“People on bikes are really just pedestrians”: Cyclists say James May “gets it” as ex-Top Gear host slams “extremist” cycling traffic lights; Peter Sagan goes topless as Ken in Barbie cha-cha; Sarra Hoy: “Illness won’t define us” + more on the live blog

chrisonabike wrote:

Noting how they ignore some of the sillier cycling signals...  

I wasn't sure if this was considered or accidental. Of course anyone turning left from the car lane into that side street should yield anyway, but not sure I'd be riding blithely through that red.   

quiff wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

Noting how they ignore some of the sillier cycling signals...  

I wasn't sure if this was considered or accidental. Of course anyone turning left from the car lane into that side street should yield anyway, but not sure I'd be riding blithely through that red.   

Think she did some kind of check, not sure... the problem is that this junction is effectively a fall-back to the standard UK "cycle infra gives up at junction" (But now cyclists are deliberately delayed - "for safety"?).

I'm guessing, but maybe it's part the usual "but no space..." (cafe clearly wants external seating...) plus "have to keep pedestrians safe from cyclists on pedestrian crossings". (Even though there are less formal cycle path crossings elsewhere).

Presumably cyclists are held when motor vehicles can go forward because a) drivers are unobservant and could left-hook b) perhaps there are some kind of rules preventing a "straight on only" signal phase plus other here - or is it just "UK drivers won't cope?"

Logically cyclists could be accommodated by taking space right at the junction and a parallel crossing and-or cyclist-only early release lights there. Again maybe "too much change?" / objections to loss of pavement / "won't you think of the disabled trying to cross the cycle path"?

Someone should have the answers; perhaps in Spokes (local campaign group) docs?

Highways staff need training - everyone knows that sign on the right should be placed in the cycle path...

I see it's just a proposal up for acceptance at the council. So we'll see if the councillors give way to the inevitable onslaught of prophecies of Armageddon from drivists distraught at the possibility they may have to wait. Active travel cannot progress until it's accepted that things will get worse for drivers - that's the point!

Well, yeah: you can imagine the comments BTL…

It's always struck me as odd that there should be a delay for pedestrians after pressing the button at crossings. What's the purpose of the delay? To punish pedestrians for having the temerity to halt vehicles?

Once the button is pressed, the lights will turn red for drivers sooner or later. The same number of drivers will get held up for the same time, whether the light change instantly or after a minute.

I've lost count of the number of times I've pressed the button at a crossing and it's taken so long for the lights to turn that there's a break in the stream of vehicles long enough for me to cross, and then of course for lights turn afterward I've crossed and drivers have to stop with nobody left to cross the road.

the car brains haven't disappointed so far 

Just wait 'till they realise that in some places there are "default green for active travel" signals which only turn green for motorists when a driver turns up and stops!

Not a fan then ?

Travis wrote:

“Drivers need lights because they’re selfish and consistently drive dangerously, use their phones, kill people etc. Cyclists look out for others and cycle sympathetically, so lights are not needed.”

Anyone who cycles around London regularly, whether showing off and putting their cat in danger for TikTok likes or not, knows perfectly well that this is utter nonsense. Whilst many/most of the capital's cyclists look out for others and cycle sympathetically, a significant minority from every level of cycling from spliffed-up teenager on a stolen bike to city broker on a Pinarello ride appallingly badly, ignore all lights, slalom through pedestrians walking across crossings, jump on and off pavements at speed as they please et cetera. I am vehemently, or rabidly, according to some, pro-cycling/cyclist and very much against the selfish and unnecessary car use that blights my hometown but pretending that all cyclists are lovely people who treat others with sympathy and respect is just silly and severely undermines the credibility of anyone who makes such claims.

I agree with that but, to take a tangetn for a moment, I take exception to people criticising cyclists for not having lights/hi-viz/helmets when cyclists are almost always perfectly visible, day or night, to anybody exercising reasonable care and attention.

One thing that limits that statement is the increasing dazzle from car headlights. Either way, we should be in a position to see that the road is clear, rather than assuming the road is clear unless we notice something, before we proceed on the road.

In other words, we can criticise the errant, unlit cycle with riders in dark clothes; but we must also criticise the drivers' failure* to observe them.

(* except, of course, they don't: they notice them only too well, otherwise they wouldn't be able to criticise them)

I entirely agree with what you say but I believe that Travis and the estimable Mr May were referring to cyclists not needing traffic lights, rather than not needing lights on their bikes.

Ah right. Even so, I think I'd put some air between the two of them on some points. If May is arguing that no cycle traffic lights are needed, I'd disagree. If I thought he was referring to occasions where cyclists should be given the freedom to advance through a junction on their own judgement rather than having to wait for a separate green cycle, I think there are often cases where that is appropriate.

Time for some nuance.

If he's saying "cyclists are basically pedestrians..." he will hopefully be somewhat correct ... in the future in the UK.

It all comes back to thinking about concepts like those in the "Sustainable Safety" programme.

So considering mass, speed and direction of road users: while cyclists are neither "tiny cars" nor "pedestrians on wheels" they and pedestrians are indeed pretty close in speed - and in mass *.  Where there are only cyclists and pedestrians it is true that traffic lights aren't really necessary - neither for cyclists themselves nor for pedestrians.  Apparently not even on the busiest bike route in the world.

However ... in the UK people are used to relying on traffic lights (because motorists) and cyclists are a tiny minority, so we're probably stuck with unnecessarily inconveniencing cyclists because everyone is used to the current system.

Motor vehicles are far faster and heavier than either cyclists or pedestrians.  They absolutely need more control measures.  And mixing them and the others is only sensible with very stringent controls (speed and volume of traffic), otherwise they just dominate the space.

* In speed - where there is mass cycling in urban areas (e.g. almost nowhere in the UK) - average speeds are close enough and slow enough for interactions to be very safe.  Mass - chunkier e-bikes - especially those not type-legal non-EAPC ones - and delivery vehicles can change this equation (plus may be fast to acellerate and have higher speeds) - a good reason for caution about allowing them into the mix.

Yes, I'm not sure I'd trust some drivers to respect any give way signs and just blithely drive through regardless. 

Where I live there is a shared pedestrian / cyclist crossing of a dead-end road with no beg button lights, and actual give way markings on the road so that drivers absolutely do not have priority. It's the main walking route into town from a large residential area that includes a great many student HMOs. However, I always check there's no-one driving down the road before stepping out and, on the odd occasion when there is someone coming, make sure they've stopped. Which I've never yet seen happen, they always assume that, as it's a road and no traffic lights, they have priority 🤦‍♂️

With more common crossings like this and a decent education programme (as didn't really happen with the relatively recent HC changes) we might see a change in behaviour over time. Until, and even, then, I'm going to keep checking carefully!

This leads on beyond just "safety" to "convenience" *.

It's still better - even for modes as similar in speed, mass and vulnerability as cyclists and pedestrians - to have their own spaces.  This gives us "predictability (of road course and road user behavior by a recognizable road design)"  Everyone knows where they should be and where to expect other modes.  That is not just safer but keeps everyone flowing in their own fashion.

Mixing - for e.g. cyclists and pedestrians - "works" only to the degree that there are hardly any of either mode, or one mode dominates (and essentially keeps the other in check).  Beyond that, it becomes inconvenient for the faster mode (cyclists) and feels unpleasant for the pedestrians.

Finally - cycling derives much of its efficiency from maintaining momentum.  So even where we expect speeds to be pretty low we should design cycle infra for good speeds (more like the 15.5mph than the 3-4mph of pedestrians) AND avoid making cyclists stop as much as we can.

* For without convenience, people generally aren't going to do take up active travel.  That means more driving, which generally brings down safety and certainly goes against "nice places" and better health at population level (including via road noise...).

Perhaps they're just a bit ahead of their time?

I agree - it's not necessarily a great description of people's behaviour now.  And while I am certainly not for alarming people or making them not want to cross the cycle path (just like drivers "I didn't hit you, what's the problem") ... we should also keep the casualty figures in mind.  Should be obvious if there been a massive upswing in people mown down in the cycle paths by cyclists (e.g. from "around zero" to something more than "two this year - an infinite percentage increase!"?)

Another white knight trying to save my cat from her favorite activity. I'll never understand why so many cyclists absolutely hate it when people cycle.

I've seen a couple of your videos from links here and, as a recently retired vet with nearly 35 years experience in practice and an interest in cat behaviour, I can categorically state that your cat (Sigi?) absolutely does not look stressed out. 

Of course, cats are all different personalities, our last 2 hated travelling with a vengeance and would pee in the carrier every time they did so much as a 5 minute car trip to the vets, whereas our current boy looks out the window sometimes but mostly just sleeps for the 6+ hour drive to Cornwall to visit family. We don't keep him in the carrier as there's just no need. In fact we're there now as my 89 year old Dad had a hip replacement 5 days ago so needs a bit of help for a while. Within 2 minutes of arriving he'd had a look around and was looking happy and confident (tail held vertically with tip curled over). 

As for Dad, thanks to being a keen cyclist he has decent hip musculature for his age and is making extremely rapid progress. Though he's unlikely to be back on the bike until late Spring. 

Just wondering, as a retired vet who is obviously very fond of cats, what would you say to an owner who brought a cat in with a serious injury caused by cycling around central London with the cat in a basket with no protection in order to make TikTok videos? Well that's okay because on the previous videos the cat didn't look stressed out?

By the same token, if you were a doctor working in the A&E department of a London hospital, what would you say to the parent of a child seriously injured by a driver when said parent had encouraged, nay insisted, their vulnerable child to cycle to school amongst rat-running drivers and yummy mummies in their 2.5 tonne SUVs? 

If they'd been cycling around in the heaviest traffic in London with a very small baby in a front basket held only by a single tether that meant they would be thrown out onto the road and potentially under the wheels of whatever hit the bike, which is the equivalent of what Travis does, I'd ask why on earth they were taking such unnecessary risks with something they cared about.

Plenty of parents cycling around on cargo bikes with young children being carried to school, I see more and more in our city where it's often quicker to walk than drive, and a lot quicker to cycle. Are you saying all these parents should be putting their little darlings into wank panzers and adding significantly to the congestion and lung / brain development damaging pollution for, you know, their own 'safety'? 

I was under the impression that, as more and more people cycled and seeing and looking out for cyclists became more the norm, casualty statistics per number of cyclists tended to trend downwards. As Sigi suggested, are you sure you're on the right website?