Is there hope things might change?

[blackrat]

The USA is worse and some politicritters want us to follow them, so I disagree. We will hopefully not, though!

TBH; that comment made no sense whatever. Any chance of a relevant correlation?

 

[Gwylan]

I'm in the middle of spending several weeks, less than 90 days, pedalling around Europe.

In France there seems to have been a blossoming of cycle paths and clear physical separation of cars and bikes.
Also the way drivers are almost afraid of cyclists and pedestrians anywhere near a crossing or junction.

Belgium, my home for 29 years, seems to have gone off. The volume of cyclists has to now become a problem in its own right. Closing the center of Leuven to vehicles means there is a massive flow of cycles and delivery bikes. Not helped by the wooden top touroid who think they are in a free zone and call walk around backwards taking video for everyone back home.
Drivers, to my surprise, have become much more aggressive to cycles. The 1.5 m passing zone is a myth.

The Netherlands with amazing infrastructure remains a pleasure. Just obey the rules or expect to be reprimanded by the galleon matron on her sit up and beg cycle.
However being approached by a seemingly unregulated scooter or battery bike at 40+ kph is challenging. Especially as the youth on board is busy texting.

Soon we will be sampling Luxembourg and the western provinces of Germany.

 

[Punkawallah]

I understand in France if a motor vehicle hits a bicycle, the driver is assumed to be at fault. Could explain their wariness.

 

[chriswoody]

I understand in France if a motor vehicle hits a bicycle, the driver is assumed to be at fault. Could explain their wariness.

In France, along with most other European countries, they have a system of presumed liability whereby in crashes involving vulnerable road users, finds the more powerful road user liable by default, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault. Britain is only one of five countries that doesn't have presumed liability, along with Romania, Cyprus, Malta and Ireland.

It's important to note, no one is assumed to be at fault, it's just that the onus is on the more powerful road user to exercise the utmost care and diligence and must prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't cause the incident. Notice as well that this refers to all road users, so as a cyclist I am also liable for the safety of pedestrians around me and presumed liable for any incident.

Here in Germany you also get situations where the traffic lights turn green at junctions at the same time as the pedestrian crossings. So any vehicle turning into a side road has to give way to any pedestrians/cyclists who are crossing on green as well.

Whenever the subject pops up of cycling safety in the UK, I always reflect on the situation here and feel it's such a complex picture. It's no one thing that makes cycling better here, but a multitude of things. Infrastructure, the law, culture, critical mass, geography, mindset, no one thing makes it better and sadly I just can't see any meaningful change happening in Britain until the problem is looked at more holistically instead of focusing on one thing like infrastructure.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

In France, along with most other European countries, they have a system of presumed liability whereby in crashes involving vulnerable road users, finds the more powerful road user liable by default, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault. Britain is only one of five countries that doesn't have presumed liability, along with Romania, Cyprus, Malta and Ireland.

It's important to note, no one is assumed to be at fault, it's just that the onus is on the more powerful road user to exercise the utmost care and diligence and must prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't cause the incident. Notice as well that this refers to all road users, so as a cyclist I am also liable for the safety of pedestrians around me and presumed liable for any incident.

Here in Germany you also get situations where the traffic lights turn green at junctions at the same time as the pedestrian crossings. So any vehicle turning into a side road has to give way to any pedestrians/cyclists who are crossing on green as well.

Whenever the subject pops up of cycling safety in the UK, I always reflect on the situation here and feel it's such a complex picture. It's no one thing that makes cycling better here, but a multitude of things. Infrastructure, the law, culture, critical mass, geography, mindset, no one thing makes it better and sadly I just can't see any meaningful change happening in Britain until the problem is looked at more holistically instead of focusing on one thing like infrastructure.

That presumed liability seems like a good idea to me

including the one where cyclists are presumed to be at fault (initially) if they hit a pedestrian

 

[Drago]

In France, along with most other European countries, they have a system of presumed liability whereby in crashes involving vulnerable road users, finds the more powerful road user liable by default, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault. Britain is only one of five countries that doesn't have presumed liability, along with Romania, Cyprus, Malta and Ireland.

It's important to note, no one is assumed to be at fault, it's just that the onus is on the more powerful road user to exercise the utmost care and diligence and must prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't cause the incident. Notice as well that this refers to all road users, so as a cyclist I am also liable for the safety of pedestrians around me and presumed liable for any incident.

Here in Germany you also get situations where the traffic lights turn green at junctions at the same time as the pedestrian crossings. So any vehicle turning into a side road has to give way to any pedestrians/cyclists who are crossing on green as well.

Whenever the subject pops up of cycling safety in the UK, I always reflect on the situation here and feel it's such a complex picture. It's no one thing that makes cycling better here, but a multitude of things. Infrastructure, the law, culture, critical mass, geography, mindset, no one thing makes it better and sadly I just can't see any meaningful change happening in Britain until the problem is looked at more holistically instead of focusing on one thing like infrastructure.

Although there is little in the way of a proven like to any casualty reduction, so it seems a bit moot. Despite the hoo haha about the cycling nirvana in some mainland European countries very few actually fare significantly better than the UK for deaths-per-miles.

I'm camera'd up regardless of the vehicle I'm on or in, then if an incident occurs then the person responsible gets the blame, as it should be. If that turns out to be me then it serves me right, I'd deserve what's coming.

 

[Drago]

That presumed liability seems like a good idea to me

including the one where cyclists are presumed to be at fault (initially) if they hit a pedestrian

To my knowledge no one measures and records that metric but in my personal experience, and anecdotal feedback from police colleagues when I was in the Job, peds blindly stepping out (or even maliciously arsing about) kill more cyclists than the other way round.

I've dealt with several of the former, zero of the latter, an experience repeated by most of my RPU or CIU colleagues at the time.

If that could ever be reliably firmed up it could be an argument for presumed liability defaulting to the pedestrian in ped v cyclist collisions. Imagine the outrage in the chip wrappers at that!

 

[chriswoody]

That presumed liability seems like a good idea to me

including the one where cyclists are presumed to be at fault (initially) if they hit a pedestrian

It is a good idea and only something you really start to appreciate the longer you spend in a country like this. Crossing side roads I'm always amazed at the lengths most drivers go to check whether your there. It's also the same in towns where there is a high volume of cyclists all riding slowly and courteously around the pedestrians. The vast majority of cyclists here and just ordinary folk riding dutch style bikes in ordinary clothes and the general attitude is mellow and non aggressive.

I'm camera'd up regardless of the vehicle I'm on or in, then if an incident occurs then the person responsible gets the blame, as it should be. If that turns out to be me then it serves me right, I'd deserve what's coming.

Good luck with that in Germany. They have a very strict attitude to privacy here and whilst the use of a camera is not strictly illegal, anything recorded on it is not admissible in court and you definitely can't share any footage captured on social media. Legally you cannot film anyone without express permission either.

At the end of the day, it's undeniable that the cycling culture here is completely different to the UK. Here there are hundreds of people using bikes as day to day transport, running errands etc. They are part and parcel of the everyday fabric of life, folk don't feel the need to dress in specialist clothing and bikes are in the main a few hundred euros at most. Cycling is easy and pleasurable and in the main completely safe, my own children are 11 and 13, yet for several years now have been cycling across town to school and back alone everyday, a distance of 7km return.

Presumed liability is only a small part of a much bigger picture, but one which means that everyone looks out for everyone else. Spending time here you realise just how much more folk look out for each other and there's no combative us and them culture.

 

[Alex321]

Here in Germany you also get situations where the traffic lights turn green at junctions at the same time as the pedestrian crossings. So any vehicle turning into a side road has to give way to any pedestrians/cyclists who are crossing on green as well.

That was the same in Morocco when we were there in May.

It was quite disconcerting the first time I went to cross as the pedestrian lights turned green, only realising when I was half way over that the lights were also green for the traffic turning into that road. But the traffic did stop for the pedestrians crossing.

 

[matticus]

Despite the hoo haha about the cycling nirvana in some mainland European countries very few actually fare significantly better than the UK for deaths-per-miles.

The "hoo haha" is a lot louder for some countries than others - and I suspect it's the ones that ARE safer. My googling wasn't very sueccesful, but I did find this:
"Although they don't produce an equivalent "KSI" figure, the Dutch government does calculate the the number of fatalities per billion miles.

In 2012 there were 38 deaths per billion miles cycled in Britain - the fourth lowest year on record - but in the Netherlands the number was almost half that, at just 22. The Netherlands is well-known for spending more on cyclists."

Yes, that does say 2012, sorry; But I'd be surprised if they've slipped back much - prove me wrong!

 

[Alex321]

The "hoo haha" is a lot louder for some countries than others - and I suspect it's the ones that ARE safer. My googling wasn't very sueccesful, but I did find this:
"Although they don't produce an equivalent "KSI" figure, the Dutch government does calculate the the number of fatalities per billion miles.

In 2012 there were 38 deaths per billion miles cycled in Britain - the fourth lowest year on record - but in the Netherlands the number was almost half that, at just 22. The Netherlands is well-known for spending more on cyclists."

Yes, that does say 2012, sorry; But I'd be surprised if they've slipped back much - prove me wrong!

They haven't slipped back at all, in fact they have improved.

But so have the UK, and figures now are much closer - latest figures (2022) show 13 deaths per billion miles for NL, 19 for UK.

https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/PIN-Flash-38_FINAL.pdf

So we are still worse, but nowhere near twice as bad any more.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Without being overly political, I am sceptical. The new Government are now planning to reduce railcard discounts.

I can still hope for the best though. Hopefully some more money for active travel and enough involvement from people who actually understand active travel to make it work.

As already touched upon, public opinion (outside of London) is a really big problem. In my locallity - we have a couple of large road maintenance/improvement schemes underway - the merest suggestion that people could walk or cycle and beat the traffic garners the usual predictable replies.

And a large part of the town is gridlocked for hours every day, whilst people moan and complain and point fingers at the local authority.

 

[icowden]

Some have tried to start a Dutch-style child-centred campaign for the UK but it's not really caught on. I'm not sure why. Even more limited campaigns like School Streets seem to bring out some really ranty opposition.

Yes, it's an interesting phenomenon. About 10 years or so back, in my home town of Walton on Thames the council consulted and carried out a pavement widening scheme / cyclepath which runs from BP Roundabout by Grovelands Primary School all the way to Walton Bridge. This entailed removing a small amount of parking and painting some more yellow lines as well.

Now the reaction to it was incredible. You would think that this was a major interchange and that the changes had caused gridlock and tailbacks for miles around. There was lots of abuse of cyclists "why aren't you using the new cycle path" - "get on the new path". Two of the reasons for the backlash were around poor management of expectation from the Council and poor implementation from the Council. The primary reason for the cycle lane was to make it easier and safer for children to get to school from the residential roads that run off Terrace Road (particular those toward the river). There is a primary / junior school at both ends of the new infrastructure. So as a cycle lane it's aimed at slower cyclists. The secondary reason that it is used less than it might be is a number of poor design decisions.

For example, instead of the original proposition which was for raised platforms and "give way" at the end of the residential roads, thus creating a continuous cycle lane, you have to start and stop. A lot. The section by the Co-op was hived off for a separate road regeneration that never happened. The section on the hill has loads of residential homes with drop kerbs and some idiot made the decision that the pavement should thus undulate all the way up/down the hill with the biggest undulation being where the cycles are supposed to be, thus making anyone doing more than 10mph seasick.

However it was never aimed at the average road cyclist. It was aimed at parents and children.

But - and here's the interesting bit if you haven't yet fallen asleep. The whole stretch of road from BP Roundabout to high street has an average speed of 12 miles per hour at all times except for rush hour when it's 8mph. So the road is perfectly safe to cycle on and there is no need for *any* car to overtake *any* cyclist. All that happens is that the cars get to the queue for a set of traffic lights more quickly and the bikes then pootle past them. If we could only find a way of telling drivers there is no point overtaking on a road, perhaps they would all be a LOT safer.

I can guarantee that unless it's one of those rare occasions when the roads are completely empty, any cyclist can beat a car from the roundabout to the high street.

We now have some new cycling infrastructure again from Molesey to Walton to make it safer for kids to get to the new secondary school. Minor pavement widening, and a reduction in the speed limit from 60mph to 40mph on the only 60mph road for miles around. Again, there are desultory murmurings about it being a waste of money.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Yes, it's an interesting phenomenon. About 10 years or so back, in my home town of Walton on Thames the council consulted and carried out a pavement widening scheme / cyclepath which runs from BP Roundabout by Grovelands Primary School all the way to Walton Bridge. This entailed removing a small amount of parking and painting some more yellow lines as well.

Now the reaction to it was incredible. You would think that this was a major interchange and that the changes had caused gridlock and tailbacks for miles around. There was lots of abuse of cyclists "why aren't you using the new cycle path" - "get on the new path". Two of the reasons for the backlash were around poor management of expectation from the Council and poor implementation from the Council. The primary reason for the cycle lane was to make it easier and safer for children to get to school from the residential roads that run off Terrace Road (particular those toward the river). There is a primary / junior school at both ends of the new infrastructure. So as a cycle lane it's aimed at slower cyclists. The secondary reason that it is used less than it might be is a number of poor design decisions.

For example, instead of the original proposition which was for raised platforms and "give way" at the end of the residential roads, thus creating a continuous cycle lane, you have to start and stop. A lot. The section by the Co-op was hived off for a separate road regeneration that never happened. The section on the hill has loads of residential homes with drop kerbs and some idiot made the decision that the pavement should thus undulate all the way up/down the hill with the biggest undulation being where the cycles are supposed to be, thus making anyone doing more than 10mph seasick.

However it was never aimed at the average road cyclist. It was aimed at parents and children.

But - and here's the interesting bit if you haven't yet fallen asleep. The whole stretch of road from BP Roundabout to high street has an average speed of 12 miles per hour at all times except for rush hour when it's 8mph. So the road is perfectly safe to cycle on and there is no need for *any* car to overtake *any* cyclist. All that happens is that the cars get to the queue for a set of traffic lights more quickly and the bikes then pootle past them. If we could only find a way of telling drivers there is no point overtaking on a road, perhaps they would all be a LOT safer.

I can guarantee that unless it's one of those rare occasions when the roads are completely empty, any cyclist can beat a car from the roundabout to the high street.

We now have some new cycling infrastructure again from Molesey to Walton to make it safer for kids to get to the new secondary school. Minor pavement widening, and a reduction in the speed limit from 60mph to 40mph on the only 60mph road for miles around. Again, there are desultory murmurings about it being a waste of money.

2 points
a) given the average car speed - a bike on the wibbly wobbly cycle path would actually be better off on it than on the road - assuming they don;t get seasick and there are not too many kids on bikes going slowly

b) it looks like they have fallen for the normal trap of, seemingly, having the cycle infrastructure designed by a non-cyclist
I could be wrong about that - but the concept does seem to explain a lot of well meaning cycle path decisions I have seen
The cycle paths around here are often quite good
until you are going along and think "what idiot did this bit!!!

classic error is not making it clear - in any way - that the cycle pat has ended - wherever it ends because it is totally unmarked. Hence you just start to wonder after a while why the shared path seems to now be rather narrow.

 

[icowden]

it looks like they have fallen for the normal trap of, seemingly, having the cycle infrastructure designed by a non-cyclist

I think the *original* plan was actually well designed and had input from cycle groups. However the *revised* plan decided that cars were more important than cycle safety.

classic error is not making it clear - in any way - that the cycle pat has ended - wherever it ends because it is totally unmarked. Hence you just start to wonder after a while why the shared path seems to now be rather narrow.

This one is well marked but suffers from a lot of this:

I characterise this as "we ran out of room so now the path narrows, but we're going to continue with these posts even if they are essentially in the way". In the original plan the path would have continued across that junction on a raised table with "give way" signs to drivers instead.

This section is a work of genius:-

As you can see, the intended position to cross the road to the left of that post, just behind the tree. This makes it impossible to see whether a car is approaching intending to turn left. Thus most people just drop off the pavement at the actual corner. For youngsters going to school, this is probably the most dangerous road to cross as it is *very* busy with people turning left to cut through the rat runs in the morning.

There is also a confusing bit further up by the church where the cycle path suddenly ends (although there is a bit of paint on the road instead), but magically reappears on the pavement about 20 paces further on next to the Jewellers.