Fabio Jakobsen heading home to Netherlands tomorrow after horror crash; Cyclists "not all Lycra louts" says Boris Johnson; Biden questioned over helmetless ride; Anger over traps laid for cyclists + more on the live blog

The more so if they have set the traps.

I agree though cycle quite abit on rural roads just because of where I'm based,though I like to think I can judge the really bad roads and avoid them,but it's not always possible.

However whilst Boris may get cycling more than most,his traditionally loose turn of phrase, will mean most of the media will lead on the 'lycra louts' part,not the we must do more for cycling bit which is annoying enough by itself but it also backs up in the anti's minds that cyclists in lycra (and I've no idea why so many get hung up on styles of clothing, it cant surely just be because it's short & snappy term) are louts because Boris said some of them were

Or if the belisha beacon was wearing some hi-viz and displaying a light... oh.

Assignment in comparative journalism, two slants on the same story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-53736468

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/10/britains-first-dutch-style-r...

Apparently Nick Ferrari cited the closure on his radio show as an example of how governments locally/nationally were spending too much money on cycling,no doubt the poor guy will be apoplectic when he hears how much they want to spend on a lower Thames crossing...

That is an excellent way of thinking about it, I'm going to steal this, though I will change the last line slightly, we have the expectations of the drivers not the inanimate objects they are driving.

Just as cyclists get frustrated with pedestrians on shared use paths, so motorists with cyclists.

The proposed Highway Code changes bring it into focus. They rightly embody a minimum overtaking clearance of 1.5m - 2m. And yet this is physically impossible on almost all roads, unless the car takes the other lane. However there is no expectation that drivers do this, instead cyclists are told to single out where "this would make it safe for cars to overtake" (despite this being dimensionally impossible - road lanes are not wide enough ever to accommodate the stipulated safety margin).

The logic is that the infrastructure does need to change. Cars and bikes do not make the best bedfellows. In a world of plentiful cyclists, expecting drivers to show patience over and over as they meet each cyclist and wait for a clear road to overtake - it just won't happen.

"And yet this is physically impossible on almost all roads, unless the car takes the other lane."

There is. It is not written in the rules, but drivers should move in to the other lane where it exists

"instead cyclists are told to single out where "this would make it safe for cars to overtake" (despite this being dimensionally impossible - road lanes are not wide enough ever to accommodate the stipulated safety margin)."

I think you missunderstand what this is aimed at. It is aimed at cyclists on narrow county roads where passing a pair of cyclists may be impossible whilst giving space. This should be treated the same as the guidence for drivers of slow vehicals to pull over and let other road users past. The two should be used in the same situations, with the recognition that where a car or lorry has to stop to facilitate a safe pass a pair of cyclists may mearly need to move in to single file.

John Smith wrote:

I think you missunderstand what this is aimed at. It is aimed at cyclists on narrow county roads where passing a pair of cyclists may be impossible whilst giving space.

No, I do not misunderstand that at all. I am saying that is how it will be (mis)understood by motorists. Two examples very recently here on road.cc where motorists have been enraged by cyclists two abreast, despite being on a two-lane road where they should be using the other lane to overtake anyway.
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-453-two-abreast-punishment-pa...
https://road.cc/content/news/club-chairman-complains-being-held-cyclists...

Sriracha wrote:

Cars and bikes do not make the best bedfellows.

I agree with this but you take the logic in a strange direction. The fact is that cars do not make good bed fellows for anything else. Noise, pollution, parking, bullying cyclists, bullying pedestrians and causing injury. We should not accept all these things as inevitable and just cede the roads to drivers. We should rein in the drivers and make our towns liveable again. 

Many towns and villages are linked by roads without even a footpath. In this case it seems obvious that the road is shared use with all forms of transport. In some cases before they were roads they were probably tracks that were obviously shared use. Just because they are now covered in tarmac should not give the car primacy on these spaces. The way to make them safer is to explain this concept to drivers.

What frustrates me most is the single carriageway A-roads linking towns and villages that do have the ubiquitous pavement alongside, falling into disrepair and being reclaimed by overgrowth, and which see zero pedestrians, none. Pedestrians don't tend to walk from town to town, but these are heavily used commuter corridors.

These would be an easy fix for a segregated cycle route, and very necessary given the traffic thundering along the A road with no propensity to give any margin. They could designate them as shared use if there is a requirement to tick a box for pedestrians, but seriously there are more unicorns 🦄.

That area is a nightmare for cyclists without the 'new' lane.  I use the main traffic lane as I need to cycle around the Triangle to go down Hotwells Road.  If I used the cycle lane, I'd be increasing the risk/danger.  The 20mph limit is rarely adhered to.

And just last week, I had to avoid a large delivery truck parked (driver was on his phone) across the inbound cycle lane (but facing up Whiteladies Rd) on a solid white lined cycle lane outside the church and RWA.  

Yeah, if you're coming down from Clifton or Whiteladies Road and then want to go around and down Jacobs Wells Road then there's no point using the new lane.

Of course, that doesn't appear to be obvious to the motorists who now really take exception to you not using the new lane ("We put those cones there for you!  The least you can do is use that weirdly narrow space!").

Have you been further along Park Row yet?  For reasons I cannot determine, there are two rows of seven (count them! - seven) cones in the road opposite what used to be Shark Bite...

Not been down that far recently and try to avoid the centre of Bristol when on my bike.  But I saw a couple of pics of 'lanes' near Perry Road, Lower Park Row that seemed a little bit of a token effort.  Sure there must be reasoning behind the decisions.

I just have to remember that despite some apparantley not so bright people making these decisions, we have put several men on the moon.  It's all about balance!!

Seems some motorists take exception to anything.  I saw a Range Rover being driven at (in my estimation) in excess of 40mph and probably closer to 50mph coming off the top of Park Street opp the Uni building.  When I gestured to him to slow down (flat hand up & down), he just stuck his middle finger up at me.

Went down there yesterday. The coned-off lane on Perry Road and Park Row stops and starts with no obvious reasoning. It's kind of better than without it, I think... at any rate it means you don't get held up by the traffic queuing outside BRI and at Maudin Street / Jamaica Street junction. And the same at the junction with St Michael's Hill. But it does create some worrying left-hook opportunities (or maybe just makes you more aware of them?).

I do wonder if it's main purpose is not so much to aid cycling as to reduce the main traffic width. Possibly the latest wheeze (pun intended) to avoid introducing a functional clean-air zone... 

The coned-off lane on Perry Road and Park Row also forces you into the narrow area nearer the kerb that has the worst road surface (drain covers, suken trenches, badly repaired holes, that sort of thing).

But if you choose to move out into the lane to avoid the bad road surface (as I would have done more often, prior to these 'cones' being put in) you now get tailgated more then before by motorists angry that you're not using the coned-off bit.

'Box ticked', I suspect...

Yep, the bit on the Triangle sends you right over the sunken covers and so on too. So far I've only used these lanes on the tourer with 40mm tyres, don't think I'm keen to repeat the experience on 28s. 

Also, the cycle parking that used to be on the Triangle outside Barclays has been taken away. This is to allow the bus stop to be moved there, since the extended pavement and cycle lane are now where the bus stop used to be outside Wilko's. There are still a couple of taxi spots outside NatWest. But the cycle parking has gone and doesn't seem to have been put anywhere else either. This is going to be a problem once the students come back. 

Yes, that's true. But humans are guided by perceived risk, not cold, hard statistics. It's why people buy SUVs because they are seen as 'safer' as they are higher up, but they are more dangerous not just to other people but to their own occupants because they are heavy with a higher centre of gravity, so crashes are worse.