more cycle lanes or more 'considerate' motorists?

[fox.postbox]

A question arose to me when arguing with a motorist, his argument is that he could get around me and that I wasn't cycling close enough to the kerb to avoid to much aggravation I "politely" expressed my opinion and cycled off.

Later that day I was looking into a cycling report yesterday which had some research into cyclists main concerns on the roads. 80% agreed that their main concern was 'inconsiderate drivers', however when asked about the lack of cycle lanes only 2% agreed. (what's the issue cycle lanes or motorists?)


Which leads me to the question that if motorists were more aware of cyclists not just physically, but if they had some understanding of what its like to be cycling on the roads, would they be less 'inconsiderate' to cyclists creating some equality on the roads?

OR

is the issue that motorists and cyclists need to be separated with physical barriers between cycle lanes and motorists roads to create a safer environment for road users?

 

[crumpetman]

Why is this your very first post?

I think it stands to reason that if you try something for a while then you will have a much greater understanding of it. I started cycling on the roads just a few months ago and now when I drive my car I put a lot more effort into being more aware of what is going on around me.

Motorists and cyclists do not need to be separated with physical barriers but in some cases it helps and makes the cyclist feel safer.

More considerate drivers would be better for existing cyclists but I think to encourage a lot more people to cycle then it would require separate lanes plus some sort of incentive to not use the car so much.

 

[RedBike]

Most of the cycle lanes near me are a joke. They're completely impractical and often dangerous.
Whats more the moment there is a cycle lane most drivers seem to think that you should be in that cycle lane and have no right to be on the road. This encourages drivers to show a lot of aggrestion and display acts of dangerous driving towards you.

The trouble is most drivers are in a rush and a cyclist isn't viewed as a humen, they're simply viewed as this 'object' that going to delay them.

 

[BSRU]

The first one, cyclists should not be bullied/forced of the public highway so that some motorists can think they arrive somewhere a few seconds earlier.

It is car drivers interest to make cycling a safer more pleasant experience as this would mean more people ditching the car and cycling instead, with the obvious advantage of less car traffic.

 

[fox.postbox]

Why is this your very first post?

I suppose not the most lighthearted first impression ha, but was interested if anyone had any input...

 

[Arch]

My answers would be:

Yes

and

Yes, or no.

The first one is fairly obvious. Various sources and surveys have said that cyclists tend to be better drivers - not just around cyclists, but generally, because we have that empathy, but we also often have much better hazard awareness, ability to look well ahead, caution etc. Not all of us, of course, there are always those who have half a brain and act worse, but by and large, having cycling experience makes you a better driver. (Assuming you are someone with the abililty to empathise. We've all have those moments, cut up by someone with a bunch of bikes on the back of the car...)

The second one is more controversial. In an ideal world, full of drivers who also cycle, then segregation shouldn't be needed. On the other hand, segregation does remove you from the ones who don't cycle or don't have that empathy. The problem arises when the segregation ends, and those bad drivers encounter cyclists, and think they ought not to be on the road, and don't have a clue how to behave around them. So for segregation to work, it has to be total, all the time.

From some limited experience in Denmark (and what I've heard of Holland), it's best when a lot of A makes B possible - many drivers also cycle, but there is also segregation - but it's good segregation, not the mess we have here. But it's not total, and thanks to the drivers-who-also-cycle thing, when bikes and cars do have to mix, it's much better.

So, unless you can create a system from scratch, where cyclists are segregated totally, and for every yard of every journey they might need to make (and on good quality surfaces), then you also need drivers to understand our needs.

I was surveying ladies on Sunday, on things they thought would make cycling safer and more attractive, and almost all of the small sample I spoke to said "more cycle paths/lanes"*. Some (perhaps half) also said "Better driver education/TV safety campaigns". I think the former is perhaps felt to be easier to arrange (just bung some paint down), but without the latter, it can be a wasted opportunity.

*just to clarify, many of these were ladies who already cycle commute etc - so not people who don't cycle because of fear.

 

[ManiaMuse]

More cycling education for both children and adult cyclists as well as motorists would accomplish a lot more than building more and more dodgy cycle lanes or segregated facilities.

Reasons:
1. Segregated facilities would only work if they were built everywhere. Unfortunately we have neither the space nor money for that in this country. Half-arsed efforts at segregated facilities (which tbh, many in this country are) are often more dangerous, especially around junctions. They also cause resentment among some cyclists who feel they are being forced off the roads and get abused when they choose to cycle on the road by motorists who think cyclists should be using the cycle facility.

2. Cycling proficiency training already teaches kids from a young age how to cycle safely and confidently on roads instead of the pavement. One of the most effective ways to improve safety for cyclists is by becoming a more visible presence and that means encouraging more cyclists to cycle on the road. Limited segregated facilities send out mixed messages about where cyclists should be and do little to improve safety.

Educating motorists is problematic because they only have to pass their test once. Those that passed years ago are not going to suddenly change their attitudes towards cyclists just because someone forced them to experience what it is like riding a bike. If anything that is just going to reinforce their opinion that cyclists are whiny/arrogant/don't obey the law/get in the way/shouldn't be there. On the other hand building more segregated facilities is going to do exactly the same thing - they will see councils building the facilities, which will then justify their opinion that cyclists shouldn't be on the road.

In my opinion education is the ideal solution but not entirely realistic - motorists' attitudes towards cyclists aren't going to change overnight. So the next best thing is just to get more people cycling confidently on the roads and promote safety in numbers.

 

[Bigsharn]

I definitely agree with the drivers needing to be more educated on the existence of cyclists. I agree with people that say that most motorists have no idea about what it's like to cycle on a busy main road and if they did, they would be much more sympathetic.

 

[fox.postbox]

Thanks. I do agree having with both sides and yes I suppose having a cycle lane physically there does help to boost the image, but at a large cost. With funding averergly per head very low in the uk (in non cycling demonstration towns) it seems unrealistic to be able to get the amount of cycle lanes to make it accessible everywhere. Shame...

 

[Amanda P]

Part of the problem, and the difference between the experience of cycling here and in Denmark/Netherlands etc, comes down to culture.

In the UK, you ride a bike as a kid. When you're 17, you get a moped, then graduate to a car, and then never look back. Why would you ride a bike? That's for kids, or old-fashioned factory workers. Or at least, that's the prevailing attitude.

In much of the rest of northern Europe, there's far less snobbery about cycling or driving. Everyone rides a bike to get into town, because it's fun, cheap and easy. So everyone knows what it's like - and the cyclist you might endanger with your car is probably your neighbour, or your GP. Or maybe your boss. Consequently, people drive much more circumspectly, especially in town.

A car is still a bit of a status symbol for a Dutchman or a Dane, just as much as for a Brit - but he doesn't need to drive it everywhere to bolster his ego. Parking it on his driveway does the job very nicely.

Waiting for a farmer once, on the edge of a Dutch village one morning, I watched two different businessmen, in suits, walk out of their houses, wheel their bikes past their Audis, and pedal off into town.

 

[Arch]

Waiting for a farmer once, on the edge of a Dutch village one morning, I watched two different businessmen, in suits, walk out of their houses, wheel their bikes past their Audis, and pedal off into town.

Oh lord, I really am going to emigrate....

BTW, I like the way you say 'waiting for a farmer' in the same way that many of us would say 'waiting for a bus'...

I think the driver education thing is key, and horribly difficult to change, at least quickly. And it's not just cyclists. Yes, we are more vulnerable to mistakes, and less likely to dent their precious car if they hit us, but everyday I see drivers (and cyclists, and pedestrians) who haven't the faintest idea of the needs of a lorry or bus driver for example - turning circle, space needed, lack of acceleration. There are a fair few people who don't seem to know how wide their own car is, half the time.

I'd be in favour of a much more stringent testing regime, involving compulsory training in other vehicles - bikes, motorbikes, long vehicles (the latter on test tracks perhaps, to reduce the carnage). And then restesting, on a regular basis. Horribly expensive, and death to any government that suggests it.

That and replacing driver airbags with a 6" spike in the middle of the steering wheel.

So, all in all, it's much easier to paint a few lines and coloured bits on the road or pavement, whether they work or not.

 

[Evilcat]

What Arch said + 1.

Cycle lanes are pretty much useless in my experience. They are too narrow, replete with glass, full of draincovers, place cyclists in dangerous positions (e.g. the door zone), encourage cyclists up the inside of trucks and much else besides. I'd much prefer decent driving and cycling, but that seems to be too much to ask these days (boy, do I feel old!). On the commute back yesterday I got sworn at by a taxi driver when I asked him if he needed to be so close (<10cm), and found that every - and I do mean every - cyclist I came across at a junction jumped the lights.

All the cycling infrastructure in the world is not going to help matters unless people can consider those other than themselves, and understand and respect the needs of other road users. Instead people seem to be becoming more insular, self-centred and plain selfish.

Time for my medicine!

EC

 

[HJ]

Why is this your very first post?

Everyone has to start somewhere, what's the problem with that?

To answer the OP question, we all pay for the roads therefore we are all entitled to use them. Driver need to understand that roads aren't just for cars and they have a responsibly to other road users. Separated cycle lanes do have a place but at some stage there will be a mixing of all road user types and those who are capable of doing the most damage should have to except that they have the greatest responsibility, a law of Strict Liability on the roads would be a really good idea. Sadly, our spineless political classes would rather scrap the idea of road safety to appease the loud mouth petrol headed morons of the press...

 

[Brains]

I think it a case of AND not OR

We need proper cycle lanes, thousands of miles of them, built at least to Dutch/German/Danish levels

AND

Drivers need better education.


I have said this before but say it again.
* I would like driving tests to be updated/reapproved/renewed on at least once per decade.
* Only one year after you have passed your Cycling Proficiency 'licence', if you are old enough, could you then apply for a moped licence. One year after that, if you are stil competant, can you then apply for your motorbike licence, a year later a small car licence, a year later a big car licence, a year later vans, a year later HGV's a year later PSV's.
So if you get your cycling proficency licence in your early teens you could be at the wheel of a loaded coach by the time you are 22.
If on the other hand you don't get your cycling proficency badge until you are 22 you won't be at the wheel of a coach before you are 30.
* Cycling proficency should be part of the curriculum for the September term for every 11 year old. Kids leaving school by bike should go 15 mins before kids being picked up by car. Kid pester power would soon have them on their bikes.

 

[marinyork]

As it hasn't been emphasised, forget about cycle lanes, I think in terms of measures the 20s Plenty Campaign will do far more to make cycling and walking more attractive. Currently there are very few 20s roads, usually hogged by a few areas that have special areas and the usual hundred yards outside schools (which is not extensive enough).