“Life is short, let’s do something dumb” (and incredibly hard, too): Pair attempt cycling around roundabout for 24 hours; Garda nabs bike thief with sting op in first week on the job; David Cameron holds maglia rosa at G7 meeting + more on the live blog

Taking it literally - perhaps because on a country lane you should be cycling in the same direction as other traffic.  (Albeit they might be hooning it round the bend behind you at a speed where they're unable to stop safely when they do...)  And in general while you've a much greater chance of death (and probably more serious injury) if you are in a collision there* the density of people / frequency of interaction is normally much lower.

Of course what this should point at is some specific enhanced safety requirements in the countryside - but more generally an acknowledgement that cyclists are humans also.  So fixing junctions so a) they don't have to wait so long they get impatient - when actually they could often bypass them completely and b) designing juctions which don't require signs but are still safe - indeed return to cyclists the responsibility for their own safety.

* EDIT And of course due to higher driving speeds!  Likely due in part to extra time needed to get to you and get you to high-level medical care.  Or even for someone else to notice the collision happened.   (Not saying "...after the driver has left the scene" - but there are a lot of deer and sacks of potatoes falling out of the sky in the countryside, I read...)

For me it's just the fact that some of the junctions with traffic lights in London specifically appear to me pointless. Take this one in Blackfriars on Victoria Embankment.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/DaLcKqQSWBrpbVEv7

If you're turning left, as a cyclist, all you have to do is look to your right, check there aren't any cyclists coming from the right. That's it. I don't understand why the person that designed this cycle infrastructure thought that cyclists couldn't look for themselves.

Ah yes - something like that has been added in Edinburgh at Haymarket on the CCWEL (but for going straight - not even with a left turn) - and is threatening to make a red-light-jumper out of me.

Of course, that's for 2 good reasons:

#1 a cycle is a vehicle, therefore (to a traffic engineer) it's ... a car (but with its own dinky set of lights, isn't than nice) and ...

#2 Terrorradfahrer!  People want to be protected from those menaces!

More reasonably, it's a pedestrian crossing.  Our convention is that everyone has to stop before pedestrians cross.  (We can't have nice things because people being hit - almost entirely by motor vehicles - after being lured off their "safe" footway).  Plus it's a 2-way cycle path which will still be seen as a serious hazard no doubt.

Alas, I think #2 probably is a reasonable consideration for now in the UK.  Because that still isn't quite a "separate cycle path" - though good enough for the cyclists (and I see they've extended the dropped kerb a bit).  It could do with a bit more separation from the motor vehicles.  That would also give pedestrians a nice spot to wait before dealing with the heavy traffic.  Plus these really need to be blindingly obvious and be understood by everyone - which means marked in a clear and standard way everywhere (see link at end).

More than that it'll probably take a generation or more for everyone - including some of the cyclists of today - to learn how to cope.  After that we will hopefully realise that traffic lights are there because motor vehicles and aren't needed where there are just pedestrians and cyclists.

Boopop wrote:

If you're turning left, as a cyclist, all you have to do is look to your right, check there aren't any cyclists coming from the right. That's it. I don't understand why the person that designed this cycle infrastructure thought that cyclists couldn't look for themselves.

In that instance (I ride through there a lot) the traffic light is also a pedestrian crossing, heavily used in peak hours, so not sure allowing cyclists to ignore it would be desirable. Also, numerous times when coming over Blackfriars Bridge going north with a green light in my favour I've had to brake or swerve to avoid people (particularly tourists on hire bikes) blithely riding out of that junction on red to go left without checking at all, often looking at their phones for navigation or to film their selfie videos as they ride. The reason the person who designed the infrastructure thought that cyclists can't look for themselves is that unfortunately apparently many can't. What we have to remember is that junctions can't just be designed on the assumption that every cyclist is going to behave as carefully as you; unfortunately they have to be designed with the twats in mind too.

Can this be the same lot as (mostly) agreed that putting some disincentives in the way of the children of the future getting started smoking cigarettes (so not even fully restricting nicotine I believe...) was a good idea?  Yet ...

...just "asking motorist to slow down a bit"* is apparently a dangerous imposition on liberty and a crazy waste of cash?

* Most people acknowledge that 20mph is not going to mean 20 any time soon, just less than 30...

If only I could also celebrate that him being turfed out would usher in change in transport (to save everyone money and lives lost or damaged, never mind the planet...).

Or - to be positive - give us nicer cities and liveable places.

Unfortunately I'm not remotely confident that national policy will shift much next year.  Even in Scotland - where we did at least manage to get a promise for a remotely sensible transport budget (delivery lagging behind...) - I wouldn't guarantee that things won't go backwards after the elections (2026 for us) - because "unpopular".

Patrick9-32 wrote:

I agree, 20 only where appropriate. Like everywhere people live, where they work or where they would like to walk. 

To paraphrase the Dalai Lama ("One should be kind whenever possible. And it is always possible"), there should only be 20mph limits in towns when there is a good reason. And there is always a good reason.

Points to a solution:

Killed: Emergency chicane (concrete blocks) in place with traffic control (lights).

Seriously injured: Automatic 20mph zone with traffic control (lights)

Injured: Automatic 20mph zone.

All accompanied by signage/social media with brief details of "incident" possibly including motor vehicle registration plate details - and company name and number when company owned motor vehicle.

Removed only after "incident" has been investigated by highways agency, local authority, or whomsoever - with reports from Coroner's Court when death involved, from Traffic Commissioners when operators license involved, from HSE when company vehicle involved,

Obviously costs paid out by motor insurer. Subsequent motor insurance premium rises to those involved.

But not the M25...

That's slow enough already apparently

jaymack wrote:

But not the M25...

Does the M25 allow speeds greater than 20mph?

hawkinspeter wrote:

jaymack wrote:

But not the M25...

Does the M25 allow speeds greater than 20mph?

It's technically allowed but it's not known as "London's Orbital Car Park" for nothing. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

How about just putting the 20mph limits in wherever there's been a traffic collision? That could change the nature of motorways though.

20mph on all urban roads with no parking restrictions, as these are obviously residential and not intended as a through route. It's parked cars on bioth sides that restrict drivers views of pedestrians, and pedestrians views of cyclists. These lead to the requirement for lower speed limits.

Generally through routes will at least have yellow lines, or parking bays.

What an eyesore!  Not in keeping!  It's ableist / ageist / discriminating against the poorest as you could put down hardstanding and fit two cars there, easy...

Have you seen the news about the new EU rule requiring each new home to have storage for 2 bikes? Think GCN reported it yesterday.

Edit: link added below

https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/default-two-bicycle-parking-spaces-...

Am I right in thinking that this has been the case in NL for over half a century (or 30 years nationally)?  With a brief interruption from 2003 - 2012 because - what do you know - the "market" sometimes just wants to make stuff more cheaply?

BicycleDutch wrote:

Homes, including apartments, built after circa 1950 in the Netherlands must have private bicycle storage rooms that are accessible from the public road.

[...]

The regulations have existed since about 1950, first in municipal regulations and from 1992 as national regulations. Not only do they state the specific dimensions of a bicycle storage room but, even more important, they state the storage room must have direct access to the public road.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/parking-your-bike-at-home/

KDee wrote:

Have you seen the news about the new EU rule requiring each new home to have storage for 2 bikes? Think GCN reported it yesterday.

Edit: link added below

https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/default-two-bicycle-parking-spaces-...

 

%&#@  now there will never be a succesful vote to go back to the EU.

We can't afford to rejoin the EU, because of the cost (economic, political, emotional...) of rejoining the EU.

Not exactly the same but I see analogies with "we can't afford the cost of things for active travel, because we have to pay all the costs of climate change / providing for new ICE vehicles".  Or "we can't afford the cost of improving public transport, because we have to keep building new roads / filling in potholes because everybody drives".

If you'd read it a bit more carefully you'll see that it also requires each new home to have at least three parking spaces. So it shouldn't be a problem after all.

Dawn raid by GSOC on her home already being setup, no doubt.

brooksby wrote:

I presume that garda will be sacked shortly for showing up all of their colleagues?

They will be put on administrative leave for two years while the investigation into her conduct is completed, then re-instated but warned about future conduct.

Stopping them advising / fining them absolutley the right thing to do. Danger to themselves and to pedestrians trying to cross safely.

Would love the same focus to be applied to people driving and jumping red lights.

It's endemic now. Watched a skip lorry jump two reds within 100m on my commute this morning. No intention of stopping.