View Full Version : Putting cyclists at risk
Putting cyclists at risk
From the pages of the Scotsman
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=304402004
==============
Cyclists put at risk from road safety schemes, claims group
ALASTAIR DALTON TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
ROAD-SAFETY measures designed to protect cyclists are
putting them at greater risk from other traffic, according
to a new Scotland-wide body.
Cycling Scotland said the shortcomings of some traffic-
calming and road "improvements" had increased the danger of
cyclists being hit by vehicles or colliding with
pedestrians.
The group said, despite such schemes being funded by
Scottish Executive grants to make streets safer for cyclists
and pedestrians, local-authority officials had failed to
follow design guidelines.
Cycling Scotland said they include slippery rubber "speed
cushions" in Ayrshire, cycle lanes being introduced against
the flow of traffic in Glasgow city centre, and awkwardly
positioned cycle lanes near roundabouts elsewhere. "Pinch
points" that narrow crossings for pedestrians also funnelled
cyclists into traffic, it said.
Michael Addiscott, a spokesman for the group, said: "There
are many places where cyclists get squeezed into the traffic
flow, are directed into pedestrian crossings or are faced
with pedestrians walking off pavements on to contraflow
cycle lanes. Unfortunately, the engineers who are
responsible for installing these treatments do not often
understand the needs of the intended user. They are
discouraging those they are meant to be helping, and in many
instances putting them at real risk."
For example, Mr Addiscott said cycle lanes on the left
side of roads approaching roundabouts forced cyclists
turning right or going straight ahead to cut across
traffic turning left.
He claimed the problem lay with local-authority roads
officials failing to consult relevant design manuals when
constructing such schemes.
However, he said he hoped the official launch of Cycling
Scotland as the country’s first national umbrella body would
improve the co-ordination and planning of future projects.
The organisation, which is funded by the Executive, aims to
help ministers meet their target of quadrupling cycling
between 1996 and 2012.
Mr Addiscott said cycling could help tackle child
obesity, with the pursuit more popular among youngsters
than football. However, while surveys have shown 46 per
cent of children would like to cycle to school, just 2
per cent do so.
Cycling Scotland said 80 per cent of households had access
to a bike, and twice as many bikes as cars were sold in
Scotland every year.
--
Wallace Shackleton,
Kinross, Scotland.
Cycling in Kinross-shire www.cyclekinross.org.uk
Perth & Kinross Cycle Campaign www.bycycle.org.uk
"Wallace Shackleton" <wwshack@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:SKx5c.20071$h44.2421375@stones.force9.net...
> From the pages of the Scotsman
>
> http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=304402004
>
> ==============
>
> Cyclists put at risk from road safety schemes,
> claims group
>
> ALASTAIR DALTON TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
>
> ROAD-SAFETY measures designed to protect cyclists are
> putting them at greater risk from other traffic, according
> to a new Scotland-wide body.
>
> Cycling Scotland said the shortcomings of some traffic-
> calming and road "improvements" had increased the danger
> of cyclists being hit by vehicles or colliding with
> pedestrians.
>
> The group said, despite such schemes being funded by
> Scottish Executive grants to make streets safer for
> cyclists and pedestrians, local-authority officials had
> failed to follow design guidelines.
>
Big snip
Could apply to almost all local authorities in England as
well, so this is a UK-wide problem, and has been for years.
LA has funds to "do something for cyclists" and the usual
response is to do something which looks good, but is highly
impractical, and can be dangerous.
In England, the ERCDT (English Regions Cycling Development
Team) was supposed to be sorting this out, but in the SW
at least, they didn't actually talk to anyone except the
LAs themselves, and certainly not cyclists, which has
resulted in their reports being highly biased, and of
questionable use.
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:11:17 +0000 someone who may be Wallace
Shackleton <wwshack@ntlworld.com> wrote this:-
>http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=304402004
>
>ALASTAIR DALTON TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
>"Pinch points" that narrow crossings for pedestrians also
>funnelled cyclists into traffic, it said.
I do hope it didn't say that and The Scotsman has got it
wrong.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Originally posted by Wallace Shackle
From the pages of the Scotsman
Cyclists put at risk from road safety schemes, claims group
ALASTAIR DALTON TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
ROAD-SAFETY measures designed to protect cyclists are
putting them at greater risk from other traffic, according
to a new Scotland-wide body...
I worked as a Town Planner for 5 years and if there is one thing that was made abundantly clear during that time it is that Local Authority Highway Engineers know sweet fanny adams about designing for cyclists.
The vast majority of highway engineers always believe in the primacy of the motor car above all other considerations, and go into collective fits of apoplexy if you dare to suggest that perhaps the car should take second stage to other concerns.
Until you can edify the engineers, you are going to continue to get absolutely crap "traffic calming" that introduces greater potential for accidents, more marginalisation of cyclists, and god-awful residential layouts.
It isn't just Scotland that is suffering, it's the whole of Britain :(
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:13:30 +0000, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote (more or less):
>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:11:17 +0000 someone who may be
>Wallace Shackleton <wwshack@ntlworld.com> wrote this:-
>
>>http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=304402004
>>
>>ALASTAIR DALTON TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
>
>>"Pinch points" that narrow crossings for pedestrians also
>>funnelled cyclists into traffic, it said.
>
>I do hope it didn't say that and The Scotsman has got
>it wrong.
IMO any pinch point that pinches from the pavement to the
centre does funnel cyclists into the vehicular traffic.
Especially if there is a cycle lane preceding the pinch
point, and following the pinch point, which the pinch point
is effectively built over.
And, again IMO, pinch points created by using traffic
islands are a different matter.
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr (http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr/)
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 (http://html.dnsalias.net:1122/) Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
Gawnsoft <xlucid@users.sourceforge.remove.this.antispam.net> wrote in
news:61id50lldoe89liotmk3imgdumee81dvbc@4ax.com:
> IMO any pinch point that pinches from the pavement to the
> centre does funnel cyclists into the vehicular traffic.
>
I think that's what David was commenting about. Cyclists
can't be funnelled into traffic as they *are* traffic.
Funnelled into *other* traffic or cars maybe, but we are
valid vehicular traffic. Talking about cyclists as if they
were some sort of separate entity helps reinforce opinions
along the lines of "It's our road, we paid road tax for
it[1], get on the cycle path!" type nonsense.
Graeme
[1] A statement which is itself complete rubbish.
In article <61id50lldoe89liotmk3imgdumee81dvbc@4ax.com>,
Gawnsoft <xlucid@users.sourceforge.remove.this.antispam.net> writes:
>>I do hope it didn't say that and The Scotsman has got
>>it wrong.
>
> IMO any pinch point that pinches from the pavement to the
> centre does funnel cyclists into the vehicular traffic.
I rather suspect David was being pedantic about the
definition of traffic. Correct, but probably not helpful.
--
Nick Kew
Wallace Shackleton <wwshack@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<SKx5c.20071$h44.2421375@stones.force9.net>...
> From the pages of the Scotsman
>
> http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=304402004
This is news? Almost all of the cycle "facilities" I know
make cycling slower, more difficult, more inconvenient and
more dangerous.
--
Dave...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:11:06 +0000 someone who may be
nick@hugin.webthing.com (Nick Kew) wrote this:-
>I rather suspect David was being pedantic about the
>definition of traffic.
I was being accurate.
>Correct, but probably not helpful.
The idea that cycles are not part of the traffic is one of
the most dangerous ideas that road builders have. It
encourages the "let's get these dammed cyclists out of the
way" approach that has led to apartheid "facilities".
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Graeme wrote:
> Gawnsoft
> <xlucid@users.sourceforge.remove.this.antispam.net> wrote
> in news:61id50lldoe89liotmk3imgdumee81dvbc@4ax.com:
>
>> IMO any pinch point that pinches from the pavement to the
>> centre does funnel cyclists into the vehicular traffic.
>>
>
> I think that's what David was commenting about. Cyclists
> can't be funnelled into traffic as they *are* traffic.
> Funnelled into *other* traffic or cars maybe, but we are
> valid vehicular traffic. Talking about cyclists as if they
> were some sort of separate entity helps reinforce opinions
> along the lines of "It's our road, we paid road tax for
> it[1], get on the cycle path!" type nonsense.
>
>
> Graeme
>
> [1] A statement which is itself complete rubbish.
Obviously if it's been paid for by tax, it's public / govt
property, but the majority of motor tax isn't spent on
road building.
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:11:17 +0000, Wallace Shackleton
<wwshack@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[HUGE SNIP]
I wonder exactly what is meant by this:
>Cycling Scotland said 80 per cent of households had access
>to a bike...
I've had access to a bike for most of my life but have
ridden cycles only as a child and more recently for the last
ten or so years.
James
So, given that local authorities have budgets to spend on
promoting cycling through road 'improvements', what
should they do?
Where are some good examples of cycle facilities being
implemented?
Jay
Dave Kahn wrote:
>
> This is news? Almost all of the cycle "facilities" I know
> make cycling slower, more difficult, more inconvenient and
> more dangerous.
"Jay Dear" <Jay.Dear@nospamSun.COM> wrote in message
news:c3753u$6ds$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...
> So, given that local authorities have budgets to spend on
> promoting cycling through road 'improvements', what should
> they do?
>
> Where are some good examples of cycle facilities being
> implemented?
>
Actually, you have me a bit stumped there. The closest I
can come up with are the advisory cycle lanes in the 40mph
sections of my journey home. Drivers normally stay out of
them as a matter of course, meaning you have a lot more
room than you would otherwise. If I had the power to
change cycling facilities, these are the only ones I
wouldn't rip out.
Additions I would like to see would include more well-
signposted 'quiet' cycle routes and more short-cut routes to
offer an obvious benefit for cyclists.
Jay Dear wrote:
> So, given that local authorities have budgets to spend on
> promoting cycling through road 'improvements', what should
> they do?
They should consult cyclists (the CTC are an obvious point
of contact with their benchmarking scheme) rather than
assume that painting lines along the roads and/or pavement
will necessarily make cyclists' lives better. Most cycle
facilities seem to be planned by well meaning folk relying
on "common sense" rather than cycling experience and the
results are very hit and miss.
> Where are some good examples of cycle facilities being
> implemented?
Fife have some okay ones and their cycle development folk
seem to have Clues so they understand the issues with poorer
stuff. So there are places in St. A's where you can get
places quicker by using a bike facility than if you don't,
and the main road into St. A's has a good roadside path
without right of way loss or extra junctions that keeps you
off a busy single carriageway A road with lots of bends
which nobody liked cycling on much. But they have some
clunkers too: before you get to the above path coming
through Guardbridge you're taken from the main road, forced
to cross it and then led twice the necessary distance
through a wee housing scheme, over minor roads and up and
down alleys and then back over the main road, all to save
you from ~200m of perfectly straightforward main road which
is certainly quicker and very, very probably safer.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:26:20 +0000, James Hodson
<jUNDERSCOREhodson@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote (more or less):
>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:11:17 +0000, Wallace Shackleton
><wwshack@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>[HUGE SNIP]
>
>I wonder exactly what is meant by this:
>
>>Cycling Scotland said 80 per cent of households had access
>>to a bike...
>
>I've had access to a bike for most of my life but have
>ridden cycles only as a child and more recently for the
>last ten or so years.
Well what do you mean by 'I've had access to a bike for most
of my life'?
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr (http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr/)
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 (http://html.dnsalias.net:1122/) Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
In article <m31e50d9sm1gcm8g1u29g91v21q9d7epl1@4ax.com>,
David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> writes:
>>Correct, but probably not helpful.
>
> The idea that cycles are not part of the traffic is one of
> the most dangerous ideas that road builders have. It
> encourages the "let's
In this forum, you're preaching to the choir.
In any forum where correcting that misapprehension is
necessary, a mere pedantic point is not sufficient. You'd
have to explain.
--
Nick Kew
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:26:20 +0000, James Hodson
<jUNDERSCOREhodson@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
<ov6e50hp9qkcu3s4o0lbod8vcj6gnmns67@4ax.com>:
>I wonder exactly what is meant by this:
>>Cycling Scotland said 80 per cent of households had access
>>to a bike...
In Glasgow it means that one in ten own a bike and the rest
have bolt croppers...
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:30:57 GMT, McBain_v1
<usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
<lPz5c.84046$Tb1.67500@fe26.usenetserver.com>:
>Until you can edify the engineers, you are going to
>continue to get absolutely crap "traffic calming"
>that introduces greater potential for accidents, more
>marginalisation of cyclists, and god-awful
>residential layouts.
Hence the CTC's Benchmarking project, which in my view is a
Good Thing.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:41:37 +0000, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
<40572031.8010203@dundee.ac.uk>:
>> So, given that local authorities have budgets to spend on
>> promoting cycling through road 'improvements', what
>> should they do?
>They should consult cyclists (the CTC are an obvious point
>of contact with their benchmarking scheme)
Is the right answer.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
In message <Y5F5c.13123$ra4.3483@news-
binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, Fredster
<peterf@bmtech.nospam.co.uk> writes
>
>"Jay Dear" <Jay.Dear@nospamSun.COM> wrote in message news:c3753u$6ds$1@new-
>usenet.uk.sun.com...
>> So, given that local authorities have budgets to spend on
>> promoting cycling through road 'improvements', what
>> should they do?
>>
>> Where are some good examples of cycle facilities being
>> implemented?
>>
I would say the addition of a large number of bike racks in
the centre of Edinburgh in recent years ranks pretty highly.
Low on the list is the cycle lane on the Mound, which I
think is quite possibly the most dangerous lane I use thanks
to the combination of a blind corner, high wall, nutters who
park around the corner and taxis who insist on using the
lane to turn and buses who have to use it to turn.
I quite like advance stop lines and marked bus lanes though.
And there seems to be something nice appearing for NCR 1 up
at cross causeway, some kind of cycle crossing with a proper
lights to get across the clerk street part. Looks pretty
nice, though the road being closed made my route home a
little tricky last night...
--
alex @ nuttyxander.com --+-- http://nuttyxander.com/ *** we
taught ourselves to play the pots and pans so that we would
have something honest to dance to ***
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
