Slightly OT - Motoring Myths

Finally you have come up with a myth.

Yep. There's no concept of "right of way" at junctions, which is fine as long as people don't go sailing across them as though they always have right of way. Of course, that's exactly what most people seem to do.

Thee official rule is to cycle on the left and walk on the right, but I get the impression that most people do as they please. Some of them also keep an eye out for traffic coming the other way...

Cheers,

Colin.

I haven't noticed that myself. Any accident reports I've seen seem to be pretty balanced.

Cheers,

Colin.

Morning rush hour, badly designed complex junction, cyclist wobbled as she started from light changing to green, car already up to speed from previous set of lights collected her.

AFAIK, no charges were brought against the driver, probably correctly.

Chris

Colin Stamp ( snipped-for-privacy@stamp.plus.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I don't care.

What sort of sick individual would rather go to MK than DK?

Speaking as an MK resident, I have to say I agree entirely. MK has absolutely nothing for you. There's no need for you to come here ever. Denmark does sound like quite a good place for you to go though, or perhaps you could make it a bit further.

Cheers,

Colin.

How big was the wobble? If the car driver was going to give her less than

6ft of clearance as he overtook, it's his fault, and he should have been charged. If he just hadn't seen her, and she was appropriately visible (ie lit if at night), then it's his fault and he should have been charged. (substitute she/her as appropriate).

(The former is HC 188+139, the latter is simply looking where you're going, and the entire thing is related to HC 187).

Things to learn from this:

Visibility. This isn't just about wearing reflectives/having lights, it's also about putting yourself where people see you. Road positioning - related to the above. If it's not safe for people to overtake you, make it clear. Otherwise, left hand wheel track is a good place to be.

The latter two will piss off some people because they think you're in the way, but bugger them - staying alive is more important.

And something for the car driver to learn : LOOK WHERE YOU'RE GOING.

cheers, clive

More importantly, something for cyclists to learn:

WHERE THERE IS A CYCLEWAY, USE IT!

Chris

Are you saying this is _more_ important than 'LOOK WHERE YOU'RE GOING' is to a car driver?

I think even the most aggressive of drivers would agree that people looking where they are going is the most important thing to do.

Here's a quote from Cyclecraft - the cyclist's equivalent of roadcraft, published by HMSO (now TSO):

"One of the biggest mistakes a cyclist can make is to think that cycle facilities are inherently safer than using the general roads".

There is an entire chapter on cycle lanes and tracks, and the recurring theme is that cycleways are not safe places to be.

So now you have me, an experienced cyclist, and cyclecraft, the standard textbook on how to ride a bike, saying you're wrong. I think it's about time you assessed why you are wrong, and did something to correct this situation. I tried to help in my previous post, suggesting measures which could have been taken to avoid the dreadful incident you claim is responsible for your views, but you've just ignored that. So how about giving it a proper go this time?

cheers, clive

In the context of avoiding a cyclist *who isn't there* because he/she is sensible enough to use the cycleway, why does it matter?

Unsafe from what POV? Surely you must acknowledge that you are at less risk from collision with a car? What are the other risks that are more serious for the cyclist than that?

About what exactly?

The only measure that was needed was for the poor lady to have used the cycleway under the roundabout where she met her end - a fact pointed out by the Coroner at her inquest.

At what?

I don't understand what you are saying. Is it that all cyclists should always refuse to use cycleways?

I bow to your expert knowledge on cycling, though suspect I have travelled more miles on two wheels than you have. I do have some experience of, and training in, risk assessment procedures. The first thing always considered to mitigate risk is "can that operation be avoided?". Clearly in the situation where the risk is of collision between a cyclist and a motor vehicle, the risk can be removed if the cycle is using a cycleway.

I am genuinely interested why some cyclists refuse to use what appear to be adequate cycleways, if only for the reason that my taxes are helping to pay for them. Please enlighten us as to the reasons for this apparently unsafe behaviour.

Chris

And that's where you're going wrong. It isn't just cyclists which drivers have to avoid. Indeed, cyclists are among the least of the worries - there's other cars, pedestrians, the edges of the roads, trees, bollards - anything. 'Look where you're going' applies whether or not a cyclist may be there.

Well, the thing is in general you're not actually at less risk from collision with a car by using a cycleway.

The main problem is that they tend to put you into the road at places and angles where other road users don't expect you to be. If you've been riding along the road in full view, an overtaking car driver will have been able to see you for the past few hundred yards, and will be able to plan appropriately. And vice versa - you'll be able to see the cars, and plan your track appropriately. If you just appear from nowhere, you've lost all that time.

Funnily enough, as I have mentioned before in this thread, the same guy who wrote cyclecraft also did the studies on the MK redways demonstrating that using them was more dangerous than using the roads.

"WHERE THERE IS A CYCLEWAY, USE IT!"

This is terrible advice. You're wrong in suggesting it's good advice.

(I'm stunned that you didn't understand that this was the bit I was pointing out. Are you being deliberately obtuse?)

Bollocks. Coroners aren't experts. In this case, the coroner may well have been wrong.

The primary failure was that of the car driver. A suitably skilled driver wouldn't have hit her, even if she'd wobbled across an entire car lane. If she wobbled a little bit, a normally skilled driver shouldn't have hit her - either they should have not tried to overtake, or they should have given her sufficient room. It's basic failure to observe - ie not looking where they were going.

At understanding why cyclists don't use cycle lanes, and at understanding better ways of avoiding the collision you saw.

No, I'm saying that people should not expect cyclists to use cycleways - indeed, they should expect them to be there on the road. I'm not expecting the audience on this group to be cyclists, so I'm not presenting that side of the argument. If you do want decent advice on where to ride your bike, head on over to uk.rec.cycling, where there are many experienced people willing to help.

With an engine? How far have you ridden a pedal cycle over the past ten years?

Like I say, this is where you're going wrong - the risk isn't removed.

Because what appears to be an adequate cycleway to you may well be distinctly substandard for many cyclists. Go and read a copy of cyclecraft - you'll find it in your local library. Or ask on uk.rec.cycling. Executive summary - they're slow, tedious and dangerous.

Believe me, many cyclists are as annoyed as you are at the waste of money which goes into these schemes. It's not us who are asking for them, it's people like you who think they're a good idea.

It may also be worth noting that even the people who put these facilities in don't expect them to be used by all cyclists. They acknowledge that experienced cyclists will probably find using the road to be better.

A question for you : do you think cyclists should ride on pavements?

clive

[snip]

I take it you're referring to the likes of this letter?

At a quick read-through, there seems to be some basic problems with this letter, the main one being that he compares the cycling accident rate on the redways directly to the cycling accident rate on the road whilst ignoring the fact that the vast majority of cycling in MK is done on the redways. This kind of apparently deliberate bias makes me extremely suspicious of everything he says.

Of course, some cycle paths are an awful lot better than others, and none are as risk-free as sitting on the sofa, but the suggestion that the redways are more dangerous to use than the roads in MK is extremely difficult to believe. Mr Franklin's letter completely fails to convince me.

Cheers,

Colin.

Take a look at the more comprehensive research he's published, where he addresses those concerns.

Try

(where you can find the letter you mention) and look at the two papers on the redways.

cheers, clive.

I've just skimmed through this one:-

Ah, yes I see how he "addressed" the concerns - by implying that a large number of cyclists use roads rather than redways. Having lived here and used both roads and redways extensively for over 10 years, I can tell you that this is just bollocks. At a guess, I'd say 90% of the cyclists are on the redway.

I just love the habit he has of separating out road types in order to reduce the apparent number of road casualties. Take a look at table 1. Year on year it shows more than twice as many accidents on the roads than the redways. He tries to explain it away by bringing out his old "under-reporting" chestnut (which more-than-likely applies as much to roads as it does to redways).

Table 4 is quite laughable too. Again roads are split into two types to try to hide the fact that cyclists sustained more injuries per mile traveled on the road than on the redway (even using the over-estimated percentage of riders using the roads).

The piece does contain some valid information, particularly relating to how redway safety might be improved, but the conclusion that redways are less-safe than MK roads completely flies in the face of his own "data" let-alone the real world.

Cheers,

Colin.

You guess, I think he might have actually measured it. (I have asked in another place about this).

Er - actually table 4 contains exactly the information you're looking for. I think you're reading it wrongly. Injuries per mile travelled on the road is lower for both types of road than the redways. Combining the two types of roads merely demonstrates that on average, per mile, you're twice as likely to have an injury on a redway than on a road.

cheers, clive

My guess is based on more than 10 years of personal experience. His "measurement" appears to have been based on a single survey of some cyclists, most of whom were adults, whereas bike users are mainly children - a superbly representative cross-section! He admits himself that "Inevitably there will be a wide margin of error in these estimates" - too bloody right! But he then goes on to ignore the obvious bias in the survey results by saying "but there is no reason to believe that they favor one type of highway over another." Of course there bloody is - kids are far more likely to be under parental orders to stick to the redways.

It's clear that he's massively over-estimated the percentage of miles traveled on grid roads, and very seriously over estimated that on local roads.

Oops, yes, I cocked up reading Table 4, but it's still subject to the wildly inaccurate guesstimate he made of the split between redway and road usage. Use the correct adjustments and it'll be a different story.

Cheers,

Colin.

What a load of crap. If I want to do more than 15mph in Brighton, I'll use the road in preference to a cycle path any day of the week.

John