Road danger is biggest barrier to cycling, says research commissioned by DfT

Why reveal yet again that roads are perceived by many to be too dangerous for cycling - unless to highlight that it’s substantially a misperception. Walking a mile is more risky than cycling a mile; it takes 15,000 cycling years per fatality; health benefits outweigh risks twenty fold ; so if anything it’s riskier not to cycle. But I don’t suppose it was part of DfT’s remit to do that in this Climate Change report. Fortunately they are more thorough in their ‘Cycle Infrastructure Design - LTN2/08’.

Nevertheless safety improvements are needed. Despite our overall casualties being among the best, for children and vulnerable road users we are among the worst.
Vehicular cycling as well as top notch dedicated provisions have a part to play. But you’d think from some previous comments that they cannot co-exist.
Everyday I see people dressed up like spacemen in order to cycle, doubtless thinking they’re making themselves much safer. And then they manoeuvre in way which risks a collision. Whilst they wouldn’t be ‘at fault’, it would be avoided if they learnt some ‘cyclecraft’ or vehicular cycling. Many of those I’ve trained in cyclecraft, on and off road, have seen the light.

Nevertheless, it’s not everyone who can become comfortable with ‘holding the lane’ and all the other ploys of vehicular cycling. But neither should they have to put up with the kind of low standard ‘facility’ which gets built by our largely cycling-unaware councils.

Dutch style dedicated cycle provision would be great. But it goes hand in hand with councils who understand cycling, have a political will to re-allocate road space, with a large proportion of the population cycling, so that it is not seen as an ‘out group’ activity resulting in demonisation as here. And they never had to start from the point where cycling had almost died out. Then there’s their ‘Strict Liability’ laws (so that motor insurance automatically pays up in a car vs. vulnerable user collision, unless there’s grounds to the contrary; the motorist is only held to be liable, not at fault or culpable in law. Suggest it here and there are cries of outrage, even though all of Europe apart from us, Eire, Malta and Cyprus recognise the benefits).

But let’s not lose heart; push for Dutch style infrastructure but with UK constraints – including big budget cuts - in mind, and encourage vehicular cycling as well. After all that’s how the Dutch reach the parts their cycle tracks cannot reach (Heineken advert duly acknowledged).

Where we cannot get Dutch quality tracks and we can’t enable people to cycle confidently on the roads let’s ensure they know about the snags, as in illegal or legalised pavement cycling, so that until we get Holland in Albion they are not unwittingly put themselves at risk as well as inconvenience.

John Mallows, Policy Director, cyclenation. (the federation of cycle campaign groups)

If a cycling test was introduced as part of the driving test, which I think could be done as there are lots of cycling schools in existence to cover it.
It would help new drivers to be more considerate to cyclists and would also create more instructor jobs in cycling.
Maybe there could be a few lessons on the bike before they take to the car. This would heighten their observational skills and road sense before they even start driving a car.
Most people learn to drive for the independence that it offers. Learning to drive can be a long and tedious process, they often can't wait to pass their test and achieve that independence
They can achieve that independence at the start of their driving lessons through cycling, it may even help to convert more new drivers to cyclists as they would already have the skills and confidence to ride.

A driving instructor complained to me earlier that after Bikeability there's no formal means to teach kids cycle awareness. So they reach 17, get the keys of a car by which time they've long forgotten what it feels like to ride a bike in traffic.

The only chance to create a new generation of bikeaware drivers is by making cycling part of the driving test. See http://road.cc/content/news/27483-new-campaign-aims-make-drivers-bikeaware then go to http://bikeaware.org.uk and support the campaign.

If you can't ride, you shouldn't drive.

Picked this item up as i did the rounds today http://evgrieve.com/2010/12/east-village-resident-ticketed-for.html Scam by New York Cops or Dick Turpin riding again ?

As cyclists we need to do our bit to make our experience safer as well. Too many cyclists expect drivers to do all the safety work and look out for them. If you wear head to toe black & rely on a tiny light how do you expect drivers to see you in plenty of time. Until we get the Dutch infrastructure cyclists need to wear a HiViz jacket & rucksack cover, decent lights & ride defensively as if on a motorbike. I have almost no problems on the roads of Surrey & London by making myself visible & treating car drivers with respect. When driving, & we all do, you have to look out for large coloured objects, be it roadsigns, other cars, buses, trucks etc, yet cyclists expect a thin sliver moving quickly, dressed in black to be treated with special care, it is two-faced. Driving is busy & anything we do that makes them act properly is a big help. Do your bit too.

a.jumper - London has benefited from the fact that the current mayor (Boris Johnson) is a cyclist and that while the last mayor (Ken Livingstone) wasn't, he was also keen on cycling as a whole. But there are a lot of piss poor car drivers who go too fast and try and jam their vehicles into spaces where they don't fit. Driving aggressively in London by weaving from lane to lane doesn't get you much further forward. It's particularly noticeable when I'm on my motorbike how the aggressive car drivers will fight to get one or two cars further forward - and then I sail past on the outside at the next set of lights. At one job I had years ago I used to cycle past my colleague at New Cross most mornings, give him a wave as he sat nose to tail in a jam in his car and be in the office at Woolwich 10-15 minutes before him each day. I do think if more car drivers rode motorcycles and bicycles in traffic from time to time they'd realise the utter pointlessness of driving a car in a congested urban area unless they're carrying a heavy load or other passengers. Most drivers I see on my commute are of course on their own. I don't know the statistics but I would expect that the vast majority of car drivers commuting are on their own and could easily switch to a motorcycle or bicycle dependng on the length of their commute - with noticeable benefits in reducing congestion.

Everybody should also take special note of this sentence:

"Of those who did start cycling to work, two in three went back to using their car"

Experience is not enough. Convincing people to start is not enough.

Sometimes I think experience has just made me foolhardy, and actually my initial fear when cycling on London main roads was right!

OldRidgeback - you have wider bus lanes than me but sounds like the patnabi would have driven into you otherwise.

Bath is particularly bad (tiny right-of-centre council innit?) but most places are little better.

Well, I have to agree with TheJollyJimLad on this one - I often have cause to reflect on my commute that I wouldn't really be happy if my teenage daughter was doing this.

While a lot of people driving on the road is part of the problem, the fact that so many people's actual driving ability falls way short of their estimation of it is an even bigger one, that includes so-called professional drivers - in my experience a lot of them are the worst.

Like OldRidgeback I was nearly taken out the other day by a guy I'm sure was racing the bloke, who almost took me out, before he was forced to slam on the brakes when it suddently occurred to even his dim brain that he wasn't going to make it through pinch point installed (by an equally dim traffic engineer) to slow him down without collecting me in the process.

If Bath is indicative of the rest of the country then our roads are full of piss-poor traffic calming measures that actually put vulnerable road users at risk. The topography here doesn't help cyclists, but traffic engineers make things worse when they don't take in to account the effects a hill has on someone riding a bike when they install pinch points to slow down traffic on fast moving roads - you need a pretty strong nerve to claim your lane when you've got a demonic bus driver or a massive HGV bearing down on you determined to make that gap without having to drop a gear… You also have to hope that man in the white van is paying full attention to the road ahead…

a.jumper - the guy in the Audi veered around me and I was in the middle of the bus lane. He was being pursued by a Porsche and I suspect they were racing and/or were under the influence of drink or drugs.

The thing is that higher fuel costs won't see a modal shift. They'll just make adjustments to their lifestyle or take on board more credit - like the monthly credit they've probably already committed to keeping a new car.

Campaigners like Peck can twist the statistics and bleat all he likes but it's time to go Dutch. Build it [to the correct standard] and they will come. The Skyride in London attracted (I believe) 60,000 cyclists with the promise of traffic free cycling. We ignore that plus the modal shares in the Netherlands and Denmark at our peril. To all those that then go on about it being expensive, I shall simply refer them to all the motorway expansion and bypass plans that are still scheduled by Hammond Organ. You'd be amazed at what we can still find money for.

Who actually enjoys driving in peak hours? Not one person I work with for starters! But they regard cycling as uncomfortable and requiring physical effort and exertion and once I do the "it isn't 'that' dangerous speech" they fall back on those two excuses. That's the reason they won't quit cars; comfort and convenience. Cost will drive most of them out in the end. What person in a normal job with a normal commutte of 10 miles is going to be able to afford £1.75 - £2.00 per litre of pertol?

The question has to be what is the DfT going to do to change this? Well they could stop taking the Taliban approach to road safety, and start looking at a harm reduction approach.

The trouble is that the reason cycling IS (a bit)dangerous is the vast number of people who THINK it's (very) dangerous driving their cars everywhere. The level of danger is not static, it depends in substantial part on the number of people not cycling.

While these people's perception of danger is fair enough, I do think it's probably exaggerated by a lack of experience. As a daily cyclist I can quantify my experience of actual peril - I have a bad experience every year or so, usually with no real harm being done and statistically expect to die of being old. Lots of things I can't and don't do look very dangerous but are probably well within my actual tolerance for risk.

I think Ozzage is right.
I commute 12 miles to work on very busy roads between Worthing and Brighton (with a fully operating port in between with all the usual HGV movements). Although the vast majority of the time holds no incident (because I've cycled for many years and hold the lane etc) I still find myself asking 'Would a novice REALLY enjoy this?' and if I'm truthful, the answer is no.

We need decent infrastructure based on the Dutch model - which means designing the car out of urban environments and providing safe, well designed (for a change) segregated routes ONLY when necessary. People may scoff at the Netherlands but they have managed a modal share that cycling 'experts' can only dream of over here.

That no European delegates were present at the last CTC Cycle Nation conference in Edinburgh recently, leaving it to Roger Geffen of CTC to um and ah over Copenhagen facilties is telling.

> Not LIKING the answer isn't the same as it being WRONG.

Equally: LIKING the answer isn't the same as it being RIGHT.

Cue the retorts from the vehicular cycling brigade: "What would THEY know? WE know better than they do why they aren't cycling"

Not LIKING the answer isn't the same as it being WRONG.

For most people, cycling on the streets in a high-traffic environment is unpleasant and feels dangerous. No amount of sticking head in sand will take away that fact.

Training is not the answer. Taking the primary position is not the answer.

> Are they using danger as a reason, whereas the real reason is that they are too idle? Or some other reason?
My thoughts exactly: "the roads are dangerous" is a socially acceptable reason/excuses, "I am a lazy b.....d" is not (generally !)

It's a pretty common thing for non cyclists to say- that they are scared to ride on the road

But what is interesting is

1) Are they using danger as a reason, whereas the real reason is that they are too idle? Or some other reason?
It is a better excuse to say that you fear for your life as opposed to you can't be arsed
Saying it is too dangerous is an excellent discussion stopper

2) Some of them went on to say that they would cycle if there were off road cycle paths. So therefore let's build lots of paths!
Of course it is not practical or possible to build an offroad cycle path everywhere that roads currently go. So you can imagine them saying "You built a path- which is great- but I don't go there"

The report is about "Climate Change and Transport Choices" specifically. Some people questioned are going to understand that the entire population of the UK switching to using non fossil fuel transport is not going to make a blind bit of difference as the Chinese are building a new coal fired power station every month. Some people will be climate change skeptics. Many people simply don't give a toss. So a lot of them will be looking for excuses to keep whatever their current behaviour is.

I wonder how many of those six in ten people then drive badly around cyclists contributing to danger they are worried about.
More driver education is needed, along with getting drivers to cycle to know what it is like.

More cycle paths would be useful but only if they are decent and not the terrible examples you see now (mainly just a strip of white paint down some pavement).

One person said to me that cyclists were thrill seekers. I certainly felt fear as this lorry overtook me way too close for my liking. Cars regularly overtake closely the worst I had was when one car actually overtook when I was going through a single lane tunnel. I think after a while you just don't notice them as much any more.

I just don't see the UK putting in more cycle paths not in times of austerity. I can see the devolution of powers to cash strapped local authorities with no funds dedicated to cycling meaning no more paths.

No surprise there then - and the danger is real - nearly got taken out yesterday by some dimwit in an Audi who wanted to overtake all the other cars on the inside by using the bus-lane despite the fact that I was there. He missed me by inches. He was speeding and overtaking on the inside is an offence as the traffic in the lane he should've been in was moving. Even without the danger to me I'd say he should've been due six points on his license for the two offences.