|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
[Note: I have not been on Blackfriars bridge, and the article seems
quite vague on the "problem" with this particular cycle lane....] Scandal of our deadly cycle lanes The dangerous road layout that has claimed one life in London is now being promoted across the country as a model of good design Mark Townsend Sunday May 23, 2004 The Observer Vicki McCreery had predicted the journey home might kill her. Days before she was crushed by a five-ton bus, she had told friends a new cycle lane over Blackfriars bridge in London would claim lives. As hundreds of people gathered for her funeral in north London yesterday, relatives demanded to know why a lane meant to protect cyclists from other road users had cost the 37-year-old physiotherapist her life. The lane had been in place barely two weeks before she died almost instantly following a rush-hour collision near the crest of the bridge. Safety campaigners are stunned that permission was granted for a narrow cycle lane sandwiched between two fast-moving carriageways and one of London's busiest bus routes. Worse still, a steady convoy of buses is allowed to veer across the thin path reserved for cyclists. As McCreery forecast, a fatality was inevitable. Her death has already become emblematic for groups which claim the tragedy exposes the hypocrisy behind government initiatives to raise the number of cyclists. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has promised a 200 per cent increase by 2010, a figure already dismissed as too ambitious. Failure to convert more people to two wheels is blamed largely on the introduction of lanes similar to that on which McCreery died. Those cyclists courageous enough to use Blackfriars bridge admit to shuddering as they reach its northbound approaches. As McCreery would have done in her final moments, they talk of feeling intensely exposed as dense commuter traffic flashes by on their right while buses undercut them on their left. 'She felt intimidated by the new crossing. She was extremely concerned about her safety, but it was the only route she could cycle home,' said a friend. Despite the design's obvious risks, it has emerged that the layout at Blackfriars is encouraged by the government - recommended as a best practice design in traffic advisory leaflets distributed to local councils. Road safety groups claim similar layouts, described as 'death traps' by users, are being rolled out across Britain. Near-identical replicas of the design can be found from Bristol to Brighton. Residents near each site are amazed that tragic accidents have not happened yet. Their warnings of more deaths may prove fruitless. More than 14 months ago safety campaigners warned Transport for London that changes to the Blackfriars cycle lane could prove dangerous and might not solve the route's inherent danger. They cited the case of grandfather Kim Thi, who died 15 months ago after being struck by a motorbike at almost the exact point where a bunch of tulips now marks the place where Vicki McCreery died. Shortly before her death, she had seen a fellow cyclist knocked off her bike by a bus. McCreery, the senior physiotherapist at St Thomas' Hospital, south London, offered to be a witness for the shaken but fortunate fellow cyclist. In other European countries similar collisions are unlikely. Denmark and Holland are among those offering cyclists segregated tracks. High kerbs and special filter lanes ensure traffic cannot get near them. Failure to mimic such designs partly explains, say road safety groups, why UK cyclists are 10 times more likely to be killed or injured than those in Denmark. Danish cyclists would find it astonishing that UK law still allows motorists to drive on to many cycle lanes. They too might question the continued practice of squeezing such lanes on to busy roads that can barely accommodate two lines of traffic. Such practices, maintain experts, help explain the stream of casualties among British cyclists. This month at least seven have been killed after being struck by traffic. Most stood no chance. The toll is relentless: every two and a half days a cyclist is killed. During the same period 115 are injured. Latest figures reveal that 141 cyclists are killed each year. More than 17,000 are injured. How many of these accident happen in cycle lanes is unclear: the government does not collate such figures. Nor does it have a central database on cycle lane designs which have been condemned as dangerous. Roger Geffen, campaigns manager at the national cycling body, the Cyclists' Touring Club, said a cultural shift was needed so that local authorities considered cycle lanes more carefully. They had 'been left to the most junior planning officers, and we need better guidance on dealing with major junctions.' Tony Russell, who advises councils on safer cycle lanes for the club, said: 'There are situations where designs put the cyclist in a more dangerous position. Most accidents, though, are caused by motorists not being careful.' McCreery's husband, Sandy, knows all too well the risks posed by errant drivers. He runs Middlesex University's MA course in spatial culture and has studied city centre traffic dangers. In an eerily prescient passage he once wrote: 'Allowing hard, heavy speeding vehicles to come into contact with fleshy mortals is a recipe for disaster.' This week he will take his wife's ashes to her native Australia. On his return, he plans to visit Blackfriars bridge for the first time since Vicki died. They married just over a year ago and had talked of starting a family. Meanwhile, experts from Transport for London will go on investigating whether the new layout, initially verified in an independent safety audit, needs updating. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the solution.
Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Nathaniel Porter wrote:
I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used and you don't have the right to ride on the road. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
"MSeries" wrote in message ... Nathaniel Porter wrote: I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Which is wrong IMHO. IIRC Ireland has similar rules. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
MSeries wrote:
Nathaniel Porter wrote: I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used and you don't have the right to ride on the road. This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle farcilities and then vote us off the road altogether. -- Cheerful Pedalling John Mallard |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
"John Mallard" not_me@all wrote:
| MSeries wrote: | Nathaniel Porter wrote: | I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the | solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never | lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means | of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. | | Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used | and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Also in Holland IIRC. | This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will | realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle farcilities | and then vote us off the road altogether. But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up like Holland and Denmark. -- Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
| This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will
| realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle | farcilities and then vote us off the road altogether. But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up like Holland and Denmark. It's 'cos impatient/late buggers like me like to get there at more than 12mph. On my (v. short) commute I try and keep my speed at 20mph. There's no way I could do that on most cycle paths and it would be the height of stupidity to do it on a shared use footpath, even if it was deserted enough to be possible. Added to the reduction in speed negotiating junctions would be more time consuming. On the road I can just do a left turn, right turn or go straight ahead at speed (if nothing coming). On a cyclepath I'd have to slow down a lot/stop to let traffic past and check it was clear when I could just sail past with right of way on the road. I don't find the roads unsafe and do find many cycle lanes off the road too slow to bother with. Trundlies may have a different view I s'pose. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Patrick Herring wrote:
But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up like Holland and Denmark. Bach, Rosbach, Joergensen. Vejdirekforatet, Denmark, 1988 Traffic safety of cycle tracks in Danish cities. Before and after study of 105 new cycle paths in Denmark, introduced 1978-81, totalling 64km. Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction of paths. Wegman, Dijkstra. SWOV, Netherlands, 1992. Originally presented to Roads and Traffic 2000 conference, Berlin, 1988; Revised version included in Still more bikes behind the dikes, CROW, 1992. In built-up areas cycle tracks 25% safer than unsegregated road between junctions, but 32% more dangerous at junctions. Cycle lanes 36% more dangerous between junctions, 19% safer at junctions. Seriousness of accidents greater if tracks or lanes present compared with no facilities. Cycle lanes narrower than 1.8m particularly hazardous. Outside towns, cycle track safety depends on car and cycle numbers. New cross-town routes in Den Haag and Tilburg had produced no safety gain and had not encouraged much new cycling. Tony |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Patrick Herring wrote:
"John Mallard" not_me@all wrote: | MSeries wrote: | Nathaniel Porter wrote: | I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the | solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never | lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means | of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. | | Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used | and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Also in Holland IIRC. | This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will | realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle farcilities | and then vote us off the road altogether. But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up like Holland and Denmark. Because if the drivers know there's a cycle lane and you're on the road, they'll hurl abuse at you (get on the cycle path you ****ing ****er etc) and occasionally one'll run you off the road just for good measure... And most off-road cycle ways are bumpier, ruttier, full of glass/thorns/other muck, badly maintained, and force you to cycle very slowly for fear of a reversing out the drive accident, and to stop every time you get to a side road. The condition of the cycle path might be of no consequence to those with suspension or mtb's, but on a tourer they're a bloody pain in the neck to ride any distance at all on. -- Velvet |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Patrick Herring wrote:
"John Mallard" not_me@all wrote: | MSeries wrote: | Nathaniel Porter wrote: | I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the | solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never | lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means | of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. | | Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used | and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Also in Holland IIRC. | This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will | realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle farcilities | and then vote us off the road altogether. But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). Not at all - see the report into, eg, the Milton Keynes off-road bike paths. Crime is higher. Accidents are higher at junctions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
if you wanted maximum braking, where would you sit? | wle | Techniques | 133 | November 18th 15 03:10 AM |
buying my first road bike | Tanya Quinn | General | 28 | June 17th 10 10:42 AM |
Trips for Kids 13th Annual Bike Swap & Sale | Marilyn Price | Marketplace | 0 | June 1st 04 04:52 AM |
Convert Hybrid to Touring bike | Willy Smallboy | Techniques | 23 | March 26th 04 02:03 PM |
FAQ | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 27 | September 5th 03 10:58 PM |