Another Cycle Lane Letter

After yet another driver making a point of passing dangerously close
when I chose not to use a cycle lane I finally got round to drafting a
letter to East Dunbartonshire Council regarding one of their cycle
farcilities. With his permission I stole some of Bob Downie's letter
to Glasgow City Council regarding the new cycle lanes in Kilmarnock
Road. For a picture of the farcility in question See
www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/

Anyway my first draft is below. Any suggestions as improvement welcome
Iain


Corporate Director (Environment)
East Dunbartonshire Council
Tom Johnston House
Civic Way
Kirkintilloch
G66 4TJ

Dear Sir
Cycle Lane on Milngavie Road
I am writing to you about the northbound cycle lane on Milngavie Road
, Bearsden,
It is a rule of the road for car drivers that you give parked vehicles
a reasonable margin when passing, so that in the event of a vehicle
occupant unexpectedly opening an offside door, no collision will occur.
Indeed, one may fail a driving test for not doing so. A similar
principle applies to cycles. It is accepted by those working in cycle
safety that cyclists should give a similar wide berth to parked
vehicles for identical reasons. The government approved text
"Cyclecraft"* (page66) suggests 1.5m/5ft as a minimum clearance. In the
case of cyclists the need to maintain a wide berth is even more
pressing than for cars, as the risks of personal injury are higher than
to a car driver.
. In view of the simple necessity to maintain a margin, I am
puzzled as to how I am to safely use the northbound cycle lane on
Milngavie Road. The lane varies between 1m and 1.2 m in width. Between
Manse Road and Mosshead Road the lane is placed immediately to the
right of parked vehicles with little or no gap. In fact the open door
of a car parked just south of Mosshead Road takes up the full width of
the adjacent cycle lane which is 1m in width at that point.
(Photograph enclosed) This means there is no point in the lane being
there as it is not safe to use it. This, the narrowest section of the
cycle lane, also follows a downhill section meaning cycling speeds are
higher and the consequences of a crash caused by an opening door are
more likely to be serious. Aside from any injury caused by the impact
with the open door cyclists involved in these types of collisions are
frequently thrown into the path of following traffic with fatal
consequences.

The cycle lane has the side effect of giving some drivers the
perception that a cyclist using the main traffic lane (to get enough
clearance from parked cars) should not be there. This sometimes results
in drivers behaving aggressively towards the cyclist. In other words
the situation for cyclists is worse than if the lane was not there at
all.

To conclude, I would be grateful if you would provide responses to the
following questions.
What design guides or standards did you employ when designing the cycle
routes? The route was clearly not designed using the Scottish
Executive's guidance on cycle facility design
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-00.asp) which stipulates a
minimum lane width of 1.5m (Table 5.1) and an absolute minimum of 0.5
metres between the outside of the parking bay and the inside of the
cycle lane (Figure 5.4 and Table 5.3).
How do you feel that the finished cycle lanes enhance the safety of the
cyclists that use them? In particular I would be grateful if you could
provide a copy of the official Safety Audit that was carried prior to
the implementation of these lanes.·
Given the discrepancies between safe riding, for example as described
in Cyclecraft, and the present layout of the lanes in question, how can
the lanes now be improved?
Yours sincerely,

*Cyclecraft (The definitive guide to skilled cycling technique),

wrote:
After yet another driver making a point of passing dangerously close
when I chose not to use a cycle lane I finally got round to drafting a
letter to East Dunbartonshire Council regarding one of their cycle
farcilities. With his permission I stole some of Bob Downie's letter
to Glasgow City Council regarding the new cycle lanes in Kilmarnock
Road. For a picture of the farcility in question See
www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/

Anyway my first draft is below. Any suggestions as improvement welcome
Iain


Corporate Director (Environment)
East Dunbartonshire Council
Tom Johnston House
Civic Way
Kirkintilloch
G66 4TJ

Dear Sir
Cycle Lane on Milngavie Road
I am writing to you about the northbound cycle lane on Milngavie Road
, Bearsden,
It is a rule of the road for car drivers that you give parked vehicles
a reasonable margin when passing, so that in the event of a vehicle
occupant unexpectedly opening an offside door, no collision will occur.
Indeed, one may fail a driving test for not doing so. A similar
principle applies to cycles. It is accepted by those working in cycle
safety that cyclists should give a similar wide berth to parked
vehicles for identical reasons. The government approved text
"Cyclecraft"* (page66) suggests 1.5m/5ft as a minimum clearance. In the
case of cyclists the need to maintain a wide berth is even more
pressing than for cars, as the risks of personal injury are higher than
to a car driver.
. In view of the simple necessity to maintain a margin, I am
puzzled as to how I am to safely use the northbound cycle lane on
Milngavie Road. The lane varies between 1m and 1.2 m in width. Between
Manse Road and Mosshead Road the lane is placed immediately to the
right of parked vehicles with little or no gap. In fact the open door
of a car parked just south of Mosshead Road takes up the full width of
the adjacent cycle lane which is 1m in width at that point.
(Photograph enclosed) This means there is no point in the lane being
there as it is not safe to use it. This, the narrowest section of the
cycle lane, also follows a downhill section meaning cycling speeds are
higher and the consequences of a crash caused by an opening door are
more likely to be serious. Aside from any injury caused by the impact
with the open door cyclists involved in these types of collisions are
frequently thrown into the path of following traffic with fatal
consequences.

The cycle lane has the side effect of giving some drivers the
perception that a cyclist using the main traffic lane (to get enough
clearance from parked cars) should not be there. This sometimes results
in drivers behaving aggressively towards the cyclist. In other words
the situation for cyclists is worse than if the lane was not there at
all.

To conclude, I would be grateful if you would provide responses to the
following questions.
What design guides or standards did you employ when designing the cycle
routes? The route was clearly not designed using the Scottish
Executive's guidance on cycle facility design
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-00.asp) which stipulates a
minimum lane width of 1.5m (Table 5.1) and an absolute minimum of 0.5
metres between the outside of the parking bay and the inside of the
cycle lane (Figure 5.4 and Table 5.3).
How do you feel that the finished cycle lanes enhance the safety of the
cyclists that use them? In particular I would be grateful if you could
provide a copy of the official Safety Audit that was carried prior to
the implementation of these lanes.·
Given the discrepancies between safe riding, for example as described
in Cyclecraft, and the present layout of the lanes in question, how can
the lanes now be improved?
Yours sincerely,

*Cyclecraft (The definitive guide to skilled cycling technique),


That is a quality letter, especially cos there's an identical cycle
lane he

http://tinyurl.com/ybbkfe

Cycle in the lane but away from the doors and you get bibbed by ****s,
one of whom swerved toward me when he eventually undertook.

In article .com
wrote:
snip
provide a copy of the official Safety Audit that was carried prior to
^
out

Rob Morley wrote:
In article .com
wrote:
snip
provide a copy of the official Safety Audit that was carried prior to
^
out

I think that the OPs letter is beautifully crafted.

Perhaps he will consider one to the relevant police authorities
enquiring about the errant drivers that are mentioned. What to
enquire about them I shall leave to you since you seem to
be much better at chosing such material than I am.

OH dear! - rant has developed below:-

I have stopped cycling on the road due to the discomfort
caused by the threats that are offered. I know that the numbers
say that it is pretty safe however I simply find being put
in needlessly dangerous positions every few minutes (London
busses mostly on my most recent routes) to be beyond
my tolerance.

On the bright side I can not previously recall such public debate
regarding road safety as is presently the case regarding cycling
and there seems to be to be some hope that the practise driving
5 tons of bus containing nearly 100 passengers at a defeceless
cyclist or pedestrian in the name of personal
gratification will become an unacceptable and effectively criminal
practise.

It seems to me that even a Daily Mail style rant telling them to
get their helmets on is a good thing since perhaps a critical
mass of people are now able to see such statements for
what they truely are - A coldly calculated attack on a minority
group designed to create bonding and good cheer among the
baying crowd.

I have recently formed the idea that the Criminal Justice
System is Institutionally Motorist, a view that appears to have been
supported by the recent Cyclist Causing Obstruction case and
that this is the reason that motorised vehicle drivers are
at present able to threaten a significant proportion
of the population with death on such regular basis.

Compare the difference in reaction of the Police between you
complaining that a bus driver had just whizzed by 6 inches
off your handlebar and that you felt that this had been threatning
and their reaction to information that there was a jolly nice
man in the high street firing a shotgun in the air in apparent
celebration. Vehicles are not seen as the instruments of death
and injury that they are and their drivers are seen as intrinsically
marvellous people.

wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:
In article .com
wrote:
snip
provide a copy of the official Safety Audit that was carried prior to
^
out

I think that the OPs letter is beautifully crafted.

Perhaps he will consider one to the relevant police authorities
enquiring about the errant drivers that are mentioned. What to
enquire about them I shall leave to you since you seem to
be much better at chosing such material than I am.

OH dear! - rant has developed below:-

I have stopped cycling on the road due to the discomfort
caused by the threats that are offered. I know that the numbers
say that it is pretty safe however I simply find being put
in needlessly dangerous positions every few minutes (London
busses mostly on my most recent routes) to be beyond
my tolerance.

On the bright side I can not previously recall such public debate
regarding road safety as is presently the case regarding cycling
and there seems to be to be some hope that the practise driving
5 tons of bus containing nearly 100 passengers at a defeceless
cyclist or pedestrian in the name of personal
gratification will become an unacceptable and effectively criminal
practise.

It seems to me that even a Daily Mail style rant telling them to
get their helmets on is a good thing since perhaps a critical
mass of people are now able to see such statements for
what they truely are - A coldly calculated attack on a minority
group designed to create bonding and good cheer among the
baying crowd.

I have recently formed the idea that the Criminal Justice
System is Institutionally Motorist, a view that appears to have been
supported by the recent Cyclist Causing Obstruction case and
that this is the reason that motorised vehicle drivers are
at present able to threaten a significant proportion
of the population with death on such regular basis.

Compare the difference in reaction of the Police between you
complaining that a bus driver had just whizzed by 6 inches
off your handlebar and that you felt that this had been threatning
and their reaction to information that there was a jolly nice
man in the high street firing a shotgun in the air in apparent
celebration. Vehicles are not seen as the instruments of death
and injury that they are and their drivers are seen as intrinsically
marvellous people.

Quality post.

In article .com
wrote:

Rob Morley wrote:
In article .com
wrote:
snip
provide a copy of the official Safety Audit that was carried prior to
^
out

I think that the OPs letter is beautifully crafted.

OP said "Any suggestions as improvement welcome". I pointed out he'd
dropped a word. I couldn't find fault with the rest.

Rob Morley said the following on 29/11/2006 12:19:
In article .com

wrote:
I think that the OPs letter is beautifully crafted.

OP said "Any suggestions as improvement welcome". I pointed out he'd
dropped a word. I couldn't find fault with the rest.

I don't think Bod43 was criticising your post. I just read it as he
happened to choose your post to follow up on.

I might be wrong, of course!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On 28 Nov 2006 09:47:02 -0800 someone who may be
" wrote this:-

The government approved text "Cyclecraft"*

Is it? If so which department approved it?

(page66) suggests 1.5m/5ft as a minimum clearance.

I wonder if the page numbers are the same in every edition. It might
be better to say something like, "(page 66 in my edition dated
2006)".

However, it is a really good letter.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article
Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet wrote:
Rob Morley said the following on 29/11/2006 12:19:
In article .com

wrote:
I think that the OPs letter is beautifully crafted.

OP said "Any suggestions as improvement welcome". I pointed out he'd
dropped a word. I couldn't find fault with the rest.

I don't think Bod43 was criticising your post. I just read it as he
happened to choose your post to follow up on.

It struck me as a strange choice for a FU, as it contained only one line
of the OP. Then I looked at his headers and all became clear. :-)

David Hansen wrote:
On 28 Nov 2006 09:47:02 -0800 someone who may be
" wrote this:-

The government approved text "Cyclecraft"*

Is it? If so which department approved it?

(page66) suggests 1.5m/5ft as a minimum clearance.

I wonder if the page numbers are the same in every edition. It might
be better to say something like, "(page 66 in my edition dated
2006)".

However, it is a really good letter.



I am going to use the suggestions by David and Robert.
I will remove - "The government approved text
"Cyclecraft"* (page66)"

and replace with - " "Cyclecraft" (a manual of skilled cycling
techniques for adults)."

and of course add "out" where I missed it.

Also change references in the last paragraph from "lanes" to "lane".

Hopefully the photo showing an open door blocking the entire cycle
lane and the fact the lane falls woefully short of the Scottish design
standards will get the message over.
Iain