Lambeth Bridge tipper truck fatality

[Glow worm]

I keep trying to explain this to the CEGB and Hembrow acoltyes... facilities aren't the key factor - attitude is. And presumption of liability is a key factor in changing attitudes (as is being a cyclist as well as a driver).

They are a factor. A small example - If it weren't for the cycle path linking my village to Cambridge, I'd definately drive to work there, as would plenty of others I know hereabouts. I'm not suggesting they are the answer to everything, but they have their place in the mix (as long as they're good of course). I Agree on presumed liability- can't happen soon enough.

 

[benb]

Even the roads minister made that mistake, the old roads minister I should say. He claimed that London was safer than Amsterdam cos we had fewer accidents! Statistical innumeracy.

In the same way that Lichtenstein is safer than Australia for shark attacks.

 

[subaqua]

I agree - they are a factor - but a minor one. If people felt safe cycling on the roads, because of a changed attitude amongst drivers, then most facilities would be irrelevant.

and the utter chaos caused by building them .

CS2 between Aldgate and Bow is now a very horrible place to ride, sadly I have to ride that as the project I am currently visiting is bang on that bit no way round it .

mainly due to the crap construction of a crap facility that will no doubt be as badly built as the bow- stratford section and less likely to be cleared of debris/snow/ice .

 

[benb]

I completely disagree with the assertion that Dutch drivers are better behaved round cyclists regardless of the road design and infrastructure.

All the familiar problems that people cycling in Britain encounter – close passes, squeezing through at pinch points, left hooks, and so on – would undoubtedly occur in the Netherlands too, on a large scale, if their roads were not designed to eliminate those kinds of problems from occurring in the first place

from http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/dutch-attitudes/ which I agree with.

 

[benb]

You might disagree, but as someone who cycles extensively on Dutch and Belgian roads (one of the benefits of being in the area covered by the Dutch Flyer scheme) I notice a very different attitude from Dutch drivers. I note that the blog you link to is that of a CEGB acolyte - so hardly surprising the the author is bigging up the role of facilities and trying to diminish the role of attitude and presumed liability.

Are you Hush Legs then?

Yes. Personally, and no offence, but you're talking nonsense.

If cycling doesn't feel safe then mass cycling will never take off.
I'd say that good quality infrastructure is a necessary precondition for mass cycling.
Presumed liability is a good idea, but humans will still make mistakes, and we need to, as far as possible, remove the opportunity for the mistakes of drivers to result in injury to others. That means segregation.

 

[summerdays]

Yes. Personally, and no offence, but you're talking nonsense.

If cycling doesn't feel safe then mass cycling will never take off.
I'd say that good quality infrastructure is a necessary precondition for mass cycling.
Presumed liability is a good idea, but humans will still make mistakes, and we need to, as far as possible, remove the opportunity for the mistakes of drivers to result in injury to others. That means segregation.

I think we need some segregation especially near schools. Also good paths that can avoid problem areas whether they be hills or major junctions or roads. We don't need segregation everywhere if we had a change in driver attitude.

 

[benb]

Also, read this: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/w...ity-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice
Particularly

Strict liability only came into force in The Netherlands in 1992, years after the majority of the current cycle infrastructure was put into place and after the resurgence in cycling had already been firmly established

The Netherlands and Denmark are not the only jurisdictions to have strict liability. Many European countries have the same law, but do not have the same safe cycling conditions or high cycling rates that are said to result. Even Ontario, Canada, has a law equivalent to strict liability; it has had no obvious effect on the high road danger or low cycling rates in the province

 

[benb]

Once again, we do not have the space for a complete segregated network. Token segregation only increases the degree to which drivers believe we shouldn't be on their roads.

So you're quite happy for the majority of potential cyclists to be effectively banned from the roads due to its hostility, whilst you continue with your "vehicular cycling" utopia?

 

[Pale Rider]

I'd say that good quality infrastructure is a necessary precondition for mass cycling.

To which I would add: "Mass cycling will never take off until we have good quality infrastructure."

Thus we are stuck in a situation popularly known as Catch 22.

 

[benb]

@User I don't think your comment "Nice of Hush Legs to quote my post elsewhere. If s/he thinks it’s nonsense, perhaps they’d have the good manners to debate it openly rather than leaving snide posts on this blog?" was very constructive, do you?

 

[benb]

But they're not banned from the roads, are they? It's those who are demanding segregation who are whipping up hysteria about the dangers of cycling (in order to justify the expense of providing the infrastructure) and making people feel as though they can't cycle on the roads.

Haha, really? Yes, they are effectively banned from the roads, because most people find it unpleasant, intimidating, and hostile.
Unless roads are safe enough for anyone to use, from 8-98, they are not fit for purpose. Would you let a child cycle on a busy A road? On many UK roads at all?

 

[benb]

Really? How come the huge increase in cycling in places like London and Cambridge occurred despite a lack of infrastructure?

An increase in cycling is not the same as mass cycling.

I'm afraid that this quote shows the complete capitulation stance of the segregationist agenda.

I don't have any agenda, except wanting cycling to be a viable choice for those who want to do it, but currently feel unable due to the hostile road environment.

 

[benb]

What 'not constructive' about it?

Why did you feel that posting " And yet you still get anti-infrastructure people spouting nonsense like this: "If people felt safe cycling on the roads, because of a changed attitude amongst drivers, then most facilities would be irrelevant." and adding a link to this thread was constructive or appropriate? Were you hoping some of your segregationist buddies would hop on over here and have a go?

Not at all. You said I had posted a snide comment without debating it here, which was flat wrong, as I did comment here immediately after posting.

I don't understand why you need to be quite so unpleasant about it, that's all.

 

[benb]

No they're not... but your post is a perfect example of the "whipping up hysteria about the dangers of cycling" that I refer to above.



I'd let a child cycle on a bust A road - lots of them do around here. There are very few UK roads where I;d suggest they don't cycle.

Then you're the one who is capitulating - giving up on ever having cycling at Dutch levels.

 

[Pale Rider]

Don't talk bollocks.

Why was it necessary to quote part of my post over there at all and refer to it as 'nonsense'?

I wasn't the one being unpleasant.

Don't talk bollocks.

You couldn't make it up.