Cycle safety campaign

Russinating said:
Fixed ;).

They've put in a new cycle lane in Bristol that is just plain awful and dangerous.

This is what they've done (pink lines are new cycle lane):

Iomia.jpg


So instead of just getting into the correct lane to go right, cyclists are now able to stay in the left hand lane the whole way and then suddenly cut across traffic going straight on. Whoever thought that would be a good idea or designed it needs shooting as it's simply ridiculous, although it's probably been done just to meet some cycle lane criteria.
Click to expand...

That does look rather dangerous. Personally, I'd like to see helmets made compulsory. I've seen some pretty horrific injuries from cyclists who didn't wear any head wear and could have avoided serious injuries with only a helmet.
 
This thread will go the same way that all the cycling threads do.

Pay tax!
Get insurance!
Drivers suck!
No, cyclists suck!
No such thing as road tax!
What? Yes there is!
No there's not!
blah blah blah blah blah

And the actual content of the OP will be once again drowned out by the recurring GD themes.
 
Robbie G said:
Why are those fences there? To discourage people from crossing at places other than a designated crossing I guess. Can't argue with that really.
Click to expand...

Yup, good idea. I'd hazard a guess that there's more collisions/accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians than cyclists and motor vehicles. Certainly in my personal experience in a city that's definitely the case. None of them will of course be very serious which is why you don't hear about them.
 
Another reason for not using cycle lanes is that some of them are positioned inside the door zone of parked cars - a danger that not many road users are aware of (cyclists and motorists alike). In these cases I'd rather hold up the traffic until I can move over than risk my life by being doored.
 
Robbie G said:
Another illustration



Why are those fences there? To discourage people from crossing at places other than a designated crossing I guess. Can't argue with that really.[/QUOTE]

Ah those! They keep the traffic flowing (no U-turns) and stop silly people from trying to cross very busy roads. They also force cyclists to behave just like the rest of us. I can't see why anyone would have a problem with those.
Click to expand...
 
simulatorman said:
Ah those! They keep the traffic flowing (no U-turns) and stop silly people from trying to cross very busy roads. They also force cyclists to behave just like the rest of us. I can't see why anyone would have a problem with those.
Click to expand...

Of course, you just end up with pedestrians woalking around them like these:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?rls=c...code_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ8gEwAA
On the whole, they are good though and I do agree with them, although teenagers / scum tend to just jump over them and into the path of traffic.

They walk around the fence along the road edge.
Cycle lanes are totally ignored by pedestrians, especially those with buggies and children. There is more call for a public awareness campaign than anything else.
 
Well a girl in london died on a bike because of those fences, she got trapped between a truck and the fence and if the fence was not there she could have just moved/fallen on to the pavement to avoid the truck. Her mother was in the paper a while ago trying to get the fences removed. I have seen a few of the fences removed in london. In my opinion the fences are pointless, not only do they look bad but they are also annoying because they force pedestrians to walk out of their way to cross the road. There was also the instance where the boy jumped over the fence and in front of a bus.
 
In this one instance, yes, you may be right, but how about the rest of the time where now people cannot cross anywhere other than the crossings. I would like to know if they do reduce accidents or not. I bet there was no research done.
 
This bit of the OP's quote annoyed me
Or why some junctions are so dangerous that jumping a red light can actually be a safer option than lining up alongside HGVs at the lights like a racetrack starting grid.
Click to expand...
I'm making the assumption that that is in a single lane but why do cyclists do this. I queued behind three cars waiting to turn left on the way into work the other day because I knew they would not expect a bike to suddenly pop up next to them and may not allow space for one they hadn't seen. So why you would do that with a truck is beyond me when they have no hope of seeing you.

I think a lot of the blame lies with cyclists doing stupid things to save a few minutes really, it's a question of making them realise that what they are doing is not a very good idea.

All IMHO as a cyclist and driver of course.
 
Speaking as a cyclist and a driver here.

Both cyclists and drivers need to be taught how to deal with the other. Cycling in city centres is dangerous with blame for that split between the cyclists behaviour, drivers not thinking and councils having poor planning.

What I'd like to see (or, what will make my commute to work safer):

Compulsary wearing of helmets for cyclists.
Segragated cycle lanes. Not just a lane painted next to the gutter, a seperate, dedicated lane.
For drivers of busses and lorrys turning left to actually look in the mirrors.
A cycle test before cyclists are allowed to ride in city centres.
Drivers to stop treating cyclists like scum and appreciate that every cyclist on the road is one less car for them to be stuck behind.
Cyclists to stop treating cars as a slalom course.

Basically for everyone to just use their god damn brains and show a bit of respect to each other.
 
Regarding those "Black Fences"

I've seen lots of them coming down here in London. One example is Ludgate Circus. It looks quite bare now and is much easier to cross as a pedestrian. I'm not sure if they were taken down to remove the clutter caused by street furniture or because of the issues with cyclists as raised before.
 
I was hit on Tuesday for the 4th time in the time I have cycled in London, the third of the same nature. Someone on the opposite side of the road decided to turn into a side road but instead smashed into me and nearly ran over few school children as well.

The usual excuse "did not see you" and in total denial. She admitted liability soon afterwards and her insurance is sorting everything out for me. I ended up with 10 witnesses all backing me up and she still had a go at me! She was told off by the witnesses, Police and Ambulance guys for basically being an idiot (she didnt really want to give details and wanted to go to work!)

I totally agree that it is two fold, or better threefold (including pedestrians). Motorists need to appreciate that they cannot just pull out in front of cyclists or try and bully them into the side, cyclists need to make sure they are seen, they do not cycle erratically cutting up cars etc and dont annoy pedestrians and pedestrians need to stop jay walking in front of cyclists/cars etc.

There is no room for extremism from any driver/cyclist/pedestrian that many tend to have (i.e. tarnish all as bad drivers/cyclists/idiot pedestrians etc)
 
[FnG]magnolia;21175169 said:
This thread will go the same way that all the cycling threads do.

Pay tax! - Debateable
Get insurance! - Debateable
Drivers suck! - Debateable
No, cyclists suck! - Debateable
No such thing as road tax! - True (V.E.D)
What? Yes there is! - False (V.E.D)
No there's not! - True (V.E.D)
blah blah blah blah blah - Debateable :D
Click to expand...


burns said:
This bit of the OP's quote annoyed meI'm making the assumption that that is in a single lane but why do cyclists do this. I queued behind three cars waiting to turn left on the way into work the other day because I knew they would not expect a bike to suddenly pop up next to them and may not allow space for one they hadn't seen.
Click to expand...

It can happen when cars/trucks still pull up right next you (turning left) even if you were at the turn first, and then you get left hooked.


From the majority of cycling accidents I've read about in the news that have happened in London, it has been with left turning vehicles and the cyclist riding up the left of it.

As for why cyclists don't use cycle lanes, it's because it's taught by some official cycling association in the UK (don't know the name). Most of the lanes are small, have gutters and junk in it, potholes too and they aren't safe to ride over especially when going at speed. Also most lanes are in car door zones where they also teach you not to ride in.

Another reason is to prevent cars squeezing by in narrow paths or where there are traffic islands, otherwise if you ride in the lane when going past a traffic island someone in a car will probably think "oh I can get through" and they come really close to the cyclist and can cause them to have an accident. It's all about not relying on others for your safety. Not all car drivers are going to think "I'll just wait and overtake after this narrow gap due to the traffic island".

One more reason to ride a bit further out (not all the way) is for safety when a car does come too close. When that happens you have a bit of safety space to move into to avoid an accident, whereas if you are already hugging the kerb then there's nowhere to go.

I almost got hit the other day just like in your situation rafster. Luckily I was watching the driver and they were looking into the side road instead so I slowed down incase and it helped, otherwise I think I would have been hit.
 
I don't get why we have ASL's. I understand that the concept is to let cyclists be up front and viewable by traffic but, IMHO, it causes more problems than it solves:

1. Cyclist filters through and turns left - Probably the only reasonable use for them. Unfortunately this can possibly result in a vehicle turning left and striking the cyclist as the driver is an idiot.

2. Cyclist filters through and turns right/goes straight ahead - result in numerous vehicles having to queue behind the cyclist that they passed moments ago causing a hold up of vehicles as they wait to overtake again.

Why can't cyclists just queue behind the first vehicle they come to (taking a more central road position to stop idiot drivers crowding them)? It's what I do when I am cycling....
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That does look rather dangerous. Personally, I'd like to see helmets made compulsory. I've seen some pretty horrific injuries from cyclists who didn't wear any head wear and could have avoided serious injuries with only a helmet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whats worse i see is idiots allowing their 3-4 year old ride with a wooly hat! Going to the bmx too where they are more prone to falling off
 
Russinating said:
Fixed ;).

They've put in a new cycle lane in Bristol that is just plain awful and dangerous.

This is what they've done (pink lines are new cycle lane):

Iomia.jpg


So instead of just getting into the correct lane to go right, cyclists are now able to stay in the left hand lane the whole way and then suddenly cut across traffic going straight on. Whoever thought that would be a good idea or designed it needs shooting as it's simply ridiculous, although it's probably been done just to meet some cycle lane criteria.
Click to expand...

Would I hell use that.
 
That's part of the problem, many councils who think they are championing cycling by painting inappropriate cycle paths.

Even cycle paths painted on the gutter are dangerous IMO, as they give the false impression to drivers that they can drive on the edge safely, and in many cases the channel for cyclists is too tight. The portion of my commute I feel safest is one where the average traffic speed is the highest and there is no path, and the part I do not feel safe there is a cycle path painted on the road which is barely wide enough to safely travel on.


The best way is for cyclists to obey lights, indicate and turn/cross when safe, drivers to be aware of cyclists/motorcyclists etc and pedestrians to obey lights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom