Cyclists numbers double, injuries treble.

I thought there was safety in numbers?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3341082.ece

I thought there was safety in numbers?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3341082.ece

It takes awhile to become aware of all the dangers so a new cyclist
isn't going to be quite as safe as someone who has been cycling for a
half a century.

Many in the U. S. whine that no one uses new bike lanes but when the
price of fuel spikes many do in fact start cycling and the cycling
accident rate increases even faster than the cycling rate. Even if
there are bike lanes they don't know where they are.

So they use roads an experienced cyclist would only use on Sundays or
only cycle on the shoulder with a mountain bike or avoid altogether.
A cyclist who is in shape won't mind cycling a few extra miles to
avoid a dangerous stretch of road. I go miles out of my way to avoid
crop dusters. You know _for sure_ you don't need to be breathing
anything sprayed by a crop duster.

A new cyclist isn't quite as tuned into traffic noise, what cars are
swerving, passing, etc., how motorists see you in the dark. If a
noisy vehicle passes you you might want to look back because you're
not going to be able to hear if another vehicle is coming up from
behind.

Worst of all is not having a SOP or trying to develop one in real
time. No matter what you are in or on it almost always takes at least
a couple seconds for the others on the road to respond in a favorable
way.

Wide bike lanes give a cyclist a little more time to figure out what
is safe and what has a high risk.


Bret Cahill

QUOTE:
The front page of the Times today is devoted to its new campaign to
make cycling safe. It shows that the love affair with our bikes has
just got serious. We want the speed, convenience and health benefits
of a life on two wheels and, despite the dangers, we are willing to
fight to make that relationship work.

The problem is that, even if we could convince the majority of people
to see the upsides, the reality of our unfriendly roads stops them
from taking the plunge. All the surveys show that fear is the biggest
barrier to an increase in cycling. Indeed, many cycling campaigners
may see the Times campaign as counterproductive, as it will reinforce
those fears.

London's mayor, Boris Johnson, certainly takes this view and is
bullish in his determination that cycling must be a wholly feelgood
story. As a London assembly member, I have twice been lectured by the
mayor about the need "as an honest politician" to tell the truth, that
cycling is getting safer. I was happy to do so, as I had been spouting
figures for years showing that it was twice as safe to cycle in London
than it was in 1990s. Then I decided to check my facts and realised
that the mayor can't say that cycling has been getting safer since he
was elected. Something has gone wrong in London and no amount of
feelgood publicity is going to cover up the images of ghost bikes and
angry protests at dangerous junctions such as Kings Cross.

There is an irony to a cycling mayor becoming a big barrier to a
cycling revolution, but that is what is happening. The key change that
we need in London is to reinstate the road user hierarchy, which
Johnson scrapped in his revised London Plan. This hierarchy made the
disabled, pedestrians and cyclists the priority when roads were being
redesigned. Without reinstating this hierarchy, the engineers at
Transport for London will consistently build roads that favour cars
and lorries. This was the key problem at the Bow roundabout, where two
cyclists died from left-turning lorries. Recommendations in one of
TfL's own reports were ignored because, under Johnson, motorists' time
is more important than cyclist and pedestrian safety.

Many of the other changes to our road network, in London and
elsewhere, flow from this simple direction that vulnerable road users
should come first. My assembly report, Braking Point, showed the big
advantages of making 20mph the default speed limit for urban areas
and, as the previous mayor's road safety ambassador, I pressed for the
adoption of the zero-casualty approach applied in Scandinavian
countries. Johnson needs to stop thinking about which roads he is
happy to cycle on and instead design roads that either an eight-year-
old or an 80-year-old would feel safe and happy to cycle on.

I believe that creating a critical mass of cyclists on our roads will
in itself make them safer. I have also spent over a decade pushing for
more cycle training, but we have to be clear that the mayor's advice
to cyclists at a recent assembly meeting that you will be OK if "you
keep your wits about you" is no excuse for inaction on building high-
quality cycle lanes. We need to adopt the Dutch approach, which gives
cyclists and pedestrians legal priority over cars in many urban areas.
Sometimes we need segregated spaces, sometimes shared spaces, but real
innovation in this country will come from simply filtering cyclists
through traffic lights at dangerous junctions, or even changing the
culture of our roads by ensuring that motor vehicles give way to
cyclists and pedestrians at junctions.

Changes to the law on lorry design are well overdue and I welcome the
growing consensus that mirrors and sensors need to be fitted as
standard. We also have to escalate the work by the police on reforming
the freight industry, and reaching the small-scale tipper truck
operators who account for much of the carnage. Above all, the police
have to get behind the idea of a cycling revolution and deal with the
huge numbers of illegal drivers and hit-and-runs on our sometimes
lawless roads.

I believe that cycling is the future for modern cities, but it will
take bravery on the part of those in charge to liberate people from
their cars by convincing them that conditions for cyclists have really
changed. That will only happen when safety, rather than keeping cars
moving, is our No 1 priority.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ing-revolution

--
Simon Mason

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
I thought there was safety in numbers?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3341082.ece

Clear proof that more cyclists on the road results in more casualties. A
good reason for discouraging cycling.

On Mar 6, 4:18*am, Simon Mason wrote:

I believe that cycling is the future for modern cities, but it will
take bravery on the part of those in charge to liberate people from
their cars by convincing them that conditions for cyclists have really
changed. That will only happen when safety, rather than keeping cars
moving, is our No 1 priority.

That has backfired big time then.
The last time I drove home from work I spent more time stationary than
actually moving.
--
Simon Mason

On 06/03/2012 10:18, Simon Mason wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:18 am, Simon wrote:

I believe that cycling is the future for modern cities, but it will
take bravery on the part of those in charge to liberate people from
their cars by convincing them that conditions for cyclists have really
changed. That will only happen when safety, rather than keeping cars
moving, is our No 1 priority.

That has backfired big time then.
The last time I drove home from work I spent more time stationary than
actually moving.

"modern cities".

Where is it you live, again?

On Mar 6, 4:18*am, Simon Mason wrote:
We also have to escalate the work by the police on reforming
the freight industry, and reaching the small-scale tipper truck
operators who account for much of the carnage. Above all, the police
have to get behind the idea of a cycling revolution and deal with the
huge numbers of illegal drivers and hit-and-runs on our sometimes
lawless roads.

Agreed.
There needs to be more done to tackle uninsured drivers and the hit
and run merchants need to be tracked down by CCTV as they are
increasingly doing.
Hefty bans need to follow though.

--
Simon Mason

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 4:18 am, Simon Mason wrote:
We also have to escalate the work by the police on reforming
the freight industry, and reaching the small-scale tipper truck
operators who account for much of the carnage. Above all, the police
have to get behind the idea of a cycling revolution and deal with the
huge numbers of illegal drivers and hit-and-runs on our sometimes
lawless roads.

Agreed.
There needs to be .....................

Why are you agreeing with yourself???

Is he going mad?

On 06/03/2012 11:17, Mr Benn wrote:

"Simon Mason" wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

We also have to escalate the work by the police on reforming
the freight industry, and reaching the small-scale tipper truck
operators who account for much of the carnage. Above all, the police
have to get behind the idea of a cycling revolution and deal with the
huge numbers of illegal drivers and hit-and-runs on our sometimes
lawless roads.

Agreed.
There needs to be .....................

Why are you agreeing with yourself???

Is he going mad?

To be fair, on that occasion he seems to have merely agreeing with something
someone else had said, and which he had already quoted.

On Mar 6, 4:18*am, Simon Mason wrote:


I believe that creating a critical mass of cyclists on our roads will
in itself make them safer. I have also spent over a decade pushing for
more cycle training, but we have to be clear that the mayor's advice
to cyclists at a recent assembly meeting that you will be OK if "you
keep your wits about you" is no excuse for inaction on building high-
quality cycle lanes. We need to adopt the Dutch approach, which gives
cyclists and pedestrians legal priority over cars in many urban areas.

At last someone who can see the big picture.giving
Adopting the Dutch approach of cyclists and pedestrians legal priority
over cars in urban areas is a great idea.

--
Simon Mason