Cyclists: Rules of the road apply to you too

Surveyor11

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

How high and steep is this bridge crest that you can't see a cyclist that is at least 1.5m high off the ground from a decent distance back?



Segregated infrastructure only adds to the 'us v them' attitude on the roads and won't help. What we need is more properly shared road space and the education that pedestrians and cyclists have the same rights as motorists on the roads.

I don't know, does it? The Dutch and the Germans have largely segregated infrastructure and I would see them as good examples of how cyclists can operate safely (Strictly in my own opinion). In the Irish context, there is definitely an 'us and them' in the existing infrastructure set up - I only have to mention I cycle to someone, be it in a taxi, work or in a social context and the whole debate kicks off all over again (bad enough having it on Boards!:pac:)

GreeBo

corktina wrote: »

well! you live and learn...I thought you had to proceed with caution at all times.

nope, when the light is red you don't proceed at all.

Aard

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Segregated infrastructure only adds to the 'us v them' attitude on the roads and won't help. What we need is more properly shared road space and the education that pedestrians and cyclists have the same rights as motorists on the roads.

For the short and somewhat medium term, I would be inclined to agree. But as a long-term goal, I don't see why we can't strive for segregated infrastructure for cyclists on roads over 30 km/h. 50 km/h suburbia without cyclepaths is the worst place to cycle imo, as cars tend to go as fast as legally possible (understandable enough) while there is no place for a cyclist to call his own.

In city and town centres, it's a different kettle of fish. It should be entirely possible to have a 30 km/h utopia where everybody gets along without the need for segregation. (I hope that that's not too cupcakes and rainbows!)

Then comes the problem of urban dual carriageways. The N11 is a prime example of a road that should have 100% segregated cycle infrastructure imo. Trying to share with such fast-moving traffic only serves to put off would-be cyclists.

Iwannahurl

bambergbike wrote: »

I was somewhat shocked to hear a sixty-year old recently wondering mournfully whether she had just bought her last bicycle. However, I live in hope that she will use it wisely, be dealt a fair hand by her fellow road users and eventually graduate to one of these after fifteen or twenty years. With all the accessories - indicators, mirrors, an electric motor for hills, a trailer for shopping, a clip for attaching a crutch ...

In the Netherlands, the modal share for cycling among people aged 75 and over is 17%.

crusher000

dukedalton wrote: »

Two incidents in the space of half a mile this morning:

1. I came up to a traffic light controlled bridge. With the light green for me, I proceeded up the bridge. As I came to the crest of the bridge I was met by two elderly cyclists going the wrong way. Had I been five yards further up the bridge I would have had no chance to stop. There was a footpath on the bridge, which clearly didn't feel the need to use.

2. Having crossed the bridge I then came into a line of traffic. It transpired that the reason there was a line of traffic was that there were two other cyclists cycling abreast of each other. Now, of course they're entitled to use the road, but on a narrow county road such as this, cycling in this way clearly increases the risk of an accident.

My question is this:

If I drive recklessly and am caught, I am liable to be prosecuted. If a cyclist behaves in a reckless manner, is there any punishment?

Thanks I didn't know

Grandpa Hassan

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In the Netherlands, the modal share for cycling among people aged 75 and over is 17%.

I was in Copenhagen a couple of weeks ago, and it struck me straight away how many elderly people were cycling around the place.

With regard to segragated cycling, I'm not sure I agree with it, except for maybe on major dual carriageways. Putting a kerb between the cycle path and the road will result in moving at the speed of the slowest bike at peak times - maybe some tourist on a hired bike - and there would be nowhere to overtake. Hence faster cyclists would use the road anyway

bambergbike

Surveyor11 wrote: »

I don't know, does it? The Dutch and the Germans have largely segregated infrastructure and I would see them as good examples of how cyclists can operate safely (Strictly in my own opinion).

The Dutch have high-quality segregated infrastructure and it works. Where the modal share for cycling is high, politicians and planners can justify allocating space and money to high-capacity, efficient cycling infrastructure.

Germany is often mentioned as an example of a Northern European country with segregated infrastructure, but much of it isn't Dutch-style, high-quality infrastructure, and there has been a lot of disillusionment with it over the years. In fact, Germany has increasingly been shifting towards more "vehicular" forms of cycling, or at least towards "softer" segregation such as painted lanes on roads rather than raised cycle tracks adjacent to footpaths.
Vehicular cycling actually works out quite well in Germany where it is allowed; German drivers are quite good around cyclists and tend to drive according to the conditions.

This isn't just wishful thinking on my part, coming from the perspective of somebody who often finds cycling on roads much more relaxing than cycling on cycle paths: it's increasingly becoming mainstream. The German Insurance Association (GDV) has an accident research unit, and they have this to say on cycling facilities (my highlighting):

"The volume of cycling traffic in German cities continues to rise. However, more cycling traffic also means more conflicts with cyclists and more accidents involving cyclists. Cyclists account for one in eight fatalities and one in five serious injuries on German roads. To improve the safety of cycling and ensure that this improvement is sustained in the future, a wide variety of measures are required. On the one hand, the cycling infrastructure – preferably on the road itself – has to be designed in such a way that it can be used safely. On the other, it is necessary to improve behavior on the roads, compliance with the rules of the road and the consideration shown by and towards cyclists."

I think that's probably a fair summary of the consensus that is now emerging among planners in Germany (after cyclists complained for years about the crap they were expected to put up with.)

The same organization spells out what is behind the new approach to planning for cyclists:

"Demographic change, greater numbers of cyclists and the rising number of electric-assist bicycles on the roads will lead to more bicycles on the roads, more senior citizens on bicycles and bicycles moving at higher speeds. Measures to improve the safety of cycling are therefore indispensable to prevent this politically desirable development from resulting in a rising number of fatalities and casualties."

You will see lots of segregation if you travel in Germany, but much of it, especially in urban areas with frequent junctions, is old infrastructure that doesn't meet current design guidelines. Some of it won't need refurbishing or replacing for years, so it could be a while before infrastructure on the ground catches up with German thinking on infrastructure (legislation, guidelines, standards). But the dogma - if not the reality - is essentially that bicycles are vehicles and belong on the carriageway except in quite specific, high-risk situations that merit the use of segregation.