Councillor suggests red light & pavement cycling crackdown after Portsmouth injury rate soars

I currently live in Portsmouth and have racked up some considerable time cycling in the city over the years- in fact I find cycling the most convenient way to get around here.

Unfortunately I can understand some of the council's statements- it is massively crowded down here and visibility is poor at junctions in the back roads- vehicles parked inconsiderately close to them cause a big problem, and I find cyclists can end up lost in the sea of parked cars to a quick look when pulling out, even with bright clothes.

We also have a big problem with 'loutes on bikes' that is the kids (and sometimes adults) who ignore all rules of the road and seem to live on a prayer hoping no-one will wipe them out. There is also a staggering number who don't have lights- outside the rush hour when it is completely dark I'd estimate between 1/3 and 1/2 of people on bikes don't have any lights which could also contribute.

However, the leading problem I think is simply impatience- the streets around the town centre especially are so congested that when a motorist can make good headway sometimes consideration for others and making sure you are safe can go out the window for a minority, but as there are so many people here you unfortunately encounter them more often

"This has become even worse since the changes from Rudmore Roundabout where I've had several near misses in both the car and the bike due to people simply not caring."

What on earth are you doing cycling on Rudmore Roundabout? There's a perfectly good underpass and I have never ridden around it in the 8 years of commuting.
Even more so since when I saw a cyclist get killed by a lorry one November evening about 11 years ago.

I totally agree with the point about signs in the middle of paths, pedestrians who stand or wander in the cycle lane, the removal of the cycle/footpath divider along the A3 by the Shell Station and Ferry port. If they perhaps made the old London Road A2047 one way then this would stop a lot of accidents as well for all road users.

81 in 3 years is not a huge amount, but 81 too many obviously.
Portsmouth has the densest population outside London.
Read that as you want to read it.

There are a lot of shared surface cycle paths/pavements and these are a nightmare. The width of them is far narrower than dual direction cycle paths. There are so many blind corners on the paths and the perfect example is around the barracks where you can be cycling along and meet someone by surprise. Not only do you have pedestrians to avoid but also sign posts that take up the pathway. I don't see the point in the white lining of cycle paths when cars drive on them and occasionally even park on them. A good percentage of motorists do not care what they drive on as long as it's the quickest route to work. This has become even worse since the changes from Rudmore Roundabout where I've had several near misses in both the car and the bike due to people simply not caring. Education is needed and perhaps police monitoring if the capability

I cycle 9 miles each way every day from the mainland into Portsmouth city centre (OK, the Naval Base) and on the whole it's fine, perhaps it may be that I get to work at 7am that makes a lot of difference and also my route, the road mentioned in the report has been narrowed considerably over the last few years and it is extremely dangerous to ride on so it is best avoided.
Generally motorists are considerate and I would say there are far more idiotic bike riders (not cyclists) on the roads, or should I say pavement, than in cars or other motorised transport. Educating them would also be a good idea and I can see where the councillor is coming from. But as Portsmouth is an Island it has island mentality and inbreeding with the associated aggression of the minority of idiots who live there and they are the ones who need sorting first as you dare not remonstrate with a driver as they only recognise aggression, low IQ, tattoos and the dog that comes with it

In the main the cycle paths that exist on the main road in and out of the city are very good (Eastern Road, Northern Parade and around the Moat) but the older roads are simply too narrow to have a separate lane most of the time.

Did I miss something in the article? The roads in Portsmouth are dangerous for cyclists, and the number of injuries among cyclists on the road has increased, therefore the council shall concentrate on stopping pavement cyclists (I can sort of see the RLJ point, but is that really such a problem? how many of the injured cyclists were RLJing?).

If the roads are so crowded and so busy ("an island with limited road space"), how about not picking on the most vulnerable road users out there in the melee?

How many of the increase were on the Southsea cycle path? Three to one voted against it but the insightful Portsmouth City council put in place thier plan making one of the most dangerous cycle paths I've ever seen.

Quick question for the councilor if everyone riding on the pavement are the cause of this increase in injury how come they all happened on the road?
Mupppets

How many of the increase were on the Southsea cycle path? Three to one voted against it but the insightful Portsmouth City council put in place thier plan making one of the most dangerous cycle paths I've ever seen.

Quick question for the councilor if everyone riding on the pavement are the cause of this increase in injury how come they all happened on the road?
Mupppets

Whereas I tend to agree about the cycling on pavements and jumping red lights by adults, the level of driving in Portsmouth and Southsea is particularly aggressive.

As said earlier it's densely populated and full of rat runs. A large majority of residential roads have parking on both sides leaving only space down the centre, not all drivers will let you pass if you happen to be most of the way down the road, they expect you to move out the way.

Also a point that's made often in Southsea is that in places where there are cycle protected lanes (Albert Road, Southsea) cars and delivery mopeds regularly block the lane. The council seems to pay little attention to this so you are left wondering why have the cycle lane there. Most traffic that stops there seems to be local businesses so maybe the council turns a blind eye to it.

Over the past 6 months there have been many signs put up on the approach to roundabouts and junction that warn motorists to be aware of cyclists, but that's part of the highway code when learning to drive in the first place.

Without some bigs changes I don't see cycling being any safer in Portsmouth, it takes respect by all road users.

The number of cyclists killed or seriously injured increased significantly around here last year.
The percentage sounded impressive but using their own statistics it appears that the number is 8.85 more than last year.
I suspect that this increase may not necessarily mean that the roads are more dangerous....

I quite often find myself a bit skeptical of PCF's statements and what not, but I must admit they fight hard and don't give up. The definitely deserve respect for what they do.

Portsmouth City Council are a bunch of morons though, they don't care about cyclists and there are rumours (with no evidence) of them being institutionally anti-cyclist. Who knows the validity of that though?

Couple this with the Portsmouth police force (or is it Hampshire?) deciding that 20mph speed limits aren't worth policing and you can see why Portsmouth is one of the most dangerous places to ride a bike in the UK. I live in a residential 20 and I reckon it is in excess of 50%, even taking confirmation bias into account, of people doing 30-35mph in a 20 limit that has 2 semi blind kinks back to back.

Liability isn't culpability, though. In any case, that's all post-incident, and it also presupposes a victim who has already decided to spar with traffic. The aim should be prevention, and an environment that attracts users who don't want to spar with traffic.

Hmm, accidents on rat runs? I.e. speeding cars on too narrrow streets.

Well, that explains the pavement cycling at least.

Maybe the councilor should add permeability to remove rat runs and then get more traffic police?

Eh, too much like actually addressing the issue, let's fine some cyclists for their own safety instead...

My experience is that a painted lane is of no use, and can even make things worse - drivers think that as long as they're not actually in the cycle lane, they can pass you as close as they like.

I'm not impressed with Councillor Ken Elcombe. He's seemingly talking about what can be done to protect cyclists. He spends two sentences explaining how difficult it is to do anything, and proposing absolutely nothing. Then, third sentence, he's straight into cyclist-bashing mode - 'they jump red lights' - which most of us don't, and is irrelevant to what's being discussed.

I do a fair bit of cycling around the eastern and northern parts of Portsea Island, generally to and from either Fratton or Hilsea station. I see quite a bit of pavement cycling, but there is almost always a reason.

For one thing, Portsmouth has a lot of shared use pavements. A good example is that you can go pretty much all the way from Milton to Farlington Marshes on shared use footway, and it seems, by and large, to work OK, even with fairly fast cyclists. The accompanying road, the Eastern Access Road, would not be a palatable proposition for anyone other than suicidals.

There are other shared use paths but quite often these seem to stop suddenly - or so I assume, although it is often not easy to tell whether the path you are on permits cycling or not. You might not see the cycle/pedestrian roundels, but you won't have seen any "end-of-route" signs either.

There are quite a few places where the road is pretty hostile, like Eastern Road, and the footway is wide enough and lightly used by pedestrians, like Eastern Road, and could reasonably be shared use but is not, at least not yet. Generally where I see cyclists on the pavement here it is children, or women, or older people, quite often with assorted plastic carrier bags hanging from the handlebars after a trip to the supermarket. Portsmouth is very densely populated and compact, it can't take the traffic it already has, so these cyclists should really be applauded, not threatened with fines.

That deals with major arterial roads. On the grid of residential streets, many of which are used as rat-runs by motorists, like Langstone Road, I don't think I have ever seen anyone cycling on the pavement.

I have no facts to back up but perhaps they should be looking at why cyclists are using the pavement in the first place. I will use the pavement (at a safe speed giving ROW to pedestrians) if I feel a section of road is not safe, and that risking a ticking off by a copper is better then ending up dead.

Unfortunately that idea has no legal basis: you can't presume culpability; moreover, the chances of demonstrating it are stacked against. Also, a simple lick of paint doesn't protect anyone; as the corpses on London's "Superhighways" and elsewhere serve to demonstrate.

Look at numbers, not percentages. 9% could be from 11 to 12. That would put a different perspective on it.

I'm starting to think that the simplest solution is probably the best, and that is a white line painted to identify the cycle lane. The simplicity is that motorised vehicles can use this space when not occupied by cyclist. But the cyclist has absolute priority and any collision between vehicle and cycle will be the vehicles fault.
I appreciate that this won't be appropriate in all towns and cities or all situations, but I see it as a permanent reminder to drivers that bikes exist and that they should be looking out for bikes.

It's something simple and relatively cheap that can be applied countrywide.

My two penneth on the subject.