Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

fred246

Tobster86 wrote: »

Most Worcester cyclists are in their late teens/early twenties, on tiny unlit & brakeless BMXs, meandering all over the pavement, and stoned.

That is exactly what I mean. In Holland every sector of the community cycles because it is considered safe to do so. I talk to lots of people trying to encourage them to cycle. "Well I would if it was safe" is the answer I always get. You are trying to control the moron motorist which is to be applauded but I don't think that people will ever be happy cycling surrounded by motorists. Segregation is the key. Pedestrians and cyclists don't kill - motorists kill thousands whether by collisions or by emissions.

brat

Tobster86 wrote: »

The situation in Worcester is particularly ridiculous; there are plenty of cycling facilities but they are unclear, ambiguous, impractical and sometimes dangerous to use. The pavement on the other side of the road in the video is apparently actually a cycle path!

That'll be this cycle path then!



Shame on you Tobster for not using a perfectly serviceable cycle path!

fred246

It does upset me that my views aren't shared by the main UK cycling groups. They seem to be saying "cyclists use the roads, motorists behave yourself". It is an approach that in my view will mean that cycling is only enjoyed by a minority of the population. Large scale cycle use on segregated paths is good for all road users in many different ways. It is good for motorists because it decreases the number of motor vehicles on the road. When I look at morning commuters almost every car is single occupancy. A large proportion of these journeys could be done by cycling.

Marco_Panettone

fred246 wrote: »

It does upset me that my views aren't shared by the main UK cycling groups. They seem to be saying "cyclists use the roads, motorists behave yourself". It is an approach that in my view will mean that cycling is only enjoyed by a minority of the population. Large scale cycle use on segregated paths is good for all road users in many different ways. It is good for motorists because it decreases the number of motor vehicles on the road. When I look at morning commuters almost every car is single occupancy. A large proportion of these journeys could be done by cycling.

It's changing - and we're starting to see the turn in London. Protected space for cycling is vital to create a more liveable community. There is also a place for other measures (filtered permeability, better enforcement of current laws, changes to driver training, presumed liability, lower speed limits, etc) and we need to make sure it is never an 'either-or' debate.


Protected lanes are compatible with ALL other measures, but have the advantage of subjective safety - when done properly they make riding a bike FEEL safer than riding with motor traffic.

Tobster86

fred246 wrote: »

Large scale cycle use on segregated paths is good for all road users in many different ways.

I'd argue that for my needs, it could make the situation worse. For my rural commute, it would be neither practical nor reasonable to provide paths that provide complete segregation from roads.

The more segregation that is provided in urban areas where reasonable demand justifies the provision of facilities, the less drivers will be used to sharing road space with cyclists in other areas.

Then you get places like Worcester where the council provides token, crap facilities that in no way encourage people to take up cycling; then people moan about a small number of cyclists using the roads despite 'all this money being spent'.


[edit] Credit where it's due to Worcester council, the riverside paths and facilities are very good and I do love a good ride down by the river, but the river Severn doesn't go to Malvern.

What I will also say is ALL of the roads are ABSOLUTELY suitable for sharing between cars and cyclists. I've never been involved in any incidents where a driver has saved them self more than a few seconds.

Marco_Panettone

Tobster86 wrote: »

I'd argue that for my needs, it could make the situation worse. For my rural commute, it would be neither practical nor reasonable to provide paths that provide complete segregation from roads.

The more segregation that is provided in urban areas where reasonable demand justifies the provision of facilities, the less drivers will be used to sharing road space with cyclists in other areas.

Then you get places like Worcester where the council provides token, crap facilities that in no way encourage people to take up cycling; then people moan about a small number of cyclists using the roads despite 'all this money being spent'.


[edit] Credit where it's due to Worcester council, the riverside paths and facilities are very good and I do love a good ride down by the river, but the river Severn doesn't go to Malvern.

What I will also say is ALL of the roads are ABSOLUTELY suitable for sharing between cars and cyclists. I've never been involved in any incidents where a driver has saved them self more than a few seconds.

Do your parents/kids cycle on our "perfectly suitable" roads? What about your friends/colleagues? Are they happy to do so?


Stop holding up crap infrastructure as a reason you don't want good infrastructure - it makes you look stupid. Nobody is campaigning for crap (except maybe Sustrans - and they're a serious problem).


There are plenty of drivers who aren't happy to share with people on bikes now - that's how this thread started - and that's exactly what prevents more people from cycling in the first place.

Tobster86

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Do your parents/kids cycle on our "perfectly suitable" roads? What about your friends/colleagues? Are they happy to do so?

Stop holding up crap infrastructure as a reason you don't want good infrastructure - it makes you look stupid. Nobody is campaigning for crap (except maybe Sustrans - and they're a serious problem).

There are plenty of drivers who aren't happy to share with people on bikes now - that's how this thread started - and that's exactly what prevents more people from cycling in the first place.

My point is we can't have good cycling infrastructure everywhere, and there's a possible danger that you desensitise motorists to the needs of cyclists further by removing them entirely from some areas.

I realise this doesn't solve the problem of uptake of cycling (although I suspect that "the roads aren't safe" is often just used as a convenient substitute for "I'm too lazy"); but at the end of the day, the safety problems boil down to impatient, bad driving. It's not acceptable to invest vast amounts in infrastructure to provide protection from people that shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place.

To answer your question directly; I don't have any kids; but my friends, family and colleagues that don't cycle are generally too lazy!

Marco_Panettone

Tobster86 wrote: »

My point is we can't have good cycling infrastructure everywhere, and there's a possible danger that you desensitise motorists to the needs of cyclists further by removing them entirely from some areas.

I realise this doesn't solve the problem of uptake of cycling (although I suspect that "the roads aren't safe" is often just used as a convenient substitute for "I'm too lazy"); but at the end of the day, the safety problems boil down to impatient, bad driving. It's not acceptable to invest vast amounts in infrastructure to provide protection from people that shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place.

To answer your question directly; I don't have any kids; but my friends, family and colleagues that don't cycle are generally too lazy!

We can't have railways everywhere either, or schools or hospitals - that doesn't mean you shouldn't have them anywhere. Also, I disagree - we can have good cycle infrastructure everywhere. Sometimes this would mean protected lanes, sometimes filtered permeability, sometimes contraflow cycling on otherwise one-way roads. However, it needs to be designed and built properly, otherwise you end up with some of the crap we have at the moment.


I'm yet to hear any suggestions as to how you ensure everyone drives carefully 100% of the time - this clearly doesn't happen at the moment, and simply isn't possible. I know I make mistakes or misjudge speed/distances sometimes (however I'm travelling), and I'm sure I'm not unique in this.


Even with careful drivers (which you cannot control) sharing the road simply doesn't feel as safe as using high-quality cycle infrastructure, and is a major barrier to people starting using a bike for transport in the first place.

Strider590

Tobster86 wrote: »

Most Worcester cyclists are in their late teens/early twenties, on tiny unlit & brakeless BMXs, meandering all over the pavement, and stoned.

It's a typical student town, you can tell when all the new students have arrived, broken bottles and pavement pizza everywhere. The road system is terrible, confusing as a driver, dangerous as a cyclist.

Unless I have to go into the city centre, I avoid it at all costs.

brat

I rode for 25 miles yesterday, the same on Sunday, on a hilly rural circuit where I'm normally only passed by about 10 cars. I feel very safe on these roads because the vehicular approach speed is slow and I control the overtakes when I need to. I'm always illuminated front and rear with top quality LED flashers.

The routes I choose are not the kind of route that families would use on a leisure ride, because they're undulating, with several steep ascents.

I see little or no need to incorporate them into any holistic cycling plan, but I'm happy to accommodate any ideas which would improve my safety without destroying the appeal of the routes I use.

What are your views on routes such as these Marco? Would you leave them as they are, or do you know of a 'light touch' fix to improve roads such as these? (other than to improve road surfaces). Or does the holistic directive towards segregation have more radical plans for my precious rural minor roads?