Safe cycling author calls for “less exaggeration of danger” and says cycling on the road is “very safe” – but cyclists argue “massive cultural change” for drivers is needed instead; Cav: “I don’t watch cycling”; Xmas bike stands + more on the live blog

56 thoughts on “Safe cycling author calls for “less exaggeration of danger” and says cycling on the road is “very safe” – but cyclists argue “massive cultural change” for drivers is needed instead; Cav: “I don’t watch cycling”; Xmas bike stands + more on the live blog”

1. I’d agree that one of the
   I’d agree that one of the biggest barriers to widespread cycling adoption is the _perception_ of safety.
   Of course it’s a mostly accurate perception but still.

   Log In or Register to post comments

2. Cycling is pretty safe in the

   Cycling is pretty safe in the UK if you look at it statistically in terms of KSI, however a lot of that is down to the fact that regular cyclists know how to ride defensively and watch out for bad driving; it’s a very rare ride in London when there isn’t at least one incident where I would probably have been hit if I hadn’t anticipated that a driver was going to do something stupid and/or illegal. Cycling can only considered to be truly safe when you don’t have to ride continually on edge. At the moment it’s rather as if there was a high crime neighbourhood but the vast majority of residents had learned how to spot and avoid the criminals and modify their behaviour so they didn’t become victims, rather than the authorities having done anything to strike at the root causes of the crime – great, it’s a fairly safe area but only because everyone is living in fear.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Rendel Harris wrote:

     Cycling is pretty safe in the UK if you look at it statistically in terms of KSI, however a lot of that is down to the fact that regular cyclists know how to ride defensively and watch out for bad driving; it’s a very rare ride in London when there isn’t at least one incident where I would probably have been hit if I hadn’t anticipated that a driver was going to do something stupid and/or illegal. Cycling can only considered to be truly safe when you don’t have to ride continually on edge. At the moment it’s rather as if there was a high crime neighbourhood but the vast majority of residents had learned how to spot and avoid the criminals and modify their behaviour so they didn’t become victims, rather than the authorities having done anything to strike at the root causes of the crime – great, it’s a fairly safe area but only because everyone is living in fear.

     — Rendel Harris

     Exactly – cyclists will receive lots of “almost” incidents on most journeys.

     The answer has always been for better road policing and for the courts to apply appropriate penalties.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • great, it’s a fairly safe

     great, it’s a fairly safe area but only because everyone is living in fear

     Yes- I suffer from a perception of lack of safety daily, but the universally non-cyclist police (if they were ever called upon to explain their determination to take no action against drivers who offend against cyclists) would say “you’re 72 and claim to both cycle every day and be in good health- the roads can’t be that dangerous can they?”. This one of the cases I sent to the informal Parliamentary inquiry

     https://upride.cc/incident/ca70mkc_citroenvan_closepass/

     It’s the only one I have where I can demonstrate being ‘inconvenienced’, in the new police dodging phrase- I had to pull over because I was so shocked by the unexpected close pass at speed. The police ignored the offence, of course

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Rendel Harris wrote:

     Cycling is pretty safe in the UK if you look at it statistically in terms of KSI, however a lot of that is down to the fact that regular cyclists know how to ride defensively and watch out for bad driving; it’s a very rare ride in London when there isn’t at least one incident where I would probably have been hit if I hadn’t anticipated that a driver was going to do something stupid and/or illegal. Cycling can only considered to be truly safe when you don’t have to ride continually on edge. At the moment it’s rather as if there was a high crime neighbourhood but the vast majority of residents had learned how to spot and avoid the criminals and modify their behaviour so they didn’t become victims, rather than the authorities having done anything to strike at the root causes of the crime – great, it’s a fairly safe area but only because everyone is living in fear.

     — Rendel Harris

     The whole cycling-safty in the context of road cycling is a very complex issue, with many factors coming into play. Many of these factors have complex inter-relationships, so it’s perhaps a poor approach to try to isolate them and to put them into some sort of hierarchy of importance for fixing one-by-one. 

     Consider the factors: driver attitudes to cyclists; mass media cycling opinion pieces; legal system responses to road crimes; life-circumstances of both drivers and cyclists. Altering any of these has fairly obvious effects on all the others.

     For example, if drivers & cyclists were less stressed by their life circumstances the anti-cyclist pieces in the gutter press would have less appeal and therefore probably reduce, whislt driver and cyclist antagonistic behaviours would reduce so making road crimes less “usual” such that courts would take those that did occur more seriously.

     One aspect emerging from recognising the interdependence of many factors in creating and maintaining “a situation” is that its probably a poor approach to either concentrate on fixing only one factor; and a poor approach to invent some sort of apartheid to prevent the mixing of the prime actors in such situations.

     For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances, gutter press yahooing, bad driving or an ineffective legal response to bad driving.  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Cugel wrote:

       For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances [cyclists are healthier, happier, more relaxed and save considerable amounts of money], gutter press yahooing [the press in Holland were hugely against introducing cycling infrastructure in the 70s when it began, now they point to it as a source of national pride], bad driving [if cyclists aren’t sharing the road with bad drivers, bad driving becomes an irrelevant to them] or an ineffective legal response to bad driving [likewise].  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere [whilst also mitigating damage to the biosphere by significantly reducing vehicle emissions; it has been estimated that if cycling could be moved from a 3% to a 6% modal share that would save one gigaton of CO2 emissions between now and 2050. Yes, infrastructure can be costly but it easily pays its own way, e.g. the Netherlands spends €500 million a year on cycling and it is estimated that it saves €19 billion a year by doing so in terms of lower health expenditure, reduced absenteeism et cetera.]

       — Cugel

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Cugel wrote:

       For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances, gutter press yahooing, bad driving or an ineffective legal response to bad driving.  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere.

       — Cugel

       That’s a bit of a straw-man argument – I don’t think anyone is proposing that.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • hawkinspeter wrote:

         For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances, gutter press yahooing, bad driving or an ineffective legal response to bad driving.  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere.

         — hawkinspeter

         That’s a bit of a straw-man argument – I don’t think anyone is proposing that.

         — Cugel

         For many, including around this forum, cycling infrastructure is the be-all and end-all for solving cyclist fear of road traffic.  There’s also an assumption that “build it and they will come”. 

         In practice, there’s a lot of very poor cycling infrastructure but even when its well-built, many sections see no increase at all in cycling.  This may not be true in London but that’s really an exception, as are the half dozen other places where building cycleways does see a (small) increase in cyclists.

         The fact is, Blighters have come to prefer the car, not because its less expensive and provides a better experience than does cycling (a car does the opposite) but because of all sorts of psycho-factors to do with feelings of power, worth, inviulnerability, laziness, desire for cosseting comforts and so forth. Perhaps the largest car-use inducement is the glamoor pasted over the tedious reality by advertising and the infantile antics of Klarksons.

         And cars are good for jousting (aka road raging) to service various modern angsts in a way that bicycles aren’t.

         There’s also an assumption that more cycling means less driving. But is this true? I suspect that even habitual cycle commuters will still drive if conditions are less than optimum.

         There’s also another assumption that removing cyclists from the roads, or encouraging more of them on to the roads, will somehow reduce car aggressions and the associated murder & maiming. There’s really no reason to assume that. Car aggression is due to all sorts of factors and affects many more road users than cyclists, not least car drivers themselves.

         There’s far too much assumption that cycling will somehow auto-construct better humans. It doesn’t and it won’t.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Cugel wrote:

           For many, including around this forum, cycling infrastructure is the be-all and end-all for solving cyclist fear of road traffic.

           — Cugel

           Who are these imaginary posters?

         • Cugel wrote:

           In practice, there’s a lot of very poor cycling infrastructure but even when its well-built, many sections see no increase at all in cycling.  This may not be true in London but that’s really an exception, as are the half dozen other places where building cycleways does see a (small) increase in cyclists.

           The fact is, Blighters have come to prefer the car, not because its less expensive and provides a better experience than does cycling (a car does the opposite) but because of all sorts of psycho-factors to do with feelings of power, worth, inviulnerability, laziness, desire for cosseting comforts and so forth. Perhaps the largest car-use inducement is the glamoor pasted over the tedious reality by advertising and the infantile antics of Klarksons.

           — Cugel

           Some truth to that.  I’d say that on a level playing field (and that’s kind of what the Dutch managed to establish … and not just due to the lack of mountains) most people are going to pick the most convenient way to travel.  (But yes – there are clearly psycho-factors).  Where that is cycling, they’ll cycle.

           In the UK it’s almost always “car” (by design – by infrastructure design!).  And in fact when you say “better experience” there’s a century of “pimp my ride” making the driving experience nicer – which otherwise could be miserable – sat inside a metal box next to hundreds of other boxes.  (And lots of building concrete and asphalt to make it easier).  And on the flip side making cycling a worse experience – by demanding cyclists are NOT social e.g. can’t ride two-abreast or more, shouldn’t listen to music, can’t chat because of the traffic noise…

         • Cugel wrote:

           There’s also an assumption that more cycling means less driving. But is this true? I suspect that even habitual cycle commuters will still drive if conditions are less than optimum.

           — Cugel

           That is a question.  The biggest experiment we have (NL) shows that over the last 20 years or so there has a generally small increase in total distance travelled each year BUT a greater increase in numbers of cars [from here].  So less distance per vehicle.  Also according to numbers here quoted in this article, from 2012-2022 the average driver drove less far.  There was an increase in distance cycled also – unfortunately the one doesn’t balance the other though!

           The bigger question is – what sort of change are you hoping for?  No change (which in the UK actually means more driving)?  Far less or even zero car use (unlikely to happen)?  More – a massive drop in usage of ALL powered transport (inc. trains, buses, cars, … ebikes?)?  Probably even less likely unless we start teleporting via our mobile devices!

           I’m not sure anywhere has managed to do better than NL (without someone bombing their infra…) while also reaping benefits of independent mobility for children and the old, health (physical and mental) benefits for the population etc.

         • Cugel wrote:

           There’s also another assumption that removing cyclists from the roads, or encouraging more of them on to the roads, will somehow reduce car aggressions and the associated murder & maiming. There’s really no reason to assume that. Car aggression is due to all sorts of factors and affects many more road users than cyclists, not least car drivers themselves.

           — Cugel

           Well perhaps if we had a different overall principle/philosophy than “roads are for cars” and “better roads permit higher throughput of motor vehicles; better places provide more parking”?  Maybe such a philosophy could just change that goal to “the safe and efficient movement of people” and also pay close attention to “human factors” e.g. acknowledge that people make mistakes / break rules and work with that?  Maybe that could guide making our public spaces safer for all?  And that could also make them less frustrating?

           Beyond that – I think fixing “humans and their emotions” in general might be above the remit of transport infra!

           One idea might be – as you’ve alluded to – addressing people trying to sell products (vehicles, media) via fear, or through some people’s need to prove their superior status over others.

           But good luck with fixing that human design feature!

         • Cugel wrote:

           There’s far too much assumption that cycling will somehow auto-construct better humans. It doesn’t and it won’t.

           — Cugel

           Again – who’s proposed that?  As far as I can see people who would like less driving or driving further away from un-armoured people are mostly keen on harm-minimisation.  Take the automatic weapons from people (cars) or remove them to where they are likely only to collide with each other – that’s a great start!  Especially as some people can’t have them (children, some people with disabilities etc.).

           Certainly there are selfish or aggressive idiots in the world and when on bikes they can still hurt or even kill you.  But that is much less likely than with the aid of a powered metal exoskeleton.  It’s not just that there’s far less potential energy to transfer or crushing force to apply.  Those tempted will know they’ll likely hurt themselves also.  And perhaps the law will take more interest than if they’d done it with a motor vehicle?

     • Cugel wrote:

       One aspect emerging from recognising the interdependence of many factors in creating and maintaining “a situation” is that its probably a poor approach to either concentrate on fixing only one factor; and a poor approach to invent some sort of apartheid to prevent the mixing of the prime actors in such situations.

       — Cugel

       Here we go…

       For example, proposing cycling infrastructure separate from roads, covering every route that cyclists could go without encountering cars, does nothing to fix widespread stressful socio-economic circumstances, gutter press yahooing, bad driving or an ineffective legal response to bad driving.  And it would cost billions whilst doing even more damage to the biosphere.

       — Cugel

       Who’s proposing that then?

       This article is rather old now but should cover it.  Not sure whether it’s entirely fair to say you’re attacking a straw man?  There does seem to have been confusion over this.  Certainly in the past cycling advocates did put lots of focus on trying to get some decent separate cycle infra *.  That seems to have caused some people to conclude ** that this was the only thing that was being proposed and ergo it was a) entirely unrealistic and b) plain silly.

       * I suspect because a) this was a very visible difference between high-cycling places (not just NL) and the UK, and b) it covers the “feels safe, and IS safe” requirements, and usually “is convenient” and “can be social”.  Of course this includes safer junction treatments of various kinds (better than “bike boxes”) and “filtered permeability”.  Historically there has been less emphasis on also doing traffic calming-and-reduction – and especially making it less direct and ultimately less convenient for motorists.  That’s because in the UK people  might grudgingly listen when you asked for better cycling, but if you proposed doing this at the expense of driving that would be a fight, and if you suggested actively reducing convenience for drivers as a goal nobody would listen to you further.

       ** Example is people wrestling with what this means in the comments to this article on why Milton Keynes isn’t a cycling paradise. (Answer – because ultimately whether or not the cycling treatment was much good, it was made far easier to drive!)

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Within towns & cities, where

         Within towns & cities, where most people live, separating cyclists from through motor traffic is the obvious goal/solution, and where new cyclists are likely to be encouraged.

         If/where cyclists are on the same road as motor vehicles, then driver behavior & policing is important. This will be the case for most cycling outside of towns & cities, and where assertive cycling helps.

         With the number of collisions on motorways & cycle excluded tunnels etc, it’s clear that driving behavior is poor, without cyclists or pedestrians involved!

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Indeed – the fallacy /

           Indeed – the fallacy / confusion seems to have been that:

           a) Many advocates for safer cycling have been very loud about the need for separated cycling infra (because the main “streets” – the key routes – are now roads or urban motorways).
           b) BUT that doesn’t mean that they are only about that (which would be silly).  Or against all the other helpful tools like tackling junctions, using modal filters to give cyclists alternative routes that motor traffic can’t use, making some residential streets very low traffic, low speed etc. And then where appropriate using that plus the modal filtering to help build a network using the existing streets.
           c) It also doesn’t mean that people are simply saying “zero cyclists should / will cycle without a separate cycle path in every circumstance”.  (I would however put this as “not sufficient, but necessary” – quite a lot of people simply will not cycle amongst heavy traffic and/or where speed differences are high).
           d) Some of the existing quick and brave (or just “bloody minded cyclists”) saw in the above a falsehood (“well that’s nonsense, I’ve cycled on A-roads, man and boy, never had a problem…”).  Or some of the following potential threats:

           So e.g. “but cycling infra will slow us down / be inconvenient / is just building more stuff / give those drivers an excuse to keep on driving AND ammunition to demand that cyclists get off the roads”.  Or just missing the point (“we just need to stop all / most drivers driving” or “we can just share the road / if drivers drove properly / the police just arrested all the bad ones – there would be no need for cycle infra“).  And possibly “so it’s a waste of money / money we don’t have“.

           In light of much of the rubbish has been built in the UK some of that is understandable.  In the light of how roads and culture are in the US the threat of getting banned from the roads (or just assaulted more) probably looks quite likely to folks over there.  Plus the chances of real change across the nation – zero.

         • FWIW my take is that “where

           FWIW my take is that “where driving is easy, Brits drive” (borrowing Carlton Reid).  People assess the relative ease and attractiveness of journeys.  If we already have cars, and excellent roads, and convenient parking everywhere – people will drive – unless we can make cycling that trip relatively attractive to driving it.

           BUT even if it was much more expensive and miserable to drive (and people are already sat in jams for large parts of their lives) there are some things which would just stop them cycling.  If it doesn’t feel safe, they won’t.  If they don’t have secure places to store or park their bike (which have to be convenient!) they won’t have a bike.  Then there are social factors – and in the UK we see cyclists as oddballs (or worse), and we actually discourage or prevent people from travelling socially on bikes (unlike any other transport mode)!

   • And don’t forget all the

     And don’t forget all the people who are not in the KSI figures because they were put off cycling in the first place.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • HarrogateSpa wrote:

       And don’t forget all the people who are not in the KSI figures because they were put off cycling in the first place.

       — HarrogateSpa

       That works both ways, because people who could have taken advantage of the health, financial and social benefits of cycling are put off too. Those are journeys that could have helped make the case for the better dedicated cycling infrastructure, and helped drivers to expect to see cyclists on the roads and to drive accordingly etc etc. 

       The phrasing isn’t what I’d use, but a good faith interpretation is that he was raising the chicken and egg situation above. I assume he comes across a number of people who are in the position of needing that extra bit of confidence that bikeability provides, so it’s not surprising it seems more pertinent to him than to experienced cyclists who just want drivers to behave themselves.

       The rise in cycle-cams and sharing footage of dangerous driving should be an effective tool to educate/shame drivers and to support the prosecution of some of the worst offenders. Unfortunately that comes hand in hand with reminding a lot of potential cyclists, and their loved ones, of all of the scary things that could happen to them. That might be fine if they saw that action was being taken against the obvious law breakers, but they also see that it isn’t.

       To buck that trend we need to see offenders facing punishment.

       Log In or Register to post comments

3. ‘Be more confident’ is not

   ‘Be more confident’ is not going to help if people’s experience is that drivers make it feel unpleasant and dangerous.

   The figures speak for themselves really. 2% modal share where no infra is provided, 30%+ in places where cycling is properly provided for.

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. Stiffer penalties for

   Stiffer penalties for dangerous drivers, and stiffer penalties for people who use the expression ‘over exaggerated’.

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. I’d consider myself a fairly
   I’d consider myself a fairly confident cyclist, normally feel safe,even when ive had at least 5 drivers try to drive into me this week and 1 shout abuse, but there was a moment last week where I just thought any moment the next driver is just going to hit me, it felt really sketchy in an unsafe way I’ve not felt for a long while riding in traffic.

   Fortunately I made it home in one piece, so there’s no stat recorded about it, no ksi data anyone can cite,not even any close pass submissions(too detailed to explain why,its not because there werent any) ,but it felt as unsafe as expletive.

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. This was written over a

   This was written over a decade ago, and still rings true today: https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/fuck-you-john-franklin/

   Plus ça change…

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Ranty Highwayman has

     Ranty Highwayman has similarly ‘strong’ views on Franklin

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Yeah, saw the name and had a

     Yeah, saw the name and had a “great dinosaurs of the past” moment (more here, and the “grandad of the movement” here).

     Seems the vehicular cycling ideology is still alive in the US (indeed seems oddly popular amongst ex-pat UK folks there also).  There are reasons for that (US culture – not just “car culture” either).  But these folks just sound antediluvian in the light of progress made for “nicer places” and “mass cycling” in Europe.

     As always there are some elements of truth on both sides.  The VC folks did promote some helpful “survival techniques” (like taking the lane) – helpful if you’re taking on the traffic.  And cycling is statistically a very safe mode of transport in the UK – which has one of the safer road environments overall (especially when compared to the US).

     However I’d suggest there is still too much road death, injury and definitely too much intimidation (deliberate or just thoughtless) by motorised road users.  What I think isn’t so important though – one of the reasons (reported in many surveys) that most people in the UK do not cycle (and particularly women, the young and the old) is that “it doesn’t look / feel safe“.

     There are plenty of other non-“whatabout” reasons for the low fraction of trips cycled.  We’ve made it not social, inconvenient (or at least less so than driving), cyclists are an “out group”, there’s a lack of safe places to park or store a bike, we already have cars.  But without addressing “it doesn’t look / feels safe” most people simply won’t cycle.  That’s not sufficient, but necessary.

     But then – “most people cycling” doesn’t seem to be a big concern of vehicular cyclists.  Indeed it seems (at least for some) it is predicated on a kind of elitism – the fit and the brave asserting their individuality and agency by cycling despite inconvenience, disapproval and danger.

     Log In or Register to post comments

7. Cycling is relatively safe, I

   Cycling is relatively safe, I would be very interested in seeing how Jo Public’s view of cycling KSIs compare to the actual prevalence of cycling KSIs.

    

   The point is that it COULD and SHOULD be much safer, with a different attitude from the same Jo Public, and from local and national government, highways engineers, and the police.

   (let me be clear, Franklin is part of the problem with his vehicular cycling nonsense)

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Franklin is part of the

     Franklin is part of the problem with his vehicular cycling nonsense

     I hadn’t read that bit about his book and opinions, until you prompted me. One problem is that the benefits of increased cycling would be manifested at the population level if they ever came about, but the genuine (as opposed to the imaginary ’causes pollution and congestion, etc.’) ill-effects are decidedly personal

     https://upride.cc/incident/g6noope10zvf_vwaudi_veryclosepass/

     Meanwhile, the police dimwits are thinking ‘what’s the problem?- I could easily cycle up that gap between the vehicle and the pavement’

     Log In or Register to post comments

8. John Franklyn is as

   John Franklyn is as unbalanced as he always is. He has half the case, but ignores the other half, which is for people who are not like him.

   That purple strip is peculiar. It reminds me of two things:

   1 – The England football strip some years ago that caused them not to be able to see each other.

   2 – Torville & Dean’s outfits in Bolero.

    

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. Perhaps what we need to do is

   Perhaps what we need to do is give these wankers a sense of perspective. I am going to start following them around randomly and threating them with my fist or jumping out from behind things and screaming at them. 

   Its OK though because I won’t actually punch them very often and being scared isn’t actually dangerous. They would just need a sense of perspective and need to understand that they aren’t going to get hurt that often. Its just the threat of violence. Nothing to worry about. 

   Thats what being a cyclist is. People constantly scaring you and threatening you with their cars. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Ah but “we have to drive”…

     Ah but “we have to drive“… so it’s a normal activity and assumed to be innocuous so you will need some plausible deniability for your tailgating, jumping out at them and fist-waving!

     Log In or Register to post comments

10. Re. the ‘cycling is dangerous

    Re. the ‘cycling is dangerous’ thing – it seems like maybe we need to define terms a bit. There are (at least) two ways to interpret the statement:

    • There are a lot of things (people) out there causing danger to cyclists
    • Cycling is, in and of itself, inherently dangerous

    The former is somewhat complex, as has been picked over by others here. However, I find I encounter a fair amount of the latter, which is straightforwardly nonsense, and convincing a few less people to believe in it would be no bad thing.

    Log In or Register to post comments

11. Quote:

    the Isle of Man Post Office has celebrated their home hero’s retirement

    – the post-Mark period, if you will…

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Fabulous. Well done sir.

      Fabulous. Well done sir.

      Log In or Register to post comments

12. I actually do think that far

    I actually do think that far too many people are overreacting to road riding with the old “everyone is trying to kill me” bolloxs.

    Yeah, there is the occasional shit pass but they are so rare now that I actually remember them.

    I find the vast majority of drivers safe and courteous.

    That said, I don’t ride at rush hour or in a big city.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • S13SFC wrote:

      That said, I don’t ride at rush hour or in a big city.

      — S13SFC

      Well there y’go, then 

      Log In or Register to post comments

13. Quote:

    I’m more than a touch concerned about the fate of the poor rider who looks to have spontaneously combusted, Spinal Tap style, during their winter training camp press conference:

    I’m not sure that’s for a rider. Looks more like they’ve adopted a chimp as a mascot.

    Log In or Register to post comments

14. I hadn’t realised that John

    I hadn’t realised that John Franklin was still alive.  Much as his style of vehicular cycling does include some very useful tips, taken as a whole it seems like something from another age… 

    Log In or Register to post comments

15. Re the Gavin and Stacey

    Re the Gavin and Stacey jersey I’m sorry to have to inform you that it’s a real thing available on Amazon, made by the famous cycle clothing firm of X-CQREG and yours for the bargain price of £37 for a jersey and shorts combo…

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • With the popularity of the

      With the popularity of the Gavin and Stacey series i can see this becoming a best seller : Buy now while stocks last !!!

       

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • Can you post a link ??
       

      Can you post a link ??

       

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • It can be viewed in all its

        It can be viewed in all its glory here, happy shopping!

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • Thanks 

          Thanks I predict a sell out lol

          Log In or Register to post comments

16. I cycle into City of London

    I cycle into City of London daily from the suburbs and have done for 20 odd or so years and as such have had a fair few run ins and accidents, none my fault. I would say I’m a very confident cyclist.
    My colleagues at work think I’m mad and often cite people in cars being dangerous as to why they would not even contemplate doing it.
    So the question is how do you become confident if the percieved danger puts you off from even attempting it ?
    In London as in the rest of the UK the provision for cycling is hapazard at best , often leaving the cyclist in the most dangerous of places with zero protection. How often does a nice wide road with cycle provision suddenly stop when the road narrows or a 2 lane roundabout start ? And please dont get me started on the highways agency and their woeful cycle provision on A roads.
    I commute on my bike because I love cycling and take the ‘risk’ that comes with it – but that risk is very real and very much in evidence on every commute, that is not the case if I chose to drive my car and it is not something that a child just cycling to school should be open to. Basically if you would not let your child cycle on the road that that road is inherently unsafe, and that basicallly is vast majority of roads in london (i dont cycle outside so can speak for other places but wld guess its a similar experience).
    We all know the answer, safe and seperate cycling provision but regretfully we are in the minority and petrol heads and carloonery are the order of the day.​ So people have to make an active choice to accept the risks for cycling otherwise they will not do it. Unsuprisingly, people are not willing to take that risk and instead buy a bigger car than last time because that make them feel ‘safe’.

    Sorry slightly longer than I intended but unfortunately until any goverment significantly changes the heiracy of road use people of bikes will always be at the bottom of the pile/consideration.

    Log In or Register to post comments

17. For clarity… are we saying
    For clarity… are we saying that vehicular cycling is *good* or *bad*?

    I take control of the lane; I’m in the outside of the lane when passing parked vehicles or turning right.
    I ride primary and rarely ride secondary – especially in urban areas where there are lots of minor side roads or driveways … thus giving me space to maneuver and them [in theory] time to react.

    I’ve found that my road position doesn’t affect the number of close passes I get … I just feel a teensy bit safer when I’m in the middle of the lane, with nothing to my inside, when Richard close passes me in his Dick Mobil.

    So … is the consensus here that I’m wrong to be aggressively demanding the same space as I would get in my car?

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • You’d have to try hugging the

      You’d have to try hugging the gutter and seeing how that makes you feel I guess – plus see if you get more / worse passing?  And how many times you crash because of all the rubbish and metal grates / covers / tarmac trashed by buses.

      For the full comparison you’d have to repeat but changing your attitude so that you were not confident, then try taking the lane and not “quickly accellerating to a moderate speed of 20mph” after junctions.  (Perhaps ride a cargo bike, with a child attached)?

      Certainly some of the techniques propounded by the VC folks are of use where you’ll be interacting with lots of (fast) motor traffic.  However the whole thing seems to be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  (I guess they might say it had nothing to do with getting more people cycling, it was just techniques for those that do … but they did go further than that).

      Ignoring the elitist stance taken by some of its proponents (and possibly turning it into something they didn’t intend!) the other issue is that this is never going to be an acceptable way of riding for most people, never mind attractive *.  So it won’t lead to many more people doing so.

      And that’s why where infra prioritises drivers we see people cycling like this – but don’t see many of them.  And in the few places where the infra also makes cycling more pleasant ** we see lots of people cycling but not riding “like they were driving cars”.

      * In fact surveys indicate that lots of people just don’t want to ride with a lot of motor traffic, or large vehicles, or with much faster ones.  In fact even most seasoned UK cyclists much prefer riding on empty roads…

      ** And – to be complete – makes driving some journeys (especially short ones) slightly less convenient, to give people a push to walk, cycle or use public transport!

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • I can safely say that the
        I can safely say that the only time I’ve *ever* quickly accelerated to 20mph has been on a steep downward facing hill.

        I would absolutely *love* to have a 20mph average … even with the motor on the e-bike I struggle to consistently get above 14.5mph average.

        I’m happy to admit that yes, I do change my riding when on segregated paths … but only where the segregation is total [such as Bathgate to Caldercruix, Balerno to Ball Green via The Waters of Leith or when gravel riding].

        The big change in my riding came after getting hit and left with life changing injuries [you’ll all be bored hearing about them by now …]
        I stopped being timid and started being more forceful, more precise in my intentions … like I said, it doesn’t change the number of close passes, but at least I know I’ve got bailout room.

        I’m not an ambassador for cycling – although I do lead Club group rides. I encourage people to ride a bike … if they want to.
        I don’t subscribe to the whole “how do you guess if someone cycles? You don’t need to… they’ll soon tell you”. I don’t see cycling as a religious calling [unlike some seem to on here] and I also don’t see cyclists as faultless, innocent, blameless little lambs [again, unlike some on here].

        I ride a bike because I like to, it keeps me reasonably fit [and its the best exercise I can do following the collision], and I get to see parts of this beautiful countryside that I’d never see otherwise.

        Oh …and the scones at Clubbiedeans…

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • Oldfatgit wrote:

          I’m happy to admit that yes, I do change my riding when on segregated paths … but only where the segregation is total [such as Bathgate to Caldercruix, Balerno to Ball Green via The Waters of Leith or when gravel riding].

          — Oldfatgit

          Took a while to sink in but I think years of doing a regular “just getting places / doing errands” riding on the North Edinburgh paths has had that Netherlands effect on me.  At least – I have my helmet from when I first moved to Edinburgh over a decade ago (which I always wore), but I realised a while back I couldn’t actually recall the last time I’d put it on.  (I think it was a Ride to the Sun from Carlisle to Cramond a few years ago).

          I encourage people to ride a bike … if they want to. I don’t subscribe to the whole “how do you guess if someone cycles? You don’t need to… they’ll soon tell you”. I don’t see cycling as a religious calling [unlike some seem to on here] and I also don’t see cyclists as faultless, innocent, blameless little lambs [again, unlike some on here]. I ride a bike because I like to, it keeps me reasonably fit [and its the best exercise I can do following the collision], and I get to see parts of this beautiful countryside that I’d never see otherwise. Oh …and the scones at Clubbiedeans…

          — Oldfatgit

          Amen to all that!

          Log In or Register to post comments

        • I live in a mostly flat town
          I live in a mostly flat town and can maintain 22-25mph. Makes no difference to drivers who still overtake frantically even only to slow down to my own speed immediately after or brake to a stop 100m down the road due to congestion or a red light. I feel there is no speed I could do that would prevent the pointless overtaking. Drivers think it is some sort of a computer game though In real life where they get credits or additional lives or whatever for overtaking a cyclist. Or feel that it is some sort of stain on their honour to be behind a cyclist so they absolutely must get in front.

          Log In or Register to post comments

18. The evidence in the

    The evidence in the Netherlands doesn’t care what Franklin thinks or says.

    Log In or Register to post comments

19. Franklin is out of touch with
    Franklin is out of touch with reality in the world of road cycling. The number of people killed or ending up in emergency rooms, the existence of and building of new and better bike paths are strong, unknowable testaments to the dangers. There also is a strong hate relationship from many drivers toward cyclists. But thank for posting his claims and attitude I will no longer feel any need to read any of his writings. I have been riding a bike much longer than he and witness the reality daily.

    Log In or Register to post comments

20. Three boys arrested after 13

    Three boys arrested after 13 moped-rider assaults on cyclists in Bristol

    Moped riders reportedly pushed or tried to push cyclists off their bikes

    https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/three-boys-arrested-after-13-9801834

    Log In or Register to post comments

21. Know dangers of e-bike

    Know dangers of e-bike Christmas presents – police

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdek333z3rlo

    Numerous types of electrically driven bike and scooter have come on sale in the past few years, which police said has lead to more accidents and more people riding them without the correct driving licence or safety gear, such as crash helmets.

    An e-bike, technically known as an electrically assisted pedal cycle (EAPC) must have pedals and a motor no bigger than 250 watts which must kick out at 15.5mph (25km/h).

    Insp Leighton Healan from Gwent Police’s roads policing and specialist operations unit said any electric bike that does not meet these rules was classed as a motorbike or moped and had to be taxed and registered.

    He added: “We’re asking people to make sure that if they purchase an e-bike, it is fully road legal and we’re also reminding everyone than only people aged 14 and above are legally allowed to ride an e-bike.”

    Log In or Register to post comments

22. Just a comment on the “less
    Just a comment on the “less exaggeration of danger” remark. I’ve been over taken by so many close passes on a bike it’s just the norm now, I’ve been hit a couple of times, car doored, grazed by cars and vans more than a few times and my foot was driven over as I put my foot down to stabilise myself when someone hit my handlebars with their wing mirror when I was standing still at a traffic light on one occasion. I’m getting used to the impending doom feeling that you get with PTSD when hearing an engine revving behind you gripping the handlebars for dear life when that wind wall hits or bracing for impact each and every time (and that fear of hearing car tyres skid). But I still get back on the bike and go out again (some people would argue that I’m being stupid considering the close calls I’ve experienced).

    People who only drive or who have never been in an accident con a bike certainly aren’t aware of the dangers. You don’t spin when someone taps or hits you, you take to the air, you don’t have an airbag, you’ve a piece of polystyrene strapped to your noggin and the only shock absorption you have is between your skin and bone. On the contrary I think the realism of the danger some drivers put other road users in isn’t being made clear enough, regardless of whether it’s a pedestrian, bike or other vehicle.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Collie147 wrote:

      I think the realism of the danger some drivers put other road users in isn’t being made clear enough.

      — Collie147

      And that’s the thing.  It’s the motorists who are creating the danger, and yet they think it is everybody else’s problem to solve.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • This is not just a cycling

        This is not just a cycling issue. As a dog owner I am regularly ‘close passed’ by ignorant car drivers who think its ok to mount the pavement at speed whilst I am walking passed, almost hitting me and my dogs with their doors and mirrors. Drivers reversing out of properties without looking. And door opening is also an issue, particularly with equally ignorant passengers. Some do not consider ANY other road user and are just concentrating (maybe the wrong word!) on their own destination. And don’t get me started on blocking pavements (pavement parking) to safeguard their precious tin boxes from other owners in their own tin boxes.

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • A very good description of

      A very good description of most cyclist’s experiences I suspect. I can relate to the feeling on hearing a car approaching from behind. My own method is to start moving out into the road as I hear them approaching. If I don’t hear them slowing down I’m ready to swerve back in which I do have to do sometimes but I must admit very rarely. At least if you are out in the lane there is room to move in and if the driver sees lateral movement at least they’ve seen you.

      The point I was going to make though is that none of these experiences show up in the stats, which I suspect is what John Franklin’s assertions are based on. The stats show that Britain is a relatively safe place to cycle with relatively few deaths. I would argue that any death from being hit by a driver is too many though and therefore cycling is unsafe. Absolutely no need for it. If you are a driver and see a cyclist (or pedestrian or horse rider) slow down.

      I have cycled a lot now and can usually anticipate problems in front of me and avoid them but I have no control over being hit from behind and that is what makes it so worrying. This is compounded in my case by the local police claiming the best they can do for reported close passes is send an advisory letter and they wouldn’t even do that for the last one I reported.

      Log In or Register to post comments