please empty your brain below

I was with you, DG, until #16 when it all got a bit silly.

Round here, Portsmouth, they've designated a lot of side roads as 20mph zones. You can't drive much faster, safely, cos there are cars parked both sides anyway. This makes it a bit hairy for cyclists as there is just enough room for one car and one bike to pass!
Having nearly been mown down by a cyclist riding at stupid speed on the pavement on Blackfriars Rd yesterday at 6 p.m., I would say any cyclist found riding on the pavement should be beheaded and his/her head placed on a spike on London Bridge for a week.... I'm not one to over-react, me !
Brilliant fun, but only one or two of your suggestions will significantly reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on bicycles. May I deconstruct?

1. Side guards on lorries might help a bit, but only 4 out of the 15 trucks which killed cyclists in 2012 were missing them. Even of those four, it's likely that side guards would not help.

3. There's no evidence defensive cycling training helps (partly because most cycle collisions are caused by drivers - more on this below). We do lots of training already, but the rate of death and serious injury is still rising.

6. Cycle helmets reduce minor injuries at low speed. This is good for children falling off their bikes but bad for adults. Most serious crashes are at higher speeds and caused by crushed torsos rather than bashed heads. Worse, most people wear cycle helmets too loose to be of any use. Yet worse, the helmet itself causes spinal injuries in the event of a big collision by jerking the head on impact.

10. Fining cyclists doesn't help. Fewer than 2% of cyclist deaths and serious injuries are caused by cyclists "ignoring signs", which includes jumping red lights. More than 60% of these collisions are caused by "driver failed to look" (DfT 2009)

14. Bingo. This is the only option that has the potential to reduce cycling deaths and serious injuries by up to 90%. Currently in London, if a driver makes a mistake, cyclists (and pedestrians) are threatened with death. This is not good enough: you can't stop people making mistakes. But we can design our streets properly so everyone's honest mistakes would result in very few injuries and no deaths.

16. Milton Keynes has lots of cycle paths but they were not designed for safe cycling, disappearing when you need them most. Wherever there was a choice between allowing cars to go fast and making it safe to cycle, the street engineers chose the former. Such a waste.

17. The roads are fast and direct. There is no reason why anyone would cycle in Milton Keynes to get from A to B because it's always faster and more convenient to drive.
The "London's streets are too narrow" is poppycock.

Old Dutch cities have incredibly narrow streets yet are completely cycle-proof and have little congestion.

How?

Because cycle-proofing a city's narrow streets encourages huge numbers of people to switch from cars, buses and taxis to bicycles, which take up 80% less space. So having limited capacity and narrow streets is an excellent reason to cycleproof a city.
I tragically misread the title here. Imagine my disappointment when I realised it was not a 25 point plan to free London from the curse of cycling
I think number 23 could be the way to go. Motorists need to have registration and are monitered by traffic cameras, so why not use the technology already in place to catch cyclists too?
All road users should be held accountable to the same rules.

As a pedestrian I'm forever having cyclists come racing up silently behind me, then scaring the life out of me as they pass on the pavement. Why, because the pathetic little cycle lanes round here have cars parked in them rendering them useless!
1 way to cycleproof London:

i) Ban all cyclists under penalty of instant capital punishment.

Job done.
Sorry to sound cynical but whilst David Cameron and Boris Johnson, our esteemed leaders or buffoons (delete as appropriate) continue to act as lawbreakers, nothing will change.
I was told (by a credible researcher) that when cycle helmets were made compulsory in Australia, fatalities rose.
I vote for #18 with a small amendment: instead of knocking down lots of buildings, knock down all of them and just strart all over again from scratch, this time with some sense!
1. Lorries working in the construction industry have to go onto building sites where side guards are likely to get in the way or just torn off. Unless retractable guards can be designed, I can't see this as practical. For similar reasons, the suggestion for lower cabs (at the same level as other drivers) is not practical: if the cab is not above the engine but in front or behind it, it would also reduce the available paylod length, effectively requiring morew lorries to do the same ampunt of work.
6. a requirement for cycle helmets would achieve little: in town most cyclist injuries are not to the head. It would deter cyclists (certainly take away the spontaneous use of Boris Bikes). Personally I also find wearing any sort of headgear whether as a driver, cyclist or pedestrian makes me less alert: in particular the extra weight of a helmet makes it harder to look over the shoulder.
7. Pointless until someone starts to enforce them.
9. That would increase lorry mileage hugely!
23. Boris bikes all have a registration number already - it's a start!
As you couldn't get on or off the train on one of London's overground for cyclists (pairs) and their f -ing mountain bikes this weekend - quite frankly, I don't care if a few more of them get killed. A number of other train passengers were clearly feeling murderous too. I've been run over enough times on footpaths and crossings not to care a fig for any rule breaking/arrogant/selfish pedal freak. (I have a bike, I follow the rules).
The "but the streets are too narrow!" for separate cycle paths argument is nonsense, see http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-physical-constraints-of-londons-streets/ for many examples.
Re: Sarah's comment. I have also heard that, and in addition apparently in larger places like Melbourne, the number of cyclists/people cycling drastically dropped as well as people were deterred from riding (eg: virtually all casual or occasional cyclists just stopped).
The evidence from compulsory helmets in Australia is, broadly, that the number of cyclists fell significantly with no fall in fatalities per km cycled. Cycle helmets are designed to distort under fairly low impact so, as another poster noted, they can only really affect minor accidents not potentially fatal ones.
i drive a truck

cyclists tend to come alarmingly close on my "blind" side, suddenly appearing at the last moment, so to speak

once, remarkably, i was overtaken as i slipped it into first gear by a young lady who had threaded her way between me and the bus on my left whilst holding a little AtoZ in front of her nose ...
I have nothing against cyclists riding on pavements, as long as they recognise the primacy of the pedestrian, and cycle at walking speed.
Sorry, I don't there's anything constructive I can suggest*
So I'll just chuck this in, instead (with apologies in advance for the adverts):-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekjIUR3n1C0


*Oh. There is one thing. I'd definitely scrap all of those ridiculous "Advance Stop Lines" for cyclists, because I've yet to meet anyone who can give any logical reason for enabling the slowest moving vehicles on the roads to get to sit in front of everybody else, at traffic lights.
As a commenter has already noted, #14 is the real answer - and not just the cycle highways but a decent joined up network. Most streets in London have plenty of room for cycle tracks (not pathetic cycle lanes that get parked on). The result will be fewer cyclists cycling on the pavement - which we can all agree is a bad thing - fewer cyclists killed, more children cycling to school (goodbye school run traffic jams), and a healthier and even happier population. Hell, we might even see DG on a bike. The problem is that none of our politicians seem to have the imagination to make that leap and commit the money it would take (even though it would pay back about 4x in reduced costs to the NHS).
The only certainty is that blogging about cycling is a damn fine way to attract a massive amount of comment of varying quality.

I liked that old "Marmite" cycling jersey that Evans used to sell, as cyclists are basically Marmite in human form.

I like cycling.
I hate Marmite.


I agree with RogerW about advance stop zones. They just encourage cyclists to squeeze past motor vehicles to get to the front, often up the inside of vehicles indicating they're going to turn left, only to be overtaken by the same vehicles all over again when the lights change. What fun it is to pass and be passed by the same double decker bus or tipper truck time after time along the Uxbridge Road. It really gets the adrenalin pumping.

What I noticed in Amsterdam was that drivers don't seem to resent cyclists as much as they do in London. Maybe it's because cyclist look like ordinary people similar to themselves, wearing ordinary clothes who just happen to be going somewhere on a bike, without the aid of helmets, Lycra, hi-vis waistcoats - or adrenalin.
DG I normally enjoy reading your daily items but I am puzzled by this one. I just don't see where you are coming from - unless its just to get opposing views. Pretty pointless in my view. One part of my job is to get more people cycling and I am also a cycle campaigner (and regularly cycle - no surprise there). Its a pretty serious issue and I don't think todays (well Thursday's) takes it forwards at all. maybe I have missed something - if yes I apologise. Meanwhile I'll continue to watch parents takign their children 200 yards to school and then continuing on to the local shops where Eric wants them to be able to park for nothing. Then its onto the chemists to get the inhalers for the children due to poor air quality.
if only people enjoyed walking the miles you do - only its so much easier to drive. Something has to change.
Many of the comments here (and some of the sillier suggestions in DG's original list) illustrate an extraornidary lack of understanding of what it's like to cycle in town.

I've both cycled and driven in much of London and I think it gives me a reasonable understanding of why different road users behave in different ways, though I've never driven a bus or lorry which I suspect would give me another valuable perspective.

There's definitely something to be said for awareness training or experience of what it's like for other road users. Most of the other suggestions here are either impractical or downright stupid, I'm afraid and only seem to encourage comments along the lines of ban all bikes/lorries/my pet hate etc.
My list ends with 'time travel' - I'd hope it was obvious not every suggestion was serious.

Indeed a majority of the suggestions were impractical, draconian, intolerant over-reactions.

Great ideas there. I really love riding the noke but i'm afraid of accidents. I hope this is a step ahead for cyclists.
Whilst there are a few cyslicts who behave correctly, the vast majority are a law unto themselves. I've seen them weaving in and out of cars, ignoring red traffic lights, use the pavements as their own cycle lanes (even though there are often proper cycle lanes nearby).

As a pedestrian, I agree with the other comments here about cyclists on pavements. This is becomeing more and more of a problem these days. Cyclists just aim straight at you, knowing full well that you'll move away. If a cyclist is asked why they're riding on the pavement, the answer invariably is "the roads are too dangerous" Cycles are meant to be ridden on the roads (or designated cycle tracks). If the roads are too dangerous, then don't cycle. It's as simple as that.

I'd like to see the police making an effort to deal with cysclists misbehaving. Instant fine and confiscate the bike. That may make cyslists take a bit of notice, but I doubt it.
"advance stop zones.... just encourage cyclists to squeeze past motor vehicles to get to the front, often up the inside of vehicles indicating they're going to turn left, only to be overtaken by the same vehicles all over again when the lights change".
Eh? They won't get re-overtaken by that vehicle unless they too have turned left.
"What fun is it to pass and be passed by the same double decker bus or tipper truck time after time along the Uxbridge Road?"
But that's the point - a bus in particular has to keep stopping: a bike will maintain the same average speed if it can keep going. If every time you come up behind a bus or lorry you have to stop, the traffic as a whole will average a higher speed than the cycle: so instead of being passed by the the same bus over and over again, you will just be passed by lots of different buses and lorries. No safer, or more pleasant, really.
Roger:

Cyclists just aim straight at you, knowing full well that you'll move away

If you have the chance, as they approach, photograph them (or look as if that's what you are doing). They don't like that.
I've cycled on a three lane dual carriage way (with a non-segregated cycle lane) in Switzerland and felt perfectly safe. I've never cycled in London as I don't have space for a car. I also don't have a car.

I think driver attitudes though is directly proportional to cycle usage in cities.

In Switzerland and Amsterdam, cyclists get no hassle; drivers are beyond considerate.

In London usage is pitiful; driver attitude is often truly appalling.

In Berne, Switzerland, cycle usage is 20%. In Amsterdam it's something like 40%.

In London it's pitiful.

Why the difference? That if the driver is also a cyclist, they know exactly what to do to keep cyclists safe? That if they're not a cyclist, someone in their family probably is?


Incidentally, I am glad to see there's not a single comment about "road tax" in these comments. Yet.










TridentScan | Privacy Policy