-
Haven't seen any stats on collisions in bike lanes, but anecdotally, this would seem to make sense.
Giving the bus absolute priority over everything was something the TfL, under Ken, was very keen to do. Unfortunately, TfL do not have the last word on trunk roads. National government does, and they weren't quite so keen to make the bus king.
The national government is clearly a victim of 20th century thinking. They will never ever meet their own sustainability targets if they are unwilling to make such changes.
-
An awareness campaign would have to reach far more people than just 'traditional road users', but be targeted at anyone who at any point has interaction with the road. Even the police (in many cases), pedestrians and cyclists themselves need to accept cyclists as real road users, leading to better sharing of the roads and an improved mindset when dealing with cyclists in general.
In any case, money is being spent on shite adverts about bank robberies and on slapping some blue paint across some bike lanes, when it could be spent on making everyone aware of the rights and responsibilities when sharing the road with a variety of foot and wheel traffic. Targeted campaigns (such as those for HGV drivers or reminding car drivers to look out for cyclists when pulling out of parking) are genuine efforts, but will have little effect when only a very small amount of people who use Londons roads daily consider bikes to be 'real' road traffic.
Awareness campaigns are great, however they will only ever instill awareness in those who are prepared to listen.
goes back to page 3 of The Sun
-
Any compulsory licensing or tests is likely to lead to a decrease in take-up of cycling. Agreed that training, especially for adults who have never cycled, is desirable but if the desired effect is to increase numbers of cyclists, then I have to agree with Weslito.
What **is **the desire here? To increase the number or cyclists overall, or to make it safer for those who would continue to cycle with the introduction of licensing (and potentially save the lives of those who would not)?
I think much of the problem in London is that people **just don't realize **what the dangers are and how to avoid them, because they've never been educated. A scary number of cyclists you see on the road just haven't got a clue. So maybe CBT would make a difference? I reckon many of those people would listen if given the proper instruction.
And although it would decrease the up-take of cycling, I think that licensing would mostly filter out those who do not cycle regularly, which may also make an improvement; they tend to be the least experienced on the roads.I don't know, these are just some brainthoughts. I'm not saying I'm for it. I'm sure it would mostly be used to catch RLJ's.
-
I absolutely agree. I've cycled a lot in Germany, and also in Copenhagen, and I have to say, after cycling in those places I have no desire to cycle on the road, if there is a reasonable alternative.
I believe, though I may be wrong, that in Germany, if there is a cycle lane, you are required to use it rather than the road, and that was no problem for me at all.
Many people here say, that as cyclists, we have as much right to be on the road as other vehicles, and of course they are right. But having the right doesn't mean it's always sensible to use it, and it doesn't take a genius to realise that having heavy vehicles sharing the same space as flimsy bikes with no protection is a recipe for disaster (as is proven time and time again).
I don't think that the green strip on the side of the roads achieves much, but a double level pavement, or a separated cycle path is in my mind much safer for cyclists.
Yes, you're right, in Germany amongst other countries, if there's a cycle lane, you have to take it.
Bicycle were design for the road, the last thing I want is to be forced into a cycle lane, (even if it's well designed), otherwise that'd give us the impression that the motorists have 'taken' the road, rather than sharing it, after all, safety is indeed in number, not equipment.
Although there's an untimely number of death on the street of London, 15 or so people each years die in an incident that can be avoided, it's still a very small amount of number compare to the number of people riding in London today.
-
What **is **the desire here? To increase the number or cyclists overall, or to make it safer for those who would continue to cycle with the introduction of licensing (and potentially save the lives of those who would not)?
The desire is to increase cyclist safety and therefore cyclist numbers, therefore cyclist safety....you get the idea, it is self perpetuating to a degree. Licencing is not the answer.
I think much of the problem in London is that people **just don't realize **what the dangers are and how to avoid them, because they've never been educated. A scary number of cyclists you see on the road just haven't got a clue. So maybe CBT would make a difference? I reckon many of those people would listen if given the proper instruction.
And although it would decrease the up-take of cycling, I think that licensing would mostly filter out those who do not cycle regularly, which may also make an improvement; they tend to be the least experienced on the roads.I don't know, these are just some brainthoughts. I'm not saying I'm for it. I'm sure it would mostly be used to catch RLJ's.
The Police cannot even effectively police unlicenced motor vehicles and motor vehicle drivers. This in itself is part of the problem we face. Policing cyclist licencing as well is simply unworkable, and will mean we will have to pay stealth taxes. I don't see why I should be forced to licence myself to pilot a self propelled vehicle.
-
The emphasis was more on ensuring that all cyclists on the road have been properly educated, rather than a need to police them.
In reality I can't see it happening, but I do think that the compulsory training would have a positive effect on general cycling and driving around cyclists in London. -
The desire is to increase cyclist safety and therefore cyclist numbers, therefore cyclist safety....you get the idea, it is self perpetuating to a degree. Licencing is not the answer.
I understand this, but at the moment there is not a large enough number of cyclists in London to warrant any significant safety benefits, as it does in say, Copenhagen.
I also think that because we are sharing the same space, the cyclist/vehicle interaction at the moment is awkward and conflicting, partly because a large number of cyclists are not aware of how to properly ride within it. Without addressing this, I can't see how adding yet more cyclists to the equation is going to make things any safer. Unless of course we can reach the point where there are so many of us, cyclists are considered an equal presence on the road. -
Yes, you're right, in Germany amongst other countries, if there's a cycle lane, you have to take it.
If it's over 1.2m in width. And this law is widely flouted by many cyclists in Berlin.
-
I understand this, but at the moment there is not a large enough number of cyclists in London to warrant any significant safety benefits, as it does in say, Copenhagen.
I also think that because we are sharing the same space, the cyclist/vehicle interaction at the moment is awkward and conflicting, partly because a large number of cyclists are not aware of how to properly ride within it. Without addressing this, I can't see how adding yet more cyclists to the equation is going to make things any safer. Unless of course we can reach the point where there are so many of us, cyclists are considered an equal presence on the road.Well, things are way safer than they were 15 years ago, when there were a lot less cyclists on the road. The frustrating thing is that apart from HGV collisions (which are very slightly up), cyclist fatalities are down significantly, by almost half. One cannot be sure, but I would say that this is partly because there are more cyclists, but partly because money was spent on making the roads safer under Ken.
-
So people in Berlin aren't keen on the idea of staying on a cycle lane as well? interesting to know.
The Berlin messengers used to joke that the worst behaved cyclists were the middle-aged women with baskets on the front of their bikes.
-
How about looking around and noticing what is around you?
You miss my point. I am not talking about the dangers (or not) or not hearing things around you. I am talking about concentration. Human brains are not good at multi-tasking. When listening to music, that will occupy at least some of the brain. Consciously looking around is one thing, but the ability to react quickly to things that happen in periphary vision are another. Being deeply lost in thought, or enjoying the surging crescendo of Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries will diminish your reaction times. Personally I like my music loud enough to force my attention, otherwise it is just some annoying background noise, so I won't wear headphones ever.
I would hope the people here who do listen to music while cycling are not becoming deeply involved in listening, but some music is designed to draw you in, and demand your attention. Try doing a crossword puzzle while listening to heavy duty Gabber.
Denying yourself the sense of hearing is one thing, but denying yourself the abilty to react quickly is quite another.
(I am sure many cyclists who listen to music have sensible playlists at sensible volumes, but I raise this as it seems to have been somewhat overlooked in the discussions I have read so far on this matter. Maybe I get a little more mentally involved in my music pleasure than most)
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18321470.html
-
Some previous discussion for those new to the forum:
The epic Awareness raising spoke-cards campaign thread
http://www.lfgss.com/thread10802.html
Oliver links to some lcc resources
http://www.lfgss.com/post338233-553.htmlDanger HGVs campaign
http://www.lfgss.com/thread26880.html2 sides leaflet
http://www.lfgss.com/post606703-132.htmlMy notes on some of the factors
http://www.lfgss.com/post613263-161.htmlRecent HGV/cyclist accidents
"This is not intended to be flame bait, but the two most recent deaths have been women cyclists."
http://www.lfgss.com/thread19797.htmlI'm sure there are many more. Those are just the ones i remember.
Off-forum:
study of Milton Keynes' off-road cycle paths, with conclusion that surprised me. http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html
While i don't like on-road cycle paths, getting rid of them wont stop undertaking. Between junctions motor vehicles will often overtake cyclists, pulling out to do so, and then often continue to leave that gap on the inside as they slow for the next junction, especially if there are several cyclists or the speed differences aren't large. At the next junction the cyclists see a queue of traffic with a convenient gap on the left, so both drivers and cyclist become accustomed to treating the roads as if there are cycle lanes everywhere, except where it isn't convenient or they forget...
-
or you could just put spokecards in bikes that are locked up Ed
don't be so dismissive of shit Ed, there's more than one handlebar type, there's more than one saddle type
Perhaps you could focus some of that energy of yours to coming up with solutions rather than being quite such a 'tyre-kicker' when someone or something doesn't conform to your understanding of a situation/scenario
:^]
-
that thread was epic because it started as 'here's an obviously good and fun idea' which generated a lot of enthusiasm, but grew into 'this is actually really complicated and it's not clear what the right answer is'. No vast production of spoke cards resulted, but bits are still worth reading for anyone who wants to take things forwards rather than repeat previous discussions.
-
or you could just put spokecards in bikes that are locked up Ed
don't be so dismissive of shit Ed, there's more than one handlebar type, there's more than one saddle type
Perhaps you could focus some of that energy of yours to coming up with solutions rather than being quite such a 'tyre-kicker' when someone or something doesn't conform to your understanding of a situation/scenario
:^]
Quite right, I should've respond to this better than just 'this won't work', my apologise.
-
wasn't having a go Ed, you're quite good at problem solving [DEAF bag, all the bits you've done to the bike etc] just was a little push to the positive
:^]
jayloo
hoonz
andy.w
Weslito
edscoble
Buffalo_Bill
s.walrus
moth
lynx
sohi-
Post a reply
About
From the cab - a HGV drivers view
Posted by
@big_daddy_wayne
An awareness campaign would have to reach far more people than just 'traditional road users', but be targeted at anyone who at any point has interaction with the road. Even the police (in many cases), pedestrians and cyclists themselves need to accept cyclists as real road users, leading to better sharing of the roads and an improved mindset when dealing with cyclists in general.
In any case, money is being spent on shite adverts about bank robberies and on slapping some blue paint across some bike lanes, when it could be spent on making everyone aware of the rights and responsibilities when sharing the road with a variety of foot and wheel traffic. Targeted campaigns (such as those for HGV drivers or reminding car drivers to look out for cyclists when pulling out of parking) are genuine efforts, but will have little effect when only a very small amount of people who use Londons roads daily consider bikes to be 'real' road traffic.