Yet again another cyclist dies

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
161

Dave,

I agree with a lot of what you just wrote and yes I am biting more than I should. Tis mainly why I have used the ignore button, but also because I’m really not interested in what those I am ignoring think about me personally… I’m pretty happy with myself - if you get my drift… I’m not insecure about my jobs or my abilities etc. People tell me how crap I am every day… goes with the territory of being a journo.

If people want to argue on subject I’m up for that - but apart from that, I have addressed their comments as best I can, in the time I’ve got. They’re not adding to the subject and clearly attempting to get the thread locked.

I do give my posts the once over and you are right - the voice in your head isn’t necessarily how it may come across to the readers. But I did think we were all grown ups in here… if I thought truck drivers were all insecure timid types - I’d have not bothered… clearly in some cases - not bothering is the way to go.

Now I’m just off for a driving assessment which should be fun…

Can’t see why I would want to add you to my ignore list, but I would like to see the thread get back on topic.

I’ll have a think about the speed limit thing, but must dash… perhaps you can say what you think that would achieve?

Later.

Edited to add: What it would achieve, how it would work, how it would be policed and enforced, age of those effect, Police time management etc… the big plan?

162

the maoster:
I wonder how many mods have an aching finger by holding it poised over the “Thread Locked” button? :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

It’s not there yet, but it’s close. Keep to the topic, if you want to trade life stories and insults, use PMs or email. Thanks.

163

kr79:
Its another carryfast rant. Carryfast dont like cycling so all cyclists are morons and should be baned. Carryfast likes big fast cars so petrol should be 50p a gallon and the speed limit should be 180mph on the motorway.

Be fair I ‘actually’ said cyclists should be removed from the road space and put onto the pavement space wherever possible in order to cut down on the casualty list on the basis that if they ain’t there then they ain’t going to get flattened by trucks and buses. :bulb: As for the rest who else but a raving re claim the streets or critical mass supporter wouldn’t agree with all that. :wink: :smiley:

164

Boomerang Dave:
I’ll have a think about the speed limit thing, but must dash… perhaps you can say what you think that would achieve?

Later.

Edited to add: What it would achieve, how it would work, how it would be policed and enforced, age of those effect, Police time management etc… the big plan?

Well cycle speed limits started off as a controversial statement to get this thread back on topic but after more thought it may not be the worst idea I have ever had.

So lets say its set at 15mph and applies to all arears where there is already a 30mph speed limit in place for motor vehicles, i.e towns/cities and those arears where pedestrians and traffic mix on a regular basis.

Dedicated off road cycle lanes would be excempt from this limit but only cycle lanes purely designed for cycles not joint pedestrian cycle lanes and bus/cycle lanes.

Policed by the police with the power to issue on the spot fines for speeding offences and also offences they consider reckless cycling i.e. undertaking a vehicle at a set of traffic lights/junction that is indicating to turn left.

Course it won’t be easy as bikes will need compulsory speedos fitted (not the budgie smuggler type) and some cyclists will have to cycle with a bit more care and attention, bit like the rest of the traffic really.

The big plan is as always to reduce accidents and instill a sense of accountability into those few cyclists who feel they own the roads.

165

Dipper_Dave:
@Boomerang Dave:
If I may offer some gentle critique, I find your posts very enlightening and the points on dutch cycle sytems is very interesting as well, posible future solution maybe and there was a segment on a dutch roundabout solution on Route Masters last week.

The Dutch roundabout idea seems to be all about a design based on car and cyclist use and seems to totally miss the point that the issue being discussed here is one of large vehicles coming into conflict with cyclists.

It seems obvious that the Dutch ideas are more agreeable to the politically motivated cycling lobby because it’s all about removing road space for motor vehicles and giving it over to cyclists which of course fits in with the aims of re claim the streets and the critical mass demonstrations ( now I’ll bet that the cyclist lobby will come on here and try to say that those movements are non existent propaganda put out by those who are against the cyclist cause :unamused: ).

However in the case of a British solution it’s obvious that it needs to be one which reflects the closer nature of cycling to that of pedestrians and in which case it’s the idea of shared pedestrian and cycleway provision,using pedestrian way space provision not road space which would be the correct solution.The idea of just putting in a few kerbs in to seperate the danger zones on the road,which are actually causing the problems,won’t solve anything.The problem is one of two incompatible groups of road users sharing ‘road’ space and the continuous cycle of casualties and convictions won’t stop until the ‘cause’ of that problem is removed.The Dutch solution in the case of trying to seperate road space at roundabouts between cyclists and motor traffic is just dealing with the symptoms not the cause.

166

Dipper_Dave:

Boomerang Dave:
I’ll have a think about the speed limit thing, but must dash… perhaps you can say what you think that would achieve?

Later.

Edited to add: What it would achieve, how it would work, how it would be policed and enforced, age of those effect, Police time management etc… the big plan?

Well cycle speed limits started off as a controversial statement to get this thread back on topic but after more thought it may not be the worst idea I have ever had.

So lets say its set at 15mph and applies to all arears where there is already a 30mph speed limit in place for motor vehicles, i.e towns/cities and those arears where pedestrians and traffic mix on a regular basis.

Dedicated off road cycle lanes would be excempt from this limit but only cycle lanes purely designed for cycles not joint pedestrian cycle lanes and bus/cycle lanes.

Policed by the police with the power to issue on the spot fines for speeding offences and also offences they consider reckless cycling i.e. undertaking a vehicle at a set of traffic lights/junction that is indicating to turn left.

Course it won’t be easy as bikes will need compulsory speedos fitted (not the budgie smuggler type) and some cyclists will have to cycle with a bit more care and attention, bit like the rest of the traffic really.

The big plan is as always to reduce accidents and instill a sense of accountability into those few cyclists who feel they own the roads.

It doesn’t take a genius to realise that the best way of enforcing sensible cycle speeds is to put controls on crank and wheel sprocket sizes therefore limiting gearing.Anyone found with gearing combinations allowing more than 15 mph max, except for closed road competitive use,gets the bike confiscated and crushed and gets a big fine and/or a prison sentence in addition.The same would apply to anyone found selling such out of limit gearing combinations for road use. :bulb: Which would obviously be essential in the case of shared cycle/pedestrian ways which are the answer.

167

What happens if one of your cycle/pedestrian ways does not go to whereI want to go.
Would I have to use a road then?

Or are you saying every road will have a cycle/pedestrian way even rural roads?

Have you ever seen a pavement in London where are you suddenly going to find room for pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same pavements.

How would cyclists and pedestrians cross busy junctions?

168

chester:
What happens if one of your cycle/pedestrian ways does not go to whereI want to go.
Would I have to use a road then?

Or are you saying every road will have a cycle/pedestrian way even rural roads?

Have you ever seen a pavement in London where are you suddenly going to find room for pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same pavements.

How would cyclists and pedestrians cross busy junctions?

It’s obviously getting that change in thinking amongst the cycling community that they are more pedestrians using cycles than road users using cycles which is proving difficult for them to get their heads around.IE there doesn’t seem to be the same problem of pedestrians being flattened by trucks on rural roads where there is no pedestrian provision as opposed to cyclists being flattened on urban roads,where there is pedestrian provision,and on dual carriageways.Which can only mean that pedestrians and drivers of motor vehicles seem to be able to co exist in the accepted state of speration wherever possible between the two.Which then just leaves the issue of convincing cyclists ( and the law makers ) that cyclists need to be joined with the pedestrian group which they are more closely matched with,rather than continuing with the status quo of them being considered as ‘road users’ mixing with trucks and buses etc.

As for crossing busy junctions.The same would obviously apply in both the case of pedestrians and cyclists rather than the situation we’ve got now in which cyclists seem to prefer to put themselves at much higher risk by using busy urban road junctions,especially in the case of large vehicles making 90 degree turns,as opposed to just staying with the seperate,much safer,pedestrian crossing facilities at the same junctions.It’s also obvious that such a change in the status of cyclists would need a total rethink on their ridiculous ideas concerning them trying to match journey times with motor traffic when the advantage of cycling should just be a reasonable difference over walking but which doesn’t put either group at risk.

To clarify my point the issues are mostly all about the untenable nature of mixing cyclists with motor traffic in busy urban environments or on fast rural roads like dual carriageways etc.There doesn’t seem to be as much of an issue in the case of the smaller rural roads of the type which it’s also possible to find pedestrians using without pavement provision.

169

You should have just said “Don’t Know” to my questions instead of waffling about pedestrians in a rural enviroment?

170

Boomerang Dave:
Most seem to acknowledge that better awareness and training on both sides is critical in the immediate to short term.

But if we really want to save lives, then the ultimate answer is separation of the two modes. Bicycles should be in properly designed cycle lanes - that should be compulsory. The problem with the existing cycle lanes is they are worse than riding on the road.

This is pick 'n choose attitude. If I had a choice I would go with a truck on cycle path on the pavement as there are less pot holes to avoid. Lots of them are in good quality and they are not used. Lets start from be happy with what we have to be happy with attitude and than let’s say it is not working. Let’s change. At the moment we have facilities but we do not use them just because we are picky.

171

chester:
You should have just said “Don’t Know” to my questions instead of waffling about pedestrians in a rural enviroment?

So are you saying that there’s an equal problem of pedestrians ( or cyclists ) being flattened by trucks and buses on small rural roads without pavement provision as there is with cyclists being flattened in the case of busy urban roads where there is usually large pavement provision. :unamused:

While as we’ve seen there’s a documented example here on video of a cyclist,coming into conflict with a truck in one form or another,on a stretch of urban road that’s obviously been recognised by the authorities as a high risk environment for cyclists and have therefore put in off road shared cyclist/pedestrian provision which the cyclist chose to ignore while at the same time moaning about inevitably being in conflict with a large vehicle.All because of his own stupidity in ignoring that recognised risk and choosing to stay on the road.The fact is the problem is mostly,if not all, one of the cycling community’s own making in wanting to compete for road space with motor vehicle use when in most cases the existing pavement space provides a more than adequate alternative.It just means that the cycling lot will have to get the idea of treating every journey like a tour de france stage out of their thick heads.

172

chester:
What happens if one of your cycle/pedestrian ways does not go to whereI want to go.
Would I have to use a road then?

Or are you saying every road will have a cycle/pedestrian way even rural roads?

Have you ever seen a pavement in London where are you suddenly going to find room for pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same pavements.

How would cyclists and pedestrians cross busy junctions?

There are places in London where you can and can not share the pavement. The trouble is where you can they do not use it.

173

MisterStrood:

Boomerang Dave:
Most seem to acknowledge that better awareness and training on both sides is critical in the immediate to short term.

But if we really want to save lives, then the ultimate answer is separation of the two modes. Bicycles should be in properly designed cycle lanes - that should be compulsory. The problem with the existing cycle lanes is they are worse than riding on the road.

This is pick 'n choose attitude. If I had a choice I would go with a truck on cycle path on the pavement as there are less pot holes to avoid. Lots of them are in good quality and they are not used. Lets start from be happy with what we have to be happy with attitude and than let’s say it is not working. Let’s change. At the moment we have facilities but we do not use them just because we are picky.

Boomerang Dave isn’t actually bright enough to understand the contradiction in his stupid posts in which on one hand he says he wants seperation while on the other making up bs non existent obstacles as to why cyclists should stay on the road when there is a perfectly reasonable,often even marked as such by the authorities,alternative available on the pavement space.The problem is really one of the majority of cyclists just being a bunch of raving re claim the streets and critical mass supporters in which any solution that doesn’t involve transfer of road space from motor traffic to cyclists is seen by them as being unnacceptable.

174

If the alternatives are better than why aren’t the cyclists using them I wonder?

175

chester:
If the alternatives are better than why aren’t the cyclists using them I wonder?

Because as we’ve seen in at least one video posted here,not to mention numerous re claim the streets and critical mass demos,the idea of causing aggravation on the roads appeals more to the morons. :imp:

176

Carryfast:
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that the best way of enforcing sensible cycle speeds is to put controls on crank and wheel sprocket sizes therefore limiting gearing.Anyone found with gearing combinations allowing more than 15 mph max, except for closed road competitive use,gets the bike confiscated and crushed and gets a big fine and/or a prison sentence in addition.The same would apply to anyone found selling such out of limit gearing combinations for road use. :bulb: Which would obviously be essential in the case of shared cycle/pedestrian ways which are the answer.

I agree that where possible cyclists should be allowed to use pavements and taken out of the danger zone of sharing roads with motorised vehicles.

I even agree to some extent with your summary of the cyclist vs tipper incident.

But to restrict cycles to a certain speed is something that won’t happen in the same way as cars can go over 70mph even though thats the max speed in the UK.

Even though their are rules its neccesary to give people the ability to break the rules for free will and to raise some cash for govt with speeding fines.

Trucks seem to be the exception to this rule as most are limited to 56mph or less taking the onus off the driver unless they are on roads with a lower speed limit.

I don’t believe cyclists should be speed limited on open roads as if they can go like the clappers and reach 45mph with no pedestrians about then good luck to them although their is a video on you tube of a cyclist using a trucks backdraft to reach 60mph.

177

Given that in 2011 over 60 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles I think the plan is a non starter. An increase of 12% on the previous year. Cycling deaths were down by 4% over the same period. I will take my chances on the road. Chevy, the incident I mentioned in my last post didn’t affect me at all, it was in response to the random post before it. We all see episodes of poor road skills by all users everyday, if we posted them all there would be nothing else on here.
So the way to slow bikes is to crush them if the go over 15mph? Fine, I could live with that. What happens to vehicles going over the posted speed limits?

178

Dipper_Dave:

Carryfast:
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that the best way of enforcing sensible cycle speeds is to put controls on crank and wheel sprocket sizes therefore limiting gearing.Anyone found with gearing combinations allowing more than 15 mph max, except for closed road competitive use,gets the bike confiscated and crushed and gets a big fine and/or a prison sentence in addition.The same would apply to anyone found selling such out of limit gearing combinations for road use. :bulb: Which would obviously be essential in the case of shared cycle/pedestrian ways which are the answer.

I agree that where possible cyclists should be allowed to use pavements and taken out of the danger zone of sharing roads with motorised vehicles.

I even agree to some extent with your summary of the cyclist vs tipper incident.

But to restrict cycles to a certain speed is something that won’t happen in the same way as cars can go over 70mph even though thats the max speed in the UK.

Even though their are rules its neccesary to give people the ability to break the rules for free will and to raise some cash for govt with speeding fines.

Trucks seem to be the exception to this rule as most are limited to 56mph or less taking the onus off the driver unless they are on roads with a lower speed limit.

I don’t believe cyclists should be speed limited on open roads as if they can go like the clappers and reach 45mph with no pedestrians about then good luck to them although their is a video on you tube of a cyclist using a trucks backdraft to reach 60mph.

The difference in the case of cyclists is that the only real safe alternative is that of changing their status to one of shared pedestrian/cycle provision wherever and whenever possible.In which case that would obviously require a totally different speed regime than the one applied to motor vehicles being that motor vehicles wouldn’t be under that status and therefore don’t share pedestrian provision.The idea of mixing cycles capable of silly closed road competition type speeds with shared pedestrian status isn’t the same thing a the the type of speed regime which is applied to motor traffic for obvious reasons.

IE a motor vehicle can be using anything from a road subject to a 20 mph limit to an unlimited autobahn.Whereas it seems stupid to throw away all the advantages of getting cyclists off the roads and onto shared pedestrian/cycleways just because of the idea that they ‘could’ run faster if they were on certain types of roads instead which in most cases are still a dangerous place for cyclists bearing in mind the speed differentials of motor traffic on such roads such as in the case of cyclist motor vehicle collisions on fast dual carriageways.

Basically there are only two uses for cycles.That’s either shared pedestrian/cycleway use in which case it’s obvious that no cycle should be able to exceed 15 mph or closed road competitive use.For all other purposes it’s obvious that the roads in most cases are only really suited to motor vehicle use with the idea of cycling being all about speed on the road being as stupid as horse riders thinking that they can gallop horses on the roads.In general cyclist status should be somewhere between horse riders and pedestrians.It’s obvious that horses are too big to use the pavements but then again we don’t see horse riders getting into as many types of conflict with motor traffic either when they use the roads.

179

Slackbladder:
Given that in 2011 over 60 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles I think the plan is a non starter. An increase of 12% on the previous year. Cycling deaths were down by 4% over the same period. I will take my chances on the road. Chevy, the incident I mentioned in my last post didn’t affect me at all, it was in response to the random post before it. We all see episodes of poor road skills by all users everyday, if we posted them all there would be nothing else on here.
So the way to slow bikes is to crush them if the go over 15mph? Fine, I could live with that. What happens to vehicles going over the posted speed limits?

I think you’ve missed the point that there’s a difference between motor vehicles exceeding the speed limits on the road as opposed to cycles breaking construction and use regulations applying to their status for use on shared pedestrian/cycleways. :bulb: It’s time for the cyclists to get their heads around the idea that the tour de france takes place on closed roads while for all other uses there’s no real difference between using a cycle to get from A to B as opposed to walking except for a reasonable speed difference which reflects that status between the two types of shared pedestrian/cyclway use.IE in the case of cyclists it’s all about making them travel at a safe speed for use around pedestrians while for motor vehicle use it’s all about the speed regime applying to motor vehicles on the road.Hence the difference between the two licencing requirements and licence penalty regime,being none at all in the case of cyclists just like pedestrians. :bulb:

180

Dipper_Dave:
Well cycle speed limits started off as a controversial statement to get this thread back on topic but after more thought it may not be the worst idea I have ever had.

So lets say its set at 15mph and applies to all arears where there is already a 30mph speed limit in place for motor vehicles, i.e towns/cities and those arears where pedestrians and traffic mix on a regular basis.

Dedicated off road cycle lanes would be excempt from this limit but only cycle lanes purely designed for cycles not joint pedestrian cycle lanes and bus/cycle lanes.

Policed by the police with the power to issue on the spot fines for speeding offences and also offences they consider reckless cycling i.e. undertaking a vehicle at a set of traffic lights/junction that is indicating to turn left.

Course it won’t be easy as bikes will need compulsory speedos fitted (not the budgie smuggler type) and some cyclists will have to cycle with a bit more care and attention, bit like the rest of the traffic really.

The big plan is as always to reduce accidents and instill a sense of accountability into those few cyclists who feel they own the roads.

My issues with this are many. Mostly though, I’m not sure there is ‘any’ - never mind ‘sufficient’ evidence that cycling speeds are the cause of these incidents & deaths that we are discussing.

It would appear that the main cause of the incidents is lack of education / awareness on both sides. I feel like I’ve laboured this point to death but… proper training for cyclists and better training for all motorists - including HGV’s can’t possibly be a bad thing.

I’m not convinced that there are sufficient police officers to deal with the policing, enforcement would be a complete nightmare, there would have to be stringent age limits to start to make it logical - identification would be another issue. Worse though, his would be the only county in the world - AFAIK, which would have such draconian laws. In short, I just don’t think it’s doable and it would get pretty much no support. Although people value their life, they also value their liberty as much.

I think we should be aiming for is something that is achievable and that does mean better all around training and much better cycle lanes. There are already plans to improve some cycle routes with better designed lanes and roundabouts, providing similar schemes to those in Holland. There’s nothing like learning from people with 30 years of successful development - it works very well there. If these were here, I would support measures to make them compulsory, the problem with the existing cycle lanes in the UK is they are often bloody dangerous, box ticking exercises by councils etc. In reality, the reason the Dutch are happy to use their cycle lanes is because they are bloody good.

Flipping the speed issue on it’s head though, I have for some time thought that ‘in town’, speed limits are generally way too high. And reducing the speed of motor vehicles is very easy, doable and can be enforced at no cost - indeed, as we have seen the policing of motorists can be self funding. Just food for thought… but if all traffic was moving at a similar lower speed… then the collision rate could drop significantly. Notwithstanding the thousands of minor shunts that take place in slow moving traffic.

Now Dave… sorry… but I’m busy and can’t be arsed reading through this - hope it reads in the calm thoughtfulness intended.