Missing the point

The last 24 hours have seen cycling safety in the spotlight from a couple of normally driver centric sources.

Firstly Top Gear did a piece on making a public information film about cycling safety.
Since TG had basically morphed into last of the summer wine with 3 old blokes posing about for cheap and obvious  laughs, I didn't expect much. It turned out to be even lazier and more unfunny. It reminded me of the last, cheap , casual racist and sexist bullying humour of the 70/80s. The BBC should have amount higher editorial standards.

The saddest thing seems not to be that the Neanderthals that revere Clarkson as a god will (and are) hanging on any and all of the negative points raised, but that so many people on cycling forms such as road.cc and bikeradar thought that some good points were all raised.
With fellow cyclists thinking that, we don't need enemies.

The second is the announcement of the AAs bike safety campaign which will be officially launched this Friday, so this may be premature.

The pre launch information revolves around the idea of stickers given away for car mirrors.
Unless there's more this, like TG, misses the point, as mirror stickers won't guard against actions such as passing dangerously close, or left hooking people on bikes,

I applaud the AA for taking positive action, but I just fear that it's missing the main areas of danger to cyclists from drivers.
The campaign also seems to suggest that it will have the recommendation that cyclists need to adhere to the highway code, falling into the lazy stereotype we've come to expect that all drivers are saints and anybody on a bike is a scofflaw, when in fact it's usually the opposite, with virtually all success anything they habitually breaking the law.

Cyclists, Motorways and real dangerous roads.

There's been a furore today about Surrey Police stopping a cyclist on the M25 today

Currently awaiting a cyclist seen on the M25 between 12 & 13. CCTV watching him on the hard shoulder. Should be with me very soon
— Surrey Roads Police (@SurreyRoadCops) February 25, 2014

Shortest route home by bike? Don't rely on the Sat-Nav! Cyclist stopped on M25...yes really: http://t.co/CaX5CoJXfz http://t.co/rE4DrIJklM
— Surrey Roads Police (@SurreyRoadCops) February 25, 2014

Apparently this was all after following the navigation app on his phone. Now a quick check on google maps offers as a cycling route along the A19 to my nearest town centre. Here it is. 70mph, same as an M-way with no hard shoulder or cycling facility. There is a footpath along the southbound carriageway  but that's not even shared use


View Larger Map

Which is the safer road?

About a mile south of this, this very road is the shortest road route for me to use a trailer to get to the shops, as the safe option is barriered up preventing a bike trailer from using it.

View Larger Map

WHY?

My commute to work is alongside a similar stretch, although it has a shared use path. In icy or snowy weather when the path is uncleared, the route is unusable as cycling at 10-12mph (3-4% uphill grade) on a 70mph DC in rush hour is like russian roulette.
View Larger Map

WHY?

And in case you think the real problem was the guy crossing the slip road, here is the A1231 though Washington, which is another 70mph road, with a road sign instructing cyclists to pull exactly the same manoeuvre

View Larger Map

WHY?

The problem is not an odd guy on a bike getting lost.
The problem is not that he relied on his phone's navigation app.

The problem is that the Highways agency, and Local and national Government have steadily turned direct though roads into virtual motorways, with no regard for anyone but motorists.

These roads are often the only usable, visible and direct route between point A and point B.

Often these roads have NO safe or legal alternative for cycling on, and certainly if you do not have local knowledge or have a local map and the skill to read it, you are stuffed.

Why a terrible verdict shows how the ASA is wrong

Today's been a bad day for cycling in the UK.

First we had the ruling by the ASA about 5 (yes five) complaints about one of the Nicewaycode adverts, which we all thought had been put to death with a bicycle pump though it's heart to prevent resurrection.

If you haven't read the ruling (surely everyone reading this will have by now) it's here

The advert is below

ASA upheld the compalints about the final scene where where the cyclist is being overtaken by a car.
The car is not over the lines. At the very end of the clip it can be seen that the rider is riding to avoid potholes.

ASA ruled that:

We noted that the cyclist in the final scene was not wearing a helmet or any other safety attire, and appeared to be more than 0.5 metres from the parking lane. We also acknowledged that the cyclist was shown in broad daylight on a fairly large lane without any traffic.

We understood that UK law did not require cyclists to wear helmets or cycle at least 0.5 metres from the kerb. However, under the Highway Code it was recommended as good practice for cyclists to wear helmets. Therefore, we considered that the scene featuring the cyclist on a road without wearing a helmet undermined the recommendations set out in the Highway Code. Furthermore, we were concerned that whilst the cyclist was more than 0.5 metres from the kerb, they appeared to be located more in the centre of the lane when the car behind overtook them and the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic. Therefore, for those reasons we concluded the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.

ASA have banned the advert and have imposed the following on Cycling Scotland

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Cycling Scotland that any future ads featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets and placed in the most suitable cycling position.

A few issues with that ruling

• Firstly what the feck is a "parking lane" there are no lane markings in the clip other than the central one. Do they mean the pavement?
• ASA think that no cyclists should be more than 0.5 metres from the edge of the road. That's about 18 inches in old money. Or not much more than the diagonal distance across most laptop screens. 
• The argument about helmets is legion, and is recommended (not by me btw) but conclusive evidence about their effectiveness is hard to find at best, and they are not designed for protection in vehicle collisions anyway.

If you disgree with the ASA, then please sign this petition or write or email them.

The second blow to cycling was the aquittal of a minibus driver from Dorset who hit and killed a cyclist travelling in the same direction. This was in daylight and the cyclist was wearing a helmet, hivis, and lights. The BBC article is here

Leaving aside the legals, the driver admits that he hit something with his nearside door mirror although he thought he'd clipped a bus stop sign. How close to the kerb was he then?

Although we could never know, and it was certainly NOT the cyclists fault regardless of position, I suggest that if the poor cyclist had been riding further out,contrary to the ASA ruling, then the driver may have seen him and taken action instead of just ploughing on regardless.

The Dorset tale certainly highlights one of the main reasons for not hugging the gutter, and that's vehicles squeezing past given the slightest gap, which is extremely dangerous.

Bollocks infra... South Tyneside style

Spot of Limbo dancing anyone? Same barrier from both directions.

South Tyneside has a problem with Tanks illegally using cycleways

If the sign wasn't there.... A dropped kerb would be nice though

There wasn't much in the budget for a lot of paint, so went for the minimalist approach

They go to real efforts to keep cyclists safe on the busy roundabouts

South Tyneside does have some "dutch style" infra, even to putting the Give Way lines on the wrong side for the UK.

And where we're going we don't need roads (tbf this was "borrowed" from Gmaps although it is real!)

Cyclists on pavements are the wrong target

With the recent statement from the "cycling" (junior transport really) minister, Robert Goodwill reaffirming the advice to police not to issue fixed penalties for people riding on the pavement in a sensible and responsible manner, a flurry of responses from organisations have raised objections.

Most of these organisations have completely missed the point and an important opportunity.

Most experienced cyclists like myself, would rather not ride on pavements.

They are often narrow, rougher and badly maintained compared to roads, full of street furniture, and often have no dropped kerbs at junctions.

Organisations such as Living Streets and others need to get behind the space4cycling campaign and change it into a space4people campaign.

Safe separated cycling facilities should be provided from road space which is often plentiful, NOT from narrow pavements. Most road space is wide enough to provide this space, but local authorities find it easier to slap down a bit of paint.

Below is an excellent example from my town. Wide grass verges either side of a wide road with central turning markings, and a bus stop layby. But the narrow pavement has been converted into a shared use facility between pedestrians and cyclists. Why? Because it's cheap and doesn't upset the motoring lobby

The shared pavement along Temple Park Road in  South Shields.  Only benefits  Motorists. Plenty of road space available. See below

View Larger Map

South Tyneside council like many other LAs makes lots of pavements like this as shared use making it legal for bicycles to use them, which reinforces the belief of some that all cyclists should be the pavements, and often causes confusion then the shared status ends without warning. The shared path along the John Reid road is a perfect example of this, the shared path ends at a Toucan crossing, but isn't shared use on the other side. This is on a route put in to link primary schools as well.

It should also be pointed out that cars on pavements present much more of an obstruction and risk to pedestrians. approx 60 (sixty) pedestrians are killed by cars on pavements every year compared with 1 by cyclists. Drivers are the real inconsiderate and dangerous ones on the pavements. Drivers are often very inconsiderate and dangerous towards cyclists on the roads scaring some onto the paths.

Motoring is the real enemy, not people on bicycles. All the pedestrian and cycling organisations need to recognise that fully and form a united front against the real enemy and danger.

Taking the lane...

The other day Jeremy Clarkson published this tweet

It's middle of the road point-makers like this who make car drivers so angry about cyclists. pic.twitter.com/4vCcK548t1
— Jeremy Clarkson (@JeremyClarkson) January 10, 2014

The story from the cyclists point of view has been posted here for all to read.

Even excluding the obvious fact that Jezza is using a handheld device whilst driving which is completely illegal whilst the cyclist is riding legally, there are a few reasons why Jezza is completely wrong regardless of any previous interaction with the cyclist, and why in the same environment I would be in a similar position on the road

If that was me cycling...

• I would take the lane that close to a junction with a give way, with only a few metres to go because:
• I would take the lane as the road is fairly narrow anyway, certainly not wide enough for a larger car to safely pass a cyclist.
• I would take the lane prevents the car from overtaking as anything could turn left into the road.
• I would take the lane prevents possibility of the car overtaking and then turning left cutting me up
• I would take the lane to give me space if I was going straight ahead or turning right

If I was in that position it is not because I am trying to "make a point" but keeping some safe space to myself.

If that cyclists had been in a car would Jezza have tried to squeeze past?

Of course not?

What's the difference? the guy on the bike is using less road space as he doesn't need to...

So Mr Clarkson, if you're in a supermarket queue with a large trolley with only one item in it, behind someone with a basket with the same item, would you...

1. Wait patiently behind them?
2. Force your way past them as your trolley needs more room than their basket?
3. Tweet a picture of them along with a idiotic rant about people shopping with baskets "making a point"?

I trust it would be 1 as that's the sane thing. If everyone took trolleys around supermarkets, the aisles would be impossible to navigate when the stores busy. That is also a sane thing to do.

Some real radical ideas for cycling

The esteemed BBC published a list of several ideas to protect cycling here which it described as radical. Some of which were reasonable, some just plain silly and wrong.
They've now produced a second list of ideas from readers which is here, with no indication of popularity, so just seems like a cyclists-kicking exercise for the most part.

Here's my own list which may or may not be so radical.

Convert one lane of urban dual carriageways to mandatory bus and cycle lanes.

This has been a pet thought of mine for a good while. Yes, DCs are busy to capacity for maybe 2 hours a day max. Most of the time they are largely empty space. Turn that space to cycles and busses, and you have instant direct strategic routes which people are familiar with. Yes it will cause a little congestion at first, but as people migrate from cars it will reduce. We all know that more lanes = more congestion. So lets try fewer. Turns out Brighton has tried it and it really works

Allow pupil transport to schools by permit only

Too many schools insist on "contracts" and permits for cycling to school. Turn that on it's head and insist that children can only be transported by car with prior approval for sound reasons. This should reduce car levels to near what they are in school holidays which will also cut congestion for everyone else. Fewer cars = lower risk. A passive/aggressive approach to cycling safety with many many other benefits as well

Introduce Strict or Presumed liability

Presumed liability puts the liability and a strict duty of care automatically onto the larger party. So if a vehicle collides with a cyclist it is assumed to be the drivers liability unless investigations prove otherwise. This is already law across virtually all of Europe, and is standard in criminal and health and safety cases. It also protects pedestrians on the odd occasion cyclists run into them.

Enforce and strengthen road traffic law and penalties

Lets face it, on the roads you can just about get away with murder, and they have become a lawless mess. Anti social road use annoys a lot and affects a lot more. Get the police to crackdown on it. Accept unedited videos and photos as evidence, and toughen up the penalties. Most speeders and mobile users know that what they are doing is wrong and dangerous, but know the chance of being caught is very slim and the penalties are a joke. Stronger enforcement with instant bans and vehicle seizure, not just impounding, but total confiscation. Also illegal parking should be a points offence, not just a few quid which can be cheaper in some cases than the penalty. Make civil parking charges by licenced enforcers like council wardens legally binding to stop the daft evadement where drivers ignore them or argue legality.
Target cyclists for no lights and obvious traffic violations, but not to give dubious safety advice, and daft stuff like pedal reflectors

Give cycle lanes/paths proper priority

Most cycle lanes parallel to main roads often give way to everything, driveways, car parks, minor roads etc. It is about time these were reversed and the cycle path given the same priority as the major road at the same junction. Where visibility is limited then this should be a stop line, not just give way

Make most one-ways protected cycle contraflows

Many one way systems are put in place just to control or restrict the flow and direction of vehicles. Often the obstructed route would be shorter and safer for the cyclists.
These should be legal for contraflow cycling unless specifically banned for safety reasons. Where possible provide protected seperated space. Same applies to bus only lanes as well.