Cyclists gets a finger wag !

[glasgowcyclist]

Is cycling on the roads really toughing it out?

When there's an alternative that is shown to work, and enables those who would otherwise avoid it to cycle, then yes. I speak as a daily commuter in Glasgow where close passes, left hooks and general disdain for those who cycle are daily events.

 

[Big Andy]

When there's an alternative that is shown to work, and enables those who would otherwise avoid it to cycle, then yes. I speak as a daily commuter in Glasgow where close passes, left hooks and general disdain for those who cycle are daily events.

So that leaves us with "cycling is perceived to be dangerous not because some wear hi-viz or helmets but because it is and we keep telling people it is!"

 

[Inertia]

Thinking more about it, perhaps forums like this are contributing to putting people off cycling. To read some posts it appears that every motorist is an idiot who isn't looking where he's going, if a non cyclist was reading some of the posts he wouldn't go near a road on his bike.

It's not my experience of riding on the roads though, can only recall 1 occasion where the motorist was driving so as to cause me an issue.

I dont think anyone is saying that, though car drivers that do hits cyclist would probably fit that description.

 

[Inertia]

So that leaves us with "cycling is perceived to be dangerous not because some wear hi-viz or helmets but because it is and we keep telling people it is!"

Its difficult to identify exactly why people think its dangerous but I tell anyone who thinks it is that its not and most drivers are very considerate around me. I doubt forums like this has much impact on the publics impression that cycling is dengerous.

 

[Inertia]

So that leaves us with "cycling is perceived to be dangerous not because some wear hi-viz or helmets but because it is and we keep telling people it is!"

Its difficult to identify exactly why people think its dangerous but I tell anyone who thinks it is that its not and most drivers are very considerate around me. I doubt forums like this has much impact on the publics impression that cycling is dengerous.

 

[winjim]

See these two massive hi-vis no right turn signs?

Yes? No? Because they, along with No Right Turn written on the road in massive letters, and the sign on the left giving you alternative directions to the things that happen to be located up that right turn, seem to be utterly invisible to many drivers. Twice today I have crossed that road on foot, and twice I have had drivers turn right into my path.
So I don't put a great deal of faith in hi-vis as a safety aid.

Also, those parking spaces outside the shops on the left get in the way of the cycle lane, but that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[Big Andy]

Its difficult to identify exactly why people think its dangerous but I tell anyone who thinks it is that its not and most drivers are very considerate around me.

That's my experience too.

 

[Big Andy]

See these two massive hi-vis no right turn signs?
View attachment 334105
Yes? No? Because they, along with No Right Turn written on the road in massive letters, and the sign on the left giving you alternative directions to the things that happen to be located up that right turn, seem to be utterly invisible to many drivers. Twice today I have crossed that road on foot, and twice I have had drivers turn right into my path.
So I don't put a great deal of faith in hi-vis as a safety aid.

Also, those parking spaces outside the shops on the left get in the way of the cycle lane, but that's a topic for a different thread.

Yes, can see them clearly because they are hi-viz, even though one appears to be partially obscured by trees. So not a failure of Hi-Viz, more likely the drivers just ignoring them.

 

[Mugshot]

So that leaves us with "cycling is perceived to be dangerous not because some wear hi-viz or helmets but because it is and we keep telling people it is!"

It's my opinion that people don't cycle because they're too damn lazy to, surveys are loaded to allow people to point to something more convenient for them to blame and it avoids them looking in the mirror and seeing their own fat chocolate covered face staring back at them. Hi-viz and helmets and insufficient segregation* gives an easy out of "It's dangerous".

*I'm not a fan of segregation.

 

[Big Andy]

It's my opinion that people don't cycle because they're too damn lazy to, surveys are loaded to allow people to point to something more convenient for them to blame and it avoids them looking in the mirror and seeing their own fat chocolate covered face staring back at them. Hi-viz and helmets and insufficient segregation* gives an easy out of "It's dangerous"..

You could be right!!

 

[benb]

And yet cycling has massively increased in the new segregated CSHs in London, and has doubled in a new segregated lane in Cambridge.
http://road.cc/215646

People don't want to cycle in close proximity to large dangerous vehicles, regardless of how objectively safe it is.
Whether that's because they feel unsafe or it's just not very pleasant, proper segregated infrastructure has been proven to increase cycling levels.

 

[mjr]

I'd expect nothing. Do police stop drivers wearing helmets?

Not as far as I know, but I understand that the restricted visibility and head movement of many modern motor racing helmets means that it's regarded as careless to wear them when driving on open roads. Sadly, I can't find the source for that now, although I did find that some classes of motorcycle racing helmet aren't road-legal for similar reasons.

And of course, segregation is concentrated in urban areas - the overwhelming majority of Dutch roads have no segregation at all.

I agree with the rest, but is the above true? In urban areas, I seemed to spend more time sharing filtered 30kmh carriageways or on painted or low-kerbed lanes (not massively different to the new Cambridge ones), whereas segregation seemed mostly alongside fast busy mostly-rural roads.

People don't want to cycle in close proximity to large dangerous vehicles, regardless of how objectively safe it is.

Yeah, that's my view: it's surprisingly safe to ride on a trunk A road, but I always feel that I'm in the way (I know I have as much right as any other road user but I still feel like they're having to avoid me), so I feel pressured to always ride full-tilt and it's not as much fun as a good track. It's not even as much fun as some dodgy gravel tracks, but I'd rather not have to use those either. I'll gladly defend the right of others to ride on carriageways, but it doesn't make my heart sing like a good country road or cycle track and I can't see it inspiring many people to get cycling. Cycling should be fun and easy.

 

[mjr]

Only about 1/4 of Dutch roads have any physical segregation. About another 3-4% have unsegregated on road lanes. Other than that, you mingle with traffic.

Yeah, but where is that quarter? You said it's urban, while I felt it was rural. I didn't find the detail when I looked but I didn't spend that long yet.

The Netherlands makes much more use of bollarded/filtered minor roads than most people here seem to think, so the numbers don't surprise me.

 

[winjim]

Yes, can see them clearly because they are hi-viz, even though one appears to be partially obscured by trees. So not a failure of Hi-Viz, more likely the drivers just ignoring them.

Well, quite. What's up that right turn is a large hospital with a specialist maternity / neonatal wing. The no right turn is, as I understand it, to avoid impeding the ambulances.

So you've got a combination of signs which to my eye sort of blend into the shop signage, with the left hand sign actually being some distance ahead of the junction to which it refers, and drivers who may be from out of town and unfamiliar with the roads, rushing to get to a hospital appointment, worried about their kids etc and not expecting there to be a no right turn.

If the purpose of the hi-vis is to attract drivers' attention so they are aware of the signs and to prevent right turns, then it has failed.

 

[Slick]

And yet cycling has massively increased in the new segregated CSHs in London, and has doubled in a new segregated lane in Cambridge.
http://road.cc/215646

People don't want to cycle in close proximity to large dangerous vehicles, regardless of how objectively safe it is.
Whether that's because they feel unsafe or it's just not very pleasant, proper segregated infrastructure has been proven to increase cycling levels.

In my own personal instance, I think it's both.

Yeah, that's my view: it's surprisingly safe to ride on a trunk A road, but I always feel that I'm in the way (I know I have as much right as any other road user but I still feel like they're having to avoid me), so I feel pressured to always ride full-tilt and it's not as much fun as a good track. It's not even as much fun as some dodgy gravel tracks, but I'd rather not have to use those either. I'll gladly defend the right of others to ride on carriageways, but it doesn't make my heart sing like a good country road or cycle track and I can't see it inspiring many people to get cycling. Cycling should be fun and easy.[/QUOTE]
I kind of feel the same way and it certainly reduces the enjoyment. I've come to the conclusion that commutes are full tilt and weekends are for going where you want at a pace you fancy.