van v. cyclist: driver sacked

[organic]

Caro - through the magic of Google Earth and Google Street View I've found the bridge you're talking about and had a wee virtual bike-ride over it to see hwat it might be like.

My considered opinion? It's really badly designed and your comments about the design seem completely well founded.

1> The cycle lane on the left side of the bridge is far too narrow.
The painted on "separation" between it and the left hand lane of the road might help but it's not enough - especially considering the very wide pavement.

2> The way the cycle lane ends with dumping cyclists onto the pavement is unsafe for pedestrians and unsafe for cyclsts who then need to re-join the road.

3> The advance stop line for cyclists is very badly thought out.


My solution:
Widen the bike lane on the left side of the road. The lanes already look too narrow so this would nesessarily mean the loss of a lane or a narrower footpath. I believe the latter is the better solution.
Change the end of the bike lane so it ends on the road, not the pavement.
Extend the green advance stop section across all 5 lanes.

The result I'd see here is this...

The cycle lane itself would be far safer.
Cyclists turning left wouldn't have to dismount or ride on the pavement and could continue riding on the road just like they should be. The advance stop would prevent this causing problems for cars turning left.

Cyclists riding straight on and right would have a safe route to the bit of road they need when the lights turn red.

Cyclists riding straight ahead and right could also navigate across to the correct lane while crossing the bridge and would be able to position themselves in the middle lane to take up the correct road position on Oswald Street.

Other than the safer cycle lane (if they were using it, and if turning right I suspect I would not) cyclists turning right would be unaffected by the changes.

Another bonus would be preventing the current situation where a car in the middle lane is positioned alongside cyclists in the other straight-on lane, something that currently prevents cyclists from crossing to the proper road position after the junction.

You are quite right about the layout of that junction and Oswald Street leaving cyclists in between lanes 2 and 3 and I agree that it isn't the safest of setups.

I still believe advanced stop boxes are a good thing, and cycling on routes that alternate randomly between having the boxes or not- I get to try my hand at both on a regular basis. They feel far safer when there is a box than when there's not and in any case someone is going to have to pass the cyclist either way - even if not the car at the front of the line waiting at a red light.

It looks like a difficult road to cycle anyway - but the inadequate cycle lane and badly thought out advance stop certainly won't be making things any easier.

In fact, the more I think about that layout, the worse it seems.


How's that for a cyclists perspective?

[Hilary B]

OK just my 2 pennyworth.
Jumping lights, yes I see drivers 'pushing their luck' when the lights are changing, BUT the highway code states that you must stop "unless you are over the stop line or so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident", a driver may be close enough that braking, even violently would not necessarily stop the vehicle behind the stop line.
Also, I have seen cyclists who simply ignore the red lights, not just going as they change, but going against the red if there is no 'obvious' traffic the other way.
I see MANY cyclists around here who apparently are unaware that they are NOT entitled to the pedestrian's 'right of way' on a zebra crossing, or that they should not EVER cycle if using a crossing intended for pedestrians.
The few cycle/foot paths around here don't seem to BE subdivided (mostly they are too narrow for it to be viable).
Yes indeed having a bigger, heavier thing creates a responsibility to look out for the more vulnerable road user, like lorry drivers look out for cars maybe?????
It is indeed imortant for a car driver to notice cyclists, and do what they can, but that does NOT excuse the cyclist from taking reasonable care not to make it any harder for the driver than it has to be. If (for example) a cyclist comes up on the inside of a car waiting at traffic lights, the cyclist needs to pay attention to whether the driver is intending to turn left. If the driver doesn't realise the cyclist is there, well the blame is SHARED, not exclusively the driver's.
There is no excuse for bad road use, whatever means of using the road you employ (and very little excuse for rude language, or rude sign language when others use the road badly. It won't solve anything).
Finally, there was recently a proposal to make a car driver legally responsible for ANY collission with a bicycle or pedestrian REGARDLESS of the actual cause, and that was NOT ON!
I've been a cyclist (in central London for a few weeks, 32 years ago), I know a few cyclists, and I see other cyclists, daily. I see that there ARE bad cyclists as well as good ones, probably (based on human nature) about the same proportion of cyclists do stupid or inconsiderate things as of drivers, the only difference is that there are rather less cyclists on the roads than cars, and they are more likely to suffer the effects of their own (and other people's) stupidity!

[organic]

Strange, though, that in areas where the car driver IS presumed to be at fault (the one driving the more dangerous vehicle has the responsibility to look for the more vulnerable) have safer roads overall. Not on? I'm not so sure. Rules like that change road users' behaviour in general, and for the better too.

It's true that some cars will be unable to stop safely, but I don't think anyone who talks about cars running reds are talking about that situation. That's not "pushing your luck" it's "driving safely".
We're talking about the kind of people who see a light go amber in PLENTY of time to stop and keep a constant speed or accelerate to get through... and the ones who follow them through, bumper-to-bumper, and go through clearly on red.

[jackie j]

I always make sure I give cyclist a wide berth when passing them, I always look both ways when in my car and out walking. I was taking my daughter to school when a woman who should have known better was cycling the wrong way in a one way street, she couldnt understand why I was shouting at her, luckily I do look both ways as not all people do.
I dont cycle anywhere anymore because I am scared to. My OH and daughter go cycling a lot so I miss out by not wanting to.

[organic]

Jackie - a model driver and pedestrian then.

I was off the roads for about 8 years or so (can't remember exactly when I stopped) purely because of the fear... so I really sympathise. It's a really bad state of affairs when people who enjoy cycling and want to do it can't because they don't feel safe on the roads.

I don't know what the segregated routes are like around your way - but maybe you could get your OH and daughter to do a few canal towpath and other off-road (but not "mountain bike") routes to get you back into it and see how you feel. I've noticed a difference in how safe I feel on the roads this time around... and I can't help but think it's because I ride more assertively (proper road positioning) than I used to. Trying to stay out of the way seems to make things worse. The way I ride now I have very little bother from cars and am in a position to react safely when someone does get too close.

That or get into a debate with Two_Sheds about the safety and practicality as an alternative to cars for the majority of people and end up persuading yourself that you just need to get the tyres pumped up and on the roads. It worked for me anyway!

I've been feeling much better about everything now I'm riding again.

[janeyo]

I have to say that in Cambridge that is full of cyclists (probably hungover students mostly), the level of cycling skill leaves a lot to be desired. They weave about on the paths, roads, in and out of lanes, in and out of buslanes, no signalling. I do feel very nervous driving or walking about there as the cyclists seem to cycle with blinkers on. And you never see any of them with helmets or bright clothes on.

Can I also say I was the first person EVER in my school to fail cycling profiency... twice

[organic]

I've seen the cycling in Cambridge and yea, some of them seem to think there's nothing else on the roads! Not so good.

No helmets = no big deal. At worst they only endanger themselves - but it's highly debatable what use a foam hat would be in a crash anyway. They simply aren't designed to deal with the kind of impacts and forces present in a crash with a car. But that's an entirely different debate.

Also on the bright clothes point - Amsterdam, Copenhagen and so on - some of the best cities in the world for bikes and for road safety and almost no bright clothes (unless their normal clothes happen to be bright) and I can't see anything wrong with that. You only really need them when car drivers aren't paying attention anyway.

Congrats on the cycling proficiency. One of the most thoroughly decent people I know failed his test at least once.

[SueA]

Also on the bright clothes point - Amsterdam, Copenhagen and so on - some of the best cities in the world for bikes and for road safety and almost no bright clothes (unless their normal clothes happen to be bright) and I can't see anything wrong with that.

On a lighter note O.H. has to go to Amsterdam & other parts of Holland quite often & says they have the weirdest fashion sense & bright orange/yellow cord trousers/jackets etc. are a normal sight so perhaps they don't need the reflective clothing anyway!

[organic]

I suppose the national colour is a pretty bright orange...

[Two_Sheds]

i do believe that most drivers of commercial vehicles are very responsible ... van, lorry and bus drivers are fantastically considerate

I find it bewildering that commercial drivers are so fantastically considerate towards horses, but not to cyclists.
btw, I pass horses (not that I see many) very wide and very slow:- I used to ride and I know that horses have absolutely no idea what a cyclist is, they get totally freaked out

TS are you aware of the ghost bikes in London?

oh yes.

But (reading back) you were tending to lump all drivers together - however, I apologise

and I accept your apology. We are all still friends

the cycle lane ends with dumping cyclists onto the pavement

... and that is the reason that cyclists don't use cycle lanes: they are almost always completely useless, and sometimes dangerous. The one that I use is slower (because I have to stop at junctions) and more inconvenient (because stupid dog-walkers are on it, and it's covered in lumps of dog sh&t) than if I just rode on the road. However, I appreciate the gesture, so I tend to use it.

I see MANY cyclists around here who apparently are unaware that they are NOT entitled to the pedestrian's 'right of way' on a zebra crossing

No, they're not, but why not? If it's OK in principle for cyclists and pedestrians to share a path, why not every path?

the cyclist needs to pay attention to whether the driver is intending to turn left.

Trouble is, very few drivers actually bother to indicate

Finally, there was recently a proposal to make a car driver legally responsible for ANY collission with a bicycle or pedestrian

Good idea. It might focus some minds a bit.

I always make sure I give cyclist a wide berth when passing them

Jackie, I love you, but you are in the minority. Most drivers pass with the minimum possible space, not the maximum, as if begrudging us even a metre of road space

I ride more assertively (proper road positioning) than I used to. Trying to stay out of the way seems to make things worse. The way I ride now I have very little bother from cars and am in a position to react safely when someone does get too close.

Hugging the gutter is the worst thing to do. Drivers can't see you (because they are looking straight ahead, not in the gutter) and you have no room to manoeuver. Sadly, a few drivers interpret this riding position as "hogging the road" and will give you grief over it. I think it would be a good idea for all driving tests to include a bit of cycling.

I do feel very nervous driving or walking about there as the cyclists seem to cycle with blinkers on.

This is how cyclists feel about some drivers: not just blinkered, but blindfolded

And you never see any of them with helmets or bright clothes on.

.. but you see them? So why the need for helmets or bright clothes? Helmets are useless if you hit the ground at more than 15mph. And who drives at 15 mph? [/QUOTE]

[organic]

horses have absolutely no idea what a cyclist is, they get totally freaked out

I'm not so sure about that, you know. I think horses are a lot more level headed than they are often given credit for. I've always given them a wide and slow berth but I watch closely on the approach and the way the rider reacts to cyclists tends to dictate how the horse reacts.

If the rider hears you coming and doesn't react by tensing up (you can see it a mile off when they get edgy) the horse won't react.
If the rider hears you coming and goes tense the horse starts getting skittish under them about a second later. From what I've seen it's pretty much cause and effect.

One time I put this theory to a rider that looked calm as I approached from behind and she said it seemed about right. In essence I would be able to pass a fair bit faster than I usually would and if the horse had a good, calm rider it would more than likely be completely unfased by it.

I've never ridden more than a donkey in a donkey derby (and I was winning until the carrot I had on a stick slipped from between its ears, off to the side and the bugger followed it!) but it's my understanding that there's an incredibly close connection between horse and rider and that the horse can sense when the rider becomes on edge.

... and that is the reason that cyclists don't use cycle lanes: they are almost always completely useless, and sometimes dangerous. The one that I use is slower (because I have to stop at junctions) and more inconvenient (because stupid dog-walkers are on it, and it's covered in lumps of dog sh&t) than if I just rode on the road. However, I appreciate the gesture, so I tend to use it.

There's a fun one near me. It's clearly marked as a cycle lane and I've almost never seen a pedestrian who WASN'T in it. The crazy thing is - the bike lane is really badly surfaced, there's a sort of mid-frequency wave to the tarmac that makes me feel physically sick when I ride along it. The movement is a bit like a smooth version of riding slowly along cobbles.
The actual bit for pedestrians is flagged and a MUCH nicer surface to ride on.

I think it would be a good idea for all driving tests to include a bit of cycling.

I've said it many times before and I still think it's a good idea now.

[SarzWix]

I think you're right - the horse will react with the rider, if the rider gets tense or nervous. And horses can be absolutely fine with push-irons if they're familiar with them - my sister's friend used to cycle out with her when she was doing road-work, and Mustard was fine with it.
You will come across some horses that are prepared to be spooked by anything though, regardless of the calmness and/or experience of the rider. So unless you know the horse yourself, it's probably best to err on the side of caution when passing them

[organic]

Yet another confirmation of my ideas about horses...
I didn't say it above but "some horses can just be a bit windy" definitely factors in.

Whether I'm on foot, riding a bike or in a car (and soon enough - when I'm on a motorbike - I'll be going for my CBT soon) I give horses plenty of room and avoid the kicking-zone at the back with even more care than I avoid the door-zone with parked cars when cycling.

I don't want kicking, biting or to be responsible for putting a rider in a bad situation because I've spooked a nervous horse.


Actually, TwoSheds - I think that probably explains the disparity between cyclists and horse riders and how they are treated by some drivers. It's the HORSE they are trying to avoid - they couldn't care less about rider or cyclist!
(Obviously this doesn't apply in any way to considerate drivers who share the road and so they shouldn't be offended by the above.)

[Bigmallly]

(Obviously this doesn't apply in any way to considerate drivers who share the road and so they shouldn't be offended by the above.)

Glad you said that Organic, I was begining to think I should not be allowed on the road even though after 35 accident free years & attending "Defensive driving courses" which I thoroughly recommend.

[lindyloo]

feel its a bit off to hyjack a cycling thread to make a reply simply about horses, but i do want to state that with 35 years experience with racehorses hunters and driving horses, i dont tend to tense up!

i was referring to the fact that a horse is a flight animal- in the wild a horse will react to a sudden movement, with speed- it is the only defense to have a chance of survival against a predatory animal. so an unexpected movement coming up from behind with no warning is either to kick out, if there is no way forward, or to take off ahead. this is particularily true if the horse is wearing blinkers, as the horse cannot see. therefore the horse has to have total trust in the rider / driver ( which mine do).


the reason i speak to the cyclist, or anyone else we pass, is to reassure the horse, with my voice, that, all is well, and its just another human. therefore, apart from the aspect of common courtesy, i like to get a response.

the point i was making in my original thread, was that cyclists are not all perfect road users themselves, and that ALL road users have to take responsibility for everyones safety, and think about thier actions. unfortuneately, there is a proportion, cyclists, horespersons, and drivers of vehicles all included, who are laws unto themselves. one of them killed my mother, so i tend to take it rather seriously, and stick to the highway code and my original driving lessons, as closely as possible.