Why do we hate cycling in this country?

[platypus]

I'm quite lucky, I live around and work in Cambridge which is an extremely progressive city in regards to cycling. They seem to manage it by twinning the work with existing development where possible. For instance, they are throwing a few thousand houses on Madingley Road at the moment, they needed to do some work on the road network to deal with that, and took to opportunity to widen lanes and shove in a bit of cycle lane. They also keep cycle traffic at the forefront when making decisions around public transport (floating bus stops etc).

We must live in different Cambridges.

Recently, cycling has come to the fore in planning decisions. There is a hell of a long way to go though. How long has the Chisolm Trail taken, and it's still not in place? Just bloody well get it done, there is no excuse. It doesn't even impact on the roads, and it will open a north>south conduit.

I have to agree the road network in this Country doesn't make it easy on cyclists though, and that tends to feed into the tensions with motorists (mainly due to getting stuck on narrow roads behind a bike).

I'd also love to see red light jumpers prosecuted. As a responsible cyclist it annoys me no end when other bikes just ignore red lights, not just at pedestrian crossing either, it's insane.

I disagree vehemently.

Red light jumping can be dangerous. And in traffic it's stupid. However there are times where it's viable, for example when it's late, and the traffic controlled lights stay on red because bicycles aren't heavy enough to trigger the change, or in the cases where a 'left on red' law would be a reasonable introduction - for cars as well as bikes.

Cars aren't prosecuted for jumping red lights, why would you therefore enforce more harshly against cyclists?

 

[Terminal_Boy]

I find the cyclist that use London's roads to generally be quite sensible. Tourists on Boris Bikes remain a hazard to all road and pavement users.

On the subject of pavements, please don't cycle on them just because the road layout is slightly inconvenient for you.

 

[Liefrich]

This pretty much.

They think they're stopping congestion by cycling on our roads but all they do is create ****loads of congestion and hazard for absolutely every other road user. Cyclists are also the root cause of a considerable amount of reckless manoeuvres on roads, the amount of times people have come dangerously into my side of the road to overtake a cyclist is ridiculous.

Especially the ones who squeeze to the front of a traffic light queue and then stop. This particular cyclist is the scum of the earth and that's why every single cyclist is a **** because every single cyclist does it. Like it was impossible to stop 2 metres earlier so I didn't have to do 5mph until I can overtake you safely, again.

Why is your journey more important than the cyclists? The maximum hold up to you would be a few minutes so if you cannot add this to your day without being wound up then you need to re-evaluate your priorities in life.

I drive a car and cycle as much as I can. In my experience there seems to be a nasty streak within many motorists which is fueled by simply ignorance of the rules and a misplaced sense of entitlement. Ultimately even if a cyclist somehow manages to ride into your freshly cleaned car the damage caused is going to be minimal, whereas if a car so much as touches a cyclist the result can be death. This surely has to be the main consideration.

Also in answer to your point about filtering; most traffic like junctions (where I live) have boxes for cyclists to filter into which is supported in the Highway Code at Rule 61:-

Rule 61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

 

[DaleTheWhale]

I've been commuting a year now with my bike and have seen it from both sides of the story, I cycle from just outside Birmingham to the City Centre, there is no cycling infrastructure what so ever and the roads are nasty as they're congested, not maintained (Stratford Road as my example) and several side roads where cars will pull out quickly and abruptly.

Can cycling co-exist where I live?

I've managed it for a year and survived, been knocked off 4 times (twice they stopped, twice they never) and it's not been too bad. The only grief I get is from Busses, black cabs and white vans (stereotype for sure, but it's true for me!) and the rest have been perfectly OK.

They're definite steps that need to be made before it can become more popular, cycling lanes are needed, road maintenance is needed and just general promotion.

Birmingham council attempted this last year, by proposing 30 million in cycling infrastructure (again targeting Stratford road) but instead they bought 1000 (maybe more) bikes and handed them out to 'those who needed them'. This obviously hasn't worked as I've only ever seen 1 person riding one on the pavement. It was obvious that just handing out a bike to someone and saying use it, was never going to work. The roads aren't deemed safe enough and both sides of the story are to blame, we have a mix of dangerous drivers and dangerous cyclists.

One thing I will say is, car drivers are happy to sit in 40 minute standstill traffic but aren't happy to sit behind a bike for 30 seconds to wait until it's safe and it does annoy me when they beep away as if I'm going to get off my bike and make way for them, plenty of times cyclists have to wait in gridlocked traffic due to 100's of cars, it's unsafe and to a new cyclist or somebody who isn't confident on the road it could cause a crash as it can be stressful.

I don't think it's the cyclist or car driver to blame, but the failure by the Government to recognise that some things need to be done to allow cars and bikes to co-exist safely.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

This is another benefit of getting more people cycling, it improves driver behavior. I used to get infuriated by cyclists holding me up, but now I'm more likely to hold traffic up myself when behind a cyclist as I wait for a safe opportunity to pass. Being on the receiving end of close passes from cars definitely changes your perspective.

Yep, the angriest on both sides tend to have little, or no, experience from the other side.

 

[platypus]

why is the stupid?

I'm surprised this needs explaining, but fair enough.

Below, lets use licensing as a generic term for registration and insurance so its easier:

- Its largely unenforceable.
- How are you going to ensure that children get licensed for cycling?
- Bike licensing will cost everyone more money, including motorists. Yep you'll have to pay more to get bikes licensed.
- Bike licensing will not make cyclists more accountable. Does it work for motorists? Nope.
- Bike licensing will not reduce accidents or deaths. Lets not forget here, this is the most important thing we should be aiming for.
- Bike licensing will reduce the number of bike riders. Ok, this is obviously the goal of some, but in a world where we do need to be concerned about congestion and pollution, this is not the solution we should be aiming for.
- Bike licensing does not actually solve problems. The real problems are with road user attitude, education and awareness, and infrastructure.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

I disagree vehemently.

Red light jumping can be dangerous. And in traffic it's stupid. However there are times where it's viable, for example when it's late, and the traffic controlled lights stay on red because bicycles aren't heavy enough to trigger the change, or in the cases where a 'left on red' law would be a reasonable introduction - for cars as well as bikes.

Cars aren't prosecuted for jumping red lights, why would you therefore enforce more harshly against cyclists?

Prosecuted is probably the wrong word, my understanding is that jumping a red light would normally incur a fixed penalty fine? I would advocate the same for cyclists. I wouldn't expect it to be implemented without consideration to the technical issues, I would judge passing a red which won't change due to the weight restriction to be the same as a driver cautiously treating a faulty lit junction as an unlit junction.

Left on red is a tricky one, I've seen a lot of people do it regardless of legality, I very rarely see people do it safely. I'm not against it in principle but my recent experiences of cyclists going left when the lights were red have involved a great deal of swan necking followed by some sharp maneuvering from me and some silent swearing.

 

[XeNoN89]

What you actually said was "I know but the percentage of cyclists that think they rule the roads is a joke."

That is the most ironic thing yet posted in this thread.

As I've already said, there is a test for drivers. Yet last year we had almost 200,000 road casualties. We routinely hear and see about bad driving, and drivers regulary exhibit a lack of knowledge of rules of the road. How do you envisage a cycling road test being any better?

Insurance is a stupid idea.

Are you suggesting that having cyclists take tests etc wouldn't help lower these incidents?

Why is insurance stupid? I've seen cyclists scrape past cars before. They should be insured to cover damage to other peoples property, just like car insurance does.

 

[bloodiedathame]

My 2c's

- We don't really have, or under develop the required infrastructure to accommodate both cyclist and motor vehicle users. However, this is not easy to implement and in some cases, not actually feasible.

- Cyclists are not required to learn anything about the highway code, this causes unpredictability. Anyone can just grab a bike and go cycling in any environment.

- Massive discrepancy in speed. Particularly where I live we have country roads with national speed limit and cyclists doing considerably less.

- Very little rules/regulations for cyclists. No requirement for insurance, tax, safety, education, tests, etc.

This, basically.

 

[platypus]

On the subject of pavements, please don't cycle on them just because the road layout is slightly inconvenient for you.

Couldn't agree more - there are times when cycling on the pavement should be allowed though. Sensibly within reason, and giving way to pedestrians of course.

This pretty much.

They think they're stopping congestion by cycling on our roads but all they do is create ****loads of congestion and hazard for absolutely every other road user. Cyclists are also the root cause of a considerable amount of reckless manoeuvres on roads, the amount of times people have come dangerously into my side of the road to overtake a cyclist is ridiculous.

You might hate the idea, but cyclists do reduce congestion. You're approaching this the wrong way, selfishly of course. What's the biggest causation of congestion here? Thats right, it's cars. Lets think about whats happening - congestion and pollution. Time to kill the car.

Especially the ones who squeeze to the front of a traffic light queue and then stop. This particular cyclist is the scum of the earth and that's why every single cyclist is a **** because every single cyclist does it. Like it was impossible to stop 2 metres earlier so I didn't have to do 5mph until I can overtake you safely, again.

Why is your journey more important than his? Boohoo - it isn't. It's safer for him to do so, so he'll do it. Get over it, or better yet, get on your bike and you can do it too!

 

[DiscoDave]

I disagree vehemently.

Red light jumping can be dangerous. And in traffic it's stupid. However there are times where it's viable, for example when it's late, and the traffic controlled lights stay on red because bicycles aren't heavy enough to trigger the change, or in the cases where a 'left on red' law would be a reasonable introduction - for cars as well as bikes.

Cars aren't prosecuted for jumping red lights, why would you therefore enforce more harshly against cyclists?

I can't think of a reason why it would ever be viable. I've never seen weight-measured traffic light controlling though. I've cycled to temporary traffic lights that are motion activated or simply timed and not had an issue.

Either way it's highway code for both cyclists and motorists to not run a red light. You can be prosecuted for running a red light - points on your license, fines, etc.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

What about when both directions are red for pedestrians crossing but there are no pedestrians or only on the side to which you're not going ?

 

[physichull]

The real problems are with road user attitude, education and awareness.

A lot of it is all down to this. Just a little patience, a little courtesy here and there goes a long way. The vast majority of car drivers I see on the roads generally are as considerate to me on my bike as they would be to a car.

When I went cycling in Corsica last year, drivers were ridiculously accommodating. They would beep when they were coming up behind you just to let you know they were there. Sometimes they would beep whilst passing and 99% of the time they would give a friendly wave as they did so! It really was a refreshing change of attitude.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

No mention of driverless cars yet.

 

[platypus]

Are you suggesting that having cyclists take tests etc wouldn't help lower these incidents?

I'm suggesting that there is no evidence that it would, yes. Feel free to prove otherwise.

FTR, I'm not against bikeability type training at school, fact the opposite. I'm very much in favour of it.

I'd still be interested to know how you think tests for cyclists are going to be the panacea that driving tests clearly aren't.

Why is insurance stupid? I've seen cyclists scrape past cars before. They should be insured to cover damage to other peoples property, just like car insurance does.

See my post above.

 

[platypus]

I can't think of a reason why it would ever be viable. I've never seen weight-measured traffic light controlling though. I've cycled to temporary traffic lights that are motion activated or simply timed and not had an issue.

Your location is in Cambridge - weighted traffic lights are everywhere!

Either way it's highway code for both cyclists and motorists to not run a red light. You can be prosecuted for running a red light - points on your license, fines, etc.

I don't disagree at all. However there are circumstances when it should be allowed (as I said for motorists as well as cyclists, but this might present a few to many dangers if cars are allowed, who knows).

And are you going to magic up the budget for police to enforce this?

 

[Minstadave]

Just allow car drivers to nudge them over if they do it.

 

[DiscoDave]

Then its about time we started developing to get rid of the car in cities. Build infrastructure around the pedestrian, cyclist, and the bus (or tram etc). We need to change the attitude to Car is NOT king.

You can't just get rid of the car in the cities, it's just not feasible. How are people going to commute? How are people going to bring a weeks worth of shopping home? If our public transportation was better suited then maybe, but that's definitely not the case. For the majorty of us there is little incentive to ditch the car for something else - usually that something else will take longer, is more expensive, or both.

Insurance, tax (what tax are you referring too here? You're really not one of those "road tax" numpties are you?), safety (not sure what you mean by that - are you suggesting cyclists don't think about safety but motorists do?), education, tests etc. All these things exist for motorists, and yet we see terrible driving as a matter of routine, for example 194,477 casualties last year alone. Do you think by requiring, say, a cycling test, the roads are suddenly going to become safer for cyclists? Or are you just hoping that they'll learn how to keep out of your way whilst you drive from A to B? Because the most important thing here certainly isn't educating cyclists. It's important, yes. Vital in some cases. But it's a damned sight more important to make drivers realise that there is only one outcome of an RTA with a cyclist.

Safety in relation to having a common set of rules and expectations with regards to interaction, IE the highway code. As an example I've seen cyclists orbit the outside of a roundabout and others that position themselves exactly the same way as they would in a car (ie right hand lane for turning right). There's just a lot of inconsistencies. It will also prepare younger round users better before suddenly just jumping in with traffic.

Of course we do see terrible driving still. But if someone's at fault you have regulated means to rectify any damage to you/your vehicle. The bad drivers are prosecuted. There's insurance claims, points system, means to identify bad driving. No such record exists for cyclists.

 

[DiscoDave]

Your location is in Cambridge - weighted traffic lights are everywhere!

I don't disagree at all. However there are circumstances when it should be allowed (as I said for motorists as well as cyclists, but this might present a few to many dangers if cars are allowed, who knows).

And are you going to magic up the budget for police to enforce this?

Where abouts in Cambridge? I live a bit further out now but I used to go in via the guided busway or via huntingdon road into the center and don't recall having issues with any weighted lights.

 

[teaboy5]

I can never understand the rage towards someone on a bike.

Just relax and overtake when it's safe and maybe lose between 15 seconds and a 1 minute of your time. Whats the difference between a cyclist and a tractor? I can bet both are nearly doing the same speed.