Demise of commuting cycling



Mark Thompson wrote:
> > At 15 conflict with drivers is a constant source of aggro.

>
> This flys in the face of my experience of city riding. Could you perhaps
> be taking a primary position a little far out to the right? Or perhaps
> taking the secondary position when the primary would do?


What you say only makes sense if you have "primary" and "secondary"
reversed from their meanings as used in Cyclecraft.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_Cycling

Simon
 
> What you say only makes sense if you have "primary" and "secondary"
> reversed from their meanings as used in Cyclecraft.


D'oh, thanks!
 
In message <[email protected]>
"Ara" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]
> I have never claimed that riding in a primary position
> is unorthodox (READ WHAT I WROTE, as you might say in
> your weird ranty way). I am saying that you might be doing
> something (else) that *is* unorthodox. It seems like there
> should be some explanation as to why you experience so
> much more harrasment than other reasonably fast cyclists
> who assume the primary riding position (like me, for
> example - I have been cycling in Cambridge for about 15
> years, bought a copy of Cyclecraft about 10 years ago
> and found that it chimed well with what I do anyway).
>
> Your experience of cycling is so far outside the norm that
> it is not likely to be explained by chance, so I am led to
> conclude that it is most likely to be because of something
> you are doing incorrectly. You are obviously not interested
> in exploring this possibility but maybe this is for the best,
> since it might not be physically possible for you to ride
> safely in traffic.
>
> Ara
>


I've been cycling in Cambridge since 1978. Until 1990 I worked on the
Addenbrookes site and lived in the center or north of the river. I
regularly commuted using Trumpington Street/Road, Long Road, or Hills
Road. I still occasionally go to the Addenbrookes site, but the
commuting experience is now very different.

My personal experience is that certain routes in Cambridge have become
far worse for commuting cyclists and that on some of these routes,
it is become more regular to experience conflict with drivers. I'd point
to Trumpington Street/Road, Long Road and also Milton Road as three
examples.

Travelling north on Trumpington Road it is no longer accepted by many
drivers that cyclists can use the road, yet it is impossible to ride on
the shared cycleway safely at the same speed that it used to be possible
to ride on the road before the "improvements". Travelling south on
trumpington road in the cycle lane within the bus lane, you will be
harassed by buses whenever they cannot move out into the second lane of
traffic to overtake. Similarly Long Road, where the dual use pavement is
appalling, yet many drivers don't accept your right to be on the road.
Milton Road is another example of how the traffic improvements have made
cycle commuting less safe.

What most of these "traffic improvements" have done is to put in
shared use pedestrian/cycle facilities that are possibly OK with regard
to leisure cycling at a slow speed, with frequent halts and
interruptions at numerous junctions and other hazards. But once you've
reduced the average speed of cycling to little more than that of a fast
walk, it seems to me that what you succeed in doing is offering cycling
as an alternative to walking, rather than what it should be, an
alternative to motorised transport.

There are still many routes where you won't encounter regular conflict
as a cyclist, but there are now some where it is much more frequent than
it used to be.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
 
In article <[email protected]>, Terry
([email protected]) wrote:

> Some here may think I am letting the side down and I apologise if I've
> given that impression but I commute across London by cycle daily, in the
> morning, at lunchtime, and again in the evening, and I have yet to see a
> car shooting the lights. I have not yet had the pleaure of a commute
> without seeing several cyclists shooting the lights, and I mean at real
> junctions, not deserted pedestrian crossings.


Blimey, you must be the exception which proves the rule. I also commute
daily in London and rare is the day when a Several of motor vehicles is
/not/ spotted running a red light. Most notably at the junction of
Dalston Lane / Kingsland Road / Balls Pond Road, where the westbound
number 38 bus is often so late through the lights that it could be timed
with an hourglass rather than a stopwatch.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
My liver is evil, and must be punished.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Riding a sensible minimum distance (Cyclecraft suggests a
> minimum of 18 inches at all times) from the edge of the road
> is not unorthodox, it's advice published by the government.


The fact that it is published by the government may make it orthodox,
but doesn't tell us anything about whether it is sensible or not.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Dave Larrington) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Terry
> ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> > Some here may think I am letting the side down and I apologise if
> > I've given that impression but I commute across London by cycle
> > daily, in the morning, at lunchtime, and again in the evening, and I
> > have yet to see a car shooting the lights. I have not yet had the
> > pleaure of a commute without seeing several cyclists shooting the
> > lights, and I mean at real junctions, not deserted pedestrian
> > crossings.

>
> Blimey, you must be the exception which proves the rule. I also
> commute daily in London and rare is the day when a Several of motor
> vehicles is /not/ spotted running a red light. Most notably at the
> junction of Dalston Lane / Kingsland Road / Balls Pond Road, where the
> westbound number 38 bus is often so late through the lights that it
> could be timed with an hourglass rather than a stopwatch.


Maybe I am but it's what I've actually witnessed, day after day in west
and central London. I do see motorists doing loads of illegal stuff but as
yet not one has simply driven up to a red light and ignored it the way
many cyclists do. And these are seemingly solid citizens rather than yer
caricature shifty little tykes from sink estates.
 
"Jonathan Amery" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:wHg*[email protected]...

> This is also my approach and I have never been assaulted on the
> road. I have witnessed one of my friends being assaulted on the road,
> by a Stagecoach vehicle, and later testified in court about it.


I also have the same approach (take a safe road position, regardless of
whether some idiot has painted a cycle lane in an unsafe one or not). I
haven't been assaulted for doing such, not as such, but I've had the odd
honk, and a couple of shouts. Where I've been assaulted its been because our
council have produced totally useless priority sections, advance stop boxes,
etc., or where I've stopped at an amber light.
 
"Mike Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I think you do need to factor frequency and probability into your
> thought processes though. If the occurrence is judged to be a rare event
> then it is perhaps wrong to change your habits on the small chance it
> will occur again. However as another example of how some occurrences can
> be higher probability and need to be taken more seriously, my cycle
> commute regularly takes me down a street with a deliberately constructed
> narrowing of single lane width for part of the way along (Magdelene
> Street in Cambridge). Vehicles travelling South have a sign that gives
> them priority. However it is a frequent occurrence to be part way along
> this lane on a bicycle and to be confronted by a bus or delivery van
> coming the other way, whose drivers blatantly ignore your priority and
> enter the lane forcing you into the gutter or off of the road. Along
> with other cyclists I lodged a series of complaints with the bus
> company, the local councillors, and the police. Eventually these
> complaints were acknowledged and the problem has reduced in frequency,
> but not to vanishing point. It makes that stretch of road more dangerous
> and more unpleasant for cycling.


The bus company has finally impressed upon its drivers the importance of
giving way there, but only after lots of hassling and visits from irate
cyclists demanding that they do something. The design and management of the
road there are both basically flawed; the county council are adamant that
the road is safe as designed, and that motorists going against right of way
should be dealt with by the police. Plod insist otherwise, and that its a
road management and design issue that the county council should deal with.
Franly, you can only go and have so many rows with both before you lose all
will to deal with it.

The bus company were a softer target, and although their drivers will still
sometimes get this wrong, I'm now happier to approach that road with a bus
driver at the other side than a taxi. How the hell we'll deal with the taxi
drivers I don't know.

Only this morning, a car that had been waiting behind the white line as I
entered the narrow section accelerated right at me, forcing me to stop in
the road and hold us both up (pedestrians on the path and into the road, icy
conditions, where was I meant to go?).
 
"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

(Cut)
> ... the police were/are clearly making it clear that they
> regard such assaults as acceptable, so I now drive and walk.


That's the rub, isn't it? It seems to be the case that even if you have
independent witnesses to someone assaulting you with their vehicle or even
getting out and assaulting you, Cambridgeshire Constabulary are reluctant to
get involved. Even if you can go and tell them that there's a camera
pointing that way, you get nowhere.
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I would suggest another theory I have which is the more vulnerable you
> look the more care they take. I found this when I stopped wearing a
> helmet and immediately noticed how much more space and patience drivers
> gave me.


Give a little wobble in traffic and they all back off and give you some more
space. You would be surprised how well that works.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Colin Davidson" <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> I also have the same approach (take a safe road position, regardless of
|> whether some idiot has painted a cycle lane in an unsafe one or not). I
|> haven't been assaulted for doing such, not as such, but I've had the odd
|> honk, and a couple of shouts. ...

That can be assault, depending on how it is done. The essence of
assault is threatening behaviour.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Colin Davidson" <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> > I would suggest another theory I have which is the more vulnerable you
|> > look the more care they take. I found this when I stopped wearing a
|> > helmet and immediately noticed how much more space and patience drivers
|> > gave me.
|>
|> Give a little wobble in traffic and they all back off and give you some more
|> space. You would be surprised how well that works.

Yes. And, if I do that, I am quite likely to come off for real.
It is a possible explanation for why I had so much trouble; I
didn't wobble enough :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Yes. And, if I do that, I am quite likely to come off for real.
> It is a possible explanation for why I had so much trouble; I
> didn't wobble enough :-(


Cycling badly when you're happy to balance on a good line without wobbling
is actually quite difficult. It really should never be necessary, but we
know that already.
 
"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> That can be assault, depending on how it is done. The essence of
> assault is threatening behaviour.


That's true of course, but try getting anyone, especially the Police, to
take a non-physical assault seriously.

Incidentally, while on the subject of what the police take seriously or
don't, if I cycle up to someone in a car, reach in and take the mobile phone
the driver is yabbering on and throw it away, would I get away with it? Its
so tempting sometimes. To report me for theft they surely have to admit they
were driving while talking on the phone.
 
"Espen Koht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The fact that it is published by the government may make it orthodox,
> but doesn't tell us anything about whether it is sensible or not.


My experience is that it is very sensible; by riding at a sensible distance
from the kerb (18 inches or more, that's your elbow rather than your tyre) I
have reduced the number of accidental near misses to nearly zero.

If there isn't room to pass safely, then I'll try to be in a position that
makes it clear that there is no room to pass. If the motorist behind wants
me to get out of the way, then what he is saying is that he wants me to be
in a dangerous road position. So he can go and whistle, for all I care. As
soon as there is room for safe overtaking then I'll allow that.

The only people who now nearly hit me are those who do so on purpose. Thats
actually a rather uncommon event. Still happens of course.

I think one of the problems here is that there are a lot of cyclists who
believe that a car passing within a foot of them is somehow acceptable.
Thats one of the things that worries me the most.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Colin Davidson" <[email protected]> writes:
|> "Espen Koht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
|> news:[email protected]...
|>
|> > The fact that it is published by the government may make it orthodox,
|> > but doesn't tell us anything about whether it is sensible or not.
|>
|> My experience is that it is very sensible; by riding at a sensible distance
|> from the kerb (18 inches or more, that's your elbow rather than your tyre) I
|> have reduced the number of accidental near misses to nearly zero.

That was my experience, too.

|> The only people who now nearly hit me are those who do so on purpose. Thats
|> actually a rather uncommon event. Still happens of course.

Yes. On the Trumpington Road, before the damn P&R scheme, it was
still a few times a week.

|> I think one of the problems here is that there are a lot of cyclists who
|> believe that a car passing within a foot of them is somehow acceptable.
|> Thats one of the things that worries me the most.

Including the Cambridge Cycling Campaign :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Colin Davidson <[email protected]> wrote:

>My experience is that it is very sensible; by riding at a sensible distance
>from the kerb (18 inches or more, that's your elbow rather than your tyre) I
>have reduced the number of accidental near misses to nearly zero.


One of the problems that I find with this approach is the number of
_cyclists_ who then attempt to pass me in the gap to my
left. Typically this happens when I'm moving at the same slow speed as
the surrounding traffic (e.g. approaching traffic lights) and the
other cyclist is obliviously attempting to squeeze to the left of us
all.

Jon.
 

> Incidentally, while on the subject of what the police take seriously or
> don't, if I cycle up to someone in a car, reach in and take the mobile
> phone
> the driver is yabbering on and throw it away, would I get away with it?
> Its
> so tempting sometimes. To report me for theft they surely have to admit
> they
> were driving while talking on the phone.


Theft and criminal damage?

You'd face a bigger penalty than a fixed penalty ticket - you'd be the
bigger loser.
 
In uk.rec.cycling vernon levy twisted the electrons to say:
> Theft and criminal damage?
> You'd face a bigger penalty than a fixed penalty ticket - you'd be the
> bigger loser.


<nods> However, since the driver with a phone pressed to their ear might
be unware of your presence, it would only be fair to attempt to attract
their attention in a safe and convenient manner ... eg: Air Zound?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
 
In article <[email protected]>, Colin Davidson wrote:
>"Jonathan Amery" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> This is also my approach and I have never been assaulted on the
>> road. I have witnessed one of my friends being assaulted on the road,
>> by a Stagecoach vehicle, and later testified in court about it.

>
>I also have the same approach (take a safe road position, regardless of
>whether some idiot has painted a cycle lane in an unsafe one or not). I
>haven't been assaulted for doing such, not as such, but I've had the odd
>honk, and a couple of shouts. Where I've been assaulted its been because our
>council have produced totally useless priority sections, advance stop boxes,
>etc., or where I've stopped at an amber light.


As those reading in uk.rec.cycling will already know (so I've set
followups to cam.transport), the Highway Code is undergoing a
consultation exercise.
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Content.asp?id=SX1354-A7827478

Among the proposed changes is that the existing rule 47
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#47
"Use cycle routes when practicable. They can make your journey safer."
becomes
"58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities
such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan
crossings where they are provided, as they can make your
journeys safer"
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/consult/Highway_Code/Rules_1-97_ Highway_Code_consultation.pdf

Which wording will probably be taken by many to mean you should use them
where provided even if impractical and they don't make your journey safer.

(And the Code continues to say "Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white
line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 134). Keep
within the lane wherever possible.", which is unfortunate in view of
Colin R's frequent defense of narrow cycle lanes entirely within the
door zone of parking spaces on the grounds that cyclists can simply
ignore them and ride in a safe position anyway.)