Not a rant about cyclists - just a question

[Deleted User]

unholyangel wrote: »

To be classed as an electric bike (or EAPC - electrically assisted pedal cycle) rather than a motorbike, the motor cannot assist when you're travelling at speeds of 15.5mph and above. There are other requirements in addition to that and likewise, if not met then its classed as a motorbike.

People on pedal cycles (not EAPCs) can attain speeds in excess of 30mph. So not sure why you think they wouldn't be able to get to such speeds without the electric assistance.

As for the weight.....you get electric bikes ~15kg. You get those with detachable motors with the motor only weighing about 2-3kg. The weight of the rider can vary by much much more than 3kg.

Yes you can get an electric bike at 15kg .It costs an arm and a leg. Most of them are heavy hunks weighing 30 kg or more. My bike weighs 8 kgs . I m not suggesting that cyclists can t do 30 mph but they are going flat out on stripped down lightweights ridden by very fit cyclists. Most commuter cyclists are trundling along at 12 mph ish .
what I object to is classifying electric E bike users as "cyclists "..They re not , they re kidding themselves if they think they are cyclists. The electric motor is doing most of the work. They mostly contribute to forward motion by the minimum watts of 3.7 mph
.Many of these users use E bikes because they are not fit enough for a true bike especially when they toil into a headwind. E-bikes are akin to a moped IMO .Moped riders is a more accurate description .
That reminds me to catch up on the Vuelta de Espana on Freeview 24 now,..Now thats what I call cyclists.They do 20 mph up steep hills in 38 c !

esuhl

Houbara wrote: »

I m not suggesting that cyclists can t do 30 mph but they are going flat out on stripped down lightweights ridden by very fit cyclists. Most commuter cyclists are trundling along at 12 mph ish .

Nonsense! I'm far from fit, but earlier today I was riding my mountain bike, two panniers with a few litres of water, heavy locks, and clothes, and my top speed was exactly 30.0mph. And lycra-clad cyclists on their ultra-light road bikes still whizz past me.



I think this is why motorists have a habit of aggressively cutting up cyclists. They misjudge their speed, and prefer to sideswipe a soft cyclist than clip an oncoming car.

unholyangel

Houbara wrote: »

Yes you can get an electric bike at 15kg .It costs an arm and a leg. Most of them are heavy hunks weighing 30 kg or more. My bike weighs 8 kgs . I m not suggesting that cyclists can t do 30 mph but they are going flat out on stripped down lightweights ridden by very fit cyclists. Most commuter cyclists are trundling along at 12 mph ish .
what I object to is classifying electric E bike users as "cyclists "..They re not , they re kidding themselves if they think they are cyclists. The electric motor is doing most of the work. They mostly contribute to forward motion by the minimum watts of 3.7 mph
.Many of these users use E bikes because they are not fit enough for a true bike especially when they toil into a headwind. E-bikes are akin to a moped IMO .Moped riders is a more accurate description .
That reminds me to catch up on the Vuelta de Espana on Freeview 24 now,..Now thats what I call cyclists.They do 20 mph up steep hills in 38 c !

You can get electric bikes that funnily enough only weigh a few kgs more than the manual equivalent bike (ie electric mountain bike versus manual mountain bike) and for just a little more than the manual one price. Its almost as if the only extra weight & price is the motor - which usually weigh about the same as an adult yorkie. So, you think that riding around with a yorkie (or maybe a small westie) would make you do much more harm in a collision? As I said, the riders weight can vary by much more than that. A 8 stone guy on an electric bike is going to be of smaller weight collectively than a 15 stone guy on a mountain bike.

As for the criteria....I would suggest that classing them all as motorbikes would present other issues. Such as childrens toy jeeps and minibikes that have been all the rage in recent years - which would then be treated as motor vehicles and all the legalities that come with it.

Not saying I necessarily agree with it, but it is what it is - for practical purposes there needs to be a cut off and the powers that be have deemed that 15.5mph, 250w maximum.

[Deleted User]

Exemplar wrote: »

https://postimg.cc/gallery/299f522k8/


So I drive to work because I have to. On the days I don't need the car I cycle and use the cycle lanes. I'm not precious about my bike and use it as I use the car, a tool to fulfil a function.

For the past few days I have noticed what I would class as sporting cyclists using a particularly dangerous part of my route. My post this morning is to just understand why these guys would rather cycle dangerously than use the cycle path provided (in the pictures you will see it, the cycle lane is the larger part, pedestrians get the narrower part closer to the road).

I'm sure that there are many arguments as to why from either side but I'm interested as to why someone would both put themselves in harms way from a vehicle over a pedestrian and also why It's considered acceptable to retard the traffic so badly (as was the case this morning).

I'm not after an argument (although it will turn in to one as usual) rather a genuine reason. Do roads offer more safety? Are there less hazards? is it OK to not use a (in this case) well maintained cycle lane?

Picture 1 = Aerial view
Picture 2 = South to North Street View

The idea that cyclists are safer on a cycle path is one that suits both cyclists and motorists, but it isn't true. It stems from the misconception that the biggest hazard to cyclists derives from risk of being hit from behind by a passing car, but that isn't true either.

The majority of cycle accidents occur at junctions, not between them, and cycle paths make junctions more complicated to negotiate and more hazardous. The whole problem arises because of the difference between where potential hazards can appear from, and where road users need to pay attention. Take a look at the diagram below:



A cyclist on the road knows he has right of way, so he only has to pay attention that a motorist stops at the give way line, and oncoming traffic waits without crossing in front of him.

For a rider on the path the situation is very different. Not only does he now have to check there isn't any traffic from his left to give way to when his view of it approaching is circumscribed by buildings on the corner, but he has to do it whilst trying to look over his shoulder to make sure that there aren't any cars about to overtake then turn left in front of him.

For the motorists, the cycle path also increases the area they need to check for hazards, but tends to reduce their priority for doing so by taking the cyclists off the road where the main threat to motorists comes from.

Off-road cycle paths reduce the minority of accidents between junctions, but increase the majority of accidents at the junctions, so the net effect is an overall increase.

There has ample research demonstrating this for donkey's years, but as with any message people don't want to hear, it gets ignored:

Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User
Kaplan. Federal Highway Administration, US, 1975.
Cycle paths 292 accidents per million cycle miles, against 104 for minor roads and 111 for major roads.

The Risks of Cycling
Pasenen, Helsinki City Planning Department 2001
In Helsinki, using a road-side cycle path is nearly 2.5 times more likely to result in injury than cycling on the carriageway with traffic.

Signalised Intersections Function and Accident Risk for Unprotected Road Users
Linderholm. University of Lund, Sweden, 1984
Cycle tracks are 3.4 times more dangerous than using the road at junctions, rising to 11.9 times when riding against the traffic flow.

Traffic Accidents Involving Cyclists
Berlin Police, Germany, 1987.
Cyclists four times more likely to have accident on roads with cycle paths. Likelihood of serious or fatal injury similarly increased.

Safety of Cycling Children – Effect of the Street Environment
Leden. Technical Research Centre of Finland 1989.
Overall risk of collision is 1.3 crashes/100,000km on a cycle track, but 0.5 crashes/100,000km on the carriageway

Cycle Routes
Harland, Gercans. Transport Research Laboratory, UK, 1993.
No evidence that cycle routes lead to more cycling or improved safety.

Two Decades of the Redway Cycle Paths of Milton Keynes
Franklin. Traffic Engineering & Control, 1999.
Injury accidents on UK's largest purpose-built cycle path network per million km cycled:
Cycle paths 166, local roads 149, main roads 31.

Junctions and Cyclists
Jensen, Andersen, Nielsen. Velo City, Barcelona, 1997.
Cyclists particularly vulnerable at non-signalised junctions where study indicates a nearly fourfold increase in risk. Cycle lanes in Denmark realise accident savings between junctions, but this is more than outweighed by additional accidents at junctions.

Measuring the Safety Effect of Raised Bicycle Crossings
Leden, Gårdner, Pulkkinen. Swedish Transportation Research Board, 1998.
Conventional cycle tracks increase cyclists' risk at junctions.

Toronto Bicycle Commuter Safety Rates
Aultman-Hall, Kaltenecker. Transportation Research Board, 1998.
Injuries 1.8 times more likely on cycle paths than roads and 6 times on footways.

Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections
Wachtel, Lewiston. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, USA. September 1994
“Sidewalks or paths adjacent to a roadway are usually not, as non-cyclists expect, safer than the road but much less safe. This conclusion is already well established in existing standards for bikeway design, although in our experience it is not widely known or observed.”
Risk on average 1.8 times greater.

How to Decrease the Number of Bicycle Accidents?
Räsänen, Traffic Safety Committee of Insurance Companies, Finland, 1995.
Study of 234 bicycle crashes in four Finnish cities. 63% of collisions between a cyclist and a motor vehicle took place at cycle track crossings.

Safety Effects of Bicycle Facilities
Wegman, Dijkstra. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Netherlands, 1992.
In built-up areas cycle tracks 25% safer than unsegregated road between junctions, but 32% more dangerous at junctions. Cycle lanes 36% more dangerous between junctions, 19% safer at junctions. Seriousness of accidents greater if tracks or lanes present compared with no facilities.

Safety for Cyclists at Urban Road Junctions
Schnull, Alrutz et al. German Federal Highways Institute Report 262, 1993.
Proportion of junction accidents significantly higher with cycle tracks. HGV conflicts more common with segregation. Without signals, cyclists nearly 5 times more at risk on a cycle track; contrasting surfaces only reduces this to 1.5. With signals, cyclists are 1.7 to 2.7 times more at risk on cycle track, 1.3 times on a cycle lane. At roundabouts cycle tracks increase risk by 30%, cycle lanes by 25%.

Bicycle Paths in Cities - The Safety Effect
Bach, Rosbach, Joergensen. Danish Road Directorate, Denmark, 1988
Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction of paths. Bicycle traffic volume did not increase during the study period.

Typical Patterns of Accidents Involving Bicycles and Recommendations for the Safe Design of Bicycle Traffic Facilities
Alrutz, HUK-Verband, Köln, Germany, 1980.
A study of 4,000 accidents in Köln 1976 - 1978. Cycle paths as traditionally built do not guarantee a reduction in casualties. The risk cyclists face depends on how often their unimpeded ride is interrupted.

Report on accidents to cyclists
Transport Advisory Council, Ministry of Transport, UK, 1938.
Cycle tracks increase danger at every road junction. Considers cycle tracks provide safety benefit between junctions but provides no evidence.

Cycle safety
Hass-Klau et al. Environmental & Transport Planning, UK/Germany 1991.
Number of motor vehicles and in particular number of cyclists has much stronger influence on safety than cycle facilities. Some main roads with cycle facilities have higher cycle accident rate than without. Visibility and care crucial; cycle facility may contribute to accidents by making cyclist over-confident. Facilities cause many problems; bad cycle facilities are worse than none.
Peterborough: high accident rate in residential areas casts doubt on independent cycle facilities. York and Oxford: high serious accident rates.

Study of Milton Keynes Cycle Accidents, 1980 - 1990
Ketteridge. Milton Keynes Development Corporation, UK, 1991.
Includes one-month hospital survey which showed 14 cycle path accidents against 1 minor road accident and no major road accidents in equivalent area. All 3 serious accidents were cycle path.

Cycle routes
Harland, Gercans. TRL, UK, 1993.
No evidence that cycle routes lead to more cycling or improved safety.

National trends in cycling and cycle accidents
Morgan. TRL/Institute of Civil Engineers, UK, 1995.
Only 3% of injury accidents on cycle tracks and off-road are recorded.
Cycle facilities not improving use or safety. What we are doing now is either insufficient or just plainly wrong.

Redways and Leisure Routes
Franklin. Milton Keynes Cycle Users Group, UK, 1998.
Redways nearly 7 times more dangerous per mile cycled. 6 deaths to cyclists off-road in 10 years against just one in comparable area on roads.

Two Decades of the Redway Cycle Paths of Milton Keynes
Franklin. Traffic Engineering & Control, 1999.
Injury accidents on UK's largest purpose-built cycle path network per million km cycled:
Cycle paths 166, local roads 149, main roads 31.

NBLondon

jack_pott wrote: »

Take a look at the diagram below:

Interesting diagram... the cycle lane stops to cross the side road? Never seen one like that - where is it? Not to mention that there appears not to be any pavement - the red building is coming right up to the edge of the lane....

This is more like it my experience.... Of course - there are still drivers who stick their nose out across the cycle lane and the left-hook risk....

NBLondon

Nasqueron wrote: »

Look I'm not going to bother responding any more as you clearly don't understand what evidence is.

You don't seem to grasp the idea that evidence has to be relevant to the point being made... If I tell people that the price of apples in Sainsbury's has gone up - would you insist that it couldn't possibly be true because oranges are on special offer in Tesco?

personal anecdotes as proof of their claims,

The only claim I make is that I saw these events and see similar behaviour repeatedly. Everything else is you throwing together massive amounts of straw.

I don't ride in London incidentally, but I gather plenty of cars on camera breaking the law both from my car dash cam and my bike helmet cam. Red light jumping is a daily occurrence on camera (ignoring the number who don't slow down for amber which adds up to a lot more).

I'm not in any way denying that's your experience... why are you so vehement at denying other people's experiences?

Numerous posts on here are clearly anti cycling rants coupled with a throwaway line about not hating cyclists, on a par with the line "I'm not racist but..."

And any criticism of cyclists (no matter how valid) seems to trigger a mass of knee-jerking defences which can often be summed up as "It doesn't matter what cyclists do - drivers are worse!" Which in turn encourages the anti-cyclist community to reinforce their prejudices.

[Deleted User]

NBLondon wrote: »

Interesting diagram... the cycle lane stops to cross the side road? Never seen one like that - where is it? Not to mention that there appears not to be any pavement - the red building is coming right up to the edge of the lane....

This is more like it my experience.... Of course - there are still drivers who stick their nose out across the cycle lane and the left-hook risk....

I think it is a common enough cycle track set up, the main one coming out of my town has that system..its hopeless, has me stopping every 30 seconds whilst I defer to side roads and lights. It also has lamp posts etc for me to dodge as well as pedestrians. I d sooner take my chances on the main road

esuhl

NBLondon wrote: »

Interesting diagram... the cycle lane stops to cross the side road? Never seen one like that - where is it?

You're kidding, right?! I'd guess that 99% of the cycle lanes I've seen are like that. Cycle lanes like the one you've shown are incredibly rare.


Do you live in London or a big city with a few examples of decent cycle infrastructure?

NBLondon

esuhl wrote: »

Do you live in London or a big city with a few examples of decent cycle infrastructure?

Yes - does the username not give you a clue:)? The one I linked to is in Central London - not far from where I sometimes work.

Are you talking about a shared path then - where the cycle lane is a paint separated bit of the pavement as opposed to a paint or kerb separated bit of the carriageway? And as drawn... are the pedestrians supposed to walk on the bit between the cycle path and the main carriageway and dodge cyclists when they want to walk down the side road? So if most outside London are that badly designed, then yeah - I can see why a lot of cyclists won't bother.

[Deleted User]

NBLondon wrote: »

Never seen one like that - where is it?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1911442,0.1236833,3a,75y,331.76h,86.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssXiVVtzp0otIWHzf-lVZ-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.0704922,-0.8006068,3a,75y,232.73h,76.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVtQcuZMGiOPa-iwWcYC1HQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

NBLondon wrote: »

This is more like it my experience.

Safety Effects of Bicycle Facilities
Wegman, Dijkstra. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Netherlands, 1992.
In built-up areas cycle tracks 25% safer than unsegregated road between junctions, but 32% more dangerous at junctions. Cycle lanes 36% more dangerous between junctions, 19% safer at junctions. Seriousness of accidents greater if tracks or lanes present compared with no facilities.