Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

brat

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Pedestrians do stupid things all the time - stepping out without looking, walking in cycle lanes, crossing the road while texting, crossing in non-designated places, and you know what - this is absolutely fine. It's MY responsibility to expect this sort of thing and to avoid causing harm to those in a more vulnerable position (whether I'm on a bike or driving). That's why I keep further away from the kerb, and slow down when there are people nearby who look like they might step out at any time.

I understand what you're saying MP, but it clearly isn't fine for pedestrians to do these things - and, yes, they do them (and worse) very often. They need to learn that they have as much responsibility for their own safety as the motorist or cyclist has towards them.

But we need to drive and ride in the full expectation that these stupid things will happen and not get wound up when they do, or worse, take our frustrations out on the vulnerable road user. These are the conditions we accept when we choose to drive and cycle on the road.

Many of the stupid behaviours are able to be easily anticipated and avoided, and if this can be done with little or no drama, it makes everyone's road user experience much more enjoyable.

Marco_Panettone

We need to design the physical environment in the full knowledge of how people want to move, and ensure that mistakes don't lead to injury or worse.


If people aren't using crossings, the crossing may well be in the wrong place. If people aren't using cycle infrastructure then it isn't good enough. If people are driving too much then driving is too inviting when compared to other forms of transport (including walking).


I think many of the 'stupid' behaviour is perfectly normal behaviour. The VAST majority of the time people cross roads without using crossing points - most roads don't have them, and people cross perfectly safely the vast majority of the time. Their behaviour certainly doesn't cause harm to anyone else. It's the same with traffic lights - MOST of the time cyclists can ride through red lights without causing danger to anyone (including themselves), using them as a 'give way' sign. After all, most junctions aren't light-controlled anyway. External control of movement is only required when a higher level of potential harm is added by motor vehicles.

Le73Uq86Uv

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

The biggest 'threat' to cyclists is a lack of quality cycle infrastructure that provides protection from motor vehicles without mixing with pedestrians.

No the biggest threat is cyclists not using the provided cycle paths even when they are there right next to them.

custardy

Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »

No the biggest threat is cyclists not using the provided cycle paths even when they are there right next to them.

You mean a separate road exclusively provided for cyclists that has no junctions/paths intersecting and is separate from the pedestrian path?

Marco_Panettone

Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »

No the biggest threat is cyclists not using the provided cycle paths even when they are there right next to them.

Do you ever wonder why people would rather ride next to dangerous motor vehicles rather than use the current 'cycle paths'? Maybe you should go and ride some of them - you'll soon find out who they're 'for', and it isn't anyone on a bike.


Also, why is using the road (perfectly legally) a 'threat to cyclists'?

ska_lover

The biggest threat to cyclists is using the roads whilst some are completely ignorant of basic rules of the road and the highway code.

IMO cyclists should , by law, take a test - to ensure they are competant

custardy

ska_lover wrote: »

The biggest threat to cyclists is using the roads whilst some are completely ignorant of basic rules of the road and the highway code.

IMO cyclists should , by law, take a test - to ensure they are competant

Does that work for current licence holders? (which you do realise the majority of cyclists are?)

esuhl

Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »

No the biggest threat is cyclists not using the provided cycle paths even when they are there right next to them.

:rotfl: I can only assume you don't cycle!

In most cases cycle paths are so dangerously and impractically designed that it's safer for everyone if they are NOT used.

I'd never use a cycle path until I'd ridden on the road enough times to become familiar with the path's dangerous features (unmarked entrances, etc.). There are a few obviously good paths, but they are very much a rarity. It's much safer to ignore them and stay on the road until you are sure they can be used safely.

It's funny -- a few of the paths round here start just before a set of traffic lights, and run for 2 or 3 metres before the path ends and cyclists rejoin the road... So past the traffic lights, but still before the junction itself. All these paths do is give cyclists a legal right to jump red lights. It would have been cheaper to put a sign up to indicate that the traffic lights don't apply to cyclists...

esuhl

ska_lover wrote: »

The biggest threat to cyclists is using the roads whilst some are completely ignorant of basic rules of the road and the highway code.

IMO cyclists should , by law, take a test - to ensure they are competant

It's mostly drivers that exhibit their ignorance of basic road safety and law. They probably need to be made to cycle everywhere for a week or two to understand the danger that bad driving causes.

All cars should be fitted with GPS devices so that speed can be measured and speeding fines issued automatically whenever the limit is broken. And drivers ought to be re-tested every 5 or 10 years to make sure they are still competent and haven't picked up any bad habits.

The standard of driving on our roads is atrocious.

Marco_Panettone

ska_lover wrote: »

The biggest threat to cyclists is using the roads whilst some are completely ignorant of basic rules of the road and the highway code.

IMO cyclists should , by law, take a test - to ensure they are competant

Oh the irony...