Hello,
I was dismayed to see your recent post on Facebook aimed at cyclists (see image). In a climate where social media accounts are posting material to stir up hatred against cyclists, I thought it was very poorly judged. Especially given the number of incidents cyclists experience, where-by a driver will be deliberately inconsiderate toward them - often manifesting as a 'punishment pass' or occasionally, worse.
I would like to know whether anyone with any expertise about cycling was consulted before the post published? If the aim was to have a positive effect on road safety, content like this may be counter-productive.
The post emphasizes the importance of hi-viz clothing. A recent and detailed study conducted in Nottingham, "Use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and risk of crashes involving other road users" [Miller et al. (2017)] found no evidence that cyclists using conspicuity aids were at reduced risk of a collision crash compared to non-users after adjustment for confounding, but there was some evidence of an increase in risk.
Certainly, as a regular cyclist covering several thousand miles each year, I have found little to no improvement in terms of drivers failing to give way or cede priority when wearing hi visibility clothing. My experience is that drivers often just don't look - or don't look for long enough.
The post goes on to emphasize the importance of signalling intentions - but says nothing of making correct observations, maintaining good control of the bicycle and using correct road positioning. I am linking these things together because a right arm signal, for example, takes the hand away from the control for the front brake. Not only that, but it reduces the riders ability to cushion themselves on an uneven road surface, keep the bicycle well balanced and maintain well distributed traction on the front wheel. Traffic situations can be very fluid and signalling can compromise a rider's the ability to deal with changing circumstances effectively.
That is not to say signalling is not important, but in my view, the priorities for a cyclist and especially less experienced cyclists should be observation, control, positioning and signalling - in that order.
The post advises using 'bike lanes and paths when available' which I would argue against. Some (mainly legacy) cycling infrastructure are poorly designed and often poorly maintained and as a result can prevent risk of serious injury to cyclists that do not understand the dangers they present.
Thanks to LTN 1/20 we do have some very good cycling infrastructure appearing in small pockets around the country, but we are a long way from this advice being considered good advice.
Further more, motorists reading this take it to mean 'cyclists should be in the cycle lane/bike path' when that is not always appropriate. Sadly, a small but vocal minority of drivers see this kind of material as vindication for verbally, and even physically abusing cyclists who ignore inadequate, unsafe or inappropriate cycling infrastructure.
The post suggests equipping bicycles with mirrors. I have to ask - why? There is no need for an average cyclist to do this. Unlike cars, bicycles do not have blind spots. In fact, visibility is very good. You can't look in a mirror as well as look ahead - human vision does not work like that. It is much better for a cyclist to use their flexibility - if they have it - to perform periodic rearward and sideways glances which are unconstrained by a mirror's field of view. A bicycle saddle and riding position is not like that of a motor bike, permitting much more movement in order to help cyclists make good observations. On a motor cycle the mirrors will be much larger in any case, as weight and drag are not such significant factors on a vehicle with an electric motor or combustion engine and a fairing.
The post encourages 'making eye contact with drivers at intersections', which I've no doubt been copied from somewhere with little thought as in the UK we tend to call them junctions. In any case, this again is problematic. If I had a £1 for every occasion it appeared to me like I'd made eye contact with a motorist - only for them to proceded like I wasn't there - I would be a very wealthy man. Quite often, they are looking straight past you or even staring into space. This kind of riding can put riders at risk because it causes a false sense of security - a bit like relying on mirrors instead of a sweep of the head.
In respect to the point on route planning - the condition of the roads or cycling infrastructure should come into it. It is much easier and potentially safer to ride on a wide road with good sight lines, good margins for vehicle drivers to overtake and smooth asphalt - even if traffic is moving quickly - relative to busy urban streets where drivers have lots of things competing for their attention or quiet country lanes where an unseen potholes and blind bends can be hazardous.
I'm very much left with the impression this information has been pieced together by a driver with little or very limited experience of cycling.
If the aim of this campaign is to reduce the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on our roads, it would be much better to focus on the source of the danger, rather than vulnerable road users. I would suggest campaign targeting ‘phone drivers’, ‘amber gamblers’ or drivers that do not allow sufficient time for their journeys and consequently drive impatiently and inconsiderately.
Yours Faithfully
