Cyclist escapes prosecution after fatal collision with pensioner

[Time Waster]

Maybe those top 10 were all done early morning/late evening when hardly anybody was about?

You were used to seeing it at commute time, when presumably it would be quite busy.

It's on a main bus route, three bus numbers, it's pretty busy most times tbh, I was on it about 630 am then 5 ish coming home. You'd see some fast cyclists on that homewards stretch at any time. In order to get a good time I think you need to time the lights heading north into the village at the right time as well.

 

[mjr]

"Most segregated paths are designed for approximately 12 mph, and the Department for Transport say that cyclists going faster than 18 mph should use the road."
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?t=101809

As explained later on that forum, the poster is referring to a discarded consultation draft. The consultation response was so negative that no such limit was ever advised, probably because it would have resulted in councils building even worse cycleways than usual.

 

[mjr]

NOT automatically dangerous driving (that would depend on the circumstances), but dangerous is hard to prove, so normally the charge would be a contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 36 (failing to obey a traffic sign - in this case the keep left bollard on the traffic island).

Which is also an offence if done on a cycle.

 

[tinywheels]

View attachment 730741 Chicken in my local bar caused a bit of a stir this lunchtime:

my kinda bar

 

[presta]

As explained later on that forum, the poster is referring to a discarded consultation draft. The consultation response was so negative that no such limit was ever advised, probably because it would have resulted in councils building even worse cycleways than usual.

Isn't it in Cyclecraft?
I've read it in something fairly authoritative, but I don't recall what.

 

[Dogtrousers]

The official* guidance is that if you want (a) a puncture or (b) to end up somewhere you don't want to be, then take the cycleway. On the other hand if you prefer (c) close passes or (d) abuse then use the road.

*Kinda

 

[mjr]

Isn't it in Cyclecraft?
I've read it in something fairly authoritative, but I don't recall what.

Possibly. I'll look soon. EDIT TO ADD: no, it's not in the cycle paths chapter (10) of Cyclecraft.

Cyclecraft's author is famously anti-cycleway and much of its advice on them is wrong, such as riding in the middle of them, which will get you many colourful suggestions to move over a bit in places where lots of ordinary people cycle! It's fine for coping strategies for mixing with motorists, if you can ignore the ableism, but some of it is at best out of date by now, with at least two design manual and highway code updates since the last revision.

 

[mjr]

The official guidance is that if you want (a) a puncture or (b) to end up somewhere you don't want to be, then take the cycleway. On the other hand if you prefer (c) close passes or (d) abuse then use the road.

Those can be fixed with (a) mini sweepers (b) signs and maps (c) police (d) police. Which is more likely?

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Cyclecraft's author is famously anti-cycleway

John Franklin?
Having met the guy, that's simply not true. He's anti-poop-cycleway.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Those can be fixed with (a) mini sweepers (b) signs (c) police (d) police. Which is more likely?

None of the above?

 

[mjr]

John Franklin?
Having met the guy, that's simply not true. He's anti-poop-cycleway.

I've met him too. Has he approved of any cycleway yet? I've not read his latest stuff.

 

[mustang1]

Not sure if covered, but some context about Regents Park.

Those guys are not racing inside the park, but on public roads that circle around the park. Usually the cyclists ride anti clockwise and so have to negotiate, iirc,.one junction and 3 or 4 pelican crossings plus one traffic light.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

I've met him too. Has he approved of any cycleway yet? I've not read his latest stuff.

You are clearly in the pro-infrastructure camp and that's fine.

One of John's point is that cycling infrastructure has to be designed to a good standard. Another is that it should not present inexperienced cyclists with risks that they may not identify. A third is that it shouldn't not encourage them to cycle in a fashion unpredictable to vehicle drivers when joining or leaving that infrastructure.

All seems very laudable to me.

I don't see why safe on-road cycling and high-quality cycling infrastructure are mutually exclusive. The answer is that they aren't.

 

[presta]

John Franklin?
Having met the guy, that's simply not true. He's anti-poop-cycleway.

About 15 years ago, Radio 4 You and Yours had a cycle path advocate on the show, after which I emailed them and pointed out Cyclecraft, Franklin, and the evidence he's collated that cycle paths are less safe. I got a phone call from one of their researchers afterwards, who spent about half an hour chatting, and surprised me how open-minded she was. She tried to talk me into going on the program, but as I wasn't interested in my 15 minutes of fame they got Franklin on instead.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

If we are going to discuss cycling infrastructure and the merits / demerits there of, we should probably continue in a different thread.
Having returned to cycling after nearly two decades off and even re-visited some of my old haunts, I do have some views. Mostly coloured by disappointment.

New thread. "Safe Road Cycling; Cycling Specific Infastructure; Why Not Advocate for Both?"