Josh Quigley breaks seven-day cycling distance world record by two miles; Danish rider dedicates win to Chris Anker Sørensen; Councillor warned of door zone cycle lane; TT reaction; New LTN; Jennifer Aniston's bike messenger past + more on the live blog

...and he still manages to be in the door zone at the same time. He's showing the cycle lane is not fit for purpose and increases danger. 

His cycling technique suggests he's not on  a bike very often.

Well from other pictures of him, he normally cycles along the pavement next to schools. (latter bit added as apparently road was actually protected school one so little car traffic and pic showed him cycling towards a mum, toddler and pram). 

Maybe he was having to avoid the cones the head master might have put in the car dooring zone to deter dangerous cyclists. 

chrismayoh wrote:

When I first learnt to ride a motorbike about 40 years ago, I went on a riding course provided by the dealer.  We were told about the dooring zone then.  The instructor said, "A opening door could act like a can opener on your stomach." The mental picture has stayed with me ever since!! I don't ride that close . . . .

I guess there are three types of door impact

1) the door is open and the cylist hits the inside of the door. The is probably a bit like riding into the back of a car or a wall, and injuries will be related to cyclist speed and sudden stop.

2) the door is opened and the cyclist hits this edge of the door. This feels quite catastrophic, 

3) the door is opened as the cyclist is passing and the cyclist knocked to the ground. Injuries could be minor bruising and road rash, or could involve being driven over by a motor vehicle dependant on traffic at the time.

4) Door opens and the evasive action causes injury.

Happened to me - I swerved and braked, missed the door but fell off because the road was icy. 41 years later I'd still rather be well out of the zone (it happened on my way to school in 1980).

That lane yells "Don't ride here".

In the clip he doesn't even manage to turn the pedals 

IanMK wrote:

In the clip he doesn't even manage to turn the pedals 

I wondered about that.  Is the road downhill, or his bike 'assisted' (either by a battery/motor or by someone giving him a good hard push)?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Its a shame people are seeking to politicise this

Apart from the rich irony of you, of all people, making that comment, the Tweet in question is one Tory councillor bigging up another Tory councillor for his supposed effectiveness and wisdom in providing cycling infra that even you agree is dreadful. How would this not be political?

It's not clear from the original tweet what they are "bigging up", maybe it's just cycling in the rain or admiring his skill to ride at a good pace without pedalling.

The quoted tweets then want to make this a party political thing, because well whatever makes those tweeters happy I guess, cycle lanes like this arent the sole preserve of any particular political brand or leanings, it's just bad road design from highways designers who dont understand cycling.

Though FWIW I'd not be particularly vexed about riding in it, I've ridden worse, and the thing about dooring is people arent waiting in their cars to leap out at unsuspecting passing cyclists like ninjas, use a bit of hazard awareness & perception about it just as you would if you were riding along an active lane of traffic.

Awavey wrote:

I Though FWIW I'd not be particularly vexed about riding in it, I've ridden worse, and the thing about dooring is people arent waiting in their cars to leap out at unsuspecting passing cyclists like ninjas, use a bit of hazard awareness & perception about it just as you would if you were riding along an active lane of traffic.

I'm an experienced rider, but I would still be outside of this lane, having been doored in the past. However, there is no way on earth that I'd ride in there with my kids - who are confident cyclists, for their age. Cycle infrastructure should not  be designed with confident, experienced cyclists like you and I in mind, but around the needs of the unexperienced and those lacking in confidence.

the little onion wrote:

I'm an experienced rider, but I would still be outside of this lane, having been doored in the past. However, there is no way on earth that I'd ride in there with my kids - who are confident cyclists, for their age. Cycle infrastructure should not  be designed with confident, experienced cyclists like you and I in mind, but around the needs of the unexperienced and those lacking in confidence.

I've been doored once - riding with a stationary traffic queue to my right (opposite the BRI here in Bristol).  On the approach to one of those nasty too-close-to-the-parked-car-door-zone painted lanes, I was taken out by the passenger door of one of the cars in the queue being flung open.  I think some of that road surface is still embedded in my shin, years later...

Come on, you can't see into every car and know whether someone is inside about to open the door.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Come on, you can't see into every car and know whether someone is inside about to open the door.

A friend was doored years back from an apparently empty car: she looked into the driver's side and saw nobody but the door flew open and took her down (just superficial bruising, fortunately). The driver had apparently been bent down in his seat retrieving a dropped cigarette, found it was burning the floor mat so opened the door to fling out the mat without straightening up...

I didnt say you could, I said use some "hazard awareness & perception" so treat parked cars as a hazard, be aware some doors can be opened & what its capable of doing, so only occupy the spaces you perceive to be safe to be in,and above all ride to the conditions around you that you observe, which is true whether theres a cycle lane there or not.

Maybe I should have said just ride with a bit of common sense in these situations.

"Though FWIW I'd not be particularly vexed about riding in it..."

Not just the door opening aspect but I'd also be very aware of drivers pulling out without looking properly, pedestrians stepping out between the parked cars, especially children and also pets, particularly cats which have a habit of hiding under cars and legging it, apparently in any random if startled.

Mungecrundle wrote:

"Though FWIW I'd not be particularly vexed about riding in it..." Not just the door opening aspect but I'd also be very aware of drivers pulling out without looking properly, pedestrians stepping out between the parked cars, especially children and also pets, particularly cats which have a habit of hiding under cars and legging it, apparently in any random if startled.

And squirrels - don't forget squirrels

Don't forget squirrels !

(Didn't read far enough ahead - brooksby did that already)

From June

Awavey wrote:

Though FWIW I'd not be particularly vexed about riding in it, I've ridden worse, and the thing about dooring is people arent waiting in their cars to leap out at unsuspecting passing cyclists like ninjas, use a bit of hazard awareness & perception about it just as you would if you were riding along an active lane of traffic.

The difficulty is that you can't tell all the time, and when you can, if you haven't already taken primary, you can't get into the traffic stream.

If you do take primary you have to be prepared to weather the  abuse from psycho drivers who think you should "get in the facking cycle lane" so that they can perform a close pass. Ignore the lane and occupy primary is my usual policy, although many people are (quite understandably)  unwilling to expose themselves to abuse from a psycho sitting in a ton of armour.

These lanes are shit. they should be removed, and the cycle symbols repainted along the road in primary position.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Presumably if you cycle outside the lane for self-preservation you'd then get irate motorists who don't understand the issue getting upset and angry.

Oh yes - every single time.

There is national guidence  in place LTN 1/20  Cycle infrastructure design Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 1/20) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

But isn't the issue - as the first point in the guidance sets out - that this is "guidance" and in the normal UK way there are many get-outs - er, I mean points which are "open to interpretation":

"Local authorities are responsible for setting design standards for their roads. This national guidance provides a recommended basis for those standards based on five overarching design principles and 22 summary principles. There will be an expectation that local authorities will demonstrate that they have given due consideration to this guidance when designing new cycling schemes and, in particular, when applying for Government funding that includes cycle infrastructure."

(My emphasis). I'm not a lawyer but that would suggest it's up to local authorities and we're essentially hoping they will do a good job. (I know that some roads are e.g. Highways England also.)

Now to be fair in the preamble it does say that they won't get extra cash for rubbish:

"In short, schemes which do not follow this guidance will not be funded. ... there will be a presumption that schemes must deliver or improve cycling infrastructure to the standards in this Local Transport Note, unless it can be shown that there is little or no need for cycling in the particular highway scheme."

... but even that has the "but there was little or no need" get out (nobody cycles there now so...) and also presumably the "deliver or improve cycling infrastructure" will be open to interpretation too.

Is this to do with our national philosophy?  Does the good and bad of the UK come down to how you feel about people and their representatives marking their own homework?  Because in many areas (councils, policing, driver licencing) it seems we either don't have effective oversight or it's quite arbitrary.

I agree with the points you make.

Overall LTN 1/20 is excellent, but there are too many occasions when it potentially lets local authorities off the hook with phrases like "try to" or "preferably".

Nigel Garrage wrote:

For once (and possibly the only time ever) I agree with Cycling Mikey. This kind of "infrastructure" is worse than nothing at all.

Have a like for publically crossing to the dark side! As for:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

There has to be some kind of national guidance for these schemes...

... if you are really interested in the potentials for change / development here and also what the political (national and local) and legal impediments are a good level-headed place to look is the Ranty Highwayman's blog at https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/