Complete road.cc’s 2018 user survey and help us make the site better!

I presume the main sticking point is the cost, and assuming budgets remain tight, perhaps the level of subsidies needs to be reviewed. At £42 subsidy per person per year, and assuming six per hanger, that's over £200k for the existing provision. I'd argue that's excellent value for money when you factor in the benefits to society of a healthier population that comes with more cycling, but being mindful it's not all about me, and that councils are struggling to fund their basic and pressing statutory requirements, it may be they need to reduce the per person subsidy, or restrict the subsidy to particular groups, freeing up budget for more units. But I'd also argue that maintenance costs to Bikehanger reduce as more units are installed in one area, so there may be an opportunity to negotiate a better deal for subsequent units.

@bensynnock given the facts of this case, does your argument work if she had stepped out in front of a car on this road? Would you have expected a motorist to beep whenever they saw some people standing beside a road? Or should cyclists always ring their bells to compensate for their lack of "motor car audio/visual signature"? And would pedestrians know what to do? What about deaf pedestrians? I think we generally have to assume people shouldn't step out into a road in front of a vehicle. That can be qualified though - but I think that is done by "better infra". We already sometimes take measures to block pedestrians crossing "busy roads", provide signalised or even "grade-separated" crossings. And keep them completely away from motorways etc. And I guess there may be expectations that when people see "park" they drop their guard a bit? I do think some kind of "what about cyclists using spaces for racing / training?" argument could be made though.

@FionaJJ "I’d say that being visible is still very useful in a lot of locations where effort has gone into safe systems (like railway tracks). " Indeed ... but while we *do* operate a "safe systems" approach in the railways (and indeed in shipping and air transport) we don't do this in the same way on the roads. So unfortunately what should be the final backstop - given we've also addressed hazards at higher levels - ends up getting promoted as a first line safety measure. And of course safety is mostly out of cyclists' hands * so it's something people *can* do themselves. * After deciding whether to cycle at all, route choice (can I avoid roads altogether / what are the quieter routes), basic road skills. Individuals can't change road layouts and rules, so we simply have to hope that drivers do their part...

Some places are just getting on with it though. I visited Bristol again after about a year and while it's a slightly unlikely cycling venue (very lumpy, the motor traffic is terrible) they really seem to be making an effort. Roads and streets are being redesigned to accommodate cycling and pedestrians. A bit rough and ready? Missing links (especially outside the centre)? Certainly, but I saw loads more parents cycling their children places than Edinburgh and even kids cycling places on their own.

@FionaJJ perhaps. Perhaps the last transport secretary (that didn't get going) would have been "too bold" and brought down bikelash? And with the fact that motoring is built into the culture and (literally) to planning and infra, the overwhelming power of the motoring-related industry lobby etc. And that cycling - at a very low level - has existed despite all that, in the gaps as it were. On the other hand, as the likes of David Hembrow point out the "wrong kind of compromise" has been the norm here. Asking for too little ("it's the best we can hope for") and getting less. Leading to stuff which might even set things back overall ("nobody uses it... waste of money and space"). Plenty of impossible "take it or leave it" choices... So far I think Chris Boardman has found a good way: heavy on local engagement, lots about children's journeys / people doing basic tasks / nicer places. This does seem to end up being mostly "crossings" and quieter streets - pedestrian and public transport measures with cycling a quiet addition. Is that enough? Not sure.

I've often said in debate with drivers that a pedestrian should be able to complete their journey safely even if they are a complete idiot and entirely ignorant of the rules of the road. I can't then say that this doesn't count if the result of their error is that they are hit by a bike. There's a responsibility here for everybody to take the duty of care that they have over vulnerable road users seriously. As cyclists we want drivers to be alert to our presence and to take precautions that, even if we do something they don't expect us to do, they will not hit us. We must apply that same responsibility to ourselves and pedestrians. I have one question. Did any one of the cyclists in that group observe the lady approaching the road and ring their bell?

@mdavidford Yes. There's plenty of evidence, well known to the advertising and sales industries, that once people have decided they want to buy something, they will dismiss new negative information on the item while embracing positives. It's why so many organisations persist with, and get away with having additional 'hidden' costs that appear once you've already decided you want to buy those tickets. I'm sure most of those who still wanted to buy an SUV despite the added dangers to the rest of the population were convincing themselves those stats only applied to the bad drivers, but not them because they are good drivers etc. But also a little voice telling them that the bad drivers out there causing havoc confirms they need one too. Education about the dangers of SUVs needs to come before people are thinking of buying them, or possibly more realistically, needs to focus on the issues with the worst offending SUVs. Rather than 'SUV drivers are out there killing people', it should talk about the consequences of different bonnet height and shape, as well as the weight and power. Lots of people just want an SUV so they can get into and out of the car without it hurting their knees. Explain they can get that without buying a tank and they are less likely to go on the defensive. I'd also tax the worst offenders, and introduce speed limiters for the most powerful ones. See how many people who need one to tow a caravan once a year are put off if they can't speed on the motorway. I'd also suggest that in the case you are involved in a serious collision, that your choice of vehicle is considered an aggravating factor in allocation of blame and any sentencing. If you don't have a good reason for driving around in something big, heavy, and powerful with terrible close-range visibility, and go on to kill or seriously injure an eight year old, when they probably would have survived with just minor injuries if you were in a Fiesta - that's a consequence of a choice you made just as much as deciding to get behind the wheel while drunk, or to look at your phone. The only difference is time scales. Most people would at least try to come up with a justification for needing their personal tank, but it might at least make a few more people think about the potential negative consequences for them.

@chrisonabike I get the impression that Heidi is a true believer when it comes to the benefits of cycling and active travel, but she's also a moderate and team player when it comes to temperament, and will co-operate with the PM of the day, and will compromise according to what is assumed to be electorally popular. That's not necessarily a bad approach, especially if you hope to stay in power for long enough to get sustained change, or if you are happy to get on with making useful changes when the attention isn't on you.

@chrisonabike I agree that PPE is always the last line of defence, and having safe systems is always more important. But I'd say that being visible is still very useful in a lot of locations where effort has gone into safe systems (like railway tracks). Proper H&S 'hi-viz' will include reflective bits appropriate to the work and setting. What's right for improving visibility while cycling will depend on when you are cycling, where you are, what conditions are likely. What Heidi is wearing looks adequate to me, assuming her full route is in good light. I don't know much about the Reading end, although I'm sure I spotted a segregated cycle path, but London has a lot of good routes, and crucially, most drivers there know to expect cyclists. Her block of bold red will stop her from blending into the background, and as that's the bit of her that's moving, that's a great way to help the subconscious brain notice there's a human up ahead. Her hair, feet and sandals are all light, so help to catch the eye against dark backgrounds. I suspect the light coloured rim of her helmet is reflective, and I've got spoke reflectors and stickers on my bike, which is an easy way to add reflectivity regardless of what you are wearing. Particularly useful in Winter when there are a lot of competing lights. I favour using running lights all year to keep me a bit more visible when going through areas of shade and in the hope drivers will register that there is a bike ahead. But I also live in an area where most drivers are not expecting to see someone cycling, so it's more important to announce yourself here than in London. Anyway - good for Heidi. The complaints about not wearing hi-viz will only help to get the video seen by more people, and a great reminder that cycling isn't just for men in lycra.

Could we get some updates, the glove world hath changethed.