Origamist
Legendary Member
How many times? The vast majority of cyclists die as a consequence of a collision with a motorised vehicle; paint is not killing cyclists.
more cycle lanes or more 'considerate' motorists?
- Thread starter fox.postbox
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
How many times? The vast majority of cyclists die as a consequence of a collision with a motorised vehicle; paint is not killing cyclists.
Alien8
Senior Moment
- Location
- (A little bit north of) Cambridge
Yeah but some cyclists seem to think a bit of paint creates an invisible wall which allows them to disregarded the rules of the road and protects them from all other road users.
Origamist
Legendary Member
I imagine when the incompetent velo-sheep leave the cycle lane they become ultra-aware, law abiding and sensible cyclists. Or do they? Or is that a diversion from the root source of the problem?
The highway code says;
'Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.'
This, imo, indicates that the authorities who install cycle lanes are doing so in an attempt to improve safety for cyclists. The fact that numerous studies have shown that cycle lanes can increase the number of incidents involving cyclists, particularly at junctions, suggests that cycle lanes are not always useful for this purpose.
Sure paint doesn't kill cyclists, but many cyclists do faithfully stick to cycle lanes regardless of road or traffic conditions. This encourages bad practices such as gutter hugging, riding in the door zone, abruptly pulling out when the cycle lane is obstructed, and perhaps most deadly of all filtering down the left side of traffic at junctions without first assessing if it is actually safe to do so. It has also been shown that motorists give less room to cyclists when there are painted cycle lanes which is a danger in itself.
Yes removing cycle lanes won't solve the problem of incompetent cyclists, that requires education to make them more road aware, but surely it doesn't make sense to paint cycle lanes where most experienced cyclists would agree it is obviously unsafe to ride? (thankfully it seems most of the idiotic 'cycle round the left of the roundabout' ones seem to be dying out...)
Origamist
Legendary Member
The net benefit/disbenefit from cycle lanes is of a small order in terms of overall cycle safety. Unlike many people who spout off on here, I've actually got copies of the studies and, yes by God, I've even read them! I also know the different safety record of cycle lanes and cycle paths - do you?
Contributors on cycling fora have an unhealthy obsession with them, and RLJing, cycle helmets. For the record, I'm not a fan of cycle lanes, but lets give the hyperbole about "killer" cycle lanes a rest.
HJ
Cycling in Scotland
- Location
- Auld Reekie
Nada, 20s plenty is a green sign with an advisory speed limit which is not actually enforceable. Then there are the part time 20 zones where the speed limits are only in force when the lights are flashing, usually near schools, but as with all the rules of the Highway Code none apply during the school run (according to the yummy mums).
Fortunately, City of Edinburgh Council has finally woken up and decided to do something about meeting it's Charter of Brussels target and is going to give us a proper full time 20 mph zone, with will eventually extend to the whole area inwith the bypass...
HJ
Cycling in Scotland
- Location
- Auld Reekie
I think you seem to be confusing 20s plenty the campaign with some different weird scheme with the same name you have up there, it's about a proper full time 20mph zone as you call it. For a start it's pretty rare round here to have the flashing lights around schools and we certainly don't have advisory ones. What you are describing is basically the 20's plenty campaign except it's happening in quite a few cities. Like I said it's not getting much national recognition and every city that does it seems convinced 'it' alone is copying Portsmouth and nobody else is doing it, which is wrong basically. As I said we're slowly shifting over to 20 limits at a glacial rate, the campaign is to make it the default limit which will save a lot of money and lives in the long run.
Cycle lanes that run alongside parking bays direct those cyclists inexperienced enough to use them into the door zone. Potentially lethal.
Cycle lanes that run alongside pedestrian barriers at junctions direct cyclists into the killing zone of left-turning lorries. There are plenty like that.
Origamist
Legendary Member
Look, in the last 20 years there has been a massive growth in cycle/feeder lanes leading into ASLs, cycling numbers have marginally increased over the last 20 years, and yet, the number of cyclists being killed by left turning HGVs has remained relatively constant in the same period...
I'm sure if you looked closely at "dooring" collisions, you would not find a significant increase in cycle injuries as a result of cycle lanes - it has always been a problem. Does this mean I think they are a good idea - NO, of couse not, but the real issue is the level of on street parking and car occupants not looking before they open their door.
Your fanatical hatred of cycling provision is clouding your judgement.
Origamist
Legendary Member
Thank you for the clarification.
ComedyPilot
Secret Lemonade Drinker
- Location
- The Kingdom of Yorkshire
Motorists are inconsiderate towards each other, despite driving and knowing what it is like to be cut up etc.
So, what makes you think they would change their manner of driving just because they try cycling?
Answer: they won't!
There are numerous threads concering infrastructure, and how the Netherlands (with 14m people) can have an almost countrywide network of cycle lanes, but (short-sighted, egotistical, drunken, violent, lazy) little britain with 58m people can't find the money to do it??????
I did maths at school, and I am sure a taxable population of 58m will have more money to spend that a nation of 14m?
So, what makes you think they would change their manner of driving just because they try cycling?
Answer: they won't!
There are numerous threads concering infrastructure, and how the Netherlands (with 14m people) can have an almost countrywide network of cycle lanes, but (short-sighted, egotistical, drunken, violent, lazy) little britain with 58m people can't find the money to do it??????
I did maths at school, and I am sure a taxable population of 58m will have more money to spend that a nation of 14m?
ComedyPilot
Secret Lemonade Drinker
- Location
- The Kingdom of Yorkshire
dondare, have you ever ridden in the Netherlands?
If you have, then you will realise what I mean, and that makes your comments puzzling - why would anyone want to cycle anywhere near cars knowing what the Netherlands is like?
If you haven't, then you won't realise we do NOT have good cycling infrastructure in britain.
We have a few miles of dis-used railway lines, strewn with dog shoot, condoms, and needles.
Other than that we have a Picsso-esque attempt at painting cycle lanes at the side of roads, which provide no cycling at all, but do double as good parking for idle tossers to get their cars a few inches closer to greggs bakery.
If you have, then you will realise what I mean, and that makes your comments puzzling - why would anyone want to cycle anywhere near cars knowing what the Netherlands is like?
If you haven't, then you won't realise we do NOT have good cycling infrastructure in britain.
We have a few miles of dis-used railway lines, strewn with dog shoot, condoms, and needles.
Other than that we have a Picsso-esque attempt at painting cycle lanes at the side of roads, which provide no cycling at all, but do double as good parking for idle tossers to get their cars a few inches closer to greggs bakery.
