Changes in the Law to make cycling safer for all

System

Dave_C wrote: »

This is number one in the list of excuses, they did this in the Netherlands, with very similar cities to the UK.
From closer to home you can see how it would be a struggle to put segregated cycle paths in some London Streets

What we actually get is bits of slippery blue paint to designate non-mandatory cycle lanes - or parking spaces as some drivers call them! Not forgetting these wonderful cycling facilities.

Dave

A quote from your first article

The Netherlands has town designs from the medieval right through to the 21st century, and in all of these, space can be found for cyclists if the roads are (re)designed accordingly.

So the roads need to be redesigned? Considering the current pressures on councils to provide even the basic services they have to by law with reduced budgets, where do you really think the money is coming from to achieve this. It is all very well saying that it can be done theoretically but if the economics do not stack up then it is a no-go.
Looking at the photos within that link above, it looks as though the way to go is to put the final nail in the coffin of high street shops by removing what parking remains on street within a town.

Maybe new roads can be designed to account for cyclists

JQ.

Who exactly would police such new laws, traffic police numbers are being reduced dramatically.

The reality is that I don't things are that bad - the only issue (as mentioned above) is the lack of empathy from car drivers. If the average car driver had to do my daily commute (into Manchester City Centre) for a month on a bicycle I have absolutely no doubt they would drive differently around cyclists and get less outraged by RLJ'ing and filtering.

My way-out solution would be that car tax and insurance only last 11 months and for 1 month of the year every adult has to commute by bicycle and public tranport. I do realise it's totally unworkable, but I do think forcing drivers onto bikes for an extended period would certainly remove a number of misconceptions.

Idiophreak

Dave_C wrote: »

Not forgetting these wonderful cycling facilities.

Dave

Haha...that's just down the road from me...and by far the worst provision for cyclists I've ever seen.

So there's half cycle lane and half footpath...but they put cycle barriers on the cycle half - meaning that all cyclists use the footpath instead. Add in the 2 inch, wheel-buckling step on the northern side and the zig-zag cycle paths on either side...And I ignore the thing and risk my life on the roundabout instead

Just goes to show - the people who design these things just don't understand cycling.

AltheHibby

"Solution: Mandatory cycling proficiency test as pre-requisite for provisional driving licence"

In that case my wife wouldn't have a car licence as she has never been confident riding on the road. The problem with this type of solution is the same as the one that says we should all take driving lessons on motorways. Try Google maps for the distance from, say, Inverness to Perth (where the nearest motorway is) and you will quickly see the problem.

What is needed is more traffic cops on the road instead of civvies in tax raising, sorry, safety camera vans. Also, more cops on bikes would help. I saw some pretty good roads policing in Stirling recently by cops on mountain bikes.

Idiophreak

AltheHibby wrote: »

In that case my wife wouldn't have a car licence as she has never been confident riding on the road. The problem with this type of solution is the same as the one that says we should all take driving lessons on motorways. Try Google maps for the distance from, say, Inverness to Perth (where the nearest motorway is) and you will quickly see the problem.

Right...there aren't many motorways there...but I wasn't proposing people learn to ride bikes on motorways. If there are roads, they can ride on them.

My wife, like yours, has no confidence riding on roads (and little confidence off road, for that matter), as she's never done it very much. I don't view it as a coincidence that she also has next to zero empathy for cyclists.

Like your wife, if cycling were a pre-requisite of driving, she'd have *had* to have become competent, if not confident, riding on the roads before getting in a car - and, as such, she'd probably relate a little more to cyclists on the road.

As for learning on motorways, I don't see it as being unreasonable to suggest that, once you pass your main test, you have to do a one day motorway driving course in the next year. It's not convenient for some people, sure...but I value my safety more than I do other peoples' convenience...

Dave_C_2

Like others on here I like the idea of mandatory cycling proficiency. As a rider new to cycling after a 40 year gap I can guarantee that attitudes to cycling will change - mine certainly did.:)

However, during that 40 year gap I passed my driving test and sadly learned to despise cyclists just like every other non-cycling motorist in the UK.

Refresher courses would be needed.

Dave

Idiophreak

Dave_C wrote: »

Refresher courses would be needed.

I think refresher courses *are* needed...but for much more than just cycling related issues. The sooner we get mandatory retesting for all motorists every couple of years, the safer we'll all be.

JQ.

AltheHibby wrote: »

In that case my wife wouldn't have a car licence as she has never been confident riding on the road.

Surely that's a massive part of the problem, people who are not confident enough to use the road without being surrounded by a steel cage full of airbags and safety equipment, but at the same are quite happy to drive a one ton battering ram on roads that are populated with people who are not afforded the same level of safety.

olly300

JQ. wrote: »

Surely that's a massive part of the problem, people who are not confident enough to use the road without being surrounded by a steel cage full of airbags and safety equipment, but at the same are quite happy to drive a one ton battering ram on roads that are populated with people who are not afforded the same level of safety.

One of my nephews' knows that his brother cycles on the roads regularly and that I'm gaining more confidence doing so, yet he doesn't leave sufficient room for cyclists while driving. He's also cycles on the roads himself.

Point I'm making is some people even if they do things themselves and know people who are close to them who do it, remain and act ignorant. They pretend they haven't been taught or told.

On the other hand his mother who doesn't cycle leaves plenty of room for cyclists.

One thing I learnt in life is people who should be empathetic often aren't.

Also the laws in this country are sufficient to prosecute drivers who don't see a fluorescent jacket wearing cyclist in daylight and a fluorescent jacket, fluorescent bag-cover cyclist who also has lights in the night. Unfortunately quite a lot of cyclists don't help themselves by not ensuring a passerby calls an ambulance if they get knocked off in a busy area regardless if they think they are all right at the time or not. The car driver should have insurance.

olly300

Idiophreak wrote: »

As for learning on motorways, I don't see it as being unreasonable to suggest that, once you pass your main test, you have to do a one day motorway driving course in the next year. It's not convenient for some people, sure...but I value my safety more than I do other peoples' convenience...

Driving on the dual carriageways in my area is far more dangerous than driving on the motorways.

There are no cyclists on the dual carriageways because they go from 2 to 4 lane with sharp turn offs and too dangerous for bikers, let alone cyclists.