Safe cycling author calls for “less exaggeration of danger” and says cycling on the road is “very safe” – but cyclists argue “massive cultural change” for drivers is needed instead; Cav: “I don’t watch cycling”; Xmas bike stands + more on the live blog

Ranty Highwayman has similarly 'strong' views on Franklin

Yeah, saw the name and had a "great dinosaurs of the past" moment (more here, and the "grandad of the movement" here).

Seems the vehicular cycling ideology is still alive in the US (indeed seems oddly popular amongst ex-pat UK folks there also).  There are reasons for that (US culture - not just "car culture" either).  But these folks just sound antediluvian in the light of progress made for "nicer places" and "mass cycling" in Europe.

As always there are some elements of truth on both sides.  The VC folks did promote some helpful "survival techniques" (like taking the lane) - helpful if you're taking on the traffic.  And cycling is statistically a very safe mode of transport in the UK - which has one of the safer road environments overall (especially when compared to the US).

However I'd suggest there is still too much road death, injury and definitely too much intimidation (deliberate or just thoughtless) by motorised road users.  What I think isn't so important though - one of the reasons (reported in many surveys) that most people in the UK do not cycle (and particularly women, the young and the old) is that "it doesn't look / feel safe".

There are plenty of other non-"whatabout" reasons for the low fraction of trips cycled.  We've made it not social, inconvenient (or at least less so than driving), cyclists are an "out group", there's a lack of safe places to park or store a bike, we already have cars.  But without addressing "it doesn't look / feels safe" most people simply won't cycle.  That's not sufficient, but necessary.

But then - "most people cycling" doesn't seem to be a big concern of vehicular cyclists.  Indeed it seems (at least for some) it is predicated on a kind of elitism - the fit and the brave asserting their individuality and agency by cycling despite inconvenience, disapproval and danger.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Cycling is pretty safe in the UK if you look at it statistically in terms of KSI, however a lot of that is down to the fact that regular cyclists know how to ride defensively and watch out for bad driving; it's a very rare ride in London when there isn't at least one incident where I would probably have been hit if I hadn't anticipated that a driver was going to do something stupid and/or illegal. Cycling can only considered to be truly safe when you don't have to ride continually on edge. At the moment it's rather as if there was a high crime neighbourhood but the vast majority of residents had learned how to spot and avoid the criminals and modify their behaviour so they didn't become victims, rather than the authorities having done anything to strike at the root causes of the crime - great, it's a fairly safe area but only because everyone is living in fear.

Exactly - cyclists will receive lots of "almost" incidents on most journeys.

The answer has always been for better road policing and for the courts to apply appropriate penalties.

great, it's a fairly safe area but only because everyone is living in fear

Yes- I suffer from a perception of lack of safety daily, but the universally non-cyclist police (if they were ever called upon to explain their determination to take no action against drivers who offend against cyclists) would say "you're 72 and claim to both cycle every day and be in good health- the roads can't be that dangerous can they?". This one of the cases I sent to the informal Parliamentary inquiry

https://upride.cc/incident/ca70mkc_citroenvan_closepass/

It's the only one I have where I can demonstrate being 'inconvenienced', in the new police dodging phrase- I had to pull over because I was so shocked by the unexpected close pass at speed. The police ignored the offence, of course

Rendel Harris wrote:

Cycling is pretty safe in the UK if you look at it statistically in terms of KSI, however a lot of that is down to the fact that regular cyclists know how to ride defensively and watch out for bad driving; it's a very rare ride in London when there isn't at least one incident where I would probably have been hit if I hadn't anticipated that a driver was going to do something stupid and/or illegal. Cycling can only considered to be truly safe when you don't have to ride continually on edge. At the moment it's rather as if there was a high crime neighbourhood but the vast majority of residents had learned how to spot and avoid the criminals and modify their behaviour so they didn't become victims, rather than the authorities having done anything to strike at the root causes of the crime - great, it's a fairly safe area but only because everyone is living in fear.

The whole cycling-safty in the context of road cycling is a very complex issue, with many factors coming into play. Many of these factors have complex inter-relationships, so it's perhaps a poor approach to try to isolate them and to put them into some sort of hierarchy of importance for fixing one-by-one. 

Consider the factors: driver attitudes to cyclists; mass media cycling opinion pieces; legal system responses to road crimes; life-circumstances of both drivers and cyclists. Altering any of these has fairly obvious effects on all the others.

For example, if drivers & cyclists were less stressed by their life circumstances the anti-cyclist pieces in the gutter press would have less appeal and therefore probably reduce, whislt driver and cyclist antagonistic behaviours would reduce so making road crimes less "usual" such that courts would take those that did occur more seriously.

One aspect emerging from recognising the interdependence of many factors in creating and maintaining "a situation" is that its probably a poor approach to either concentrate on fixing only one factor; and a poor approach to invent some sort of apartheid to prevent the mixing of the prime actors in such situations.

For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances, gutter press yahooing, bad driving or an ineffective legal response to bad driving.  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere.

Cugel wrote:

For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances [cyclists are healthier, happier, more relaxed and save considerable amounts of money], gutter press yahooing [the press in Holland were hugely against introducing cycling infrastructure in the 70s when it began, now they point to it as a source of national pride], bad driving [if cyclists aren't sharing the road with bad drivers, bad driving becomes an irrelevant to them] or an ineffective legal response to bad driving [likewise].  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere [whilst also mitigating damage to the biosphere by significantly reducing vehicle emissions; it has been estimated that if cycling could be moved from a 3% to a 6% modal share that would save one gigaton of CO2 emissions between now and 2050. Yes, infrastructure can be costly but it easily pays its own way, e.g. the Netherlands spends €500 million a year on cycling and it is estimated that it saves €19 billion a year by doing so in terms of lower health expenditure, reduced absenteeism et cetera.]

Cugel wrote:

For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances, gutter press yahooing, bad driving or an ineffective legal response to bad driving.  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere.

That's a bit of a straw-man argument - I don't think anyone is proposing that.

Cugel wrote:

One aspect emerging from recognising the interdependence of many factors in creating and maintaining "a situation" is that its probably a poor approach to either concentrate on fixing only one factor; and a poor approach to invent some sort of apartheid to prevent the mixing of the prime actors in such situations.

Here we go...

Cugel wrote:

For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances, gutter press yahooing, bad driving or an ineffective legal response to bad driving.  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere.

Who's proposing that then?

This article is rather old now but should cover it.  Not sure whether it's entirely fair to say you're attacking a straw man?  There does seem to have been confusion over this.  Certainly in the past cycling advocates did put lots of focus on trying to get some decent separate cycle infra *.  That seems to have caused some people to conclude ** that this was the only thing that was being proposed and ergo it was a) entirely unrealistic and b) plain silly.

* I suspect because a) this was a very visible difference between high-cycling places (not just NL) and the UK, and b) it covers the "feels safe, and IS safe" requirements, and usually "is convenient" and "can be social".  Of course this includes safer junction treatments of various kinds (better than "bike boxes") and "filtered permeability".  Historically there has been less emphasis on also doing traffic calming-and-reduction - and especially making it less direct and ultimately less convenient for motorists.  That's because in the UK people  might grudgingly listen when you asked for better cycling, but if you proposed doing this at the expense of driving that would be a fight, and if you suggested actively reducing convenience for drivers as a goal nobody would listen to you further.

** Example is people wrestling with what this means in the comments to this article on why Milton Keynes isn't a cycling paradise. (Answer - because ultimately whether or not the cycling treatment was much good, it was made far easier to drive!)

Within towns & cities, where most people live, separating cyclists from through motor traffic is the obvious goal/solution, and where new cyclists are likely to be encouraged.

If/where cyclists are on the same road as motor vehicles, then driver behavior & policing is important. This will be the case for most cycling outside of towns & cities, and where assertive cycling helps.

With the number of collisions on motorways & cycle excluded tunnels etc, it's clear that driving behavior is poor, without cyclists or pedestrians involved!

Franklin is part of the problem with his vehicular cycling nonsense

I hadn't read that bit about his book and opinions, until you prompted me. One problem is that the benefits of increased cycling would be manifested at the population level if they ever came about, but the genuine (as opposed to the imaginary 'causes pollution and congestion, etc.') ill-effects are decidedly personal

https://upride.cc/incident/g6noope10zvf_vwaudi_veryclosepass/

Meanwhile, the police dimwits are thinking 'what's the problem?- I could easily cycle up that gap between the vehicle and the pavement'