More than half of UK population believe roads in built-up areas too dangerous for cycling, says Sustrans

Simon E

You miss my point and also rather make it for me. It isn't about red light jumpers or zebra crossing chargers or pavement riders (though they are a menace and often do in fact wipe out pedestrians as you put it). Yes, bad driving is a huge problem, but the instances you mention are mercifully rare but get huge exposure (rightly so) - the bus driver above got put in prison (which is good), the cyclist involved was fortunately not fatally injured (which is very good indeed), but this is extreme. On a more day to day basis, bad cycling is a problem and can contribute to a cyclist's own problems. And bad cycling is mainly, in no particular order (i) not signalling, (ii) changing direction without looking round, (iii) wearing iPods, (iv) riding without lights at night, (v) not being aware and not anticipating, (vii) riding the wrong way up one-way streets, and (vi) beligerent cycling without recognising that other road users also have a right to be there. The increase of cyclists on the road (I'm talking London where I ride) has brought out a lot cyclists who are fanatically sure of their rights above all others, and that's dangerous. Cyclists are not automatically the purer-than-pure saints that you seem to think they are, many are idiots, accidents waiting to happen and shouldn't really be on the road as they endanger other cyclists as well.

You say that no amount of safety equipment will keep you safe; I couldn't agree more. So be aware of your vulnerability, of the risk you face on the public road, use your brain and be aware. We don't have a pre-eminent right to ride on the road, so, as they say in Hill Street Blues, be careful out there.

Let's hope all the current acticity and debate get things canging in the right drection. And we've had some good comments here on roads designers not thinking of cyclists, the need fo porpoer law neforcments no tjsut driver education and others thinking the roads are no twhere the cyclig should be . But, as in Netherlands, there will always be a lot of cycling on normal roads. We need to strike a balance over where we cycle and how risky it is. Cycling is already safer than: walking per mile, tennis per participant and lots of other everyday activities. It makes huge inroads into obesity, cardiovascular disease and more - health benefits outweigh risks 20 to 1. Cyclists live years longer on average and it takes thousands of years of cycling per fatality. It’s safer to cycle than not to. But it needs to be as safe here as it is elsewhere in Europe. Unfortunately unwarranted scaremongering deters people from cycling’s mostly enjoyable healthy convenience - ironically it’s more people cycling which is key to better safety. Our frightened, populist clamour for cycle lanes might actually make it worse by encouraging more UK style ‘facilities’. They are of such low quality they often make it no safer or convenient. LCC’s Go Dutch campaign is a great start for high quality segregation which assists beginners and experienced cyclists alike. But it will also need a Dutch style cultural shift in attitudes, priorities, 20 mph default urban speed limits, collision liabilities and political will to take space from carriageways not footways. Some advocates set this against integrationist/ vehicular cycling which they see as appeasing the status quo. Not so: they’re complementary approaches with national standards (cyclecraft) training enabling people to lift their skills and safety a notch or two in mixed traffic - even though some can take it a lot further than others. The skills are applicable even in 20 mph areas and on Dutch style cycleways. Let’s use a mix of whatever works. What won’t work is hi viz and helmet promotion – look at www.cyclehelmets.org to learn of an absence casualty benefit., of the bad science which abounds and of safety data like the tennis and walking comparisons. What needs promoting more, especially in promotional pictures, is the Copenhagen style; no helmets, no hi viz and low casualties. Normal people on normal bikes making normal trips in normal clothes. Apologies to you sporty types who can’t throw off the fancy gear to go shopping - as cycling ex transport minister Steve Norris said: “I don’t want to dress up like a spaceman to ride my bike”. John Orpen M www.cyclenation.org.uk

'Commenting on the results, Mr Shepherd said: "People shouldn't have to feel they're taking a risk when they travel on two wheels in our towns and cities."'

Wrong, Mr Shepherd, people should recognise that they are indeed taking a risk when they take to the road on a bicycle, otherwise they'll ride along as though nobody else is on the road and then likely end up on the floor or in a collision. Risk assessment will keep you aware, safe and provide a more enjoyable cycling experience. And Simon E, it's not only driver behaviour that's an issue, it's cyclist behaviour. It's a head in the sand mentality to say that it's all somebody else's fault and responsibility. Some drivers bad, no doubt. But some cyclists also bad. As a cyclist (commuting and weekend long distance) I'm at the bottom of road food chain - I'm exposed, so I've got to look out for myself.

The problem with such polls is that it depends on what questions you ask.

So 'do you think that sharing the same space and mingling, unprotected, with heavy fast moving machines is safe? Would bring a massive 'no' response.

To blame it on drivers is as daft as cycling down railway lines and blaming train drivers or airport runways and blaming the pilots.

So we have two problems. 1) Because cycling among motor vehicles is historic, we imagine that as an inalienable right to do so uninjured and should be able to continue even though there are now far far more of these machines travelling at higher speeds. And 2)Not accepting that the activity, by its very description, is a dodgy thing to be doing.

What makes matters worse is that motor vehicles are not even on tracks like trains or totally un-shared space such as planes and the drivers of them, are nowhere near as regulated as the two former either.

The fact is that when you mingle human flesh with machinery in a manner that would not be tolerated under any other circumstances, bad things are going to happen.

So it all comes down to personal choice. 'Is it a good idea to place my body in this situation or not?'

When I am on my bike, unless on the pavement and even then a car could back out in front of me, I never feel secure. I can never be certain that some driver will not plough into me. But blame gets us nowhere. So St Peter says: 'come in son you were in the right it's the driver's fault' Oh big deal!

"It's not the roads that are the problem, but DRIVER BEHAVIOUR."

No, Simon E, driver behaviour IS a problem but road design is too. Governments can change road design, but changing behaviour is a much tougher task. Most drivers are past educating about their behaviour, having embedded bad habits from the instant they collected their driving test pass certificate and possibly even before that. New drivers can have things like cyclist awareness built into their training, but they will inevitably start to unlearn any good habits as soon as they can remove their L plates. We should be tougher on dangerous drivers but even that will not eliminate bad driving, just as the death penalty doesn't stop Americans murdering each other.

Currently roads are designed for motor vehicles. In fact, quite a lot of thought and science goes into road design - engineers survey the geography of the road and the traffic stats, historic and projected - how many go straight, turn left or right etc, at what time of day. Much of that design works very well - if you assume that the only users of the road will be motor vehicles.

The problem is that the engineers, through training, force of habit or perhaps instruction from above, either entirely ignore pedestrian and cyclist needs or bring them in only as an afterthought. If they were to start incorporating them into their plans ab initio, with a clear brief that they rank equally, the result would be very different, maybe even a bit like the Netherlands!

The result would not be coast-to-coast segregated cycle lanes, any more than it is in the Netherlands (it's about 20% there). It would also be new junction designs, new traffic light phases like cyclists advance starts or permitted left-turns on red etc, 20mph zones, "naked streets", filtered pemeability, and so on. Almost all of which are currently rarities in the UK.

Come and argue for real change - Flashride around Parliament tomorrow evening. Meet at 6:15 at the Duke of York Steps in the Mall.

+2 for Simon.

The vast majority of our roads were built for horse and cart and cyclists paved the way for better road surfaces. Since then the roads have been 'adapted' for motorised traffic. The only roads built specifically for the combustion engine will have been motorways and dual carriageways. Even the roads in the 'modern' towns and estates will be based on a model 100 years old. The only way forward is for driver behaviour to vastly improve.

Thanks for the summary.

More than half of UK population are idiots.

or so it seems.

"Regular cyclists are most likely to be found in the South East, at 2 per cent, twice the national average, with the East of England the only other region above average at 22 per cent."

Couldn't find the original report so can you confirm these figures?

I suspect the one for South East is not right. I'm in East of England so interested in our local figures.

cheers

"more than half of the UK’s adults believe that the country’s roads in built-up areas are too unsafe to cycle on"

It's not the roads that are the problem, but DRIVER BEHAVIOUR.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/sacred-bull-in-societys-china-shop....