- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
‘Why wouldn’t you make cycling safer?’ Cycling UK asks government (+ video)
Cycling UK has asked the government to take a look at six areas where it believes simple changes can be made to improve cycle safety. ‘Why wouldn’t you make these changes?’ the charity asks and it is encouraging people to ask precisely that when contributing to the government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) review.
The “Cycling safety: make it simple” campaign asks the government to immediately prioritise the following as part of its review:
- Road and street design
- Changes to the Highway Code
- Safer vehicles, especially lorries
- Enforcement
- Road traffic offences and penalties review
- Funding
If you agree, you can fill out a form on the charity’s website to contribute to the CWIS review before it closes on June 1.
Paul Tuohy, Cycling UK’s CEO commented: “Air pollution, obesity, congestion, increasing danger on our roads – these are all major problems the Government faces. With ‘Cycle safety: make it simple’, Cycling UK has done the hard work and provided a range of easy and cost-effective solutions to all of these problems.
“This isn’t just about cycling, because more and safer walking and cycling can and should go hand-in-hand. Implementing Cycling UK’s proposals would make our streets safer and more attractive for everyone.”
The campaign is being backed by Darrell Martin, whose brother Lee was killed after being hit by a driver who was texting at the time. The driver had eight previous convictions for using his phone at the wheel.
Darrell said: “Drivers who are clearly putting people’s lives at risk should be taken off the roads before they’re given the chance to kill. We shouldn’t be waiting for a tragedy to happen, and certainly drivers who have seven or eight convictions shouldn’t be given more chances to get back behind the wheel.
“The justice system needs to take this much more seriously. If they had, my brother would still be alive.”
Another step suggested by Cycling UK is to make amendments to the Highway Code, including the introduction of the “Dutch Reach” technique for opening car doors.
The Dutch Reach involves using your opposite hand to open the door when exiting a vehicle. It is taught to learner drivers in the Netherlands as it twists your upper body so that you can’t help but look behind you, minimising the chance that you might door a passing cyclist. It also restricts how far the door can open.
In July 2016, Leicester school teacher Sam Boulton was killed on his 26th birthday in a tragic car dooring incident outside Leicester railway station.
His father Jeff said: “By introducing something as simple as the Dutch Reach into the Highway Code, teaching drivers to look over their shoulder before opening their door, we could make the journeys of hundreds of cyclists safer every year. It’s easy to teach and costs nothing, so why wouldn’t you?”
Cycling UK is also calling for greater resources to be given to roads policing, a national roll out of Transport for London’s restriction of unsafe lorries, the creation and adoption of national design standards for cycling infrastructure and an adequate level of funding to encourage more cycling while making it safer.
Again, members of the public can support Cycling UK’s suggestions at www.cyclinguk.org/whywouldntyou
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 33 min 35 sec ago
Don't mention them!!
- brooksby 40 min 40 sec ago
Uuurrrgh Uuurrath Aaah Mumble Mumble Mumble Cyclists mumble mumble, uuuurrrrgh mumble uuurrgh, lycra, mumble mumble <cough> uuaarr mumble...
- Rendel Harris 46 min 14 sec ago
Absolutely, so many of them quite clearly have chosen the job because they get to wear a uniform and a stab vest and carry a walkie-talkie so they...
- brooksby 47 min 37 sec ago
So the footpath has always been there too? Doesn't Cllr Lake think its a problem that motorists are apparently pulling out of the garage forecourt...
- Muddy Ford 51 min 28 sec ago
Would the cutting down of the hedge then enable another access road to the new estate, so do it under the guise of 'active travel'? I agree with...
- David9694 1 hour 15 min ago
Bus hits house as snow causes travel disruption and shuts schools across Yorkshire...
- Carmic0 3 hours 7 min ago
Nice to see the Passoni with external cabling.
- mark1a 7 hours 48 min ago
Yes, I agree, and thanks for replying, what I was trying to say (badly) was that Look wasn't really a bike company back then. ...
- George Hill 11 hours 52 min ago
Foxcote Hill in Ilmington - it's steep, it's not too long, and once you get to the top you can see the for miles across the Cotswolds....
- stonojnr 12 hours 6 sec ago
well at least they didnt go for British Racing Green as well ,as then theyd have two trademark licensing cases up against them....
Add new comment
32 comments
In my first lesson when learning to drive my instructor gave me two nuggets of wisdom that i have carried with me for over 20 years of driving and the past 6 years that i have been road cycling.
1. "Assume nothing and expect everything"
2. "Treat everyone on the road like an idiot, including yourself"
I have pretty much been able to stay out of trouble on the roads in both my car and on my bike with this ethos.
The bottom line is that infrastructure for cycling will always be substandard in this country. The car is king in the UK and infrastructure is mostly substandard for cars, so what hope have cyclists got? The ship has sailed in terms of spending the required amount of money to make things right, it will never happen.
The biggest change required is that of education. Teach new drivers, current drivers, those on re-training programms due to convictions, the laws regarding cyclists on the road. Eradicate the assumption that we are not allowed on the roads and we can't do 'xyz'. This needs to be acheived at a focussed level.
Why are cycling groups (Cycling UK / British Cycling etc) not present at things like Goodwood Festival of Speed, Car Fest, The F1 British Grand Prix and permanent vehicle attractions like motor museums? The places where hundreds and thousands of drivers attend on a daily basis. A personal, educated and informed interaction at these sort of locations will likely bring about a change of attitude of drivers and in my opinion would be money much better spent than running a prime time TV advert campaign.
If we keep doing the same things, banging our heads on the same walls then we can only expect the same results. It's time to think outside of the box, spend our energies wisely and effectively in order to attain the change that all road users deserve.
Just because you look does not mean that you are always able to see. Your view of someone that you should be signalling to could be blocked at the time of looking by a parked car, tree or any number of other objects.
On my route home along a national cycle route (through parks, along rivers and canals) I have to cross a road at one point. as I approch this road I can see a road that joins onto it and the cars appoaching this junction. I can see if they are signalling left and going to cause me an issue or not. They are unlikely to be able to see me but I still need them to signal so I know what action to take.
Signalling is required to indicate your intention to all forms of transport which includes pedestrians.
Signalling everytime does not mean that you are lazy, it means that you are self aware enough to know that you cannot always know 100% of what is around you.
Nicely put, Davel.
I think there's a real danger with the "only indicate when you've seen a target" principle. If I'm behind a vehicle and possibly in its blind spot and I then go to overtake the car, what happens if the car is turning right? They didn't see me, so they don't indicate and if they still don't spot me, I end up under the vehicle.
Contrast that with the alternative where the vehicle indicates anyway and I have the opportunity to see the indication and know to not overtake, possibly saving my bike (and/or life).
Shit, this is getting into the 'hi-viz is a waste of time' debate
Even if a motorist checks their mirrors and sees the V.R. (Vulnerable Roaduser), their brain has to engage and acknowledge that a signal is necessary. If they don't see them, they don't signal.
This isn't taught in Roadcraft for sure
Absolutely... More focus on 'seeing'.
But doesn't Roadcraft's approach engender 'don't need to signal all the time' complacency?
My feeling is that the current approach of
1) promote proper 'looking'
2) promote targeted signalling based on 1)
3) use 2) to avoid complacency over 1)
is demonstrably not *that* successful because of the number of drivers who don't look properly, and of those who don't even signal while on busy roundabouts, or junctions, or wandering across lanes on a motorway - ie. the promotion of looking properly and signalling isn't working that well.
Now I know this is totally subjective, but so is the claim that teaching people to target their signalling leads to reduced complacency regarding proper observation.
So, the posters arguing for a move towards something like
1) promote proper 'looking'
2) promote universal signalling. Signal when you do *anything*
3) drum 2) in, to avoid the complacency of sometimes not signalling becoming 'I just can't be arsed signalling'
are not denying that the current approach is taught, more suggesting that it isn't that successful at accomplishing its aims, and can be improved.
Indicating your intention when you don't need to because there is no-one to benefit generally means you haven't thought fully (or at all) about the why, people who indicate do it mostly as an automatic thing as opposed to thinking about their actions and interaction with those around them and from that why you would/would not do x action.
Those not indicating when they should or leave it too late are damn infuriating and lazy/much worse than those who indicate all the time
or have thought through exactly what you're doing and accept that just maybe you're not a god and there might be a road user you've missed, or one who's doing something you hadn't predicted, who MIGHT benefit.
Where's the harm? Much better to have learner drivers fall into a potentially over-communicative habit rather than a bone-idle couldn't-be-arsed one.
This.
I'm with BTB on this one. If you automatically signal EVERY time you maneouvre, the average* motorist will get lazy or complacent and not be bothered to look who they are actually signalling to. Bad road awareness.
*average - I suspect that most drivers who are also cyclists are above average, because they've been at the pointy, victim/vulnerable end of things.
The current situation *seems* to be that we have plenty of (no idea how many, could well be bias on my part) lazy bastards who don't signal at junctions or roundabouts because they can't be arsed. In my experience, it's even worse if you, on your bike, are the only other vehicle around. That's with the current 'don't signal if you don't need to' method.
So my take on that is that to still teach learners to consider who they're signalling to, and also instil the habit of signalling always, would be an improvement. And teaching the mindset that they just might not have considered everything, like a pedestrian they hadn't noticed, or someone belting round a corner, is a better one than 'yeah, I've looked - fuck it', because that seems to degrade to just 'fuck it' with way too many motons, as soon as they get shot of their instructor.
I don't see the connection between automatically signalling when you make a maneouvre and not looking. "Mirror, signal, mirror, maneouvre" should be drummed into all drivers and if performed every single time becomes a habit. Just because they're not thinking through the reasons for each part doesn't mean that it's not still effective. I can tie my shoe laces effectively without having to think through why I do each part of the knot and I've yet to trip over because of my automatic, non-thinking approach to knot tying.
I do want road users to be aware and thinking about the other traffic but it seems that a lot of drivers just go into automatic mode anyway so I'd much prefer them to signal their intentions whether or not they've noticed me.
This is basically crap
indicating does not give you priority when you do not have it, so signalling does not make maneouvering without checking any safer.
Nothing pisses me off more than waiting to cross the road, and the car you are waiting for turns before it reaches you but didn't indicate because it didn't need to. For far too many drivers - no other cars = don't need to indicate.
As a vulnerable road user who is easy to miss even when drivers do check you should not be arguing for drivers to adopt an approach which requires you to use ESP to stay alive.
If you really believe this is worthless advice perhaps you might like to check the DVSA's driving manual, Driving - the essential skills, (HMSO). The DVSA is the body charged by the government with setting the standard for UK driving and the manual is much more detailed than the Highway Code. Much of it follows the basic tenets of the UK police driving manual, Roadcraft, and has been used by countries across the world as a framework for their national driving skills policies.
So, perhaps not so crap after all?
Beyond improvement, is that what you're suggesting?
Because it's all lip-service, they hate cycling and their actions speak louder than words.
Question which I hope someone can answer. Why do I never see the British Cycling organisation doing anything, or much (to my knowledge) to try to bring about some positive changes. I've been a member of British Cycling for three years now for the legal protection/insurance, but always feel they do very little in terms of lobbying for cyclist safety.
I believe the two organisations divvy up the campaigning between themselves so that efforts can be concentrated rather than diffused or contradictory.
In any case, there is a current campaign in progress:
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20180416-campaigni...
Warning, to the snowflakes, there is SWEARING FURTHER DOWN ...
Cycling UK and all the other cycling orgs should take the government to highest court possible, court of human rights for a start off and I would back them with a hefty chunk of cash, so that they are forced to take action. Their inaction/actions are literally killing people not just on bikes but everyone. They continually push the onus of safety onto the vulnerable in a disgusting and unlawful manner whilst doing little to address those that kill and maim with virtual impunity, even though things could be addressed rather simply and indeed the technology exists to prevent those doing the harm from doing so in many cases and/or at least minimising it just in a direct manner.
Even the police and 'justice' system are in on this with victim blaming and absolving of responsibility away from those doing/presenting the harm being the norm.
Only a couple of weeks ago there was anarticle in the Guardian with the writer opening up to how he was involved in the death of a pensioner. The police were leading him on as to why he didn't see suggesting was he dazzled by the lights of the motorists who did stop. Nope he wouldn't even admit his wrong doing, the police didn't prosecute and they all essentially blamed the infirm old man walking from the bus stop to his care home literally across the raod for his needless death with excuses about night time, no his vis, on a bend, fast road etc all coming to the fore.
This is normal, you see/hear in courts how the vulnerable are chastised for not doing x and yet without someone else doing y (or even actually doing z) the incident would never have happened, it is literally the if you weren't wearing a stab vest or an anti rape device it's your own fault.
Every time a motorist comes too close, that is a criminal offence, it is an offence against the person crime, everytime they encroach and induce fear of harm that's a criminal offence. Being bullied into the gutter, to change direction rapidly to avoid being struck, being pulled out on, physically being struck all criminal offences and yet the police are not interested 99.99% of the time. So from that motorists carry on as they like and thus we have roads that are not just more dangerous for the vulnerable but also for other motorists who whilst not perfect toward the vulnerable are not utter cretins.
We won't change because those who come into power are selfish bastards with no fucking idea how to run a country, can't/won't recognise what has worked elsewhere that saves a nation not just a shit ton of money but makes it a far safer, healthier, nicer, enjoyable and prosperous place to live.
I wouldn't vote Labour (nor Cons) if you ripped out my toe-nails, they're all a bunch of thieving rats.
Out of interest, who would you vote for? I voted Greens last time, but as I live in a strong Labour seat, it didn't have any obvious effect.
it does make a difference - it helps to put / keep issues on the agenda of whoever is in power. Look at how the loathsome kippers managed to change the loathsome tory agenda, even though they never stood a chance of winning real power. If one party sees voters deserting them they stand a bigger chance of losing to a third party, so they change their policies in reaction. If nobody voted green then green issues would not be on the agenda of any party.
Greens though I have voted tactically in local elections, my area is a Tory stronghold since I moved here 29 years ago, the long standing MP could have being in a kiddy fiddling gang and the locals would've still voted him in.
That's the problem with strongholds. I'd prefer proportional representation but that brings its own set of problems to the table.
One person complained there was swearing early on into a post, I thought I best warn upfront in case there were children.
I voted to for us (the UK) to leave the tyrannical and undemocratic EU, I'm even more resolute in that stance since the vote and the continued lies and bullshit written have being outed as exactly that, not to mention totally missing the main reasons why we will be better off in the long run being out.
I am not a member of the UK independant party, I admire Nigel Farage for what he has done as an MEP, I vwas until the early 2000s a tory voter even going back to my first vote as a teen in a Labour stronghold. I wouldn't vote for the hypocritical cess pit labour party ever, they've done as much damage to the UK as the cons. I vote for the greens and consider myself an environmentalist, I go to extremes many wouldn't to have as little impact on the planet as I can have.
But about the subject at hand, what is your view on it as opposed to asking about political views that has little bearing on the problem?
I don't always agree with burtthebike on everything but on this, I'm sadly afraid s/he's spot on. Just because something's easy & cheap, it doesn't mean the government will do it. In fact, IME it usualy means they won't... :-S
My own road safety beef - not only as a cyclist, but as a driver too - is, why can't turning vehicles signal? You'd think it would be compulsory but to the best of my knowledge it isn't. Certainly, as far as I can see more than 50% of vehicles **never** signal turns, including many that should know better, like public utility vehicles & even the police. If everyone signalled turns it would make life so much easier for other road users. & easier means safer.
In theory you don't always need to signal if no other road user is going to benefit from it.
So the driver (or cyclist, pedestrian for that matter) should be aware of their surroundings 360', before considering an advanced warning.
'Mirrors, what mirrors?'
Problem there is that many motorists don’t think that cyclists are *real* road users, and therefore don’t think they need to bother signalling to our benefit.
(Plus, it’s a very complicated move, to flick that little stalk behind your steering wheel...)
But is it on the right or left and do I move it up or down ?
I've always thought the opposite - you are required to indicate whenever you make a turn. The Hghway Code doesn't list any exceptions to the rules:
Unfortunately, those are "should" rather than "must" rules, so they are more guidelines than actual rules per se.
I remember having a row with my driving instructor 25 years ago, after he chastised me for signalling 'when I didn't need to'. He saw it as some sort of admission of failure to look properly; I said I'd look properly but never be omniscient - AND WHERE WAS THE FUCKING HARM.
Our relationship soured, which was also due to me blaming the stink of the catalytic converter (I later realised) on his BO (it was a hot summer).
Pages