'Police the roads, not the pavements'.

[silverbow]

User, I have pretty much agreed with everything you have said so far but there is one thing which worries me about the CTC campaign which you have mentioned below:

The biggest differences in those countries are:

1. The sheer number of people who cycle means that cycling is seen as 'normal' (the very point that the CTC 'Safety in Numbers' is seeking to make) and drivers are more likely to be regular cyclists themselves. This in itself makes cycling safer, as cyclists are not seen as outsiders.
2. They have a presumption of liability. This makes motorists far more cautious around cyclists

This is what makes these countries the 'nirvana' for cyclists - not the facilities.

Okay, so all the above is pretty much on the money, apart from many area of the UK where reduced to dust during WWII also. The rebuilding plan as far as I'm aware never or hardly accounted for cycling during a time when therewas a bicycling boom in the UK. But that is not exactly my point or though it does support it.

If you knew anything in-depth about these countries, you would know that the focus of 'facilities' building is moving away from separate lanes and into more utilitarian facilities, such as secure cycle parking and integration with rail, etc. It is accepted that now a 'critical mass' of cyclists has been reached, there is less need for segregation in order to protect cyclists.

My point is that great cycling minds have identified that with critical mass real benefits / cycling nirvana can be an achievable goal. BUT (and this is my point) these cycling minds appear to think that they can leapfrog the infrastructure bit. Okay so it is not as widespread as many may think, but having cycled in Germany, Denmark and Holland there is a huge gap in facilities with th UK.

I just wonder how the 'critical mass' can be achieved without the initial investment in facilities to entice new cyclists to the street?

I rarely subscribe to the view that there is one issue or factor that can be identified which is to blame.

 

[hackbike 666]

The RLJing in London does not suggest to me that cyclists feel threatened by stopping at traffic lights.

 

[Origamist]

Hypothetical of course, but a reality IMO. Of course it is important for the CTC to understand the behaviour of cyclists, but this understanding shouldn't make it out into press releases, as it will inevitably be misinterpreted. All the CTC needed to say was that there is no need for cyclists to run red lights and here is the techniques that you can use to keep safe on approach to lights.

Now the motorist hears this...mmm, the CTC are keeping cyclists in check and teaching them methods to stay within the law. Maybe some cyclists are all right...

The Geffen quote I pasted earlier (post 22) is from a press release - its meaning is unequivocal. Other quotes are often taken from press interviews and should be treated with circumspection.

Techniques/tactics/strategies to keep you safe are all well and good, but what you're forgetting is that roads are often not cycle-friendly due to their design and the volume/speed of motorised traffic. Its been over 10 years since we first discussed the hierarchy of provision...

 

[silverbow]

Holland, Germany, France and Belgium built facilities at time when they were building to accommodate their expanding populations. This meant that it was relatively easy to accommodate separate cycling facilities. They had the space to do so.

This is not a luxury that we have in the UK. The majority of our urban areas simply do not have the room to accommodate such facilities, as those areas were not designed which such facilities in mind.

I believe we did have the same opportunities these countries had, we just choose not to embrace them. Car ownership was low, Baby Booming was in fashion, New Towns where being planned and built and vast areas of London in need of redevelopment.

I think the simple fact is, that we Great Britain had to tie-in with the US and had aspirations to have what US citizens had and worryingly still do.

Our class system may also have a huge effect on how we perceive car ownership versus cycling. It seems so strange how in the UK it is either one or the other, whereas in many European countries this conflict does not exist.

With regard to the practical steps you list, do you think they are achievable? when I lived inside the CC I didn't notice any actually reduction, although that may have been my perception.

There are a number of practical steps we could take:

1. Introduce the 'presumption of liability' rule that is prevalent in Europe
2. Make it a requirement for motorists to hold Bikeability Level 3 before they can apply for a learners license.
3. Make cycle training available to every school child.
4. Reduce the number of unnecessary motor vehicle journeys that are undertaken each day, by using such methods as Congestion Charging and restricting vehicular access.

I do like 2 and 3, they seem very sensible and therefore probably unlikely to ever be implemented!

 

[theclaud]

So an offer to take you for a drink and explain the reality of CTC to you is a 'personal rant' rant against you is it?

Blimey... you must live in a really odd world.

Yes I thought it all sounded rather convivial, but then he is clearly a bit on the chippy side.

 

[snorri]

The majority of our urban areas simply do not have the room to accommodate such facilities, as those areas were not designed which such facilities in mind.

I'm not convinced that we have less space in urban areas than many of our European neighbours, it's just that for a long time now we have chosen to allocate a greater proportion of that space to motor vehicles.

 

[Origamist]

If anyone wants a more in-depth take on the Dutch and their romance/estrangement/romance with the bicycle, I'd recommend reading "The Dutch Bicycle Master Plan":

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/The Dutch Bicycle Master Plan 1999.pdf

 

[CopperBrompton]

"Since the mid 90s the number of cyclists who have been killed or seriously injured has fallen by 37 per cent - from 3,732 to 2,360 per year."

And even that is highly misleading because it uses the nonsensical KSI stat, which lumps together fatal accidents with ones requiring a dressing and a tetanus shot.

The number killed across the whole of the UK is less than 140 a year, which makes cycling safer than tennis.

 

[stoptherock]

I understand that for stats purposes 'Serious Injury' means a hospital visit, which could indeed include the scenario you posited.

 

[Origamist]

I understand that for stats purposes 'Serious Injury' means a hospital visit, which could indeed include the scenario you posited.

It could also go down as a slight injury as reporting is often highly variable. Underestimating the extent of an injury is also a problem when it comes to Stats 19 data.

 

[stoptherock]

It could also go down as a slight injury as reporting is often highly variable. Underestimating the extent of an injury is also a problem when it comes to Stats 19 data.

If an ambulance attends an RTA then the police are obliged to attend as well.

If someone makes their own way to hospital or the doctors the attendance is not recorded as connected with an RTA, skewing the figures for which roads are dangerous.

 

[Origamist]

There is a problem because the classification of whether someone is seriously or slightly injured is done by the police, rather than by clinicians.

However, it should be noted that the KSI figures are also measured against the clinical coding data provided by hospitals (and based on ICD-10 classifications) and the variance isn't actually that great.

The problem is that individual HES admissions (based on ICD-10 data) are not compared to individual Stats 19 forms. This makes it difficult to ascertain the true level of variance and examine casualty trends in greater depth. I understand this was a recommendation made by the DFT, but 1 to 1 matching is AFAIK, still not happening ...

 

[Crankarm]

And even that is highly misleading because it uses the nonsensical KSI stat, which lumps together fatal accidents with ones requiring a dressing and a tetanus shot.

The number killed across the whole of the UK is less than 140 a year, which makes cycling safer than tennis.

Yeah right........tennis players are routinely seriously injured killed on court........... What a stupid statement to make.

 

[stoptherock]

Yeah right........tennis players are routinely seriously injured killed on court........... What a stupid statement to make.

Replacing what crankarm said with your wild extrapolation is stupid, yes.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Yeah right........tennis players are routinely seriously injured killed on court........... What a stupid statement to make.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html

Making an aggressive post without checking the facts ... what a stupid thing to do, eh?