IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Cycling in West Berks, cycling casualties
Exhausted
post Jun 19 2012, 08:24 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



There has been a concerted effort by West Berks Council in line with the message handed down from Central government to get us on our bikes and over the past ten years, this has meant an increase in cycle riding by 22%.

There is a down side to this however which is that cycle related accidents resulting in reporetd injuries has shown a 34% increase over the same period.

The question that springs to mind is that if the accident rate is increasing, is this a safe mode of transport for us in West Berks. Cars and HGV's pack the roads around the area which invariably are not wide enough to accomodate the additional cycles safely despite the green lanes and crazy roundabout markings that seem to offer safety. In a few instances these markings actually increase the risk, especially when cyclists automatically assume that if they are on a green lane they have right of way.

I'm not sure what the answer is but when planning applications require one cycle store position for every bedroom and offer vouchers towards cycle purchase, the statistics can only get worse .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Jun 19 2012, 08:33 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,811
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



yet we still get a rabid screeches for cyclists to get off the empty pavements and ride on the roads.............
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jun 19 2012, 08:34 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



It would be more helpful to understand what type of cycling injuries occur. I suspect many don't involve other road users.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jun 19 2012, 09:24 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



There's not enough detail in the OP say whether there is an underlying increase in the cycle accident rate, or whether there is just a systematic error in the measurement of the rate due to the accuracy with which cycling incidence is measured (it might be measured by journey and people are cycling further, or they might have counted the number of bikes passing a given point which has seen a disproportionately large increase is cycling), or a change in the way cycle accidents are reported, or simply the natural variation in the statistics of small numbers. A change in the underlying accident rate is possible if less experienced riders are taking to the roads, or if disproportionately more journeys are being made on more dangerous roads, or if roads have become more dangerous for cyclists, but the headline figure alone doesn't support the conclusion or the suggestion that the accident rate will continue to increase. Is there more analysis somewhere?


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timbo
post Jun 19 2012, 11:20 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 639
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 8,715



This thread will only go well......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Jun 20 2012, 06:54 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,037
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (spartacus @ Jun 19 2012, 09:33 AM) *
yet we still get a rabid screeches for cyclists to get off the empty pavements and ride on the roads.............

No, the point is that the LAW states that cycling on the pavement is illegal.
Either change the law or enforce it- one of the two.
(By the way, the pavements I see cyclists riding on at an alarmingly fast rate are NOT empty of pedestrians.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jun 20 2012, 09:47 AM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 20 2012, 07:54 AM) *
No, the point is that the LAW states that cycling on the pavement is illegal.
Either change the law or enforce it- one of the two.

I prefer policing by discretion in this case. Riding on the pavement, like speeding on a motorway, doesn't always carry the same danger level.

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 20 2012, 07:54 AM) *
(By the way, the pavements I see cyclists riding on at an alarmingly fast rate are NOT empty of pedestrians.)

It is rare that I see a cyclist on a pavement behaving in a way that I think is reckless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy1979uk
post Jun 20 2012, 12:36 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 18-April 12
Member No.: 8,697



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jun 20 2012, 10:47 AM) *
I prefer policing by discretion in this case. Riding on the pavement, like speeding on a motorway, doesn't always carry the same danger level.


It is rare that I see a cyclist on a pavement behaving in a way that I think is reckless.


I ride on the pavement if rising on the road is unsafe and there in no cycle path. I have never once been stopped.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Jun 20 2012, 02:28 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (andy1979uk @ Jun 20 2012, 01:36 PM) *
I ride on the pavement if rising on the road is unsafe and there in no cycle path. I have never once been stopped.

How do you decide when riding in the proper place would be unsafe? If you feel unsafe, then perhaps it's time to put the bike away.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy1979uk
post Jun 20 2012, 02:44 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 18-April 12
Member No.: 8,697



QUOTE (JeffG @ Jun 20 2012, 03:28 PM) *
How do you decide when riding in the proper place would be unsafe? If you feel unsafe, then perhaps it's time to put the bike away.


You should try riding along hambridge land in the rush hour or between burger king and sainsburys, much easier to go on the pavement. Never caused any issues or had any complaints.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jun 20 2012, 02:59 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (JeffG @ Jun 20 2012, 03:28 PM) *
How do you decide when riding in the proper place would be unsafe? If you feel unsafe, then perhaps it's time to put the bike away.

It is a fact the roads are not safe. All things being equal, a cyclist will come to less harm riding on a path. Saying that, I try to stay on the road as much as possible, but there are times when a path seems the best option for everyone. Hambridge Road for instance, or the Burger King Roundabout. When I cycle on the path, I always show consideration for other path users.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timbo
post Jun 20 2012, 03:45 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 639
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 8,715



QUOTE (andy1979uk @ Jun 20 2012, 03:44 PM) *
You should try riding along hambridge land in the rush hour or between burger king and sainsburys, much easier to go on the pavement. Never caused any issues or had any complaints.


Finally the voice of reason!!!
Plus cyclists on Hambridge road almost inevitably cause HUGE tailbacks and there are hardly any foot pedestrians. The path and grassy area is wide enough to accommodate for both.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Jun 20 2012, 05:00 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



I like that phrase policing by discretion, but one over zealous copper could upset the balance. I would have to agree that cycles and cars don't mix and as pointed out, Hambridge Road is a good example. My preference as a motorist is that the cycles should always be on the path and that they should only be punished if they ride recklessly. I'm afraid though that I can't define 'riding recklessly'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jun 20 2012, 05:37 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



My Preference is that roads are wide enough for a cars and cyclists.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
betty swollocks
post Jun 20 2012, 07:26 PM
Post #15


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 7-October 11
Member No.: 7,681



QUOTE (Timbo @ Jun 20 2012, 04:45 PM) *
Finally the voice of reason!!!
Plus cyclists on Hambridge road almost inevitably cause HUGE tailbacks and there are hardly any foot pedestrians. The path and grassy area is wide enough to accommodate for both.
What twaddle! It's the drivers of motor vehicles that cause tailbacks: they take up all the space. One more cyclist equals one less motor vehicle. Therefore every time you see a cyclist be thankful. If it weren't for them, you'd be even further back in the queue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
betty swollocks
post Jun 20 2012, 07:28 PM
Post #16


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 7-October 11
Member No.: 7,681



On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by ‘Community Support Officers’ and wardens.

“CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jun 20 2012, 07:48 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (betty swollocks @ Jun 20 2012, 08:26 PM) *
What twaddle! It's the drivers of motor vehicles that cause tailbacks: they take up all the space. One more cyclist equals one less motor vehicle. Therefore every time you see a cyclist be thankful. If it weren't for them, you'd be even further back in the queue.

On the Hambridge Road, there is often a tailback because the average cyclist can't reach the 30 mph speed limit and cars can't safely overtake.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
betty swollocks
post Jun 20 2012, 08:53 PM
Post #18


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 7-October 11
Member No.: 7,681



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jun 20 2012, 08:48 PM) *
On the Hambridge Road, there is often a tailback because the average cyclist can't reach the 30 mph speed limit and cars can't safely overtake.

Cars need drivers. it's the driver who makes the decision to overtake or not.
Drivers cannot safely overtake because motor vehicles are coming the other way.
The speed limit is not a target.
If you're in a motor vehicle and you're caught in a tailback which you allege is cause by a cyclist, blame yourself. You're taking up more space than the cyclist. No-one is forcing you to drive. Don't you see this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timbo
post Jun 20 2012, 09:30 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 639
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 8,715



QUOTE (betty swollocks @ Jun 20 2012, 09:53 PM) *
Cars need drivers. it's the driver who makes the decision to overtake or not.
Drivers cannot safely overtake because motor vehicles are coming the other way.
The speed limit is not a target.
If you're in a motor vehicle and you're caught in a tailback which you allege is cause by a cyclist, blame yourself. You're taking up more space than the cyclist. No-one is forcing you to drive. Don't you see this?


Lol talk about tyranical!
You are wrong on so many levels. The amount of times I've been stuck behind a bicyclist on Hambridge Road, I've lost track of! And no it's not the fault of the car, it's the fault of the bicycle. There's no "alleging" in it - it's merely a fact.

Space taken up is not proportionate to the speed travelled, otherwise it would take a lot longer than 7 hours to fly to New York.

But you continue to cause a pool of salty liquid in your underpants, and arrive at work sweaty and smelling of B.O. I'll arrive with a bit of Bill Withers on the radio, in an air conditioned 18 degrees, smelling of eu de toilette.
I do not have an issue with bicylists on the road. My issue is when those bicyclists will not use an empty pavement when they are causing a tailback.

A bicycle is about 2 foot wide with ride on it. An average car 6 ft wide. Hambridge road is, I would estimate, 14-16ft wide, if that. It's enough of a squeeze when a lorry is coming down the road! In rush hour a single cylist causing traffic to tail back at 10-15mph is selfish. Don't you see this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jun 20 2012, 09:44 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (betty swollocks @ Jun 20 2012, 09:53 PM) *
Cars need drivers. it's the driver who makes the decision to overtake or not.
Drivers cannot safely overtake because motor vehicles are coming the other way. The speed limit is not a target.

No, but to drive slower will be less fuel efficient and will increase travelling time by up to 50% or more.

QUOTE (betty swollocks @ Jun 20 2012, 09:53 PM) *
If you're in a motor vehicle and you're caught in a tailback which you allege is cause by a cyclist, blame yourself. You're taking up more space than the cyclist. No-one is forcing you to drive. Don't you see this?

No-one is forcing you to cycle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st February 2020 - 01:41 PM