Radical Solutions to Protect Cyclists

Jawgap

Article from the Beeb in the wake of the recent deaths of cyclists in London.

Eight solutions - admittedly radical are proposed - to help protect cyclists in London, but could probably apply to most urban environment. The eight are.....

1. Bicycle licences and even number plates
2. Ban vehicles [lorries] from city centres
3. Allow cyclists to jump red lights
4. Cycle on pavements
5. Ban headphones
6. Body armour
7. Elevated cycling routes
8. Scrap traffic lights and road signs altogether

Some are impractical (1), some questionable (4,5 & 6), one is probable uneconomical on anything other than a small scale (7), others need a lot of work to be practical long term (2 and 8) - but I reckon 3 had potential.

Chips Lovell

If most of the deaths involved lorries and buses, I think any measures should be focussed on that.

RayCun

Allowing cyclists to turn left on red (or go straight on red in some junctions) could work, but you have to take pedestrian crossings into account.

Cookie_Monster

RayCun wrote: »

Allowing cyclists to turn left on red (or go straight on red in some junctions) could work, but you have to take pedestrian crossings into account.

allowing everyone to do it would make more sense.

4. Cycle on pavements

maybe a little safer for cyclists but hugely more dangerous for pedestrians

8. Scrap traffic lights and road signs altogether

if that an actual serious suggestion I'd follow it with this:
9. Ban cars, buses, trucks and bikes altogether; get the tube or walk.
:pac:

jimmycrackcorm

No. 3 should be allow cyclists behave like pedestrians.

RayCun

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

allowing everyone to do it would make more sense.

so when do pedestrians cross?

rollingscone

Mandatory fitness tests to drive vehicles in the city, should reduce driver numbers by about 90%

NeedMoreGears

I'd like to see more emphasis on the near miss events. It seems to me that a near miss is not generally regarded as a bad thing ; a "no harm no foul" attitude appears to be prevalent. Perhaps there should be some form of sanctions for stupid behaviour that could have led to serious outcomes but didn't

We already have similar sanctions for speeding - even though in the vast majority of cases no harm has come from people speeding. Society has clearly decided that although speeding does not result in an injury every time someone speeds, the chance of a bad outcome is sufficiently high to warrant the imposition of speed limits backed up by sanctions and reasonably significant enforcement resources.

Why not the same for close passes, undertaking a turning vehicle etc etc

blorg

The idea with getting rid of traffic lights and road signs is that it removes the concept of right of way and forces people to pay more attention to what they are doing rather than just breezing through "because I have right of way." It can be effective on smaller streets.

See shared space which is a related concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

blorg

RayCun wrote: »

so when do pedestrians cross?

When there isn't anyone turning left? I think in most jurisdictions that allow it drivers are meant to yield to pedestrians anyway. Honestly many countries allow this, including the one I'm in at the moment (Thailand) and it helps traffic flow without causing any major problems.

Brian?

blorg wrote: »

When there isn't anyone turning left? I think in most jurisdictions that allow it drivers are meant to yield to pedestrians anyway. Honestly many countries allow this, including the one I'm in at the moment (Thailand) and it helps traffic flow without causing any major problems.

Right on red seems to be pretty standard in North America, apart from Montreal. Montreal is populated by the worst drivers I've ever encountered.

When turning right on red, the rule is that you come to a complete stop at the light, treating it like a stop sign and then turn. Always giving way to pedestrians.
In Arizona, you gave way to a pedestrian who was half way or nearer crossing the road. It works extremely well.

Left on red in Ireland is a no brainer to me.

Hrududu

Brian? wrote: »

Right on red seems to be pretty standard in North America, apart from Montreal. Montreal is populated by the worst drivers I've ever encountered.

When turning right on red, the rule is that you come to a complete stop at the light, treating it like a stop sign and then turn. Always giving way to pedestrians.
In Arizona, you gave way to a pedestrian who was half way or nearer crossing the road. It works extremely well.

Left on red in Ireland is a no brainer to me.

I was just going to say this. They turn right on red in the states but the pedestrian has right of way. They stop on the red light and proceed if the way is clear. Which would make a lot of sense to me

John_C

They've got something similar in Melbourne (& presumably the rest of Oz). Pedestrians have right of way over turning vehicles at all junctions. Where there are lights, this means that pedestrians can get a green man to cross but cars can still make a turn, once they yield to the pedestrians.

kuro_man

CEMEX have fitted near-side proximity sensors down the sides of their lorries, which will pick up any movement along the left-hand side of the vehicle. When it detects movement, a warning bleeping sound is emitted to alert the cyclist and an audible warning repeatedly alerts: “Caution. Truck turning.” As well, there is signage along the sides and rear of the vehicle: “Caution when coming up left of the vehicle.” A front blind-side mirror enables the driver to see cyclists and pedestrians directly at the front of the cab.

Up to 2004, at least one person a year was either killed or suffered life-changing injuries from collisions with CEMEX trucks. Since then, with the safety features installed, there have been no deaths or injuries.

http://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/cycling-death-uk-mom-takes-on-global-giant-and-wins/

petethedrummer

8. Scrap traffic lights and road signs altogether

This gets my vote. They should start by making all traffic lights flashing amber between the hours of 19:00 and 07:00.

loyatemu

petethedrummer wrote: »

8. Scrap traffic lights and road signs altogether

This gets my vote. They should start by making all traffic lights flashing amber between the hours of 19:00 and 07:00.

1900 is too early, 2100 maybe. Put main roads onto permanent green and side roads on flashing amber so normal priority/yield rules apply.

Or just turn them all off - traffic lights help traffic flow for only about 20% of the day, the rest of the time they make it worse.

I'd be in favour of cyclists treating red-lights as "Yield" (maybe not at crossroads, but in most other circumstances). Bikes aren't cars or trucks, there should be more recognition of this in the ROTR which are generally written with motorised vehicle in mind.

disco1

No 7 would only work... But the cost would mean it s a non runner.

browsing

disco1 wrote: »

No 7 would only work... But the cost would mean it s a non runner.

Ok, Ok, I get it!

Tenzor07

1. Bicycle licences and even number plates
2. Ban vehicles [lorries] from city centres
3. Allow cyclists to jump red lights
4. Cycle on pavements
5. Ban headphones
6. Body armour
7. Elevated cycling routes
8. Scrap traffic lights and road signs altogether

Funny!

1. What a joke, another barrier to getting people cycling!
Gard: "Excuse me Sir, may I see your bicycle licence?
Kid: But I'm only 6yrs old

2. Already pretty much done in Dublin.

3. Pavements and cycle lanes are all the one in Ireland it seems!

4. Might be a case for this, though is having one earphone in any worse than a thumping car stereo or someone on a "hands-free" mobile phone kit in terms of distraction?

5. Body Armour... :eek: :rolleyes: your having a laugh!?

6. Elevated cycling routes... Sure, so long as they are beside main routes and not on some backroad/street in order just to move cyclists away from "delaying cars"

7. I was going to say have bicycle specific lights.. but looking at the Grand Canal route i think it would just add more confusion at junctions/pedestrian crossings?

daragh_

7. Elevated cycling routes

That's more of a Shelbyville idea.

Lusk_Doyle

Brian? wrote: »

Right on red seems to be pretty standard in North America, apart from Montreal. Montreal is populated by the worst drivers I've ever encountered.

When turning right on red, the rule is that you come to a complete stop at the light, treating it like a stop sign and then turn. Always giving way to pedestrians.
In Arizona, you gave way to a pedestrian who was half way or nearer crossing the road. It works extremely well.

Left on red in Ireland is a no brainer to me.

That's the gasoline industry lobby at it's most effective to keep you sitting that little bit longer with the engine ticking over!

Lusk_Doyle

browsing wrote: »

Ok, Ok, I get it!

The man clearly has a stutter or a serious case of OCD! :pac:

Budawanny

What numpty suggested body armour.
there is no material no to mankind or any other species kind that will protect you against 80 tons of lorry.

Lusk_Doyle

Budawanny wrote: »

What numpty suggested body armour.
there is no material no to mankind or any other species kind that will protect you against 80 tons of lorry.

Wanna bet?

Budawanny

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Wanna bet?

if its anything like that link then yeah , ill take that bet

Lusk_Doyle

Budawanny wrote: »

if its anything like that link then yeah , ill take that bet

What's wrong with the link?

Budawanny

it appears to be broken.. and im curious as to what this yoke could be!
specifically "Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator"

Lusk_Doyle

Budawanny wrote: »

it appears to be broken..
specifically "Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator"

Strange. I can see the photo. Here it is again anyway.

Budawanny

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Strange. I can see the photo. Here it is again anyway.

hahhaha. hate when im wrong.!

Puggy

Option 2 exists in London already. The problem is its a night time ban, so the solution is to allow trucks at night, but not in rush hour.

Someone already mentioned the Cemex example, which resulted from a campaign by a lady who's daughter was killed in an accident. That's an example of a forward looking company.

Turn left on red needs to be implemented, once cyclists understand pedestrians would still gave right of way.

gallag

Cyclists to take more responsibility, stop pretending that they are in team sky and slow down, it's not a race and that applies to cars/vans also I.e waiting to safely overtake bikers, if cars can wait do cyclists really need to be undertaking lorry's? I know this won't be popular but it's a solution that does not get mentioned, a lot of cyclists get the racing skins on and treat their journey to work like a personal time trail putting all road users at risk.

Tenzor07

I wouldn't single out cyclists as a group who treat there commute to work as a personal time trial... that could just as easily apply to any vehicle user...

daragh_

gallag wrote: »

Cyclists to take more responsibility, stop pretending that they are in team sky and slow down, it's not a race and that applies to cars/vans also I.e waiting to safely overtake bikers, if cars can wait do cyclists really need to be undertaking lorry's? I know this won't be popular but it's a solution that does not get mentioned, a lot of cyclists get the racing skins on and treat their journey to work like a personal time trail putting all road users at risk.

Most of the people I see undertaking HGV's and buses are 'everyday' commuters. In my experience cyclists in 'racing skins' are happy to sit and wait until traffic clears and they have a clear road to be awesome.

kenmc

gallag wrote: »

Cyclists to take more responsibility, stop pretending that they are in team sky and slow down, it's not a race and that applies to cars/vans also I.e waiting to safely overtake bikers, if cars can wait do cyclists really need to be undertaking lorry's? I know this won't be popular but it's a solution that does not get mentioned, a lot of cyclists get the racing skins on and treat their journey to work like a personal time trail putting all road users at risk.

You clearly don't commuter race very successfully.

johnam

Jawgap wrote: »

Article from the Beeb in the wake of the recent deaths of cyclists in London.

Eight solutions - admittedly radical are proposed - to help protect cyclists in London, but could probably apply to most urban environment. The eight are.....

1. Bicycle licences and even number plates
2. Ban vehicles [lorries] from city centres
3. Allow cyclists to jump red lights
4. Cycle on pavements
5. Ban headphones
6. Body armour
7. Elevated cycling routes
8. Scrap traffic lights and road signs altogether

Some are impractical (1), some questionable (4,5 & 6), one is probable uneconomical on anything other than a small scale (7), others need a lot of work to be practical long term (2 and 8) - but I reckon 3 had potential.

I think 3 has potential also, but not as it is worded there. We already have lots of junctions with bicycle area across the front of them. These junctions could easily be fitted with a second green light designed for bikes. If this is fitted in conjunction with a camera, it could be set to recognise when a cyclist is present in the box, and give them a green light 5 or maybe 6 seconds in advance of the traffic behind. If no cyclist is present it could go straight to green for the motorised traffic. This still gives the safety of not allowing people to jump red lights, gives the protection pedestrians need, and also gives the cyclist the head start they really need to get away from the traffic.

apart from that and banning earphones, I don't think any of the others are workable. Although, banning trucks at peak commute times is possibly a runner (not all day though)

Chips Lovell

gallag wrote: »

Cyclists to take more responsibility, stop pretending that they are in team sky and slow down, it's not a race and that applies to cars/vans also I.e waiting to safely overtake bikers, if cars can wait do cyclists really need to be undertaking lorry's? I know this won't be popular but it's a solution that does not get mentioned, a lot of cyclists get the racing skins on and treat their journey to work like a personal time trail putting all road users at risk.

It's not just the folks treating it like a race. You see some fairly slow moving punters taking similar risks. Out of blind ignorance rather than any big rush.

HivemindXX

Quite a few people seem to dislike the right on red rule in the US. There was a junction on a previous commute which had a left turn phase and I would often see cars go through on red (the green straight ahead only arrow probably confused them). If there were pedestrians crossing they would sometimes get on their horns. Basically, I don't trust people to behave well. If they are told they can turn right on red but only if...they will just hear the first part.

Here's a video of people not stopping before they turn right on red in California.
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2013/traffic-running-red-lights-santa-clara-california/

donkey balls

On most trucks & trailers there is a sign which states on the back of the truck ,DO NOT PASS ON THE INSIDE IF TRUCK IS TURNING LEFT.
The Cemex one sounds interesting,But while most trucks these days have audible warning devices to warn pedestrians about a vehicle reversing the majority of pedestrians still walk in and around while the vehicle is moving.:mad:
The industry I work in means that my self and the RSA would be in contact regarding legislation and other matters that concerns transport & logistics ops,Maybe a few on here including myself could contact the RSA regarding the video they made getting some air time on tv.
What I would like to see is a system were by school children and other road users get a chance to be in and around a truck/bus to see what the driver can and cannot see.
As for the ban on hgv it will never happen.

Positive_Rate

When you think of regulating cyclists, you have to picture couriers who really are under pressure and for them there is a real equation between Spedd+disregard=profit
I've done some really stupid things both cycling and driving and regret them but to allow the kind of deregulation mentioned above is pie in the sky really.

Cookie_Monster

Positive_Rate wrote: »

When you think of regulating cyclists, you have to picture couriers who really are under pressure and for them there is a real equation between Speed+disregard=profit

these guys give every cyclist a bad name and figuring out how to deal with them would no doubt go a long way to reducing injuries and death on the roads.
Some of the clips posted from various cities of these guys racing through traffic is beyond belief.

Hrududu

donkey balls wrote: »

On most trucks & trailers there is a sign which states on the back of the truck ,DO NOT PASS ON THE INSIDE IF TRUCK IS TURNING LEFT.

I think the problem with this is a lot of the time the truck doesn't indicate that they are turning left. I've gotten to the point where even if the truck isn't indicating I won't go up the inside of it if we're near a junction.

I once had an incident where a truck sitting in a right turn lane suddenly decided to switch into my lane without any indication. By the time he started to move I was in his blind spot. Luckily I had space to veer left but I'm just so wary of them now.

seamus

Hrududu wrote: »

I think the problem with this is a lot of the time the truck doesn't indicate that they are turning left. I've gotten to the point where even if the truck isn't indicating I won't go up the inside of it if we're near a junction.

Observing the actions of casual cyclists on the roads, the explanation isn't that the lots of trucks don't indicate left it's that lots of idiots don't pay attention.

Every day I see at least one person shooting down the left-hand side of a left-turning vehicle. Usually it's a car and thankfully I haven't seen any hits yet, but plenty of near misses avoided either by the cyclist panicking or the driver jamming on.

That's not to say that it never happens that a truck unexpectedly turns left of course, but I think it would be wrong to say that most of the time it's caused by trucks not indicating.

donkey balls

I have to say people that do not use indicators at junctions does my head in,Regardless if they are driving a car, bus or truck.
Depending on the road width a truck turning left would need to use the right hand lane in order to get around the corner,But what I have seen when out on the road was cars flying up the inside of a truck thats asking for trouble.

Jawgap

gallag wrote: »

Cyclists to take more responsibility, stop pretending that they are in team sky and slow down, it's not a race and that applies to cars/vans also I.e waiting to safely overtake bikers, if cars can wait do cyclists really need to be undertaking lorry's? I know this won't be popular but it's a solution that does not get mentioned, a lot of cyclists get the racing skins on and treat their journey to work like a personal time trail putting all road users at risk.

Probably sums up, quite well, the respective thought processes of different road users......

Chips Lovell

I'd wager that graphic was composed by someone who doesn't drive.

Lumen

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'd wager that graphic was composed by someone who doesn't drive.

They left out some thought processes for cyclists too.

"Red light - LOL"
"This is a great way to travel, and I'm not even paying road tax!"
"Amn't I so brilliant, riding my child's toy. Wheee!"
"TdF for me next year FO SHO!"
"This lycra makes me feel so gay, and I like that feeling"

Jawgap

Under this article

New rural speed sign shows challenge of 90,000km network

Was this particularly radical f%ckin bonkers idea to improve road safety - presumably for all road users.......

FrankChaney1 hour ago
When we stop cyclists (who don't obey any rules of the road) from dictating the rules for motorists, then and only then will get entirely safe roads. You need a licence to drive a car, but any fool can get up on a bike and cause havoc.
(sorry in advance to any intelligent cyclist who obeys the rule, but you are in a tiny minority)

cdaly_

Hrududu wrote: »

I once had an incident where a truck sitting in a right turn lane suddenly decided to switch into my lane without any indication. By the time he started to move I was in his blind spot. Luckily I had space to veer left but I'm just so wary of them now.

Yesterday morning I was behind a left-turning truck. The truck (indicating) pulled up at the lights in the straight-ahead lane, leaving the left filter lane empty. I waited behind. As the truck was turning, the rear wheels entered and crossed the top of the left filter lane so it was clear that it needed all that road space.

If I hadn't been paying attention, I'd have happily cycled up an empty left filter lane expecting that the truck was going straight ahead.

HivemindXX

Jawgap wrote: »

Under this article

New rural speed sign shows challenge of 90,000km network

Was this particularly radical f%ckin bonkers idea to improve road safety - presumably for all road users.......

FrankChaney1 hour ago
When we stop cyclists (who don't obey any rules of the road) from dictating the rules for motorists, then and only then will get entirely safe roads. You need a licence to drive a car, but any fool can get up on a bike and cause havoc.
(sorry in advance to any intelligent cyclist who obeys the rule, but you are in a tiny minority)

Wow. I didn't realise that cyclists were responsible for all road deaths. Sure, every time a cyclist is killed it is totally their own fault for existing, but all those accidents where motorists slam in to pedestrians, or cross the centre line and hit an oncoming car head on or slide off the road in to a tree are caused by us too?