"Damned if you don't, nearly killed if you do": Impatient driver beeps 20mph cyclist for not using bike lane; Pro cyclist arm wrestling; MacA-skills; 30s cycleway or car park?; Formolo's wild boar training crash; Unique bike theft + more on the live blog

I wonder how much we have to thank mopeds for the great infrastructure in the Netherlands. They were permitted on much of the cycling network (including this path on W. A. Vultostraat), so must have been designed to cope with vehicles that can do 30mph.

This is changing though, I note from streetview, they are now banned from this particular street.

Having spent time on those bike paths when the mopeds were allowed, no, there's no design for their speeds at all. As we've seen from the change removing the mopeds from bike paths, this was a mistake from the beginning.

Most Dutch will ride along at about 12mph, which is efficient as cyclists don't get held up by lights much, the speed difference to the mopeds was always going to be a problem and they were widely loathed.

You're right 30mph down this street's cycle path would be a bit of a stretch safety wise. So too in the congested areas where there are lots of bikes. I don't disagree it's safer and more pleasant not to have them in the cycle paths.

Maybe mopeds in cycle lanes is more of a hangover from the car dominated past of the Netherlands, banished from the road so as not to hold up cars, with little regard to the effect on cyclists?

HoarseMann wrote:

You're right 30mph down this street's cycle path would be a bit of a stretch safety wise. So too in the congested areas where there are lots of bikes. I don't disagree it's safer and more pleasant not to have them in the cycle paths.

Maybe mopeds in cycle lanes is more of a hangover from the car dominated past of the Netherlands, banished from the road so as not to hold up cars, with little regard to the effect on cyclists?

Again don't know but think I read somewhere (BicycleDutch?) that part of the reason came from transport in the countryside e.g. ensuring those who didn't have a car could cover longer distances between isolated places without having to mix with traffic going twice their speed. (That peculiar focus on safety first before speed / capacity? Not in the UK!)

Anyway it does seem a particular concern to some UK / US cyclists that "Dutch cycle infra is slow". Which is true... if you're in a congested city centre / cycling somewhere where there are lots of pedestrians. Just like it would in the UK.  Or would be more if we didn't prioritise space for lots of cars rushing between red lights.

Where you win in the Netherlands is their design philosophy / principles understand cycling so designs try to keep you moving - even if that's sometimes not a velodrome speed. Usually at junctions you can *always* move through one direction without stopping at all. Dutch designs also make effort to avoid cyclists encountering traffic lights / conflicts with cars or pedestrians entirely (they even have a name for this idea).  Where this can't be avoided they have smarter lights and phases which in many cases prioritise cyclists. I think the concept of having a cycling network also gives you plenty of choice of route.  Finally real longer distance fast cycle routes - not cycling superhypeways - exist and more are being built.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Anyway it does seem a particular concern to some UK / US cyclists that "Dutch cycle infra is slow".

I like to think of it as enabling you to ride slow. For all the reasons you state, direct routing, no-stopping, avoiding gradients etc. It becomes a relaxed and enjoyable journey, rather than some Mad Max fight to stay alive, which commuting in the UK so often is!

HoarseMann wrote:

I wonder how much we have to thank mopeds for the great infrastructure in the Netherlands. They were permitted on much of the cycling network (including this path on W. A. Vultostraat), so must have been designed to cope with vehicles that can do 30mph.

I don't know but I suspect that they don't have that much to do with the design, formerly or more recently. (You can look it up in their CROW guide if you've got the cash!) Some of these are cycle streets - so from a design perspective this is essentially changing the colour and markings of a normal road. Where these are tarmac covered (as opposed to some of the also excellent more recreational tracks [1] [2]) I'm sure they have standards to cater for smaller motor vehicles which will be used for regular maintenance (as here) or for crossing for more occasional access access or emergency. As for design speeds I've no idea but some non-motorised vehicles use them at higher speeds.

Well, it looks like the moped might be an unsung hero of Dutch cycling infrastructure. Interesting article here:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00225266211011935?icid=int.sj-a...

In short, car prioritisation in the 1950's saw mopeds pushed off the road and onto existing cycle paths, but those paths then widened and improved to cope with the extra traffic. Dutch moped use of paths up to the 1970's might be the reason they were given greater funding than in other countries, which saw cycle paths becoming neglected and ultimately removed.

Very interesting! I've not heard of this before, will have to have a (lengthy) read.

Certainly may have had an impact at that particular moment in time. To what extent it contributed to "where they are now" would be my first question e.g. without them would cycling have declined to a level which made it impossible to recover by the 70s? I think it was then that it rallied (or stopped declining).

To compare with the UK case - I'd say the 1930s UK cycle paths likely contributed nothing for us now. Partly because their whole original purpose was negative, to clear the roads for the motor vehicle.  Mostly because cycling ceased to play any significant part of our normal transport choices. (Slight exaggeration but it has remained a tiny niche until very recently and is still at minor levels despite all the words).

It does seem that both then and now many Dutch cyclists hated riding around motor scooters.  This may slightly irrational on safety grounds although people could certainly object to the noise / startle factor.

Yep, I'd not considered it before. Your comment got me thinking about it!

It's an interesting angle, that despite their nuisance to cyclists, they may have played a part in the renaisannce of Dutch cycling.

Correct,  there are no degrees of uniqueness !

Yep, it's an absolute. Something is either unique or isn't.

My money would be on checking for traffic, but either completely failing to see the cyclist or completely misjudging her speed. 

Anyone else seeing this? Wondering if it might be a fault/feature of my browser.

On Chrome, it's in your settings.

Go to: Settings > Autofill > Olfactory 
and play with the settings

I'd pay actual money for that feature

You've clearly not driven through Greenwich very often. It's had very slow moving traffic for decades. I used to commute that way via Peckham (when it wasn't gentrified) by bicycle to where I worked in Woolwich. I'd regularly pass a colleague stuck in traffic in his car at New Cross, give him a wave, then be in the office about 30 minutes before him. Driving a car to the shops in Greenwich isn't that clever as there aren't many places to park. There haven't been many places to park, oh since the 1980s.

Greenwich has been using some LTNs for years as well. Pretty sure Christo lives on one down that way. 

And this one doesn't look new. But lets rip them all out. Maybe bulldoze the last few houses in a cul-de- sac so it can be turned into a through road as well whilst we are at it. 

And I do have to admit, having travelled through Greenwich with car and bike, I did wonder about the "driving to the shops" comment as well. 

Garage at Large wrote:

News that I haven't seen covered today is that, over on Twitter, top lawyer and road safety expert Nick Freeman has argued that upcoming highway code changes "will unquestionably cause more death and injury for vulnerable road users."

It's all right, though, isn't it, because he'll be there to make sure nobody actually gets fined or goes to jail.

I wonder if that will be his "loophole" even though no road laws have changed at all and a condition of keeping your license is to keep on top of the HC reviewing it regulally. 

Nope, he'll make sure that rich people who can afford his rates don't get fined or go to jail for traffic offences.

Garage at Large wrote:

News that I haven't seen covered today is that, over on Twitter, top lawyer and road safety expert Nick Freeman has argued that upcoming highway code changes "will unquestionably cause more death and injury for vulnerable road users."

I must admit that I haven't studied the new rules in any kind of detail, but I've seen very little to no publicity around them, presumably because the government doesn't want to anger its voters.

Is there advertising campaign out there? Otherwise how will anyone know when they've come into effect or what the changes are?

Road safety expert who makes a career out of keeping dangerous drivers on the road.  You might want to look up oxymoron in the dictionary.

And again lies "little or no publicity".  Every major newspaper, even the Daily Heil, has been running stories (aka publicity) of the rule changes since early December.  It's like hi-viz for cyclists though.... only of use when drivers actually look.

He knows that. There was a large article on here about the same thing about whether the government should publicise it. Just wants his replies again. 

You can't expect any sense out of someone who confuses 'News' and 'Twitter'.

Or who confuses 'Nick Freeman' and 'road safety expert' for that matter.

Garage at Large wrote:

It does therefore follow - as Nick Freeman points out - that if vulnerable road users change their behaviour, road traffic incidents could unfortunately increase.

It will likely increase business for Mr Freeman as Brooksby points out, but as someone interested in road safety he clearly prioritises lives over his own livelihood.

But how did the vulnerable road users all find out about the changes?  If there has been no government sponsered advertising how did they find out?

I know how they got their message and you never.....  It came through telepathic message function of the chip in the Covid Vaccine.

And please explain how charging substantial fees to keep celebrities who should be banned from driving on the road is Nick Freeman clearly prioritising lives over his own livelihood? 

Garage at Large wrote:

It will likely increase business for Mr Freeman as Brooksby points out, but as someone interested in road safety he clearly prioritises lives over his own livelihood.

Garage at Large wrote:

News that I haven't seen covered today is that, over on Twitter, top lawyer and road safety expert Nick Freeman has argued that upcoming highway code changes "will unquestionably cause more death and injury for vulnerable road users."

I must admit that I haven't studied the new rules in any kind of detail, but I've seen very little to no publicity around them, presumably because the government doesn't want to anger its voters.

Is there advertising campaign out there? Otherwise how will anyone know when they've come into effect or what the changes are?

So, to paraphrase, news I haven’t seen, about rules I know nothing about (yet are publicly available on the government web site) that have not yet been approved in Parliament, haven’t formally been promoted, even though they theoretically might be blocked and they don’t yet apply.

More than happy to get cross about the absence of a campaign when we know the Code will be updated.  But timing is everything.

Garage at Large wrote:

I don't read the Daily Mail

They must read you, then.  That is the only explanation for the matching quality and pitch of news commentary.

Garage at Large wrote:

My suspicion is therefore that these rule changes are more administrative in nature rather than a step change in the law, to be used in legal cases where a more vulnerable road user has been endangered and to put the onus more on drivers. It also follows that the same will apply where cyclists endanger pedestrians.

It does therefore follow - as Nick Freeman points out - that if vulnerable road users change their behaviour, road traffic incidents could unfortunately increase.

For the most part, the law has not changed.  In a sense, the Code will state what has actually been the case in law for several years, but has not hitherto been spelt out.  Principles such as not cutting across the path of another road user is understood to mean all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists each in their own lanes (or not), and including when that path passes a minor road.

Road users should be able to change their behaviour, because the onus will be on motorists to change theirs.  That is where the publicity campaign needs to kick in, when the time comes.

Meanwhile, here is an account from a few years back of how road safety-hahaha … safe-pht-ha-ha-ha-ha… I’ll try again… road s-s-s-hahahahahahaha… ex-x-xpssss-AHAHAHAHAHA… I can’t do it… Loopy Nick… is dead keen to apply his 'road safety expertise' in the face of the bleedin’ obvious... in which, safety conscious as ever, Nick tries to persuade the court that 41 mph and 47mph on separate occasions in a 30mph limit either shouldn't be prosecuted, or should be prosecuted but only once (which is it, Nick?), coz paperwork.  Unfortunately, Top Lawyer Nick didn’t appear to be aware of the law, or what safe driving looks like, and got taken to school.  And the loophole turned out to be a slipknot.  Poor old Nick.  Poor old Chris.  Poor old anybody who could have got in Chris Tarrant’s way.

So anyway....

• Do some research.
• There needs to be a proper campaign, but there's a time and a place.
• If a t1t was not a thing of grace and beauty, I would be forced to consider my opinion of Nick Freeloader as being one (fair comment; Arkell vs Pressdram).

No the DfT considers the changes to be updated guidance,not a change in law, so there wont be a massive ad or pr campaign about it, but there is plenty of nudge unit stuff happening with a steady stream of newspaper articles across all the variants from broadsheets (the Telegraph yesterday had "The highway code is changing and cyclists get even more priority over drivers" ), tabloids, locals, free etc and I've no doubt that will increase in volume as the date draws near with the addition of radio & tv coverage.

Ultimately any safe,careful and conscientious motorist should not have any trouble with these new rules even if completely unaware of them,because for it to increase the danger for vulnerable road users means drivers are prepared to drive into other human beings simply because they think it's their right to, which says far more about drivers attitudes on the road than it does the lack of an ad campaign.