Cycle lane hit-and-run; Girls just wanna have fundamentally safe cycling infrastructure; Mechanical ends Cav’s sprint hopes; ECHELONS; New kit; Jason Kenny retirement interview; Pog’s puncture pain; Number-crunching + more on the live blog

61 thoughts on “Cycle lane hit-and-run; Girls just wanna have fundamentally safe cycling infrastructure; Mechanical ends Cav’s sprint hopes; ECHELONS; New kit; Jason Kenny retirement interview; Pog’s puncture pain; Number-crunching + more on the live blog”

1. “There is only one thing

   “There is only one thing girls want, and it starts with a P and ends with an S” – Pinarellos?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Rendel Harris wrote:

     “There is only one thing girls want, and it starts with a P and ends with an S” – Pinarellos?

     — Rendel Harris

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Respect and equality doesn’t

     Respect and equality doesn’t start with a P and end with an S…

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • ktache wrote:

       Respect and equality doesn’t start with a P and end with an S…

       — ktache

       Proper respect and equal rights.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Umm…yeah – I was just

       Umm…yeah – I was just riffing on the tweet shown in the news feed?

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. While the police hopefully

   While the police hopefully open up the driver’s head and tip the crap out of it [some hope], perhaps they could also have a close look at the forward glazing on their Ridikulowagen. It may just be the video lighting, but it appears that it is heavily tinted, attempting to hide the fact that the driver just doesn’t give a hoot.

   Log In or Register to post comments

3. While not excusing the
   While not excusing the driving, that sort of accident is not surprising on that infrastructure,
   poor sight line when emerging, driver glances down the road and sees it clear, not perceiving they haven’t assessed the bike lane properly, the cyclist is going above the accepted design speeds for those bike lanes (but would be roasted by drivers for not using them) and most drivers perceive bike lanes as an opportunity to pull out from the junction further. The half-hearted non-standard give way markings don’t help – why isn’t there a standard good solid give way design at the left of bike lane and a lane marking at the right?

   I would not have ridden across the nose, I would have shoulder checked before the junction and moved out into the main road lane, and I always move to primary if there is a car at a junction, never trust them, sit out in the road to be seen and give yourself escape room if they do think about edging out.

   But I hope the driver is hauled over the coals for leaving the scene of an accident, as well as for the collision. No excuses there.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • IanMSpencer wrote:

     While not excusing the driving, that sort of accident is not surprising on that infrastructure, poor sight line when emerging, driver glances down the road and sees it clear, not perceiving they haven’t assessed the bike lane properly, the cyclist is going above the accepted design speeds for those bike lanes (but would be roasted by drivers for not using them) and most drivers perceive bike lanes as an opportunity to pull out from the junction further. The half-hearted non-standard give way markings don’t help – why isn’t there a standard good solid give way design at the left of bike lane and a lane marking at the right? […]

     — IanMSpencer

     I think I’ve covered all that in my post.  Fundamentally it’s faulty driving – there are enough (and clear enough) indications that this is not “business as usual” e.g. ramp up to footway (though as I said the footway should be continuous), markings, coloured bike lane. The driver is totally protected because no-one’s turning into this road. So unfamiliarity should have lead to more observation, not less. If anything I suspect overfamiliarity e.g. “I normally roll slowly across the space until I can see if there are any cars coming.” The bike could see the car’s front windows for at least 3 seconds so they had that time to observe.

     The fact that they scarpered suggests to me that being in such a big metal box they simply didn’t even detect that they’d driven into someone (having not looked and observed them before). Either that or they don’t care about other people in which case the infra is mostly irrelevant. For example didn’t disempower the cyclist as they could see the vehicle in time to make their own decisions.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • chrisonatrike wrote:

       The fact that they scarpered suggests to me that being in such a big metal box they simply didn’t even detect that they’d driven into someone (having not looked and observed them before). Either that or they don’t care about other people in which case the infra is mostly irrelevant.

       — chrisonatrike

       I would suspect drink/drugs to be a factor for not hanging around. Would also account for the terrible observations and poor reactions.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • HoarseMann wrote:

         The fact that they scarpered suggests to me that being in such a big metal box they simply didn’t even detect that they’d driven into someone (having not looked and observed them before). Either that or they don’t care about other people in which case the infra is mostly irrelevant.

         — HoarseMann

         I would suspect drink/drugs to be a factor for not hanging around. Would also account for the terrible observations and poor reactions.

         — chrisonatrike

         True.

         On the whole drug-driving thing…  Is it me or does anyone else notice more and more cars driving past with a waft of weed?  If real life was a cartoon, there’d be a big curling green smoke drifting along behind them.

         So what’s that about?  Is it that people think that driving while mildly stoned is better/safer than driving while drunk?  And if so, where on earth did they get that impression?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • brooksby wrote:

           I would suspect drink/drugs to be a factor for not hanging around. Would also account for the terrible observations and poor reactions.

           — brooksby

           True.

           On the whole drug-driving thing…  Is it me or does anyone else notice more and more cars driving past with a waft of weed?  If real life was a cartoon, there’d be a big curling green smoke drifting along behind them.

           So what’s that about?  Is it that people think that driving while mildly stoned is better/safer than driving while drunk?  And if so, where on earth did they get that impression?

           — HoarseMann

           It’s reefer madness out there. Well, something more recent maybe.

           I blame cars. It’s sadly becoming socially acceptable – it’s too easy to drive a car when stoned *. On a bike you’re spending half the time relighting your chalice and I’ve never been able to roll a spliff on the move. Maybe I should get that velomobile – could combine it with a trip to the ‘Dam?

           * Apart from the traffic lights that is.

         • brooksby wrote:

           On the whole drug-driving thing…  Is it me or does anyone else notice more and more cars driving past with a waft of weed? 

           — brooksby

           Definately becoming more common. It used to be only occasionally I would smell it from a passing car. I get at least one car stinking of it every ride now.

         • brooksby wrote:

           On the whole drug-driving thing…  Is it me or does anyone else notice more and more cars driving past with a waft of weed? 

           — brooksby

           Very definitely, and often on my commute it’s coming from work vans with people clearly going in to do a day’s work as electricians, plumbers, bricklayers et cetera, so not only worrying for their standards of driving but also the safety of the work they do. I say nothing about weed one way or another, I gave it up myself in my early 20s and never drove or cycled on it*, but it does seem that many younger people, including drivers, now seem to regard it as no more harmful than having a fag on the way to work.

           *Excellent gag from the lead singer of Supergrass, Gaz Coombes: “I don’t know why anyone has a go at all these cyclists for taking drugs, if anything it makes it harder. I tried riding my bike on drugs once and I went slap into a hedge.”

   • They can also add this to the

     They can also add this to the list of driver misdemeanours and possibly no MOT in a few days too…

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • They can also add this to the

       They can also add this to the list of driver misdemeanours and possibly no MOT in a few days too…

       Pfff! Even if it was untaxed on the day of the serious assault on the cyclist, the driver would have received a commendation in Lancashire for only being a few days late with VED. They’re officially completely uninterested in whether cars are taxed or not, here.

       LC refuses to reply about what has been done about this one after being informed of the absence of VED on the day of the photo- they also refuse to reply about absence of MOT for months in other vehicles. I think they come to private monetary agreements with offending drivers- it’s very wearing living with an unashamedly bent police force

       Log In or Register to post comments

4. RE: Cycle lane hit and run:

   RE: Cycle lane hit and run:

   Here I think:

   https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5721382,-0.0200106,3a,90y,6.81h,86.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8BkI3IoV0B5X4UdlgLQygQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

   I think this is just an abject failure to look – possibly exacerbated by the vehicle “corner pillars” / constant bearing decreasing range effect.  It’s on the driver though. And if people keep buying cars that it’s hard to see out of / are “too large” then that should be on them too.

   Cycle lane is clearly marked.  The lane is even in red – if only the UK would pick a colour, any colour, and consistently use it – ideally with proper coloured tarmac not just a paint layer…  The markings are a bit worn but still clear.  There appears to be a slight ramp up to pavement level too.  Side road is one-way so the driver has fewer distractions. They have a lane for their right turn so it should be really easy.

   The only way this could – and should – be improved is there isn’t a continous footway (see an article on how to do it properly). It’s the usual UK compromise of “we’ll make a special patch which is neither road nor footway”. So effectively it is road – motorists will just use it to wait in.  It’s saying “we don’t want to favour the bully of course – or the victim”. The view from here suggests that they could consider narrowing the footway a little on its inside:

   https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5721943,-0.0199481,3a,75y,221.73h,80.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2OFCb59zhPGJukcmJQZrQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

   …so drivers can stop and (just) see past the buildings to their right rather than being tempted to creep into the footway itself (I’ve marked this on the image below).  Not sure if that would be best practice for footway design but maybe a useful compromise here?

   You could have yet another sign on the far side “watch out for cyclists!” but since the driver didn’t look anyway I think this would just be more clutter, good for no-one except lawyers.  Inevitably such signage would also be taking space from e.g. pedestrians.

   In this case I think they’d equally have steamrollered a pedestrian in a similar spot. Either not looking at all or only “looking” for cars.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • chrisonatrike wrote:

     if only the UK would pick a colour, any colour, and consistently use it

     — chrisonatrike

     Boooooring. I vote for rainbow ones like the one on the blog a couple of days ago.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • mdavidford wrote:

       if only the UK would pick a colour, any colour, and consistently use it

       — mdavidford

       Boooooring. I vote for rainbow ones like the one on the blog a couple of days ago.

       — chrisonatrike

       …would be happily accepted as long as you follow all the guidelines (example from Over There here)!  It’s public infra so should be boring – safely, predictably standard boring.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • On the “but buildings – we

     On the “but buildings – we can’t see past them” this is another part of the bigger picture. Yes – it’s history but it’s also choices in the now.  We have a finite amount of space between buildings.  Let’s say we want these to have some motor vehicle access.  (Note that something’s already changed e.g. a cycle path has been added).  If it’s “not safe” for drivers to emerge from side roads because of sight lines there are options / choices.  It’s not a matter of “shrug and accept it”.  For example – are those side roads all needed?  Maybe there’s a better place for traffic access to / from properties there (e.g. effectively make a LTN)?  Do we choose to continue to have two way traffic down this street or could it be one-way?

     None of this is cheap or easy but we have to get over the “it’s always been that way” / “but there’s a road there!” mentality when it comes to our public space designs.  We have to for a whole suite of reasons – making transport more efficient, safer, fairer and places more pleasant.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • The more recent streetview

     The more recent streetview images show that additional give way markings have been added between the pavement and cycle track, along with a couple of bicycle logos. I suspect this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • …and worn away almost

       …and worn away almost immediately.

       

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • That image also shows

       That image also shows potential on brighter days for cyclists to be shaded by that tree at a critical moment on their approach.   

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Those white squares aren’t

       Those white squares aren’t give ways, its the other side of the crossing extent markers that were already on the carriageway side (diagram 1055.3 I think).  Intersting as the block paving is supposed to indicate this is a continuation of the pedestrian area that vehicles can cross, but the cycle lane is now indicated as a crossing of the side road.  Those marks are supposed to be on controlled crossings, which this isn’t – probably trying to best fit some awareness of the layout in, because they’re not needed in current guidance.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Yep, it’s a massive fudge to

         Yep, it’s a massive fudge to try and find some road markings that might work!

         I think the point chrisonatrike made about the pavement being too wide across the junction is spot on. If it was narrower and they put down a give way marking, visibility would be a lot better.

         They’ve put give way markings down on a junction further up the road, but the paved area is still too wide, so a driver has a limited view to see if it’s clear before moving off.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Yes – I’d forgotten some of

           Yes – I’d forgotten some of the good points from Mr. Weetman’s excellent series on this. One of them was that you should have a single lane entry to the road – not two. So that needs fixing about the infra.  Proper continous footway is a key and not having fussy painting / signs was a third.  I do agree the sightlines to the right should be better.  I’ve compiled some images from his collection – the “bad” side looks a lot like the one in the video!

         • That’s a great link. The

           That’s a great link. The sightlines are only relevant if there are give way markings, so get rid of those markings and you can have a wide pavement.

           The hierachy then comes into play and the driver must go very slowly and cede priority to pedestrians and cyclists, as they are effectively driving on the pavement.

         • HoarseMann wrote:

           That’s a great link. The sightlines are only relevant if there are give way markings, so get rid of those markings and you can have a wide pavement.

           The hierachy then comes into play and the driver must go very slowly and cede priority to pedestrians and cyclists, as they are effectively driving on the pavement.

           — HoarseMann

           Yes – the central point in all designs is that there is no break in the pedestrian or cyclist space.  It’s “motorist is permitted to drive (very carefully) across a cycle path and pavement in one go”.  Not “this is space for motor vehicles to wait while they’re looking for other motor vehicles”.

           I’m probably slightly more keen on having sight lines rather than not and more rather than less.  I know the argument – and indeed practice – of screening drivers’ views at some crossings to force them to stop and check.  From my experiences in the UK I’m leery of this where this may affect me when I’m on a bike e.g. I always want to see motor vehicles (and indeed any other road users) in good time.  Being honest I’m not keen on places where this is done partly for the reasons they’re designed to mitigate e.g. I want to able to keep my speed up!  However at lower speeds (bike design speeds) it’s still good to have the time to check for others and it allows me to adjust my speed so I don’t actually have to stop.

     • This is a design you see

       This is a design you see pretty much everywhere here in the Netherlands. Even assuming most Dutch drivers also cycle, I still get twitchy approaching these on my road bike. At 20kph on my city bike, no problem. At +30kph on my road bike it’s a different story…

       Log In or Register to post comments

5. No, irrespective of the poor

   No, irrespective of the poor infrastructure, that’s just terrible driving (further evidenced by the ‘-and-run’ part of hit-and-run).  Number plate is clear in the video, so really shouldn’t be difficult to prosecute.  Car is currently untaxed.  Not sure when the incident occurred, but looks like they may have sold or scrapped the car at the beginning of the month to try and evade justice.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Yeah, interesting one:

     Yeah, interesting one: LJ54OXZ last V5C issued 3 February and MoT expires on Sunday, so I wonder if it’s been SORNed?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I tried to look at the reg

       I tried to look at the reg number but couldn’t see it. I’ll take your word for it. If the car was untaxed at the time of the incident, then that’d automatically mean it was uninsured too. I hope this has been reported.

       Given the list of offences: leaving the scene; no VED; no insurance, then the driver is likely to be looking at a ban, and that’s without inclusion of a driving without due care and attention charge, which would seem appropriate.

       The police do tend to crack down on untaxed vehicles. It’s of note that there is a correlation between untaxed/uninsured vehicles and crashes, and also of other potential criminal offences. This is why the police often target untaxed vehicles, as this will often lead to the people being charged for a much wider range of offences (theft, handling stolen goods and drugs and so on).

       I’ll not mention the make of car.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • The police do tend to crack
         The police do tend to crack down on untaxed vehicles. It’s of note that there is a correlation between untaxed/uninsured vehicles and crashes, and also of other potential criminal offences. This is why the police often target untaxed vehicles, as this will often lead to the people being charged for a much wider range of offences (theft, handling stolen goods and drugs and so on)
         Do they hell! Which Utopia are you inhabiting? It’s definitely not the Motorist’s Land Free of Traffic Offences: Lancashire. You can inform the police here of vehicles on the road with no VED for 6 months, or no MOT- and they just refuse to reply.

         Log In or Register to post comments

6. A clothing company which

   A clothing company which prioritises performance and comfort!

   Gadzooks, how very novel! What will they think of next?

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. .

   .

   More sexism.

   .

   ‘Girls just wanna have fundamentally safe cycling infrastructure’.

   .

   And men don’t, I suppose?

   .

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • You’ll need your other one

     You’ll need your other one for Flintshire today, Rendel, maybe that badge with something about not posting rubbish?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • chrisonatrike wrote:

       You’ll need your other one for Flintshire today, Rendel, maybe that badge with something about not posting rubbish?

       — chrisonatrike

       I think that drivel is so weak it doesn’t even deserve denigrating! You can bet your bottom dollar FB is a “Why is it Black Lives Matter and not All Lives Matter” merchant, can’t you?

       Log In or Register to post comments

8. .

   .

   More sexism.

   .

   ‘Girls just wanna have fundamentally safe cycling infrastructure’.

   .

   And men don’t, I suppose?

   .

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Flintshire Boy wrote:

     .

     More sexism.

     .

     ‘Girls just wanna have fundamentally safe cycling infrastructure’.

     .

     And men don’t, I suppose?

     .

     — Flintshire Boy

     Did you used to say the same whenever Cyndi Lauper came on the radiogram back in the eighties?

     Quite the MRA….

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Captain Badger wrote:

       .

       More sexism.

       .

       ‘Girls just wanna have fundamentally safe cycling infrastructure’.

       .

       And men don’t, I suppose?

       .

       — Captain Badger

       Did you used to say the same whenever Cyndi Lauper came on the radiogram back in the eighties?

       Quite the MRA….

        

       — Flintshire Boy

       But I am sure they are first up one the dance floor when “It’s Raining Men” comes on 

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • stomec wrote:

         ……

         But I am sure they are first up one the dance floor when “It’s Raining Men” comes on 

         — stomec

         I think I can see FB as more of an Erasure boy…

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Captain Badger wrote:

           ……

           But I am sure they are first up one the dance floor when “It’s Raining Men” comes on 

           — Captain Badger

           I think I can see FB as more of an Erasure boy…

           — stomec

           Strange – me too. Or maybe “Your Woman” by White Town (although maybe FB would favour the earlier or Dua Lipa versions).

   • Of course men want better,

     Of course men want better, safer infra as well.

     Unfortunately the number one issue preventing women taking up cycling regularly is the the dangers presented by irresponsible, inattentive and careless driving practises by far too many motorists out there. I know only of a handful of women who cycle regularly on the roads. Others have had such bad experiences that they’ve either given up or cycle for leisure purposes on off road tracks/country parks. Meanwhile it takes a lot for bloke to hang up their wheels or stick to a few laps of the park. I’ve been close a few occasions and I’m sure many of us here have also done the same. There’s also some on the forum who now stick to off road routes due to their experiences. 

     The sooner our governments- central and devolved get their act together and start making our roads safer for all vulnerable road users the better. Then maybe we will see greater uptake in cycling. Especially amongst women. 
      

     But you knew all that when you posted. 
      

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • giff77 wrote:

       Of course men want better, safer infra as well.

       Unfortunately the number one issue preventing women taking up cycling regularly is the the dangers presented by irresponsible, inattentive and careless driving practises by far too many motorists out there. I know only of a handful of women who cycle regularly on the roads. Others have had such bad experiences that they’ve either given up or cycle for leisure purposes on off road tracks/country parks. Meanwhile it takes a lot for bloke to hang up their wheels or stick to a few laps of the park. I’ve been close a few occasions and I’m sure many of us here have also done the same. There’s also some on the forum who now stick to off road routes due to their experiences. 

       The sooner our governments- central and devolved get their act together and start making our roads safer for all vulnerable road users the better. Then maybe we will see greater uptake in cycling. Especially amongst women. 
        

       But you knew all that when you posted. 
        

        

       — giff77

       I’d settle for better safer drivers…

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I was including that in my

         I was including that in my roads safer. Sadly there are folk out there who either intentionally or unintentionally drive poorly. Then complain that the law is against them as we’ve seen with the kickback regarding the changes to the HC. Though to be fair I’ve seen a reasonable compliance when out regardless of my mode of transport. 

         it’s disappointing that behaviour on the road needs to be legislated rather than relying on people being responsible. Though this is why the HC came into being way back due to drivers doing their own thing. 

         I may be the exception here. When I learnt to drive I was also taught to be responsible and to offer care, consideration and courtesy to other users. something rather quaint and old fashioned I suppose on todays roads. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • giff77 wrote:

       I know only of a handful of women who cycle regularly on the roads. 

       — giff77

       Mass noun for women is a handful eh?  You are definitely on track for a cancellation my son.  No more books published or blockbuster movies made or appearances on Jonathan Ross for you sir!

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Think I can live with missing

         Think I can live with missing an appearance or two on Mr Ross’s programme 

         Log In or Register to post comments

9. A near hit would be a miss.

   A near hit would be a miss. So, a near miss is a hit. I think the confusion is sown by the aircraft industry not wanting to call an incident a near hit, as the language is too frightening.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I wouldn’t blame the aircraft

     I wouldn’t blame the aircraft industry entirely: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/near-miss-near-hit-word-history-usage

     Also note the closing remark: Near miss is almost never used to mean something that is nearly a miss, and any attempt to force that meaning upon the word is not likely to go anywhere. That ship has passed us by.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • All of that seems to be

       All of that seems to be making things unnecessarily complicated. The mistake is in assuming that the field over which ‘near’ is operating is ‘possible worlds’ – that there’s a world close to the actual one in which the event happened.

       Instead, it’s indicating the proximity in the actual world of a thing that did happen. It’s a near miss, as contrasted to a far miss.

       [Edit] And now I see that while I was trying to pick apart that convoluted MW article, Rendel posted much the same thing in a clearer, more concise way. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Geoffroid wrote:

     A near hit would be a miss. So, a near miss is a hit. I think the confusion is sown by the aircraft industry not wanting to call an incident a near hit, as the language is too frightening.

     — Geoffroid

     You’re misinterpreting “near” to mean “nearly”, in fact it is being used in its standard meaning of “close”, as in that was a miss that came near [close].

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Geoffroid wrote:

     A near hit would be a miss. So, a near miss is a hit. I think the confusion is sown by the aircraft industry not wanting to call an incident a near hit, as the language is too frightening.

     — Geoffroid

     On the other hand, a near miss is a miss that nonetheless was near. I don’t see this as a particularly worrying case of spin

     Log In or Register to post comments

10. Re the Hit and Run, did

    Re the Hit and Run, did anyone else notice the priority of the witness who came to help ‘ must get the road clear for traffic (cars) so I’ll move the bike first then maybe check on the injured person.

    I don’t here a sound track so maybe they had spoken but on the face of it (and without the adrenalin of seeing this happen in front of you) it seems a strange priority

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • For the record, if anyone

      For the record, if anyone comes to my assistance after a crash, please make sure my bike is out of danger before attending to me.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Now that you say that, it

        Now that you say that, it does make a bit of sense, maybe the guy was a rider too

        Log In or Register to post comments

      • Exactly

        Exactly

        Log In or Register to post comments

11. I do like xkcd… 

    I do like xkcd… 

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • https://xkcd.com/2558/

      https://xkcd.com/2558/

      https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/rapid_test_results.png

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • brooksby wrote:

      I do like xkcd… 

      — brooksby

      Have you seen XKCD Explained?

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • I have now!  Thanks 

        I have now!  Thanks 

        Log In or Register to post comments

12. Re the hit and run.
    Re the hit and run. Personally I do not use cycle lanes even segregated ones as they currently exist. They are nearly always in the gutter, meaning I’d have to ride through road litter. Because they are, nearly always, at the side of the road I have to play frogger with parked cars, this increases my chances of being knocked off ; no thanks. It also increases my chances of having someone pull out, like in the video clip. No thanks I’ll take my chances in the main traffic flow any day of the week rather than use one of these substandard, demonstrably dangerous, sad and sorry excuses for cycling infrastructure.

    Log In or Register to post comments

13. cycle lane hit and run…

    cycle lane hit and run…

    “Was this just a case of bad driving? Or is there a more fundamental problem with that style of cycle lane…..”

    Yes! the cycle lane positions the cyclist in a position where bad drivers don’t bother to look…the popular press has made much of the updated highway code guidance on lane positioning (AKA for any journalists “middle of the road positioning”)…but this doesn’t specifically cover taking primary to be obvious approaching junctions… it is good that the highway code “allows” cyclist to exercise judgement and move out of a cycle lane…cycle lanes are nearly always a (bad) compromise…the old alternative would be to have the cycle lane disappear…for confident cyclists this works better than a marked lane in a dangerous position but the outcome is usually a close pass or intimidation with or without the road markings….as to the bus stop…just shows how far there is to go on making roads cyclist and ped’ friendly…better driver behaviour would remove the need for compromises that don’t work too well for non motorised road users….and breathe

     

    Log In or Register to post comments