Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Sustrans calls for action after 11 cyclist deaths in UK this month

Segregated lanes and quietways part of the solution, says charity

It might be Road Safety Week, but for cyclists it’s looking more like Black November. Six cyclists have died on London’s roads so far this month, and elsewhere in the country there have been fatalities in Sheffield, Nantwich, Bath, Bristol, and Middlesborough. Active travel organisation Sustrans has called for action to stop the deaths, and suggested measures that would reduce the risk to cyclists.

The spate of deaths so far this month comes after a bad second quarter of the year. The number of cyclist casualties rose by 12 per cent between April and June this year compared to the same period last year and 2012 was the eighth year in a row that the number of seriously injured cyclists increased.

Sustrans policy director Jason Torrance said: “Urgent action must be taken by Government in light of the recent spate of deaths, to stop cycle casualties on our roads and to close the widening gap between improving safety of motorists and worsening safety of cyclists.”

The last few days have seen calls for action from many quarters. A die-in demonstration and vigil is being held outside Transport for London HQ on November 29.

The Save Our Cyclists petition has garnered over 30,000 names in five days.

But what sort of action is needed? The most widespread call from cycling activists has been for segregated cycle lanes that separate cycling from motor vehicles.

A Sustrans spokesman said: “We see segregated cycle lanes as a vital part of the solution to making it safer for people of all ages and abilities to cycle, however not in isolation. Together with lower speeds for cars, traffic free routes away from main roads or paths shared with pedestrians segregated routes improve safety and people’s perception of safety.”

The particular measures Sustrans would like to see include:

  • Creation and use of ‘quietways’- low traffic side streets as designated main cycle routes, as opposed to use of busy main roads
  • Street infrastructure designed for humans as opposed to cars
  • Greater adoption of 20mph zones as default
  • Better HGV driver training to deal with cyclists, possible ban at peak times
  • Adopt continental best practice, there’s no time/need for research- good quality methods are already out there

And mindful of the death and serious injury rate among cyclists elsewhere in the country, Sustrans says: “It’s a UK challenge, not just London.”

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

45 comments

Avatar
Doctor Fegg replied to mrmo | 11 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:

GWR owns the trackbed upto hunting butts and won't allow any cycling on the trackbed [...] whilst a section at the broadway/honeybourne end belongs to rail paths, not sustrans, it doesn't look likely it will get cycle use from what i see.

I'll just say that, in due course, you could be pleasantly surprised on both these counts.  1

Avatar
mrmo replied to Doctor Fegg | 11 years ago
0 likes
Doctor Fegg wrote:
mrmo wrote:

GWR owns the trackbed upto hunting butts and won't allow any cycling on the trackbed [...] whilst a section at the broadway/honeybourne end belongs to rail paths, not sustrans, it doesn't look likely it will get cycle use from what i see.

I'll just say that, in due course, you could be pleasantly surprised on both these counts.  1

I ****ing hope so, i work in Evesham live in Cheltenham and ride to work most days, if there is a decent route that means i don't have to ride racecourse hill then do it!!!!!!!!!

Avatar
GrahamSt | 11 years ago
0 likes

So much naysaying about Sustrans here.  2
They DO have good routes. I ride 11 miles to work on the NCN72. It is more direct than the road route (much of which is 70mph dual carriageway) and it takes me about the same time as it does when I take the car.

Please don't write off all Sustrans routes. Some of them are lovely.

Avatar
Andy G replied to GrahamSt | 11 years ago
0 likes
GrahamSt wrote:

So much naysaying about Sustrans here.  2
They DO have good routes. I ride 11 miles to work on the NCN72. It is more direct than the road route (much of which is 70mph dual carriageway) and it takes me about the same time as it does when I take the car.

Please don't write off all Sustrans routes. Some of them are lovely.

That's why I said that some areas are good, I've experienced them and I'm very jealous and annoyed at the crap we get dealt. I suspect that the issue is not going to be Sustrans directly but the other partners they have to work - Trafford are crap for cyclists, we're lucky if we get lip service.

Avatar
mrmo | 11 years ago
0 likes

I should add, that a badly designed/routed path is worse than no path. Explain to the average driver why you are not using the designated path. That the path is unsafe isn't their problem, you being on their* road and in their* way is.

* i use their, in the context that too many drivers believe that the car tax(sic) they pay gives them some primacy on the roads.

Avatar
mad_scot_rider | 11 years ago
0 likes

@mrmo

I agree

There's a signposted quiet route from my home into Glasgow - which I avoid like the plague

Loads of small turnings, cars parked on both sides blocking vision and unexpected vehicles emerging from driveways are just a few of the additional hazards

For preference I use the nearby dual-carriageway instead - yeah it takes it bit more fortitude, but it is MUCH safer - and the fact it's quicker is just a bonus

Avatar
mrmo | 11 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Creation and use of ‘quietways’- low traffic side streets as designated main cycle routes, as opposed to use of busy main roads

This is the point i have real issue with. It sounds lovely, BUT.

side streets where kids are playing, drivers are failing to de-ice windscreens, where there are most junctions, etc.

And all to often ridiculusly circuitous routing.

If i ride a bike i will take the most direct sensible route. if the choice is 9miles main road, or 10miles on sideroads i will consider the side roads, but if the alternative is 15-16miles then i am going to think WTF. If the main road route is 30mins and the side roads are 40mins what is 10mins, but if it is 60mins then again WTF!

There has to be a balance, but bikes are traffic and have every right to use the roads, if an alternative is going to exist then it has to be realistic, it has to be clean, gritted when appropriate, well lit if urban, and to have a reasonable surface without too many potholes! there has to be a minimum of car/bike junction type interactions.

Avatar
pmanc replied to mrmo | 11 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:

And all to often ridiculusly circuitous routing [for "quietways"]

...If i ride a bike i will take the most direct sensible route. if the choice is 9miles main road, or 10miles on sideroads i will consider the side roads, but if the alternative is 15-16miles then i am going to think WTF. If the main road route is 30mins and the side roads are 40mins what is 10mins, but if it is 60mins then again WTF!

Completely agree, and in fact I would go further and say that given the huge external costs associated with private motor transport and the physical exertion required for cycling, directness of cycle routes should be deliberately prioritised over motor vehicle routes. Much like the structure seen in the brilliant Groningen video on street films:
http://www.streetfilms.org/groningen-the-worlds-cycling-city/

Avatar
GrahamSt replied to pmanc | 11 years ago
0 likes
pmanc wrote:

Much like the structure seen in the brilliant Groningen video on street films:
http://www.streetfilms.org/groningen-the-worlds-cycling-city/

Yep Groningen is amazing. But if people think that is something that can only be achieved in the Netherlands then take a good look at what they are doing right now in New York: reclaiming major roads as pedestrian areas; segregated cycle lanes; increases in cycling numbers; faster buses; increases in retail sales; big decreases in casualty rates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LujWrkYsl64

Avatar
Ush replied to mrmo | 11 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:
Quote:

Creation and use of ‘quietways’- low traffic side streets as designated main cycle routes, as opposed to use of busy main roads

This is the point i have real issue with. It sounds lovely, BUT....

Agree strongly. Basically this is a nicely phrased version of `get off "our" roads'. Part of the advantage of a bicycle is the freedom of choosing whatever route you need to get to where you going.

If Sustrans were pushing for segregated lanes along high-speed roads with low numbers of intersections; or even for something like a few good quality radial, true bicycle superhighways (no intersections, clover-leaf style exit/entrances, good lighting, regular surface cleaning, regular police patrols) then that would be positive.

But, maybe this will be be better for biodiversity?

Meanwhile Johnson is continuing the "blame the cyclists" game with an attack on those wearing headphones.

* Were those people recently killed all wearing headphones?
* What evidence is there that headphones actually lead to increased accident rates?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/boris-johnson-considers-ban...

Avatar
Neil753 replied to mrmo | 11 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:
Quote:

Creation and use of ‘quietways’- low traffic side streets as designated main cycle routes, as opposed to use of busy main roads

This is the point i have real issue with. It sounds lovely, BUT.

side streets where kids are playing, drivers are failing to de-ice windscreens, where there are most junctions, etc.

And all to often ridiculusly circuitous routing.

If i ride a bike i will take the most direct sensible route. if the choice is 9miles main road, or 10miles on sideroads i will consider the side roads, but if the alternative is 15-16miles then i am going to think WTF. If the main road route is 30mins and the side roads are 40mins what is 10mins, but if it is 60mins then again WTF!

There has to be a balance, but bikes are traffic and have every right to use the roads, if an alternative is going to exist then it has to be realistic, it has to be clean, gritted when appropriate, well lit if urban, and to have a reasonable surface without too many potholes! there has to be a minimum of car/bike junction type interactions.

You raise a very good point. The de facto performance of a "quiet route" should, imho, always be measured in terms of the actual time it takes an average cyclist to get from A to B. Poor surfaces, hills, sharp bends, narrow or shared paths, the number of points where a cyclist is required to give way, and indeed the number of other cyclists on that route, can all be factors that can be argued about, but it is very easy to time a cyclist travelling from A to B. In fact, we're quite good at doing that, here in the UK.

So I propose that we should all be open minded about any initiatives but, rather than quibbling about all manner of issues, we should be focussed on just one thing - time.

It's a simple concept that everyone would understand, and we could more easily compare a projected time with the actual time, once the route was opened, as a direct performance indicator of the organisation concerned.

Avatar
hood replied to mrmo | 11 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:
Quote:

Creation and use of ‘quietways’- low traffic side streets as designated main cycle routes, as opposed to use of busy main roads

This is the point i have real issue with. It sounds lovely, BUT.

side streets where kids are playing, drivers are failing to de-ice windscreens, where there are most junctions, etc.

And all to often ridiculusly circuitous routing.

If i ride a bike i will take the most direct sensible route. if the choice is 9miles main road, or 10miles on sideroads i will consider the side roads, but if the alternative is 15-16miles then i am going to think WTF. If the main road route is 30mins and the side roads are 40mins what is 10mins, but if it is 60mins then again WTF!

There has to be a balance, but bikes are traffic and have every right to use the roads, if an alternative is going to exist then it has to be realistic, it has to be clean, gritted when appropriate, well lit if urban, and to have a reasonable surface without too many potholes! there has to be a minimum of car/bike junction type interactions.

riding quiet backstreet roads is only an option for the casual weekend rider, out to see some sights and meander about.
anyone wanting to actually transport themselves from home to work cant be expected to use quiet side roads.
for a start many of them are one way.
then theres the problem of poor surfacing, pot holes etc.
after that we come to the worst problem with this idea - the nature of side streets mean lots of t junctions and cross roads. the stop / start nature of the ride makes it so slow you may as well walk to work, on the pavement taking the most direct route along a main road as it will be faster!

Avatar
Doctor Fegg replied to hood | 11 years ago
0 likes
hood wrote:

riding quiet backstreet roads is only an option for the casual weekend rider, out to see some sights and meander about.
anyone wanting to actually transport themselves from home to work cant be expected to use quiet side roads.
for a start many of them are one way.

It works in Hackney, where the buzzword is "filtered permeability" (translation: put bollards in to close the backstreets to through motor traffic, but let cyclists through, and provide cycle contraflows for one-way streets). I'm not saying it's as good as full segregation nor that it's enough in itself, but it can be a useful complement.

Avatar
banzicyclist2 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Yes it's not just London although clearly there is a huge problem there. Watching the new last night there seems a clear link with HGVs, the example in' Paris was given where taking HGVs off the roads in daylight had reduced the number of accidents by a significant amount.

What chance do you think Boris and his cronies will introduce this is?

Avatar
Andy G | 11 years ago
0 likes

Agree with what they are saying but it would be nice if Sustrans' routes were up to scratch for non-leisure riding. Those in Trafford are either not surfaced or the tarmac has just been thrown at the ground leaving a rough ride that damages bikes unless they run soft tyres. I know some other areas are better but there needs to be a minimum acceptable standard so that people know they can trust them.

Pages

Latest Comments