# Cycling, Safety and Sharing the Road



## Origamist (21 Sep 2010)

Cycling, Safety and Sharing the Road: Qualitative Research with Cyclists and Other Road Users.

New Dft report: 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/researchreport/pdf/rswp17.pdf


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Sep 2010)

Thanks for this, Matt

this is a nicely written, thoughtful report, and the language shows a real appreciation of the diversity of cyclists. I liked the section about avoidance/guardedness/assertion/opportunistic. This leads to a subtler appreciation of cyclist's choices

_To understand the different behavioural approaches used by cyclists, it is helpful to take a step back and consider the context in which those approaches are being deployed. The easiest way to do this is to look at the contrast between bicycles and cars. _

_One important, if obvious, difference is that bicycles are much narrower than cars. This fact creates a lateral ‘degree of freedom’ within lanes which cars lack: a car is either in a lane or not, but a cyclist can choose where to position themselves within a (car-width) lane. _

_In fact, one could argue that within any given car lane there are at least three embedded (if unmarked) cycle lanes: left, middle and right (see Figure 3.1 below). This is most obvious when approaching a right turn in a single (car) lane. A car approaching such a turn does not need to cross any lanes to get into position, whereas a cyclist needs to move from the ‘left-of-lane’ position to the ‘right-of-lane’ position, signalling (as cars have to when they change lanes) before doing so. The best car-based analogy for what a cyclist has to do here would be approaching a junction with three lanes (turn left, straight ahead, and turn right) and finding yourself in the left-turn lane when you want to turn right. The kind of stress a driver experiences when they make this mistake is probably not a bad model for the stress cyclists can experience whenever they have to turn right. _

This was a particularly telling passage



_For instance, one driver in London described how he had realised too late that his left turn was coming up, leaving him (as he saw it) with two choices: overtake and cut off a cyclist in front of him or slow suddenly, creating a hazard for the traffic behind him. He had chosen the first option, and a minor collision had resulted. _

_What is striking about this particular example is that there was, in fact, a third option: miss the left turn and find another route. The fact that this option did not occur to the driver, even in retelling the story, could be seen as an indication of the way in which stress can cause a narrowing of focus on the task in hand. Alternatively, it might be seen as a form of attitude failure._ 

That said - I'm not sure where this takes us. The authors have, perhaps inadvertantly, undercut the DfT's approach to cycling, which is to make a model of cyclists' behaviour and to seek to channel or modify it. The authors of this report suggest that there is no one model, and that the sheer variety of cyclists (ladeez and gennulmen, I give you the folk on CS&) makes channeling or modifying cyclists' behaviour nigh on impossible. Whether somebody at the DfT draws the conclusion that it's the 'terms of trade' that need to be adjusted, not the behaviour of cyclists, only time will tell.......


----------



## summerdays (21 Sep 2010)

I've not read it from beginning to end yet, but I am finding it fascinating, especially with regard to younger riders and for example the BMX'ers, and risk-takers who may carry on to be risk takers in other walks of life as well.

Thanks - it will take me a while to assimilate the points.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (21 Sep 2010)

Yes, I thought the section on Avoidance, Guardedness, Assertion and Opportunistic was really interesting. It was a useful way of categorizing cyclists, although (as they admit) there is a 'continuum' that spreads over these groups.

The problems as I see it are that 

1) For people who might want to cycle by a principle of avoidance, there is not much of an incentive. Infrastructure in the UK is generally crap - piecemeal, inconsistent and inconvenient. 

2) Cycling in the 'guarded' fashion - as they describe it - is dangerous. It's gutter riding. 

3) Assertion - the best way to ride with traffic. Unfortunately this requires confidence and speed, and not every cyclist possesses these attributes. While confidence can be increased, for some people speed never will be. 

4) Opportunistic - which we can discount, because it is basically lawless and/or dangerous.


----------



## Davidc (21 Sep 2010)

I've just read it. Fascinating, well written, and with sensible analysis.

It says that more needs to be done to add quantitative research to this qualitative start, and that's clear throughout.

I would hope that if they do that the connections to accident types and severity from riding styles, attitudes, bike usage, and 'ORU's attitudes and actions would be included.


----------



## Ravenbait (21 Sep 2010)

Although generally interesting, I have some issues with it, not least the sample size. They couldn't find one woman who is interested in going faster or further? Not even one? That indicates to me that their selection criteria were too narrow or they didn't ask a large enough sample of cyclists. I also had issues with their default assumption that helmets/hi-viz are necessarily a good thing, and the way they discussed ways of promoting helmet use to those who don't want to wear them, as well as bringing up the ridiculous notion of compulsion. When they talked about promoting hi viz, they did so because it would make other road users feel that cyclists were trying to help them. At what point was there any discussion of promoting to other road users behaviours that would be helpful to cyclists?

I need to read it again properly, but it wasn't exactly ground-breaking. Non-cyclists lack empathy towards cyclists. No! Really? Who'dve thunk?!






Sam


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (21 Sep 2010)

> I also had issues with their default assumption that helmets/hi-viz are necessarily a good thing, and the way they discussed ways of promoting helmet use to those who don't want to wear them, as well as bringing up the ridiculous notion of compulsion. When they talked about promoting hi viz, they did so because it would make other road users feel that cyclists were trying to help them. At what point was there any discussion of promoting to other road users behaviours that would be helpful to cyclists?





My thoughts exactly. There is something of a 'blame the victim' mentality going on here. Frankly motorists should be able to spot objects that aren't covered in hi-viz. If they can't, they shouldn't be driving.


What next? Pedestrians being compelled to wear day-glo when walking along pavements, to make sure drivers don't veer into them?


----------



## mcshroom (22 Sep 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> [/size][/font][/color]
> What next? Pedestrians being compelled to wear day-glo when walking along pavements, to make sure drivers don't veer into them?



Er Highway code already says you should: -





> 3 - Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear), which can be seen by drivers using headlights up to three times as far away as non-reflective materials.





> ...
> 
> 
> 5 - Organised walks. Large groups of people walking together should use a pavement if available; if one is not, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing.





What I often wonder is why don't cars have to all be painted in high-vis colours?


----------



## davefb (22 Sep 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> [/size][/font][/color]
> 
> My thoughts exactly. There is something of a 'blame the victim' mentality going on here. Frankly motorists should be able to spot objects that aren't covered in hi-viz. If they can't, they shouldn't be driving.
> 
> What next? Pedestrians being compelled to wear day-glo when walking along pavements, to make sure drivers don't veer into them?



i think that attitude is from people who dont drive a lot.. it's amazing how easy cyclists with dark clothing , no lights can disappear into the background..

motorcyclists leave their lights on, cars have reflectors all around, some cars have driving lights and often drivers will stick side lights on if its rainy.. whats the problem with sticking something 'dayglo' on ?


anyway, wasnt there a company that noticed its vans got into more accidents when they changed 'corporate colours' from red to grey?


----------



## Ravenbait (22 Sep 2010)

davefb said:


> i think that attitude is from people who dont drive a lot.. it's amazing how easy cyclists with dark clothing , no lights can disappear into the background..



I drive a lot. Wish I didn't have to but I do. I don't need cyclists to be wearing eye-bleeding colours in order to see them because I'm actually looking out for them.

I agree at night lights are necessary and I'm not talking about ninja cyclists. My bike is decked out like deep sea plankton and I've had compliments from drivers on its visibility. _I_ wear black. The only bit of hi-viz I wear are a couple of wrist-bands when it's a bit dim (reflective at night) for signalling purposes.

The problem with hi-viz is that it renders everyone who doesn't wear it less visible because drivers come to expect other road users to be bright enough to be seen from the moon. Does anyone want to get to the stage where if you are not wearing fluorescent yellow then a driver can be excused for hitting you? I don't see why I should have to wear sufficient PPE to make the H&SE think I'm being over-cautious just to walk to the shop.

Why is it always the case that pedestrians and cyclists are the ones told to solve the problem of driver inattention? It makes me so cross!

I'm really disappointed the report didn't mention selective inattention blindness.

Sam


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (22 Sep 2010)

> i think that attitude is from people who dont drive a lot.. it's amazing how easy cyclists with dark clothing , no lights can disappear into the background..




I'm not talking about lights, which IMO opinion should be used by cyclists in precisely the same fashion as cars, at night, and in gloomy conditions.

I'm talking about hi-viz. 

Cars are not expected (or indeed forced) to be painted in hi-viz colours. Why should cyclists be? 

Obviously it's a good idea to make yourself more visible - but the onus should be on the driver to spot people. They should be able to see objects in the road, and drive accordingly. Not everything that ends up in the road is going to be in hi-viz - be it fallen trees, wildlife, etc. I think for certain drivers, these kinds measures foster a degree of complacency and/or negligence about the unexpected, which makes road conditions more dangerous for everyone.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (22 Sep 2010)

> selective inattention blindness.






Precisely the phrase I was looking for in my post below yours! Your post makes much the same point as me, but in a better fashion. 




> Does anyone want to get to the stage where if you are not wearing fluorescent yellow then a driver can be excused for hitting you?





I believe that is already happening. I'll have a hunt for some examples.


----------



## Davidc (22 Sep 2010)

I agree that it needs to be kept clear that it's the responsibility of the driver to spot other road users, including peds and cyclists.

I also agree with those who are in the report saying cyclists should help other road uses to see them.

I use bright lights on my bike day and night in all conditions. Some differences in the way I opeate them for light, dark, streetlit and country roads, but there are always lights on (apart from when I have someone else cycling behind me). I do so to try to make sure other road users see me. If it means they see me and not someone else then so be it.

I drive a car as well. Being a regular cyclist I'm probably more bike aware and bike friendly than many drivers. I still find it helpful if bikes have good lighting, if riders wear reflective or hi viz or just light coloured clothes, and it's also helpful if they let me know what they are doing.

Same goes for pedestrians. I'll do whatever I can to keep them safe, but I need to see them first, and some are so well hidden in their matt black clothing that I've nearly hit them on a bike at much lower speeds than in the car. Some cyclists are the same.


----------



## BSRU (22 Sep 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> [/size][/font][/color]
> Cars are not expected (or indeed forced) to be painted in hi-viz colours. Why should cyclists be?



If cars were painted in hi-viz colours then cyclists in hi-viz would become almost invisible in some situations.

As a car driver I can see a cyclist in hi-viz a lot earlier and easier than someone in dark clothing.
Many drivers are in a rush to get somewhere "important", at junctions/RAB's they do not allocate a suitable amount of time for looking for a safe gap, hence something that stands out from the background is going to help them.


----------



## Ravenbait (22 Sep 2010)

BSRU said:


> If cars were painted in hi-viz colours then cyclists in hi-viz would become almost invisible in some situations.



So cars shouldn't be hi-viz so that cyclists can be? I don't quite understand your argument here. If cars were hi-viz then dark clothes would stand out against them. Problem solved.



> Many drivers are in a rush to get somewhere "important", at junctions/RAB's they do not allocate a suitable amount of time for looking for a safe gap, hence something that stands out from the background is going to help them.



Again, you are suggesting that cyclists take responsibility for driver behaviour by changing their own behaviour to compensate.

The suggestion that cyclists should wear hi-viz all the time, run with bright lights all the time and all the rest is not entirely dissimilar from the suggestion that women shouldn't wear short skirts in case they provoke a man into attacking them.

A driver's responsibility to more vulnerable road users is not diminished by being in a hurry. I find it somewhat depressing that there are cyclists arguing that it is the job of cyclists to make drivers' lives easier, rather than the job of drivers not to make cyclists' lives more hazardous.

Sam


----------



## Origamist (22 Sep 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> I'm really disappointed the report didn't mention selective inattention blindness.
> 
> Sam



The report does v briefly allude to the phenomenon, but couches it differently: "Looked-but-failed-to-see" (p.51,2). However, as it was not brought up directly by the the focus group participants, it only receives an unfortunately fleeting reference. Here's a bit:




> One interesting question to raise here is: where does ‘look but failed to see’ (LBFTS) fit into this scheme? One could try to link LBFTS to, for example, the failures of attention created by stress or situational distraction. Our judgement, however, is that LBFTS did not feature as an explanatory concept in any of the discussions in the workshops, either with cyclists or with ORUs.



This report is interesting, if you want to know more about the multi-faceted "Looked but failed to see" collision causation factor: http://www.dft.gov.u...ailedto4755.pdf


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Sep 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> A driver's responsibility to more vulnerable road users is not diminished by being in a hurry. I find it somewhat depressing that there are cyclists arguing that it is the job of cyclists to make drivers' lives easier, rather than the job of drivers not to make cyclists' lives more hazardous.



This.


----------



## Davidc (22 Sep 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> Again, you are suggesting that cyclists take responsibility for driver behaviour by changing their own behaviour to compensate.



I don't think anyone is suggesting that or anything like it. What's being suggested is that cyclists help drivers take responsibility for their own (the driver's) actions by ensuring that the driver is aware that they need to take that responsibility - now.



Ravenbait said:


> The suggestion that cyclists should wear hi-viz all the time, run with bright lights all the time and all the rest is not entirely dissimilar from the suggestion that women shouldn't wear short skirts in case they provoke a man into attacking them.



I think that is a very poor analogy. You are confusing active measures with passive ones.

Cyclists making sure they're seen is active. A reasonable analogy would be with putting a lighthouse on the Needles rocks. Without it it would still be the ship's master's responsibility not to run aground, but it actively helps prevent shipwrecks by increasing the rocks' visibility.



Ravenbait said:


> A driver's responsibility to more vulnerable road users is not diminished by being in a hurry. I find it somewhat depressing that there are cyclists arguing that it is the job of cyclists to make drivers' lives easier, rather than the job of drivers not to make cyclists' lives more hazardous.



I haven't seen anyone on here arguing that, only the opposite. What people including me argue is that cyclists and pedestrians, like all road users, have a responsibility to actively help everyone else carry out their responsibilities by making their lives easier.

If a car or motorcycle has its lights on, day or night, I'm more likely to see it and not pull out in front of it (applies whether i'm on a bike or in a car). By using their lights the driver has helped me take responsibility for my own driving/ riding. That applies in all directions. By having lights on my bike or car I provide the same service to others. It happens to benefit me as well.


----------



## davefb (22 Sep 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> [/size][/font][/color]
> 
> I'm not talking about lights, which IMO opinion should be used by cyclists in precisely the same fashion as cars, at night, and in gloomy conditions.
> 
> ...



cars have reflectors on them, they have lights which they are expected to use, they are not (well in general) painted with matt colours, unless they're tanks. The article doesnt say everyone should go round in all hiviz clothing, it talks about using elements of hi viz in order to help being seen.. what exactly is wrong with that? 

yes it's up to people to actually look, but why not help to be seen?

and yes, i have walked home on half a mile of unlight road with a newspaper in my hand .... 

Obviously I try to look for cyclists, but theres this almost childlike assumption that 'just because i can see you, means you can see me'. that isnt the case, especially in the dark when there are myriads of other lights.


----------



## BSRU (22 Sep 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> Again, you are suggesting that cyclists take responsibility for driver behaviour by changing their own behaviour to compensate.
> A driver's responsibility to more vulnerable road users is not diminished by being in a hurry. I find it somewhat depressing that there are cyclists arguing that it is the job of cyclists to make drivers' lives easier, rather than the job of drivers not to make cyclists' lives more hazardous.
> 
> Sam



In the real world you have to realistic and not idealistic.

No-one is arguing it is the job of the cyclists to make the drivers lives easier and it is also not the job of cyclists to make drivers lives harder,


----------



## snorri (22 Sep 2010)

Davidc said:


> If a car or motorcycle has its lights on, day or night, I'm more likely to see it and not pull out in front of it (applies whether i'm on a bike or in a car). By using their lights the driver has helped me take responsibility for my own driving/ riding. That applies in all directions. By having lights on my bike or car I provide the same service to others. It happens to benefit me as well.


I must say I find your view completely at odds with my own, and would reword your posting as follows.
If a car or motor cycle has its lights on day or night I am at greater risk of hitting the unlit fallen trees sheep etc. in its vicinity.
By using their lights the driver has distracted my vision from possible hazards. By having lights on my bike or car in daylight I provide the same distraction to other road users. It benefits my safety to the detriment of the safety of others.


----------



## Origamist (22 Sep 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> A driver's responsibility to more vulnerable road users is not diminished by being in a hurry. I find it somewhat depressing that there are cyclists arguing that it is the job of cyclists to make drivers' lives easier, rather than the job of drivers not to make cyclists' lives more hazardous.
> 
> Sam



Concisely put (and reminiscent J S Dean). 

I note how none of the other contributors to this thread are advocating regularly cleaning windscreens, or more rigorous eye-tests for drivers, or that drivers should be able to stop in the distance that they can see to be clear - no siree...


----------



## BSRU (22 Sep 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> Again, you are suggesting that cyclists take responsibility for driver behaviour by changing their own behaviour to compensate.



So why bother taking primary at junctions and RAB's, 
firstly, to be more visible to other road users and have more visibilty of other road users,
secondly, to try an prevent stupid and dangerous close overtakes.


----------



## Davidc (22 Sep 2010)

snorri said:


> I must say I find your view completely at odds with my own, and would reword your posting as follows.
> If a car or motor cycle has its lights on day or night I am at greater risk of hitting the unlit fallen trees sheep etc. in its vicinity.
> By using their lights the driver has distracted my vision from possible hazards. By having lights on my bike or car in daylight I provide the same distraction to other road users. It benefits my safety to the detriment of the safety of others.



We'll just have to disagree. I simply look forward to the day when we follow the scandinavian countries, Poland and so on and make 24/7 lighting compulsory, with the (measured, documented, and large) improvement in safety that brings.


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Sep 2010)

BSRU said:


> So why bother taking primary at junctions and RAB's,
> firstly, to be more visible to other road users and have more visibilty of other road users,
> secondly, to try an prevent stupid and dangerous close overtakes.



Road Position > Hi Vis, ime.

I don't think anyone's denying that we all have responsibilities here, but for my money, they skew heavily in the UK towards those who are in danger, not those who present the danger, and that is fundamentally wrong. The duty of the driver to account for others, and to drive according to conditions is barely mentioned, rarely backed up by enforcement, and beyond a one off test in most people's late teens, never assessed.

You see the attitude in a smaller way when (some) cyclists talk about riding around "peds".


----------



## StuartG (22 Sep 2010)

Davidc said:


> We'll just have to disagree. I simply look forward to the day when we follow the scandinavian countries, Poland and so on and make 24/7 lighting compulsory, with the (measured, documented, and large) improvement in safety that brings.


Can you point me to this.

I thought the evidence indicated that car headlighting endangered motorcyclists who otherwise could not be distinguished from four wheel vehicles. Also the increased danger to planet and people by increasing fossil fuel burn.


----------



## BSRU (22 Sep 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> Road Position > Hi Vis, ime.
> 
> I don't think anyone's denying that we all have responsibilities here, but for my money, they skew heavily in the UK towards those who are in danger, not those who present the danger, and that is fundamentally wrong. The duty of the driver to account for others, and to drive according to conditions is barely mentioned, rarely backed up by enforcement, and beyond a one off test in most people's late teens, never assessed.
> 
> You see the attitude in a smaller way when (some) cyclists talk about riding around "peds".



The main problem is lack of enforcement, very rare to see any traffic Police, which results in some road users ignoring the rules of the road that they don't like
Plus lack of personal responsibility, just look at all websites dedicated to helping people subjugate their personal responsibilities in order to escape fixed penalty notices or endorsements.

Until the government breaks free of the "Car is King" culture we have to do what we can to mitigate the risks.


----------



## Davidc (22 Sep 2010)

StuartG said:


> Can you point me to this.
> 
> I thought the evidence indicated that car headlighting endangered motorcyclists who otherwise could not be distinguished from four wheel vehicles. Also the increased danger to planet and people by increasing fossil fuel burn.


I've heard the comment about motorcycles, and also seen it refuted. Not being a motorcyclist I haven't noted where to find the information.

The environmental question depends on the type of lighting. The daytime lights now being fitted, and proposed for retrofitting to meet compulsory lighting laws, are LED based and use littlle power.

Edit - should have said that there are several research results for daytime lights on the EU's website, I found them once in the past.


----------



## mcr (22 Sep 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> Road Position > Hi Vis, ime.
> 
> I don't think anyone's denying that we all have responsibilities here, but for my money, they skew heavily in the UK towards those who are in danger, not those who present the danger, and that is fundamentally wrong. The duty of the driver to account for others, and to drive according to conditions is barely mentioned, rarely backed up by enforcement, and beyond a one off test in most people's late teens, never assessed.
> 
> You see the attitude in a smaller way when (some) cyclists talk about riding around "peds".



+1


I also find there's something about cars running daytime lights in good conditions as a 'hey, look, I'm here, get out of my way' mentality. And with some of these modern super-bright lights I find I can be dazzled even when they're dipped.


----------



## Origamist (22 Sep 2010)

Davidc said:


> We'll just have to disagree. I simply look forward to the day when we follow the scandinavian countries, Poland and so on and make 24/7 lighting compulsory, with the (measured, documented, and large) improvement in safety that brings.



Err, in Poland there was a 6% increase in road fatalities since the introduction of DRL on 17 April 2007!


----------



## Davidc (22 Sep 2010)

mcr said:


> I also find there's something about cars running daytime lights in good conditions as a 'hey, look, I'm here, get out of my way' mentality. And with some of these modern super-bright lights I find I can be dazzled even when they're dipped.



I've never found daytime lights giving me that feeling, but I find some of the current discharge lights objectionably bright. In daylight they're too bright but at night they're just ridiculous, leaving me temporarily blinded even when they're dipped. I find the best daytime vehicle lights the LED ones now fitted to Audis, VWs and busses among others. They seem to show up very well without dazzling.


----------



## Davidc (22 Sep 2010)

Origamist said:


> Err, in Poland there was a 6% increase in road fatalities since the introduction of DRL on 17 April 2007!



I thought that was down to increased drink drive mainly.


----------



## Ravenbait (22 Sep 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> *Road Position > Hi Vis, ime.
> *
> I don't think anyone's denying that we all have responsibilities here, but for my money, they skew heavily in the UK towards those who are in danger, not those who present the danger, and that is fundamentally wrong. The duty of the driver to account for others, and to drive according to conditions is barely mentioned, rarely backed up by enforcement, and beyond a one off test in most people's late teens, never assessed.



Exactly. I come back to selective inattention blindness. A cyclist in hi-viz at the side of the road, particularly if he's in a marked cycle lane, will be of less interest to a driver than a cyclist wearing perfectly ordinary clothing slap bang in the middle of the lane in front of the car. The cyclist off to the side is not going to register as something that warrants much change in behaviour and thus the brain is likely to dismiss him as irrelevant. The cyclist in front of the car will definitely be seen because the brain registers him as an object requiring a response.

All drivers are necessarily required to filter the incoming data simply because there is so much of it. Peer-group identification is the major reason why cyclists behave better towards cyclists. They are more likely to see cyclists because they identify with them. For non-cyclists a guy on a bike is just a mobile obstacle. I found it particularly noteworthy that the report mentioned drivers feeling a need to overtake a cyclist no matter what because they didn't want to hold up the drivers behind them. The acceptance of their peer group is more important than the safety of a cyclist.

Fluorescent clothing is not going to change driver behaviour. The only thing that can change driver behaviour is the driverand he's not going to do that just because cyclists dress to impress. Humans are tribal and instinctively assign "us" and "them" labels. Road sharing comfortably will only be achieved by accepting that road users of all stripes are "us", not "them". Wearing funny-coloured clothes and plastic hats merely reinforces the idea that cyclists are different.

It's about time someone did a proper psychological study into all of this. Where's Ian Walker when you need him?

I've really had enough with people putting the responsibility for road safety on the most vulnerable users. If that's idealism, so be it. Nothing's going to change, ever, unless there are people prepared to say the status quo is wrong and put their money where their mouths are.

Sam


----------



## BSRU (22 Sep 2010)

Origamist said:


> Err, in Poland there was a 6% increase in road fatalities since the introduction of DRL on 17 April 2007!



When I was learning to ride a motorcycle, our instructor, ex-Police rider, spoke about research that showed lights on motorbikes made them more visible but motorists had a harder job judging their speed.


----------



## Origamist (22 Sep 2010)

Davidc said:


> I thought that was down to increased drink drive mainly.




No, there was only a v slight increase in DD. 

Most of the work I've seen on DRL (it was a few years ago) was inconclusive and often contradictory.


----------



## StuartG (22 Sep 2010)

I'm intrigued with this Hi-Viz stuff and 24/7 headlighting that we don't look to the car. 

Can't see it? Well that probably because it is metallic grey - programmed to fade into the background on any dull day. Maybe a reversion/perversion of Henry Ford's "Any Colour As long As It Is New York Taxi Yellow With Chevron Accompanient" might help the motorist ponder a little ...


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (22 Sep 2010)

> Until the government breaks free of the "Car is King" culture we have to do what we can to mitigate the risks.





I would agree with that. I always carry lights, regardless of the weather, and turn them on when I am going through dark wooded areas, even when it's the middle of the day. I don't want to get hit, and I know how useless some drivers are. My bike has got three reflectors at the rear, one on the mudguard, two on the pannier bags.


But at the same time, I resent the fact that I feel increasingly compelled to present myself as a Christmas tree to compensate for other people's incompetence. 


The "risk" is presented both by the driver's attentiveness, and my degree of visibility. It's a two way street.


----------



## BSRU (22 Sep 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> Exactly. I come back to selective inattention blindness. A cyclist in hi-viz at the side of the road, particularly if he's in a marked cycle lane, will be of less interest to a driver than a cyclist wearing perfectly ordinary clothing slap bang in the middle of the lane in front of the car. The cyclist off to the side is not going to register as something that warrants much change in behaviour and thus the brain is likely to dismiss him as irrelevant. The cyclist in front of the car will definitely be seen because the brain registers him as an object requiring a response.



So the cyclist has done something to help the car driver see them better.



Ravenbait said:


> All drivers are necessarily required to filter the incoming data simply because there is so much of it. Peer-group identification is the major reason why cyclists behave better towards cyclists. They are more likely to see cyclists because they identify with them. For non-cyclists a guy on a bike is just a mobile obstacle. I found it particularly noteworthy that the report mentioned drivers feeling a need to overtake a cyclist no matter what because they didn't want to hold up the drivers behind them. The acceptance of their peer group is more important than the safety of a cyclist.



I think you are being too stereotypical about drivers, a minority may be like this but the majority are not.



Ravenbait said:


> Fluorescent clothing is not going to change driver behaviour. The only thing that can change driver behaviour is the driverand he's not going to do that just because cyclists dress to impress. Humans are tribal and instinctively assign "us" and "them" labels. Road sharing comfortably will only be achieved by accepting that road users of all stripes are "us", not "them". Wearing funny-coloured clothes and plastic hats merely reinforces the idea that cyclists are different.



HI-viz clothing is not about changing driver behaviour it is about being more visible, even if that is 1% more then to me it's worth it. You obviously have not noticed that we are all different, thankfully, otherwise it would a very boring world.



Ravenbait said:


> I've really had enough with people putting the responsibility for road safety on the most vulnerable users. If that's idealism, so be it. Nothing's going to change, ever, unless there are people prepared to say the status quo is wrong and put their money where their mouths are.
> 
> Sam


Road safety towards the most vulnerable users is the responsibility of all road users and all road users have a responsibility to themselves for their own safety.


----------



## Ravenbait (22 Sep 2010)

BSRU said:


> So the cyclist has done something to help the car driver see them better.
> 
> I think you are being too stereotypical about drivers, a minority may be like this but the majority are not.



Really? This isn't malicious, it's more careless. The majority of drivers would like to be more considerate but have too much demanding their attention. If the majority of drivers were careful and considerate then my commute would be much more pleasant.



> HI-viz clothing is not about changing driver behaviour it is about being more visible, even if that is 1% more then to me it's worth it. You obviously have not noticed that we are all different, thankfully, otherwise it would a very boring world.



We're not that different. On the level of the individual, a 1% increase in visibility will make a difference to a fraction of drivers. Hi-viz at the side of the road is not as effective as being in the middle of the road no matter what you're wearing, and there's a danger that someone wearing hi-viz will expect to be seen when selective inattention blindness means the driver is merrily ignoring anything that doesn't necessitate a blatant change in his driving behaviour. 

My argument is that the report (that is what this thread is about, after all) doesn't concentrate on what can be done to improve driver behaviour so much as it suggests ways of encouraging/compelling cyclists to change theirs, and not always in the best way. There was little discussion of getting the "guarded" style of cyclist to adopt the more assertive style. That's not terribly edifying or helpful.

Sam


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Sep 2010)

I'm bound to point out that people are arguing from a point of principle, which is fine in its way, whereas the study didn't make a big deal about principle, but rather, concerned itself with uncovering a spectrum of attitudes and practice. We may all of us regret the requirement for lighting on bikes, but I can't see much of an argument for not having a set of working lights on a bike.


----------



## Origamist (22 Sep 2010)

BSRU said:


> Road safety towards the most vulnerable users is the responsibility of all road users and all road users have a responsibility to themselves for their own safety.



Is this equitable though? It is overwhelmingly motorists who create and perpetuate the hazardous nature of the street environment by being in control of potentially lethal machinery on our roads. As such, the greatest burden of responsibility for avoiding a collision should lie with them. 

It is appalling that a minority of drivers treat the roads as some kind of liminal space where the sanctity of human life can be treated with disdain.


----------



## Davidc (22 Sep 2010)

This is a report on sharing the road, and covers issues around that. It isn't about causes of collisions.

There is a document from the same source called "Collisions involving pedal cyclists on Britain's roads: establishing the causes"

This covers more of what this thread has moved on to.

Edit: the sizes of fonts on this post have gone wrong - apologies

I've just tested the link and realised you have to give some details to get to the pdf file.


----------



## Davidc (22 Sep 2010)

Origamist said:


> It is appalling that a minority of drivers treat the roads as some kind of liminal space where the sanctity of human life can be treated with disdain.



Yes. It's also appalling that little is done to stop it. Car culture has taken over, the Car is King attitude pervades national culture (not just here), and the sort of abuse you're identifying just gets accepted.


----------



## StuartG (22 Sep 2010)

Davidc said:


> Car culture has taken over


Yes - and quite naturally so. I came from a cycling town in the sixties but then I found my first car much more convenient. Going places in comfort at speed and with little hassle. Why I first came to London I use to pootle down Oxford Street on my way home in the mini during the rush hour.

Trouble is car travel was so good and superior that everybody joined in. Result is that it is no longer fast comfortable and hassle free. But giving up the car is possibly more difficult than giving up fags. We ourselves have created a structure that locks us in and isn't really reversable - yet.

Visionaries like Ken tried to sort out London. Defeated at first by Bromley and possibly now by Boris (repeal of outer congestion zone and 4x4 tax plus cancelling of most public transport projects) things are not looking bright atm. And bicycle culture is often not that different in the UK. Defying traffic regulations, cutting people up, racing on a public road (commuters not TT!!) obsession with mechanical bits ... many of us are only 4 cylinders apart and even more have a spare 4 in the garage.

Its not others who are the problem. Its us.


----------



## CotterPin (22 Sep 2010)

BSRU said:


> Until the government breaks free of the "Car is King" culture we have to do what we can to mitigate the risks.



Unfortunately, by doing what we can to mitigate the risks we perpetuate the "Car is King" culture, by taking on the responsibility that should be the drivers. Personally I don't see why my choice of attire should be dictated by a bunch of strangers who are too busy fumbling around for that minto, texting their mates to tell them when they will get there, or shouting at the kids in the back seat.


----------



## Davidc (22 Sep 2010)

StuartG said:


> Yes - and quite naturally so. Going places in comfort at speed and with little hassle. etc.



What you've identified is surely a set of reasons for car uptake. The Car Culture and the Car is King attitude are related but separate.

It should be quite possible for people to use cars but not have an expectation that they take absolute priority over everything, everybody, and everywhere.

I'm in the minority that would like to see the complete end of the private car coupled with restoration of efficient and effective public transport. I hate the things. However, even I would accept that a change of culture could make the use of cars tolerable. That change of culture would be to a general view that cars are tolerated but secondary to everything else, that they are an unwelcome intrusion on the streets, spoil our towns and cities by their presence etc. Very differnt from the general view now.

My desire to see an end to private cars is unlikely to come about, a change to the present dominance of our lives by the car can, but I'm not hopeful.


----------



## davefb (22 Sep 2010)

Davidc said:


> We'll just have to disagree. I simply look forward to the day when we follow the scandinavian countries, Poland and so on and make 24/7 lighting compulsory, with the (measured, documented, and large) improvement in safety that brings.



makes a load of sense in sweden et al, it relates to the much longer time of low level sunlight and the issue that causes. it is however daft to make this pan european because theres only a much smaller time period in most eu contries this would be useful.

and yeah, more co2


----------



## snorri (22 Sep 2010)

Davidc said:


> We'll just have to disagree. I simply look forward to the day when we follow the scandinavian countries, Poland and so on and make 24/7 lighting compulsory, with the (measured, documented, and large) improvement in safety that brings.


I think the strict liability laws in mainland Europe give greater protection to vulnerable users than any lighting systems on motor vehicles.


----------



## Davidc (22 Sep 2010)

snorri said:


> I think the strict liability laws in mainland Europe give greater protection to vulnerable users than any lighting systems on motor vehicles.



Totally different issue.

When I've cycled in F B and NL what's been clear is a that the attitude to cyclists is completely different, the road culture is different. I don't think that's affected by liability laws. The different culture is what makes the liability laws possible and acceptable. The other side of the coin is cyclists having to accept more control on how, what and where they ride.

Would cyclists in the UK accept the stricter rules on use of bikes in exchange for having the continental culture?


----------



## John the Monkey (23 Sep 2010)

StuartG said:


> Going places in comfort at speed and with little hassle.



And therein is the problem with much debate on the topic in the UK, imo.

Little hassle for the folk in the cars.

For the folk outside, fast roads divide communities, curtail the freedom many of us took for granted, and swallow vast amounts of government funds.

The same motorist centeredness is evident in safety discussion too - how many articles talk about motorists using mobiles "in slow moving traffic" with the implication that this is less dangerous (and from the point of view of the motorist, it is, sadly it's also prime time for squashing someone moving between the cars, or sending a filtering cyclist or motorcyclist flying).


----------



## sheddy (23 Sep 2010)

Possibly OT, but some backgound on the dangers of Daytime Running Lights (but the yourfreedom petition is closed)
http://www.dadrl.org.uk/whatsnew.html


----------



## Origamist (23 Sep 2010)

Davidc said:


> Totally different issue.
> 
> When I've cycled in F B and NL what's been clear is a that the attitude to cyclists is completely different, the road culture is different. I don't think that's affected by liability laws. The different culture is what makes the liability laws possible and acceptable. The other side of the coin is cyclists having to accept more control on how, what and where they ride.
> 
> Would cyclists in the UK accept the stricter rules on use of bikes in exchange for having the continental culture?



I know that Dutch cycle campaigers were very keen for stricter liability laws to be enacted (i.e affording more protection to vulnerable road users). They often highlight this measure as one that has had a positive effect on road user behaviour.


----------



## Davidc (23 Sep 2010)

Origamist said:


> I know that Dutch cycle campaigers were very keen for stricter liability laws to be enacted (i.e affording more protection to vulnerable road users). They often highlight this measure as one that has had a positive effect on road user behaviour.



You're right, but they were asking for (and got) an improvement in a situation we'd already think of as utopia. My riding in NL hasn't covered the whole country and I've never commuted there but when a few years back I spent weeks in the areas round the big cities using a bike as transport the big difference I noticed was in the way motor vehicle drivers allow for the needs of cyclists, accept the few seconds delay allowing for cyclists being slower than them, give cyclists plenty of room, don't overtake until there's plenty of room, and so on. A different culture.

Apart from the trams that is.

There are a couple of downsides. When you do come across a driver not being attentive or not behaving well it's a shock and you tend not to have allowed for it properly whereas sometimes here it's a shock if you find one who is behaving properly. The other is when you get back after a few weeks, when it seems to take days to readjust.

It would be great if we could have the same liability laws, but they can't be acceptable to the majority until we change our road culture and people generally accept that we don't have to be ruled and dictated to by the motor car.


----------



## snorri (23 Sep 2010)

Davidc said:


> Would cyclists in the UK accept the stricter rules on use of bikes in exchange for having the continental culture?


Not sure about these stricter rules you refer to.

Regarding different "cultures", I would think a road users behaviour is formed by the laws in place. Weak laws and weak enforcement to protect vulnerable users in this country have got us into our present predicament.
I don't think the average mainland European is any more or less considerate to others than the average Brit, however the differerence in driver behaviour to vulnerable users is stark.


----------



## Davidc (23 Sep 2010)

The culture is the set of accepted and normal behaviours and it is different, having a much higher proportion of the population regularly using bikes is also part of the culture.

The sort of rules are compulsory use of cycle paths and lanes when provided*, compulsory carying of lights 24/7, tight construction and use rules even covering mudguards and other attached bits and likelihood of arrest if you show a flashing light**.

In exchange you seem to get the better treatment of cyclists.

And no one wears a helmet.

* ignored by large groups of cyclists out together who are tolerated, but not by individuals
** last time I was in NL cycling, about 4 years ago, there was a sizeable protest going on over this. You'll have to ask Deftse Post how it went, but AFAIK the cyclists lost that one.


----------



## Origamist (23 Sep 2010)

Davidc said:


> You're right, but they were asking for (and got) an improvement in a situation we'd already think of as utopia. My riding in NL hasn't covered the whole country and I've never commuted there but when a few years back I spent weeks in the areas round the big cities using a bike as transport the big difference I noticed was in the way motor vehicle drivers allow for the needs of cyclists, accept the few seconds delay allowing for cyclists being slower than them, give cyclists plenty of room, don't overtake until there's plenty of room, and so on. A different culture.
> 
> Apart from the trams that is.
> 
> ...



In the 60s and 70s the Netherlands was autocentric (cycle paths were removed, car usage was soaring etc). It took a raft of measures to change the roads into a more cyclist-friendly environment - some of the decisions where popular, others were treated with howls of anger. It was these sometimes tough decisions that arrested the car is king culture in the Netherlands. 

What you also need to remember is that cycling in the Netherlands has evolved over the last 30 years - in the 80s the Dutch did not believe they had created a cycling utopia, they continued to improve the conditions for cycling. As I'm sure you are aware, even in the Netherlands, the quality of the provision and the cycling environment fluctuates between high quality and not so high quality. There is a huge amount of money invested in propagating cycling and making it as safe as possible (hence why only a tiny proportion of Dutch wear helmets - they percieve cycling to be be safe and an ordinary, everyday activity).


----------



## Davidc (23 Sep 2010)

My first experiene of he Netherlands was in the 70s, on a 10 day holiday on my bike. At that time as you say there was less difference between there and here. My knowledge of the place has increased since with family living there, and the improvements in bike provision have been continuous. They have been in parallel with changes in the road culture, with walking and cycling being properly respected.

If the UK is to become more cycle friendly, with cycling becoming a more mainstream form of transport we need that culture shift. Sadly I see too little movement towards it, although I view the 1980s as the low point for cycling here with things having got a little better since.


----------

