduction in speed negotiating junctions would be more time consuming. On the road I can just do a left turn, right turn or go straight ahead at speed (if nothing coming). On a cyclepath I'd have to slow down a lot/stop to let traffic past and check it was clear when I could just sail past with right of way on the road. I don't find the roads unsafe and do find many cycle lanes off the road too slow to bother with. Trundlies may have a different view I s'pose. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Patrick Herring wrote:
But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up like Holland and Denmark. Bach, Rosbach, Joergensen. Vejdirekforatet, Denmark, 1988 Traffic safety of cycle tracks in Danish cities. Before and after study of 105 new cycle paths in Denmark, introduced 1978-81, totalling 64km. Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction of paths. Wegman, Dijkstra. SWOV, Netherlands, 1992. Originally presented to Roads and Traffic 2000 conference, Berlin, 1988; Revised version included in Still more bikes behind the dikes, CROW, 1992. In built-up areas cycle tracks 25% safer than unsegregated road between junctions, but 32% more dangerous at junctions. Cycle lanes 36% more dangerous between junctions, 19% safer at junctions. Seriousness of accidents greater if tracks or lanes present compared with no facilities. Cycle lanes narrower than 1.8m particularly hazardous. Outside towns, cycle track safety depends on car and cycle numbers. New cross-town routes in Den Haag and Tilburg had produced no safety gain and had not encouraged much new cycling. Tony |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
On Sun, 23 May 2004 23:07:10 +0100, Tumbleweed wrote:
One must also take responsibility for ones own safety. If there was a section of road that you believe was dangerous, why not get off before it and walk past that bit? Surely its madness to cycle on a bit of road you believe to be dangerous, just because someone painted the words 'cycle lane' on it? True. However, I've commuted in London a lot, and I have used that lane when I've gone over that bridge (not commuting). I remember thinking it was pretty dangerous. The reason you do want to stay in that lane is the junction at the end. There are three lanes, the left one is a left-turn-only onto Embankment. So you stay in the lane to avoid a late cross over to the right. Another point to make is about beginning cyclists - they will naturally follow the cycle lanes. They won't have your level of experience in deciding yay or nay to ignore the lane to keep yourself safe. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Patrick Herring wrote:
"John Mallard" not_me@all wrote: | MSeries wrote: | Nathaniel Porter wrote: | I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the | solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never | lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means | of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. | | Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used | and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Also in Holland IIRC. | This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will | realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle farcilities | and then vote us off the road altogether. But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up like Holland and Denmark. Because if the drivers know there's a cycle lane and you're on the road, they'll hurl abuse at you (get on the cycle path you ****ing ****er etc) and occasionally one'll run you off the road just for good measure... And most off-road cycle ways are bumpier, ruttier, full of glass/thorns/other muck, badly maintained, and force you to cycle very slowly for fear of a reversing out the drive accident, and to stop every time you get to a side road. The condition of the cycle path might be of no consequence to those with suspension or mtb's, but on a tourer they're a bloody pain in the neck to ride any distance at all on. -- Velvet |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Patrick Herring wrote:
"John Mallard" not_me@all wrote: | MSeries wrote: | Nathaniel Porter wrote: | I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the | solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never | lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means | of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. | | Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used | and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Also in Holland IIRC. | This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will | realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle farcilities | and then vote us off the road altogether. But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). Not at all - see the report into, eg, the Milton Keynes off-road bike paths. Crime is higher. Accidents are higher at junctions. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Velvet wrote:
The condition of the cycle path might be of no consequence to those with suspension or mtb's, but on a tourer they're a bloody pain in the neck to ride any distance at all on. While not in any way disagreeing with your point, it should be pointed out that "tourer" and "suspension" need not be mutually exclusive terms, and you don't even need to get a recumbent. Moulton T21 and R&M Delite Black (or Grey) are both full-sus dedicated touring uprights, for example. Pete. -- Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
|
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
On Sun, 23 May 2004 23:07:10 +0100 someone who may be "Tumbleweed"
wrote this:- One must also take responsibility for ones own safety. If there was a section of road that you believe was dangerous, All sections of road are dangerous, not in themselves but because of the people using them. The question is relative danger. why not get off before it and walk past that bit? I'm sure the road builders would love that. Another way to get these dammed cyclists off the road. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
On Sun, 23 May 2004 21:43:19 +0100 someone who may be "MSeries"
wrote this:- Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Germany changed that rule. I thought similar consideration was being given in Denmark and the Netherlands. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
in message , Patrick Herring
') wrote: But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). No, it won't. On average, cycle ways are very much _less_ safe for cyclists than normal roads. Read the research. Of course there may be some cycle ways which are safer, but at present they;re the exception not the rule and I think that's true for every country in which the issue has been studied. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us ;; many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. ;; Imagination without skill gives us modern art. ;; Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending A Staircase |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ...
One must also take responsibility for ones own safety. If there was a section of road that you believe was dangerous, why not get off before it and walk past that bit? Surely its madness to cycle on a bit of road you believe to be dangerous, just because someone painted the words 'cycle lane' on it? If I walked every stretch of unsuitable cycle lane it would convert about 6 miles of my daily total from cycling to walking. I'm sure one of the reasons we see so many pavement cyclists these days is that that is the solution they have adopted to these dangerous cycle lanes. -- Dave... |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Peter Clinch wrote:
Velvet wrote: The condition of the cycle path might be of no consequence to those with suspension or mtb's, but on a tourer they're a bloody pain in the neck to ride any distance at all on. While not in any way disagreeing with your point, it should be pointed out that "tourer" and "suspension" need not be mutually exclusive terms, and you don't even need to get a recumbent. Moulton T21 and R&M Delite Black (or Grey) are both full-sus dedicated touring uprights, for example. Pete. True, but even so, I'm not sure the majority of tourers that are about on the roads actually have full-sus.. and I fail to see why I should have to buy a bike with suspension just to be able to ride on shoddy tarmac. If they're going to put in cycle facilities then at the very least the surface should mean all bikes should be able to use them, not just a sub-set of bikes. IMNSHO :-) -- Velvet |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
[Note: I have not been on Blackfriars bridge, and the article seems quite vague on the "problem" with this particular cycle lane....] Scandal of our deadly cycle lanes snip Good article, which sounds like it was written by a cyclist, though I think the figure that UK cyclists are 10 times more likely to be killed or injured than those in Denmark is probably an exaggeration. Data I have studied (per person km cycled) indicates the ratio is more like 2 or 3. The problem on Blackfriars Bridge is essentially the high speeds, the long, exposed nature of the cycle lane between an ahead and a left-turn lane, and the way buses have to cross the lanes to stop to the left of the left lane and then get into the ahead lane again. The design cannot overcome the inherent conflict between trying to have a priority cycle route running ahead and a high-capacity left filter for other vehicles on the same road, and is a prime example of confused thinking about such things. The article also brings up problems with the position of CTC in the statements by Geffen and Russell (both of whom I know). The author rightly attacks the British systems compared to the far better segregated bike engineering of The Netherlands and Denmark. But CTC has always tended to oppose the segregating of cyclists and motor vehicles on British roads, wrong-headedly (in my view) fearing it that creates more danger and marginalisation for the cyclist - when anyone who looks at the situation in continental countries can see that exactly the reverse is true - the danger and marginalisation occur here, where we try to combine cyclists and motors in the same unsegregated space, not there. Russell saying "most accidents are caused by motorists not being careful" is a silly statement as it misses the point. We all know that. The object of cycle engineering is to protect cyclists from the mistakes of motorists. David Arditti |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
David Arditti typed
The object of cycle engineering is to protect cyclists from the mistakes of motorists. Which this cycle farcility has evidently failed to do, with tragic results. Such failures are not uncommon. :-( -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:21:47 +0100 someone who may be David Arditti
wrote this:- But CTC has always tended to oppose the segregating of cyclists and motor vehicles on British roads, wrong-headedly (in my view) fearing it that creates more danger and marginalisation for the cyclist Most figures are against you with regard to danger. Some have been given in this thread. As for marginalisation, there are plenty of examples of "get in the cycle lane" comments from motorists in this group. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Velvet wrote:
True, but even so, I'm not sure the majority of tourers that are about on the roads actually have full-sus.. and I fail to see why I should have to buy a bike with suspension just to be able to ride on shoddy tarmac. You shouldn't, which is why I said "While not in any way disagreeing with your point". It was just some extra information on bikes, not an excuse for cycle tracks to be terrible. But for touring generally, another point of information is that there are plenty of back roads with as bad to worse surfaces out there, and as suspension gets more widely available and better (when done properly, this isn't about Comedy suspension on mug's eyeful gaspipe jobs) it's increasingly worth considering on touring bikes meant for roads. But, like you say, a cycle track should be welcoming for any bike likely to ride along it, including one with narrow, unsuspended wheels. If they're going to put in cycle facilities then at the very least the surface should mean all bikes should be able to use them, not just a sub-set of bikes. Probably most affected are things like trikes and trailers, which can't easily get through those little traffic-limiting gates designed to stop yoofs tearing up and down the things on scooters and mopeds. Which is, of course, another reason they tend to be a Work of Stan (though kudos to Fife for turning the one between Tayport and Tay Road Bridge from a ridiculous invitation to eat loose gravel into a really pretty good track which is a pleasure to use). Pete. -- Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
David Arditti wrote:
The article also brings up problems with the position of CTC in the statements by Geffen and Russell (both of whom I know). The author rightly attacks the British systems compared to the far better segregated bike engineering of The Netherlands and Denmark. But CTC has always tended to oppose the segregating of cyclists and motor vehicles on British roads, wrong-headedly (in my view) fearing it that creates more danger and marginalisation for the cyclist - when anyone who looks at the situation in continental countries can see that exactly the reverse is true - the danger and marginalisation occur here, where we try to combine cyclists and motors in the same unsegregated space, not there. When one experiences the situation in the NL even if only for a few days (my Dutch cycling experience) then it's soon remarkably easy to see that there's probably More To It Than That. It is an article of faith amongst many that segregation in the NL is What Makes The Difference, but even where I was on roads shared with motor transport (which seems to be rather more than the popular view in the UK holds) it was very clear that I was being given one helluva lot more attention and thought than is typical in the UK. I felt safer, despits being on an unfamiliar bike on the "wrong" side of the road with traffic laws I wasn't familiar with. How can that be, if the real safety feature is segregation? are caused by motorists not being careful" is a silly statement as it misses the point. We all know that. The object of cycle engineering is to protect cyclists from the mistakes of motorists. But the problem is that unless you can make segregation *total*, which of course you can't, then users of roads become less aware of cyclists because they see them less. Which is why the junctions between cycle tracks and roads are where the nasty accidents happen. And superimposing cycle tracks on an existing road network means lots of junctions in most cases. You won't get tailgated, but that isn't especially common in any case. One thing which almost everyone agrees on is that cyclists get safer when there are more of them. Difficult to objectively prove /why/ that is, but the figures strongly suggest that whatever the "why", it is so. If you remove cyclists from roads by segregation there become effectively less of them, so things instantly get more dangerous on the road when the road can't be avoided. Pete. -- Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
"David Arditti" wrote in message ... The object of cycle engineering is to protect cyclists from the mistakes of motorists. But that can only go so far (if you're being reasonable). Surely it would be better to stop motorists from making mistakes? I appreciate motorists are only human and will make mistakes - but the vast majority of mistakes seem to be caused through ignorance, incompetancy or selfishness - and these mistakes shouldn't happen. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Peter Clinch typed
When one experiences the situation in the NL even if only for a few days (my Dutch cycling experience) then it's soon remarkably easy to see that there's probably More To It Than That. It is an article of faith amongst many that segregation in the NL is What Makes The Difference, but even where I was on roads shared with motor transport (which seems to be rather more than the popular view in the UK holds) it was very clear that I was being given one helluva lot more attention and thought than is typical in the UK. I felt safer, despits being on an unfamiliar bike on the "wrong" side of the road with traffic laws I wasn't familiar with. How can that be, if the real safety feature is segregation? I call it the respect/contempt issue. Cyclists in the Netherlands are respected and numerous. Cyclists in Britain are hated and not numerous. I don't know what will change the numbers. I don't have a clue what will induce the Brits to accord more respect to cyclists. Some cycle farcilities are definitely counter-productive here (and there's a large feature in the local rag entitled 'Cycle lane has hit profits, angry traders tell minister') I think it's a chicken & egg problem. -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:51:35 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
I call it the respect/contempt issue. Cyclists in the Netherlands are respected and numerous. Cyclists in Britain are hated and not numerous. I don't know what will change the numbers. I don't have a clue what will induce the Brits to accord more respect to cyclists. Some cycle farcilities are definitely counter-productive here (and there's a large feature in the local rag entitled 'Cycle lane has hit profits, angry traders tell minister') Here's a link to the story: http://tinyurl.com/3ezt3 -- Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
in message , David Arditti
') wrote: The article also brings up problems with the position of CTC in the statements by Geffen and Russell (both of whom I know). The author rightly attacks the British systems compared to the far better segregated bike engineering of The Netherlands and Denmark. But CTC has always tended to oppose the segregating of cyclists and motor vehicles on British roads, wrong-headedly (in my view) fearing it that creates more danger and marginalisation for the cyclist - when anyone who looks at the situation in continental countries can see that exactly the reverse is true No, you're completely and diametrically wrong, as research done in both Holland and Denmark has shown. In both those countries (as in the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) studies have shown that cycle paths are substantially more dangerous than the roads. We've been through this argument again and again; it's like helmets. Common sense says that cycle paths should help, and everyone initially assumes they do and that experienced cyclists are just being pig-headed about this. We're not. Initially we all thought as you do, but we've read the research, and our minds have been changed. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ; ... of course nothing said here will be taken notice of by ; the W3C. The official place to be ignored is on www-style or ; www-html. -- George Lund |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Mark Thompson wrote:
| This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will | realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle | farcilities and then vote us off the road altogether. But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up like Holland and Denmark. It's 'cos impatient/late buggers like me like to get there at more than 12mph. On my (v. short) commute I try and keep my speed at 20mph. There's no way I could do that on most cycle paths and it would be the height of stupidity to do it on a shared use footpath, even if it was deserted enough to be possible. Added to the reduction in speed negotiating junctions would be more time consuming. On the road I can just do a left turn, right turn or go straight ahead at speed (if nothing coming). On a cyclepath I'd have to slow down a lot/stop to let traffic past and check it was clear when I could just sail past with right of way on the road. I don't find the roads unsafe and do find many cycle lanes off the road too slow to bother with. Trundlies may have a different view I s'pose. Cycle lanes also have the irritating habit of stoping at every road junction. I don't mind cycle lanes, as long as they are well designed and recognise that cyclist like to maintain momentum. I think we need to start educating the car drivers, report everyone comes too close or cuts you up. It'd be nice to take snaps of the number plate, get home and automatically get a list sent to the local police. A few producers may get em thinking |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Michael MacClancy wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:51:35 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht wrote: I call it the respect/contempt issue. Cyclists in the Netherlands are respected and numerous. Cyclists in Britain are hated and not numerous. I don't know what will change the numbers. I don't have a clue what will induce the Brits to accord more respect to cyclists. Some cycle farcilities are definitely counter-productive here (and there's a large feature in the local rag entitled 'Cycle lane has hit profits, angry traders tell minister') Here's a link to the story: http://tinyurl.com/3ezt3 "former customers tell me what a shame it is that they can't shop locally any more" maybe if they made the effort to shop locally then the shops wouldn't have closed. Once again we see how small minded some folk are. Instead of finding another means of travelling such as bicycle or public transport, which I presume is one of the intentions of the scheme, they chose to go elsewhere - then whinge about it. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:29:11 +0100, Peter Tillotson
wrote in message : Cycle lanes also have the irritating habit of stoping at every road junction. I don't mind cycle lanes, as long as they are well designed and recognise that cyclist like to maintain momentum. Oooh! Where? Where? ;-) Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
In article ,
bikerider7 wrote: [Note: I have not been on Blackfriars bridge, and the article seems quite vague on the "problem" with this particular cycle lane....] For the edification of urc, I've put up a few pictures of the cycle lane in question. I happened to be in London yesterday walking along that bit of the Thames... http://www.kantaka.co.uk/blackfriars_bridge/ The traffic lanes as painted on the road look appallingly dangerous to me. I cannot believe any sane traffic engineer could possibly have thought that this was a good idea. It would be very easy for a cyclist to be caught in the blind spot of a large vehicle which, on realising that it was in the wrong lane would move across the cycle lane without ever realising that the cyclist was there. This is compounded by the fact that the road is uphill making it very difficult for even a very fit cyclist to keep up with the traffic. Interestingly, you can see on the photographs that the blue sign which presumably echoed the road layout appear to have been covered over. Anyone know what these said? I have a suspicion that the left lane was designated a bus lane Mon-Fri at peak times, putting the cycle lane *in between* a pair of bus lanes. Mad. Phil -- http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
In article ,
Philip Armstrong wrote: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/blackfriars_bridge/ 195.92.67.67 - - [24/May/2004:19:26:33 +0100] "GET /blackfriars_bridge/ HTTP/1.1" 200 2061 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)" Well, that took all of three minutes. Phil -- http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Philip Armstrong wrote:
For the edification of urc, I've put up a few pictures of the cycle lane in question. I happened to be in London yesterday walking along that bit of the Thames... http://www.kantaka.co.uk/blackfriars_bridge/ Just realised I've cycled that loads of times and didn't think twice about it (I had Blackwall Tunnel ingrained in my mind for some reason). Like the cyclist just visible in the flowers photo I stay in the left hand bus lane until I am well past the solid separator before moving right into the straight ahead cycle lane. By the time I move over, all the buses that are going to swap over will have. Mind you, maybe without my helmet now I will be simpering in the gutter there. Tony |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Right I'm really confused by this layout[1]. Am I right in thinking that the
layout is: Left turn lane | Cycle Lane | Bus Lane (ahead only?) | Ahead (& right turn?) only lane Then why the need for a bus lane & a seperate cycle lane? To me it seems like just two lanes (one for all left turners, one for all ahead traffic) would be better :-S Could you or someone else who knows the area enlighten me? |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Philip Armstrong wrote:
In article , Philip Armstrong wrote: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/blackfriars_bridge/ 195.92.67.67 - - [24/May/2004:19:26:33 +0100] "GET /blackfriars_bridge/ HTTP/1.1" 200 2061 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)" Not got mine, then? |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
"Peter Tillotson" wrote in message ... snip I think we need to start educating the car drivers, report everyone comes too close or cuts you up. It'd be nice to take snaps of the number plate, get home and automatically get a list sent to the local police. There is a thread on u.r.d. regarding villagers being able to detect speeders and pass registration no.s to the police so they can send out a letter (or summons in extreme cases). I think it would be a good idea if road users can report incidents like the PP describes to the police and that they (at least) send a letter out detailing the incident and what should have happened instead. I think the reasonable-but-ignorant part of the road user community would respond well to that (although I doubt it would have any effect on the selfish section of society). Just thinking aloud :-) |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
On 23 May 2004 12:35:07 -0700, bikerider7 wrote:
[Note: I have not been on Blackfriars bridge, and the article seems quite vague on the "problem" with this particular cycle lane....] Scandal of our deadly cycle lanes Same story was on bbc local news tonight on tv. May be repeated later after 9 if anyone missed it. I'll encode it if wants it. Steve |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
On Mon, 24 May 2004 19:22:11 +0100, (Philip
Armstrong) wrote in message : http://www.kantaka.co.uk/blackfriars_bridge/ What a dog's breakfast! Mind you, the buses might get the hint if Green Kleptonite had been used on the bike lane. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com