Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise

York pupils at a cycle safety session

York pupils at a cycle safety session

First published in News
Last updated
by

SERIOUS incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads have increased for five years running.

Figures compiled by City of York Council and North Yorkshire County Council show those using bikes are now more likely to be injured on the city’s roads, with the number of crashes doubling in the first seven months of the year when compared to 2013.

One cyclist has already died this year and ten have suffered serious injury between January 1 and July 31, compared to five during the same period last year.

Since 2010, when the total number of people on a bike being hurt year was 123, the figure has risen to 124 in 2011, 139 in 2012 and 148 in 2013.

In North Yorkshire, there was a 30 per cent rise in crashes, from 26 to 34, in just two years, according to the county council’s statistics.

Almost half of these incidents required the victim being taken to A&E or a stay in hospital for treatment.

And with more people expected to get in the saddle following the success of the Tour de France Grand Depart, City of York Council are stepping up efforts to raise awareness of cycling safety.

Tony Clarke, head of transport at City of York Council, said: “According to the most recent Department for Transport figures, released in April 2013, the number of adults cycling once a week in York consistently increases year-on-year from 23 per cent in 2010/11 to 25 per cent in 2011/12, ranking York nationally in the top five cycling cities.

“The council was awarded £4.6million government funding in 2011 towards its i-Travel York campaign which has continued to provide advice and support to cyclists.

“The i-Travel project has supported other council schemes to provide cycle training for children and adults, introduce road safety campaigns specifically targeting the driver and cyclist interaction with vehicle stickers, continue working with younger, less experienced drivers through it’s Momentum scheme and introduce the Road Safety Pledge road campaign.”

The council has also expanded the off-road cycle network, including the new subway under the A1237 on the A59 near Poppleton, is widening cycle lanes and hopes to introduce sessions so bus drivers can learn more about cycling issues.

For more information about the schemes visit www.itravelyork.info

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:09pm Thu 14 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Well, everyone should be sticking to the 20mph limit then. Isn't that right, fellow comments posters?
Well, everyone should be sticking to the 20mph limit then. Isn't that right, fellow comments posters? York2000
  • Score: -24

12:09pm Thu 14 Aug 14

goatman says...

Instead of building a needless cycleway along the ring road, how about putting in a cycle lane between Wigginton and Clifton Moor? There's loads of room there. The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake. There's also been a big subsidence on the cycleway behind the back of Skelton golf course, this has been there for over a year and nobody's done anything about it other than highlight it with yellow paint. I've seen two kiddies go a cropper there recently. If York claims to be a cycle friendly city it should do the job properly.
Instead of building a needless cycleway along the ring road, how about putting in a cycle lane between Wigginton and Clifton Moor? There's loads of room there. The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake. There's also been a big subsidence on the cycleway behind the back of Skelton golf course, this has been there for over a year and nobody's done anything about it other than highlight it with yellow paint. I've seen two kiddies go a cropper there recently. If York claims to be a cycle friendly city it should do the job properly. goatman
  • Score: 43

12:25pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Stevie D says...

goatman wrote:
The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.
That's not necessarily how it works out.

Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave more space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road.
[quote][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.[/quote]That's not necessarily how it works out. Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave [italic]more[/italic] space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road. Stevie D
  • Score: 40

12:31pm Thu 14 Aug 14

jaycee says...

Obviously it's very disappointing to have an increase in serious cycle accidents but what % were the fault of
a) cyclists themselves
b) motorists
c) motor cycles/mopeds
d) pedestrians stepping into the path of cyclists
e) poor quality roads
Only then will we know if cyclists are getting better/worse.
Obviously it's very disappointing to have an increase in serious cycle accidents but what % were the fault of a) cyclists themselves b) motorists c) motor cycles/mopeds d) pedestrians stepping into the path of cyclists e) poor quality roads Only then will we know if cyclists are getting better/worse. jaycee
  • Score: 47

12:40pm Thu 14 Aug 14

gravitydrips says...

As Goatman has already said. It's time to sort out the road surfaces, not just in York, but in the country as a whole. Sick of hearing people in authority constantly mythering people to get on their bikes but then spending nothing on road maintenence. Repairs, cleaning up of debris both in the road and at the roadside and of course drainage. Don't these people realize that a pothole that a car driver barely feels can actually unseat a cyclist? To often I'm forced to enter the flow of traffic to avoid severely sunken kerbside grids, week-old storm debris and huge puddles.
As Goatman has already said. It's time to sort out the road surfaces, not just in York, but in the country as a whole. Sick of hearing people in authority constantly mythering people to get on their bikes but then spending nothing on road maintenence. Repairs, cleaning up of debris both in the road and at the roadside and of course drainage. Don't these people realize that a pothole that a car driver barely feels can actually unseat a cyclist? To often I'm forced to enter the flow of traffic to avoid severely sunken kerbside grids, week-old storm debris and huge puddles. gravitydrips
  • Score: 36

12:55pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Rankled says...

The number of people cycling is going up, and the accident rate is going. This isn't an unexpected turn of events...
The number of people cycling is going up, and the accident rate is going. This isn't an unexpected turn of events... Rankled
  • Score: 52

1:12pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Bo Jolly says...

These statistics are presented in such a dodgy way, mixing up different stats, in different places, over different - some very short - time spans, sometimes using percentages, sometimes bare figures, its impossible to work out what they mean.

It feels as though there's cherry-picking going on to emphasize a particular point:

'Serious incidents' mentioned in first paragraph, supposedly measured over five years but no figures given and only covering York.

'Crashes' and 'injuries' mentioned in the second paragraph, in York and North Yorkshire this time, measured, bizarrely, by comparing the first seven months of this year to the same period last year (why not previous years as well to show the trend?). 'Crashes' and 'injuries' are different things and unclear which is being measured.

Killed and seriously injured mentioned in the third paragraph, measured, again, by comparing the first seven months of this year to the same period last year. Again, no indication given of any longer trend or its relationship with the figures in the previous two paragraphs. Is this York and North Yorkshire again?

People 'hurt' in paragraph four, measured over three years. This presumably includes minor injuries and incidents which didn't involve a 'crash'. Again, we have to assume this is York and North Yorkshire again.

'Crashes' in paragraphs five/six but only in North Yorkshire (not York - why?) measured over two years and less than half required hospital treatment (so clearly not directly related to the 'serious incidents' or the killed/seriously injured stats).

And then in paragraph 8, a brief mention of the increase in 'adults cycling at least once a week', in York only, measured over two years and obviously no use for answering Rankled's point. We need to know how many more miles were cycled over the same period as all these stats to work out whether they are an improvement (statistically) or not...
These statistics are presented in such a dodgy way, mixing up different stats, in different places, over different - some very short - time spans, sometimes using percentages, sometimes bare figures, its impossible to work out what they mean. It feels as though there's cherry-picking going on to emphasize a particular point: 'Serious incidents' mentioned in first paragraph, supposedly measured over five years but no figures given and only covering York. 'Crashes' and 'injuries' mentioned in the second paragraph, in York and North Yorkshire this time, measured, bizarrely, by comparing the first seven months of this year to the same period last year (why not previous years as well to show the trend?). 'Crashes' and 'injuries' are different things and unclear which is being measured. Killed and seriously injured mentioned in the third paragraph, measured, again, by comparing the first seven months of this year to the same period last year. Again, no indication given of any longer trend or its relationship with the figures in the previous two paragraphs. Is this York and North Yorkshire again? People 'hurt' in paragraph four, measured over three years. This presumably includes minor injuries and incidents which didn't involve a 'crash'. Again, we have to assume this is York and North Yorkshire again. 'Crashes' in paragraphs five/six but only in North Yorkshire (not York - why?) measured over two years and less than half required hospital treatment (so clearly not directly related to the 'serious incidents' or the killed/seriously injured stats). And then in paragraph 8, a brief mention of the increase in 'adults cycling at least once a week', in York only, measured over two years and obviously no use for answering Rankled's point. We need to know how many more miles were cycled over the same period as all these stats to work out whether they are an improvement (statistically) or not... Bo Jolly
  • Score: 46

1:27pm Thu 14 Aug 14

sniper 9964 says...

Not surprisingly every cyclist I saw the other day was committing some for of offence. Be it running red lights cycling on pavements or going the wrong way on a one way road.
They are a memace to other road users.
I just wish the police would clamp down on them and not just pretend they have not seen them
Not surprisingly every cyclist I saw the other day was committing some for of offence. Be it running red lights cycling on pavements or going the wrong way on a one way road. They are a memace to other road users. I just wish the police would clamp down on them and not just pretend they have not seen them sniper 9964
  • Score: -6

1:30pm Thu 14 Aug 14

MarkyMarkMark says...

And the Press thought it was a good idea to open this story for comments? Really?
And the Press thought it was a good idea to open this story for comments? Really? MarkyMarkMark
  • Score: 10

1:35pm Thu 14 Aug 14

stevenz23 says...

Stevie D wrote:
goatman wrote:
The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.
That's not necessarily how it works out.

Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave more space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road.
I cycle a lot and I drive a bit. When I drive I often get annoyed with cyclists who make no attempt to tuck into the side of the road.

I know all about kerb potholes but there is no excuse for obstructing traffic by riding almost in the middle of a lane or in large groups all over the road. Its about consideration for other road users.

In any event bikes need segregated lanes. Trucks and bikes dont mix. Money needs to be spent on provision for bikes.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.[/quote]That's not necessarily how it works out. Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave [italic]more[/italic] space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road.[/p][/quote]I cycle a lot and I drive a bit. When I drive I often get annoyed with cyclists who make no attempt to tuck into the side of the road. I know all about kerb potholes but there is no excuse for obstructing traffic by riding almost in the middle of a lane or in large groups all over the road. Its about consideration for other road users. In any event bikes need segregated lanes. Trucks and bikes dont mix. Money needs to be spent on provision for bikes. stevenz23
  • Score: 36

2:05pm Thu 14 Aug 14

laiecmjdjkd says...

Stevie D wrote:
goatman wrote:
The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.
That's not necessarily how it works out.

Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave more space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road.
Spot on, Stevie D. It might be counterintuitive, but it's true.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.[/quote]That's not necessarily how it works out. Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave [italic]more[/italic] space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road.[/p][/quote]Spot on, Stevie D. It might be counterintuitive, but it's true. laiecmjdjkd
  • Score: 17

2:08pm Thu 14 Aug 14

the original Homer says...

Stevie D wrote:
goatman wrote:
The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.
That's not necessarily how it works out.

Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave more space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road.
I don't think cyclists close to the edge of the road can be described as being effectively out of sight. Thinking a driver might not be able to see me wouldn't encourage me to ride further out at any rate.

As a cyclist, I ride far enough out to avoid drain covers, but that's all. I check behind before I manoeuvre round big potholes and I ride through the smaller ones.

I don't think any road user should position their vehicle to try to influence where another road user places their vehicle on an open road. I wouldn't ride further out in the hope that a passing car would go wider than normal. In fact, I'd expect cars to be closer if I rode further out, so I don't do it.

Where I do position my bike to influence other road users is where it would be unsafe for them to try to squeeze past, e.g. near traffic islands. In those places, I will leave less room, so the car has to stay behind, but I pull in as soon as I've passed that part.

I think riders who need wobble room, or are scared of potholes would be safer keeping off the roads. Habitually riding further out in the road just gets car driver's backs up, and gets us cyclists a bad name.

........prepare for a PP/PH post on positions 1 and 2
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.[/quote]That's not necessarily how it works out. Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave [italic]more[/italic] space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road.[/p][/quote]I don't think cyclists close to the edge of the road can be described as being effectively out of sight. Thinking a driver might not be able to see me wouldn't encourage me to ride further out at any rate. As a cyclist, I ride far enough out to avoid drain covers, but that's all. I check behind before I manoeuvre round big potholes and I ride through the smaller ones. I don't think any road user should position their vehicle to try to influence where another road user places their vehicle on an open road. I wouldn't ride further out in the hope that a passing car would go wider than normal. In fact, I'd expect cars to be closer if I rode further out, so I don't do it. Where I do position my bike to influence other road users is where it would be unsafe for them to try to squeeze past, e.g. near traffic islands. In those places, I will leave less room, so the car has to stay behind, but I pull in as soon as I've passed that part. I think riders who need wobble room, or are scared of potholes would be safer keeping off the roads. Habitually riding further out in the road just gets car driver's backs up, and gets us cyclists a bad name. ........prepare for a PP/PH post on positions 1 and 2 the original Homer
  • Score: 45

3:06pm Thu 14 Aug 14

smudge2 says...

QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................
....................
This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..
QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................ .................... This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him.. smudge2
  • Score: -13

3:24pm Thu 14 Aug 14

bishboy says...

sniper 9964 wrote:
Not surprisingly every cyclist I saw the other day was committing some for of offence. Be it running red lights cycling on pavements or going the wrong way on a one way road.
They are a memace to other road users.
I just wish the police would clamp down on them and not just pretend they have not seen them
They wont clamp down because they can't be bothered. They'd rather take the easy option and catch motorists for going a couple of mph over the limit.
[quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: Not surprisingly every cyclist I saw the other day was committing some for of offence. Be it running red lights cycling on pavements or going the wrong way on a one way road. They are a memace to other road users. I just wish the police would clamp down on them and not just pretend they have not seen them[/p][/quote]They wont clamp down because they can't be bothered. They'd rather take the easy option and catch motorists for going a couple of mph over the limit. bishboy
  • Score: 20

3:27pm Thu 14 Aug 14

pedalling paul says...

smudge2 wrote:
QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................

....................

This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..
Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal.
More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb.
In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training.
Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.
[quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................ .................... This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..[/p][/quote]Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal. More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb. In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training. Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information. pedalling paul
  • Score: 30

4:01pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Can't all be wrong says...

The entire concept of someone on a bicycle sharing a space with vehicles weighing up to 44 tons and moving at speeds up to 40mph is bizarre.
Throughout Holland and Germany (I sure there are other places) entire roads are given over as dedicated cycle routes. There are numerous residential roads running North to South and East to West that might be worth exploring for this kind of use.
I can't believe someone can't look at a map of York and come up with a similar plan. The routes don't need to be the most direct in and out of the city, but they would certainly be safer and ultimately quicker.
The entire concept of someone on a bicycle sharing a space with vehicles weighing up to 44 tons and moving at speeds up to 40mph is bizarre. Throughout Holland and Germany (I sure there are other places) entire roads are given over as dedicated cycle routes. There are numerous residential roads running North to South and East to West that might be worth exploring for this kind of use. I can't believe someone can't look at a map of York and come up with a similar plan. The routes don't need to be the most direct in and out of the city, but they would certainly be safer and ultimately quicker. Can't all be wrong
  • Score: 25

4:13pm Thu 14 Aug 14

smudge2 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................


....................


This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..
Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal.
More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb.
In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training.
Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.
Why can you speak for Paul Hepworth when it is the same person as pedalling paul...Is this dual standards or a dual personality that you have. ??? ....................
..........(I warned you on many occasions to stop winding the people of York up )
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................ .................... This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..[/p][/quote]Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal. More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb. In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training. Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.[/p][/quote]Why can you speak for Paul Hepworth when it is the same person as pedalling paul...Is this dual standards or a dual personality that you have. ??? .................... ..........(I warned you on many occasions to stop winding the people of York up ) smudge2
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Thu 14 Aug 14

TheMinsterMen says...

pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................


....................


This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..
Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal.
More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb.
In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training.
Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.
"In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions"

*secondary

"Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session"

*buy
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................ .................... This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..[/p][/quote]Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal. More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb. In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training. Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.[/p][/quote]"In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions" *secondary "Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session" *buy TheMinsterMen
  • Score: 11

4:47pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Mr. Marcus says...

sniper 9964 wrote:
Not surprisingly every cyclist I saw the other day was committing some for of offence. Be it running red lights cycling on pavements or going the wrong way on a one way road.
They are a memace to other road users.
I just wish the police would clamp down on them and not just pretend they have not seen them
Hear, hear!
In the photo of two youngsters learning to cycle, one has a helmet, the other not.
ALL cyclists must be made to wear a helmet each and every day when they ride their cycles..
Also, cyclists must obey the rules of the road, and not cycle on pavements or cycle against the traffic on a one way road, like Davygate in York.
[quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: Not surprisingly every cyclist I saw the other day was committing some for of offence. Be it running red lights cycling on pavements or going the wrong way on a one way road. They are a memace to other road users. I just wish the police would clamp down on them and not just pretend they have not seen them[/p][/quote]Hear, hear! In the photo of two youngsters learning to cycle, one has a helmet, the other not. ALL cyclists must be made to wear a helmet each and every day when they ride their cycles.. Also, cyclists must obey the rules of the road, and not cycle on pavements or cycle against the traffic on a one way road, like Davygate in York. Mr. Marcus
  • Score: 17

4:56pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Stevie D says...

the original Homer wrote:
In fact, I'd expect cars to be closer if I rode further out, so I don't do it.
Which is part of the problem. What cyclists expect, and what actually happens, are two different things. This is not just my own anecdotal evidence, this was a proper study carried out by the Warrington Cycle Campaign, which showed that (on average) drivers left more space when overtaking cyclists that were well out from the kerb, and left less space when overtaking cyclists who were riding close to the kerb.

When I said "out of sight", that wasn't really the right phrase. What I meant was ... if drivers can pass a cyclist without changing course, a lot of them will do just that. Whereas once they have to steer to go round the cyclist, they put more effort/thought into giving the cyclist enough room. You may think it's counterintuitive, but that is what happens, and it's why cyclists who ride too close to the kerb because they are worried by the traffic passing them too close are making their own problems worse.
[quote][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: In fact, I'd expect cars to be closer if I rode further out, so I don't do it.[/quote]Which is part of the problem. What cyclists expect, and what actually happens, are two different things. This is not just my own anecdotal evidence, this was a proper study carried out by the Warrington Cycle Campaign, which showed that (on average) drivers left more space when overtaking cyclists that were well out from the kerb, and left less space when overtaking cyclists who were riding close to the kerb. When I said "out of sight", that wasn't really the right phrase. What I meant was ... if drivers can pass a cyclist without changing course, a lot of them will do just that. Whereas once they have to steer to go round the cyclist, they put more effort/thought into giving the cyclist enough room. You may think it's counterintuitive, but that is what happens, and it's why cyclists who ride too close to the kerb because they are worried by the traffic passing them too close [italic]are making their own problems worse[/italic]. Stevie D
  • Score: -72

5:10pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

If you go looking for loonies look no further than cyclists, I dare say you'll find them.

"Think Bike Think Loonies", Because The Rules Of The Road Don't Apply To Them.

Oh and yes I do cycle and cringe at what I see, best for car drivers not to second guess the mental state of a given cyclist and treat them all the same, safer for us all.

In car camera monitors my driving and what other do.
If you go looking for loonies look no further than cyclists, I dare say you'll find them. "Think Bike Think Loonies", Because The Rules Of The Road Don't Apply To Them. Oh and yes I do cycle and cringe at what I see, best for car drivers not to second guess the mental state of a given cyclist and treat them all the same, safer for us all. In car camera monitors my driving and what other do. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -31

5:12pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Paul Hepworth says...

The national cyclists organisation CTC is running a UK-wide "Space for Cycling" campaign and hopes to persuade all the 2015 Local Election candidates to sign up to its themes. More at
http://www.ctc.org.u
k/campaign/space-for
-cycling
The national cyclists organisation CTC is running a UK-wide "Space for Cycling" campaign and hopes to persuade all the 2015 Local Election candidates to sign up to its themes. More at http://www.ctc.org.u k/campaign/space-for -cycling Paul Hepworth
  • Score: 17

5:24pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Bo Jolly says...

Stevie D wrote:
the original Homer wrote:
In fact, I'd expect cars to be closer if I rode further out, so I don't do it.
Which is part of the problem. What cyclists expect, and what actually happens, are two different things. This is not just my own anecdotal evidence, this was a proper study carried out by the Warrington Cycle Campaign, which showed that (on average) drivers left more space when overtaking cyclists that were well out from the kerb, and left less space when overtaking cyclists who were riding close to the kerb.

When I said "out of sight", that wasn't really the right phrase. What I meant was ... if drivers can pass a cyclist without changing course, a lot of them will do just that. Whereas once they have to steer to go round the cyclist, they put more effort/thought into giving the cyclist enough room. You may think it's counterintuitive, but that is what happens, and it's why cyclists who ride too close to the kerb because they are worried by the traffic passing them too close are making their own problems worse.
Can't see any sign of the specific report you mention on Warrington Cycle Campaign's website. Can you supply a reference?

There *is* a so-called study that purports to show why 'narrow' on-road cycle lanes cause motorists to pass closer than where there is no cycle lane, but it is laughably unscientific. It consists of four photographs chosen to illustrate the central assertion. No data, no nothing, and written in a way that makes the bias of the author really obvious.

Gawd help us if this is what passes for 'proper study'. I hope the report you talk about is better!
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: In fact, I'd expect cars to be closer if I rode further out, so I don't do it.[/quote]Which is part of the problem. What cyclists expect, and what actually happens, are two different things. This is not just my own anecdotal evidence, this was a proper study carried out by the Warrington Cycle Campaign, which showed that (on average) drivers left more space when overtaking cyclists that were well out from the kerb, and left less space when overtaking cyclists who were riding close to the kerb. When I said "out of sight", that wasn't really the right phrase. What I meant was ... if drivers can pass a cyclist without changing course, a lot of them will do just that. Whereas once they have to steer to go round the cyclist, they put more effort/thought into giving the cyclist enough room. You may think it's counterintuitive, but that is what happens, and it's why cyclists who ride too close to the kerb because they are worried by the traffic passing them too close [italic]are making their own problems worse[/italic].[/p][/quote]Can't see any sign of the specific report you mention on Warrington Cycle Campaign's website. Can you supply a reference? There *is* a so-called study that purports to show why 'narrow' on-road cycle lanes cause motorists to pass closer than where there is no cycle lane, but it is laughably unscientific. It consists of four photographs chosen to illustrate the central assertion. No data, no nothing, and written in a way that makes the bias of the author really obvious. Gawd help us if this is what passes for 'proper study'. I hope the report you talk about is better! Bo Jolly
  • Score: -47

5:29pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Bo Jolly says...

pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................


....................


This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..
Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal.
More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb.
In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training.
Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.
Evidence please to back up your claim that, "Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers"

If you're going to recommend NOT taking steps that, on the face of it, make cycling safer, you'd better be able to back it up.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................ .................... This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..[/p][/quote]Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal. More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb. In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training. Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.[/p][/quote]Evidence please to back up your claim that, "Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers" If you're going to recommend NOT taking steps that, on the face of it, make cycling safer, you'd better be able to back it up. Bo Jolly
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Loggo Logmond says...

So all this money which was awarded to make York a safe 'Cycling City' has been well spent hasn't it. Pointless cycle lanes and other things at great cost to the taxpayer (whether its from council tax or Government) and York council still cant get it right.
So all this money which was awarded to make York a safe 'Cycling City' has been well spent hasn't it. Pointless cycle lanes and other things at great cost to the taxpayer (whether its from council tax or Government) and York council still cant get it right. Loggo Logmond
  • Score: -34

6:21pm Thu 14 Aug 14

nearlyman says...

There are good and bad cyclists and there are good and bad motorists.some are road aware and some are not. Then you have arrogant attitude cyclists and arrogant attitude motorists. It all adds up to a dismal cocktail of road danger. If both parties grew up and afforded each other a sensible degree of respect then it would make the roads a better and more importantly a safer place for all.
There are good and bad cyclists and there are good and bad motorists.some are road aware and some are not. Then you have arrogant attitude cyclists and arrogant attitude motorists. It all adds up to a dismal cocktail of road danger. If both parties grew up and afforded each other a sensible degree of respect then it would make the roads a better and more importantly a safer place for all. nearlyman
  • Score: 37

7:06pm Thu 14 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

goatman wrote:
Instead of building a needless cycleway along the ring road, how about putting in a cycle lane between Wigginton and Clifton Moor? There's loads of room there. The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake. There's also been a big subsidence on the cycleway behind the back of Skelton golf course, this has been there for over a year and nobody's done anything about it other than highlight it with yellow paint. I've seen two kiddies go a cropper there recently. If York claims to be a cycle friendly city it should do the job properly.
Do you mean from the railway crossing to the bumper castle? If so I have often thought as I drive that stretch that the grass verges are wide enough to put a cycle lane on, but no doubt the council will say they have not got the funding!!
[quote][p][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: Instead of building a needless cycleway along the ring road, how about putting in a cycle lane between Wigginton and Clifton Moor? There's loads of room there. The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake. There's also been a big subsidence on the cycleway behind the back of Skelton golf course, this has been there for over a year and nobody's done anything about it other than highlight it with yellow paint. I've seen two kiddies go a cropper there recently. If York claims to be a cycle friendly city it should do the job properly.[/p][/quote]Do you mean from the railway crossing to the bumper castle? If so I have often thought as I drive that stretch that the grass verges are wide enough to put a cycle lane on, but no doubt the council will say they have not got the funding!! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 11

7:10pm Thu 14 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................


....................


This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..
Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal.
More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb.
In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training.
Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.
I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate.........
. bet Mrs Hepworth has a smile on her face, what!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................ .................... This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..[/p][/quote]Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal. More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb. In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training. Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.[/p][/quote]I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate......... . bet Mrs Hepworth has a smile on her face, what! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -67

7:13pm Thu 14 Aug 14

goatman says...

Good post, nearlyman, it's about consideration for all road users. OriginalHomer, have you tried cycling to Sutton on the Forest from Wigginton? I'd wager that even with a full set of suspension you'd come off if you rode through some of those potholes.

With regards to many of the continental cycleways of northern Europe, those countries had the dubious advantage of being bombed flat twice in the last century, so were able to reconstruct much of their infrastructure to suit all modes of transport.
Good post, nearlyman, it's about consideration for all road users. OriginalHomer, have you tried cycling to Sutton on the Forest from Wigginton? I'd wager that even with a full set of suspension you'd come off if you rode through some of those potholes. With regards to many of the continental cycleways of northern Europe, those countries had the dubious advantage of being bombed flat twice in the last century, so were able to reconstruct much of their infrastructure to suit all modes of transport. goatman
  • Score: 14

7:15pm Thu 14 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Paul Hepworth wrote:
The national cyclists organisation CTC is running a UK-wide "Space for Cycling" campaign and hopes to persuade all the 2015 Local Election candidates to sign up to its themes. More at
http://www.ctc.org.u

k/campaign/space-for

-cycling
Give over Paul, your only making a bigger fool of your self! either comment as Paul Hepworth or Pedalling Paul, but stop this stupid dual identity, it's getting very boring!
[quote][p][bold]Paul Hepworth[/bold] wrote: The national cyclists organisation CTC is running a UK-wide "Space for Cycling" campaign and hopes to persuade all the 2015 Local Election candidates to sign up to its themes. More at http://www.ctc.org.u k/campaign/space-for -cycling[/p][/quote]Give over Paul, your only making a bigger fool of your self! either comment as Paul Hepworth or Pedalling Paul, but stop this stupid dual identity, it's getting very boring! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -14

7:15pm Thu 14 Aug 14

deckhanddave says...

How about giving cyclists lessons on how to ride? Also the value of wearing light clothing and using bike lights? Give the motorist half a chance of seeing you. Remember we are driving around watching for speed limit changes and potholes so have little time to concentrate on looking for dark cyclists going hell for leather across give way junctions without slowing.
How about giving cyclists lessons on how to ride? Also the value of wearing light clothing and using bike lights? Give the motorist half a chance of seeing you. Remember we are driving around watching for speed limit changes and potholes so have little time to concentrate on looking for dark cyclists going hell for leather across give way junctions without slowing. deckhanddave
  • Score: 25

7:17pm Thu 14 Aug 14

smudge2 says...

Paul Hepworth wrote:
The national cyclists organisation CTC is running a UK-wide "Space for Cycling" campaign and hopes to persuade all the 2015 Local Election candidates to sign up to its themes. More at
http://www.ctc.org.u

k/campaign/space-for

-cycling
Getting disparate and a little silly now ??. Open another Press account as your other two have no credibility now..
[quote][p][bold]Paul Hepworth[/bold] wrote: The national cyclists organisation CTC is running a UK-wide "Space for Cycling" campaign and hopes to persuade all the 2015 Local Election candidates to sign up to its themes. More at http://www.ctc.org.u k/campaign/space-for -cycling[/p][/quote]Getting disparate and a little silly now ??. Open another Press account as your other two have no credibility now.. smudge2
  • Score: -12

7:18pm Thu 14 Aug 14

smudge2 says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
Paul Hepworth wrote:
The national cyclists organisation CTC is running a UK-wide "Space for Cycling" campaign and hopes to persuade all the 2015 Local Election candidates to sign up to its themes. More at
http://www.ctc.org.u


k/campaign/space-for


-cycling
Give over Paul, your only making a bigger fool of your self! either comment as Paul Hepworth or Pedalling Paul, but stop this stupid dual identity, it's getting very boring!
Checkmate.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paul Hepworth[/bold] wrote: The national cyclists organisation CTC is running a UK-wide "Space for Cycling" campaign and hopes to persuade all the 2015 Local Election candidates to sign up to its themes. More at http://www.ctc.org.u k/campaign/space-for -cycling[/p][/quote]Give over Paul, your only making a bigger fool of your self! either comment as Paul Hepworth or Pedalling Paul, but stop this stupid dual identity, it's getting very boring![/p][/quote]Checkmate. smudge2
  • Score: -27

7:21pm Thu 14 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
If you go looking for loonies look no further than cyclists, I dare say you'll find them.

"Think Bike Think Loonies", Because The Rules Of The Road Don't Apply To Them.

Oh and yes I do cycle and cringe at what I see, best for car drivers not to second guess the mental state of a given cyclist and treat them all the same, safer for us all.

In car camera monitors my driving and what other do.
Yes, I have also taken a leaf out of these camera mad cyclists book and bought myself an in car camera which I use on every journey, surprising what the camera picks up isn't it, at least the camera never lies.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: If you go looking for loonies look no further than cyclists, I dare say you'll find them. "Think Bike Think Loonies", Because The Rules Of The Road Don't Apply To Them. Oh and yes I do cycle and cringe at what I see, best for car drivers not to second guess the mental state of a given cyclist and treat them all the same, safer for us all. In car camera monitors my driving and what other do.[/p][/quote]Yes, I have also taken a leaf out of these camera mad cyclists book and bought myself an in car camera which I use on every journey, surprising what the camera picks up isn't it, at least the camera never lies. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -35

7:44pm Thu 14 Aug 14

old_geezer says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................



....................



This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..
Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal.
More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb.
In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training.
Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.
Evidence please to back up your claim that, "Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers"

If you're going to recommend NOT taking steps that, on the face of it, make cycling safer, you'd better be able to back it up.
Bo jolly: the evidence is in the statistics of a TRRL report a few years ago which included aerial photography showing drivers allowed significant extra space when overtaking someone not helmeted and dressed in hi-vis. However the papers mainly covered a minor aspect, namely that when the (male) researcher donned a blonde wig he was given an further extra space allowance.
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................ .................... This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..[/p][/quote]Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal. More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb. In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training. Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.[/p][/quote]Evidence please to back up your claim that, "Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers" If you're going to recommend NOT taking steps that, on the face of it, make cycling safer, you'd better be able to back it up.[/p][/quote]Bo jolly: the evidence is in the statistics of a TRRL report a few years ago which included aerial photography showing drivers allowed significant extra space when overtaking someone not helmeted and dressed in hi-vis. However the papers mainly covered a minor aspect, namely that when the (male) researcher donned a blonde wig he was given an further extra space allowance. old_geezer
  • Score: 4

7:52pm Thu 14 Aug 14

smudge2 says...

old_geezer wrote:
Bo Jolly wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................




....................




This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..
Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal.
More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb.
In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training.
Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.
Evidence please to back up your claim that, "Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers"

If you're going to recommend NOT taking steps that, on the face of it, make cycling safer, you'd better be able to back it up.
Bo jolly: the evidence is in the statistics of a TRRL report a few years ago which included aerial photography showing drivers allowed significant extra space when overtaking someone not helmeted and dressed in hi-vis. However the papers mainly covered a minor aspect, namely that when the (male) researcher donned a blonde wig he was given an further extra space allowance.
I just use comment sense when cycling and have been accident free for over 45 years using my bike in and around York.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................ .................... This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..[/p][/quote]Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal. More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb. In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training. Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.[/p][/quote]Evidence please to back up your claim that, "Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers" If you're going to recommend NOT taking steps that, on the face of it, make cycling safer, you'd better be able to back it up.[/p][/quote]Bo jolly: the evidence is in the statistics of a TRRL report a few years ago which included aerial photography showing drivers allowed significant extra space when overtaking someone not helmeted and dressed in hi-vis. However the papers mainly covered a minor aspect, namely that when the (male) researcher donned a blonde wig he was given an further extra space allowance.[/p][/quote]I just use comment sense when cycling and have been accident free for over 45 years using my bike in and around York. smudge2
  • Score: 12

8:23pm Thu 14 Aug 14

pedalling paul says...

Perhaps I should try Bo Jolly's advice and wear a blond wig.....!
Perhaps I should try Bo Jolly's advice and wear a blond wig.....! pedalling paul
  • Score: 28

8:38pm Thu 14 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Perhaps I should try Bo Jolly's advice and wear a blond wig.....!
What you do in your spare time Paul doesn't interest us, however, go ahead and wear the wig, can I ask what you might call yourself whilst in this guise? Pouting Paulette perhaps?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Perhaps I should try Bo Jolly's advice and wear a blond wig.....![/p][/quote]What you do in your spare time Paul doesn't interest us, however, go ahead and wear the wig, can I ask what you might call yourself whilst in this guise? Pouting Paulette perhaps? notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -60

10:12pm Thu 14 Aug 14

deckhanddave says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Perhaps I should try Bo Jolly's advice and wear a blond wig.....!
What you do in your spare time Paul doesn't interest us, however, go ahead and wear the wig, can I ask what you might call yourself whilst in this guise? Pouting Paulette perhaps?
Haven't I seen him/ her in a pub down Goodramgate? Blonde wig, fishnets and very short skirt? Someone called him/her Paul!
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Perhaps I should try Bo Jolly's advice and wear a blond wig.....![/p][/quote]What you do in your spare time Paul doesn't interest us, however, go ahead and wear the wig, can I ask what you might call yourself whilst in this guise? Pouting Paulette perhaps?[/p][/quote]Haven't I seen him/ her in a pub down Goodramgate? Blonde wig, fishnets and very short skirt? Someone called him/her Paul! deckhanddave
  • Score: -5

10:33pm Thu 14 Aug 14

PKH says...

pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................


....................


This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..
Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal.
More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb.
In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training.
Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.
So using your arguement road maintenace gangs, binmen etc. should not use hi-vis clothing as it is more dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................ .................... This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..[/p][/quote]Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal. More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb. In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training. Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.[/p][/quote]So using your arguement road maintenace gangs, binmen etc. should not use hi-vis clothing as it is more dangerous. PKH
  • Score: 10

11:34pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Bo Jolly says...

old_geezer wrote:
Bo Jolly wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................




....................




This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..
Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal.
More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb.
In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training.
Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.
Evidence please to back up your claim that, "Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers"

If you're going to recommend NOT taking steps that, on the face of it, make cycling safer, you'd better be able to back it up.
Bo jolly: the evidence is in the statistics of a TRRL report a few years ago which included aerial photography showing drivers allowed significant extra space when overtaking someone not helmeted and dressed in hi-vis. However the papers mainly covered a minor aspect, namely that when the (male) researcher donned a blonde wig he was given an further extra space allowance.
Not true.

The 'blonde wig' study was:

a) *not* about hi-viz at all, just helmets (and wigs),

b) *not* by TRL but is an unpublished piece of work by an academic at Bath University called Dr Ian Walker, and

c) also found that if cyclists cycle away from the kerb, traffic passes them more closely (in contrast to what other people here have been saying).

Incidentally, its methodology seems pretty flawed to me (open to bias) - perhaps that's why it hasn't been published in a peer-review journal.

This stuff matters! You can't just go around saying that cyclists shouldn't wear hi-vis and not have good grounds to back it up.

A brief flick through the actual Transport Research Lab (TRL, previously TRRL) website shows several studies that demonstrate the safety benefits of cyclists wearing hi-vis clothing. Unsurprisingly... it makes you more visible, which is safer.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: QUOTE..... Number of serious incidents involving cyclists on York’s roads on the rise................ .................... This is because our peddling spokesperson of York who shall remain nameless does not set a good example by letting the press film his train rant whilst NOT wearing a helmet OR proper cycle clips (chain could get caught in trousers and throw him off bike) and the worst crime was a brown anorak which cannot be easily seen. (Hint wear hi VIZ jacket).... If you spot this man please enlighten him..[/p][/quote]Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers." Can't speak for PH but personally I wear whatever is appropriate for my journey's ultimate goal. More car occupants receive severe/fatal head injuries each year, than cyclists. So how about helmets for drivers...and pedestrians in case they get struck by a car mounting the kerb. In terms of road positioning, I use the primary and seconday positions as appropriate during my journey. John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" book tells all, and is helpful to anyone wishing to undertake "Bikeability" training. Grown ups can by a one or two hour cycle training session from CoYC. Check York's iTravel website cycling section for more information.[/p][/quote]Evidence please to back up your claim that, "Surprisingly a great many cyclists who wear conspicuity clothing and so called safety aids like helmets, are often perceived to be "safer" to overtake closer and faster by motor vehicle drivers" If you're going to recommend NOT taking steps that, on the face of it, make cycling safer, you'd better be able to back it up.[/p][/quote]Bo jolly: the evidence is in the statistics of a TRRL report a few years ago which included aerial photography showing drivers allowed significant extra space when overtaking someone not helmeted and dressed in hi-vis. However the papers mainly covered a minor aspect, namely that when the (male) researcher donned a blonde wig he was given an further extra space allowance.[/p][/quote]Not true. The 'blonde wig' study was: a) *not* about hi-viz at all, just helmets (and wigs), b) *not* by TRL but is an unpublished piece of work by an academic at Bath University called Dr Ian Walker, and c) also found that if cyclists cycle away from the kerb, traffic passes them more closely (in contrast to what other people here have been saying). Incidentally, its methodology seems pretty flawed to me (open to bias) - perhaps that's why it hasn't been published in a peer-review journal. This stuff matters! You can't just go around saying that cyclists shouldn't wear hi-vis and not have good grounds to back it up. A brief flick through the actual Transport Research Lab (TRL, previously TRRL) website shows several studies that demonstrate the safety benefits of cyclists wearing hi-vis clothing. Unsurprisingly... it makes you more visible, which is safer. Bo Jolly
  • Score: 9

12:28am Fri 15 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

I might seem like the anti-christ for saying this BUT:

Are cyclists getting more aggressive?

When I am driving and find myself in confined spaces, for example Micklegate Bar, I move over to let the bikes through.

However, when I walk my dog anywhere near the Racecourse I find aggressive louts screaming along the footway. None of them have a bell and feel as if they have the right to cycle at 25mph on a footpath. Yes, it is a cycle path, but not to the exclusion of all others!

I actually had to stand in the path of a group of cyclists on the Knavesmire, just to get them to learn some respect. Whilst I would never advocate violence it is only a matter of time before someone drags them off their bikes.
I might seem like the anti-christ for saying this BUT: Are cyclists getting more aggressive? When I am driving and find myself in confined spaces, for example Micklegate Bar, I move over to let the bikes through. However, when I walk my dog anywhere near the Racecourse I find aggressive louts screaming along the footway. None of them have a bell and feel as if they have the right to cycle at 25mph on a footpath. Yes, it is a cycle path, but not to the exclusion of all others! I actually had to stand in the path of a group of cyclists on the Knavesmire, just to get them to learn some respect. Whilst I would never advocate violence it is only a matter of time before someone drags them off their bikes. eeoodares
  • Score: 22

3:08am Fri 15 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

Stevie D wrote:
goatman wrote:
The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.
That's not necessarily how it works out.

Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave more space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road.
One thing I've never understood... is the drivers that overtake a cyclist really close (no more than 1ft) and *then* pull out after they've overtaken... what use is that?!
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.[/quote]That's not necessarily how it works out. Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave [italic]more[/italic] space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road.[/p][/quote]One thing I've never understood... is the drivers that overtake a cyclist really close (no more than 1ft) and *then* pull out after they've overtaken... what use is that?! Magicman!
  • Score: 1

3:13am Fri 15 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

stevenz23 wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
goatman wrote:
The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.
That's not necessarily how it works out.

Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave more space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road.
I cycle a lot and I drive a bit. When I drive I often get annoyed with cyclists who make no attempt to tuck into the side of the road.

I know all about kerb potholes but there is no excuse for obstructing traffic by riding almost in the middle of a lane or in large groups all over the road. Its about consideration for other road users.

In any event bikes need segregated lanes. Trucks and bikes dont mix. Money needs to be spent on provision for bikes.
The only time I ride right out in the middle of a lane is if I know it's not safe to overtake me... for example, if I am travelling from Monkgate and about to go through the arch of Bootham Bar; or if I am approaching the blind bend of Huntington Road near to Park Grove.

As for segregation, I would like to see *proper* physical segregation, where a motorised vehicle physically cannot enter the cycle lane, at least not without lumbering over raised kerbstones.
[quote][p][bold]stevenz23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake.[/quote]That's not necessarily how it works out. Most cyclists ride much too close to the edge of the road. This is bad, because it means they have no wobble room , and because it puts them effectively "out of sight" of drivers ... they are out of the way, so drivers often don't change course at all when overtaking them. If cyclists ride a bit further out, most drivers will leave [italic]more[/italic] space when overtaking. And if they do get too close, the cyclist has got a bit more room before they hit the edge of the road.[/p][/quote]I cycle a lot and I drive a bit. When I drive I often get annoyed with cyclists who make no attempt to tuck into the side of the road. I know all about kerb potholes but there is no excuse for obstructing traffic by riding almost in the middle of a lane or in large groups all over the road. Its about consideration for other road users. In any event bikes need segregated lanes. Trucks and bikes dont mix. Money needs to be spent on provision for bikes.[/p][/quote]The only time I ride right out in the middle of a lane is if I know it's not safe to overtake me... for example, if I am travelling from Monkgate and about to go through the arch of Bootham Bar; or if I am approaching the blind bend of Huntington Road near to Park Grove. As for segregation, I would like to see *proper* physical segregation, where a motorised vehicle physically cannot enter the cycle lane, at least not without lumbering over raised kerbstones. Magicman!
  • Score: 23

3:20am Fri 15 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

Can't all be wrong wrote:
The entire concept of someone on a bicycle sharing a space with vehicles weighing up to 44 tons and moving at speeds up to 40mph is bizarre.
Throughout Holland and Germany (I sure there are other places) entire roads are given over as dedicated cycle routes. There are numerous residential roads running North to South and East to West that might be worth exploring for this kind of use.
I can't believe someone can't look at a map of York and come up with a similar plan. The routes don't need to be the most direct in and out of the city, but they would certainly be safer and ultimately quicker.
There are corridors that could be explored... the river Foss could have a cycle route alongside as a safe way to get up to Huntington, New Earswick and Strensall; whilst a cycle route from the rail station going over Scarborough bridge (at the same level both sides, no need to struggle up those slippery stone steps with a bike) and along besides the rail line and through the grounds of both hospital sites would give a traffic-free route towards Crichton Avenue, and if an off-road route besides Wigginton Road was then built too, the route would be traffic-free right up to Haxby and Wigginton
[quote][p][bold]Can't all be wrong[/bold] wrote: The entire concept of someone on a bicycle sharing a space with vehicles weighing up to 44 tons and moving at speeds up to 40mph is bizarre. Throughout Holland and Germany (I sure there are other places) entire roads are given over as dedicated cycle routes. There are numerous residential roads running North to South and East to West that might be worth exploring for this kind of use. I can't believe someone can't look at a map of York and come up with a similar plan. The routes don't need to be the most direct in and out of the city, but they would certainly be safer and ultimately quicker.[/p][/quote]There are corridors that could be explored... the river Foss could have a cycle route alongside as a safe way to get up to Huntington, New Earswick and Strensall; whilst a cycle route from the rail station going over Scarborough bridge (at the same level both sides, no need to struggle up those slippery stone steps with a bike) and along besides the rail line and through the grounds of both hospital sites would give a traffic-free route towards Crichton Avenue, and if an off-road route besides Wigginton Road was then built too, the route would be traffic-free right up to Haxby and Wigginton Magicman!
  • Score: 11

3:29am Fri 15 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
the original Homer wrote:
In fact, I'd expect cars to be closer if I rode further out, so I don't do it.
Which is part of the problem. What cyclists expect, and what actually happens, are two different things. This is not just my own anecdotal evidence, this was a proper study carried out by the Warrington Cycle Campaign, which showed that (on average) drivers left more space when overtaking cyclists that were well out from the kerb, and left less space when overtaking cyclists who were riding close to the kerb.

When I said "out of sight", that wasn't really the right phrase. What I meant was ... if drivers can pass a cyclist without changing course, a lot of them will do just that. Whereas once they have to steer to go round the cyclist, they put more effort/thought into giving the cyclist enough room. You may think it's counterintuitive, but that is what happens, and it's why cyclists who ride too close to the kerb because they are worried by the traffic passing them too close are making their own problems worse.
Can't see any sign of the specific report you mention on Warrington Cycle Campaign's website. Can you supply a reference?

There *is* a so-called study that purports to show why 'narrow' on-road cycle lanes cause motorists to pass closer than where there is no cycle lane, but it is laughably unscientific. It consists of four photographs chosen to illustrate the central assertion. No data, no nothing, and written in a way that makes the bias of the author really obvious.

Gawd help us if this is what passes for 'proper study'. I hope the report you talk about is better!
I have seen a video of such a study... the road was measured with a laser in both cases, so the road width was exactly the same down the the cm's - then for a set amount of time the same in both occasions, a cyclist would ride down road A, and positions of overtaking vehicles noted, and then likewise for road B - road A had a painted cycle lane on, road B did not... and on road B there was generally 20-30% more room given from overtaking vehicles
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: In fact, I'd expect cars to be closer if I rode further out, so I don't do it.[/quote]Which is part of the problem. What cyclists expect, and what actually happens, are two different things. This is not just my own anecdotal evidence, this was a proper study carried out by the Warrington Cycle Campaign, which showed that (on average) drivers left more space when overtaking cyclists that were well out from the kerb, and left less space when overtaking cyclists who were riding close to the kerb. When I said "out of sight", that wasn't really the right phrase. What I meant was ... if drivers can pass a cyclist without changing course, a lot of them will do just that. Whereas once they have to steer to go round the cyclist, they put more effort/thought into giving the cyclist enough room. You may think it's counterintuitive, but that is what happens, and it's why cyclists who ride too close to the kerb because they are worried by the traffic passing them too close [italic]are making their own problems worse[/italic].[/p][/quote]Can't see any sign of the specific report you mention on Warrington Cycle Campaign's website. Can you supply a reference? There *is* a so-called study that purports to show why 'narrow' on-road cycle lanes cause motorists to pass closer than where there is no cycle lane, but it is laughably unscientific. It consists of four photographs chosen to illustrate the central assertion. No data, no nothing, and written in a way that makes the bias of the author really obvious. Gawd help us if this is what passes for 'proper study'. I hope the report you talk about is better![/p][/quote]I have seen a video of such a study... the road was measured with a laser in both cases, so the road width was exactly the same down the the cm's - then for a set amount of time the same in both occasions, a cyclist would ride down road A, and positions of overtaking vehicles noted, and then likewise for road B - road A had a painted cycle lane on, road B did not... and on road B there was generally 20-30% more room given from overtaking vehicles Magicman!
  • Score: 4

3:36am Fri 15 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

Loggo Logmond wrote:
So all this money which was awarded to make York a safe 'Cycling City' has been well spent hasn't it. Pointless cycle lanes and other things at great cost to the taxpayer (whether its from council tax or Government) and York council still cant get it right.
The fact is that it hasn't been done *properly*.

Here's an example of what our Labour-led council passes off for "cycling provision":- Stirling Road, Clifton moor... at the junction with Audax Road, cyclists heading towards Tesco get a section of on-road cycle lane, which lasts for roughly 10 meters; technically, the cycle lane is not on Stirling Road, as the space has been taken off the mouth of Audax Road... and then right at the point where the cycle lane ends, the cyclist is forced to move out back onto Stirling Road, right at the point where a traffic island has bene installed to narrow road width - basically in principle throwing a cyclist into the path of a bus or truck... and if a cyclist manages to negotiate that, then when they get to the roundabout by Screwfix, if they stick to the cycle lanes there, they will find passing cars almost knock them off - because the pavement has been widened too much and so drivers pulling off the roundabout all come into the cycle lane (as otherwise the turning off the roundabout is too tight)
[quote][p][bold]Loggo Logmond[/bold] wrote: So all this money which was awarded to make York a safe 'Cycling City' has been well spent hasn't it. Pointless cycle lanes and other things at great cost to the taxpayer (whether its from council tax or Government) and York council still cant get it right.[/p][/quote]The fact is that it hasn't been done *properly*. Here's an example of what our Labour-led council passes off for "cycling provision":- Stirling Road, Clifton moor... at the junction with Audax Road, cyclists heading towards Tesco get a section of on-road cycle lane, which lasts for roughly 10 meters; technically, the cycle lane is not on Stirling Road, as the space has been taken off the mouth of Audax Road... and then right at the point where the cycle lane ends, the cyclist is forced to move out back onto Stirling Road, right at the point where a traffic island has bene installed to narrow road width - basically in principle throwing a cyclist into the path of a bus or truck... and if a cyclist manages to negotiate that, then when they get to the roundabout by Screwfix, if they stick to the cycle lanes there, they will find passing cars almost knock them off - because the pavement has been widened too much and so drivers pulling off the roundabout all come into the cycle lane (as otherwise the turning off the roundabout is too tight) Magicman!
  • Score: 4

3:43am Fri 15 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
goatman wrote:
Instead of building a needless cycleway along the ring road, how about putting in a cycle lane between Wigginton and Clifton Moor? There's loads of room there. The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake. There's also been a big subsidence on the cycleway behind the back of Skelton golf course, this has been there for over a year and nobody's done anything about it other than highlight it with yellow paint. I've seen two kiddies go a cropper there recently. If York claims to be a cycle friendly city it should do the job properly.
Do you mean from the railway crossing to the bumper castle? If so I have often thought as I drive that stretch that the grass verges are wide enough to put a cycle lane on, but no doubt the council will say they have not got the funding!!
Do you want to know something really funny?

When the council were proposing a Park and Ride site at Clifton Moor, the main entrance for vehicle was off Wigginton Road near where there is a small car garage just north of the Bumper Castle... I went and looked at the plans for it at a public session, and the design showed that the entrances were to have a segregated pavement with cycle lane and footpath - which started and ended nowhere. I asked the official people there if these off-road cycle routes would be extended the full length of Wigginton Road towards Nestlé, and they replied "no not at all, there are no plans to do this within the next few years"; I then asked them 'what is the point of having these off-road cycle lanes lasting for all of 5 meters beside the road if they're not going to or from anywhere then' and they couldn't give me an answer.

To be honest, I think Wigginton Road could have off-road cycle lanes from nestle right up to Mill Lane in Wigginton... and if there was enough funds, a direct route from Bumper Castle to New Earswick, going under the railway line, without the need to go towards Nestle and then double back almost the full length again.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]goatman[/bold] wrote: Instead of building a needless cycleway along the ring road, how about putting in a cycle lane between Wigginton and Clifton Moor? There's loads of room there. The state of the road edges is shocking, too, which forces cyclists to have to ride further to the middle, this in turn causes motorists to give less room when they pass/overtake. There's also been a big subsidence on the cycleway behind the back of Skelton golf course, this has been there for over a year and nobody's done anything about it other than highlight it with yellow paint. I've seen two kiddies go a cropper there recently. If York claims to be a cycle friendly city it should do the job properly.[/p][/quote]Do you mean from the railway crossing to the bumper castle? If so I have often thought as I drive that stretch that the grass verges are wide enough to put a cycle lane on, but no doubt the council will say they have not got the funding!![/p][/quote]Do you want to know something really funny? When the council were proposing a Park and Ride site at Clifton Moor, the main entrance for vehicle was off Wigginton Road near where there is a small car garage just north of the Bumper Castle... I went and looked at the plans for it at a public session, and the design showed that the entrances were to have a segregated pavement with cycle lane and footpath - which started and ended nowhere. I asked the official people there if these off-road cycle routes would be extended the full length of Wigginton Road towards Nestlé, and they replied "no not at all, there are no plans to do this within the next few years"; I then asked them 'what is the point of having these off-road cycle lanes lasting for all of 5 meters beside the road if they're not going to or from anywhere then' and they couldn't give me an answer. To be honest, I think Wigginton Road could have off-road cycle lanes from nestle right up to Mill Lane in Wigginton... and if there was enough funds, a direct route from Bumper Castle to New Earswick, going under the railway line, without the need to go towards Nestle and then double back almost the full length again. Magicman!
  • Score: 11

3:05pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Rachy123 says...

deckhanddave wrote:
How about giving cyclists lessons on how to ride? Also the value of wearing light clothing and using bike lights? Give the motorist half a chance of seeing you. Remember we are driving around watching for speed limit changes and potholes so have little time to concentrate on looking for dark cyclists going hell for leather across give way junctions without slowing.
You'd like to think, however, that cycling during the day (in this summer, no less) that I wouldn't need to use lights OR a high-vis jacket in order to not be cut up by drivers wanting to turn left (I'm looking at you, junction from Nunnery Lane to Blossom Street).
[quote][p][bold]deckhanddave[/bold] wrote: How about giving cyclists lessons on how to ride? Also the value of wearing light clothing and using bike lights? Give the motorist half a chance of seeing you. Remember we are driving around watching for speed limit changes and potholes so have little time to concentrate on looking for dark cyclists going hell for leather across give way junctions without slowing.[/p][/quote]You'd like to think, however, that cycling during the day (in this summer, no less) that I wouldn't need to use lights OR a high-vis jacket in order to not be cut up by drivers wanting to turn left (I'm looking at you, junction from Nunnery Lane to Blossom Street). Rachy123
  • Score: 1

3:28pm Fri 15 Aug 14

deckhanddave says...

Rachy123 wrote:
deckhanddave wrote:
How about giving cyclists lessons on how to ride? Also the value of wearing light clothing and using bike lights? Give the motorist half a chance of seeing you. Remember we are driving around watching for speed limit changes and potholes so have little time to concentrate on looking for dark cyclists going hell for leather across give way junctions without slowing.
You'd like to think, however, that cycling during the day (in this summer, no less) that I wouldn't need to use lights OR a high-vis jacket in order to not be cut up by drivers wanting to turn left (I'm looking at you, junction from Nunnery Lane to Blossom Street).
Sorry, but if that was aimed at me cutting you up personally, I think you have the wrong person. I haven't been down Nunnery Lane in years let alone turned left into Blossom Street from there. Were I to go that way for anything I would use Scarcroft Road rather than Nunnery Lane.
[quote][p][bold]Rachy123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]deckhanddave[/bold] wrote: How about giving cyclists lessons on how to ride? Also the value of wearing light clothing and using bike lights? Give the motorist half a chance of seeing you. Remember we are driving around watching for speed limit changes and potholes so have little time to concentrate on looking for dark cyclists going hell for leather across give way junctions without slowing.[/p][/quote]You'd like to think, however, that cycling during the day (in this summer, no less) that I wouldn't need to use lights OR a high-vis jacket in order to not be cut up by drivers wanting to turn left (I'm looking at you, junction from Nunnery Lane to Blossom Street).[/p][/quote]Sorry, but if that was aimed at me cutting you up personally, I think you have the wrong person. I haven't been down Nunnery Lane in years let alone turned left into Blossom Street from there. Were I to go that way for anything I would use Scarcroft Road rather than Nunnery Lane. deckhanddave
  • Score: 2

3:34pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Rachy123 says...

deckhanddave wrote:
Rachy123 wrote:
deckhanddave wrote:
How about giving cyclists lessons on how to ride? Also the value of wearing light clothing and using bike lights? Give the motorist half a chance of seeing you. Remember we are driving around watching for speed limit changes and potholes so have little time to concentrate on looking for dark cyclists going hell for leather across give way junctions without slowing.
You'd like to think, however, that cycling during the day (in this summer, no less) that I wouldn't need to use lights OR a high-vis jacket in order to not be cut up by drivers wanting to turn left (I'm looking at you, junction from Nunnery Lane to Blossom Street).
Sorry, but if that was aimed at me cutting you up personally, I think you have the wrong person. I haven't been down Nunnery Lane in years let alone turned left into Blossom Street from there. Were I to go that way for anything I would use Scarcroft Road rather than Nunnery Lane.
My point wasn't aimed at you at all.
It was one experience of many I have had to highlight the fact that "not being able to see cyclists" is not a very good excuse when most cycling (by myself, anyway) is done during the day.
[quote][p][bold]deckhanddave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rachy123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]deckhanddave[/bold] wrote: How about giving cyclists lessons on how to ride? Also the value of wearing light clothing and using bike lights? Give the motorist half a chance of seeing you. Remember we are driving around watching for speed limit changes and potholes so have little time to concentrate on looking for dark cyclists going hell for leather across give way junctions without slowing.[/p][/quote]You'd like to think, however, that cycling during the day (in this summer, no less) that I wouldn't need to use lights OR a high-vis jacket in order to not be cut up by drivers wanting to turn left (I'm looking at you, junction from Nunnery Lane to Blossom Street).[/p][/quote]Sorry, but if that was aimed at me cutting you up personally, I think you have the wrong person. I haven't been down Nunnery Lane in years let alone turned left into Blossom Street from there. Were I to go that way for anything I would use Scarcroft Road rather than Nunnery Lane.[/p][/quote]My point wasn't aimed at you at all. It was one experience of many I have had to highlight the fact that "not being able to see cyclists" is not a very good excuse when most cycling (by myself, anyway) is done during the day. Rachy123
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Fri 15 Aug 14

ouseswimmer says...

In Boca Ratan, Floridathe by-law is you have to give cyclists 3ft space when over taking. Time to bring it in here. Also please stop the cyclists riding in pedestrian areas its illegal.
In Boca Ratan, Floridathe by-law is you have to give cyclists 3ft space when over taking. Time to bring it in here. Also please stop the cyclists riding in pedestrian areas its illegal. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 2

10:00pm Fri 15 Aug 14

deckhanddave says...

Rachy123 wrote:
deckhanddave wrote:
Rachy123 wrote:
deckhanddave wrote:
How about giving cyclists lessons on how to ride? Also the value of wearing light clothing and using bike lights? Give the motorist half a chance of seeing you. Remember we are driving around watching for speed limit changes and potholes so have little time to concentrate on looking for dark cyclists going hell for leather across give way junctions without slowing.
You'd like to think, however, that cycling during the day (in this summer, no less) that I wouldn't need to use lights OR a high-vis jacket in order to not be cut up by drivers wanting to turn left (I'm looking at you, junction from Nunnery Lane to Blossom Street).
Sorry, but if that was aimed at me cutting you up personally, I think you have the wrong person. I haven't been down Nunnery Lane in years let alone turned left into Blossom Street from there. Were I to go that way for anything I would use Scarcroft Road rather than Nunnery Lane.
My point wasn't aimed at you at all.
It was one experience of many I have had to highlight the fact that "not being able to see cyclists" is not a very good excuse when most cycling (by myself, anyway) is done during the day.
Rachy 123
Thanks for clarifying that. It was the I'm looking at you comment that made me think you might have been thinking I was responsible.

For every one sensible cyclist I see twenty that are idiots. I see them every day, cycling with earphones in both ears. They swerve out from the kerb to go past cars that are parked. Clifton green, they seem to think the traffic lights are for cars only. The tear **** along and then duck in between cars just to get to the front of a traffic queue. I've seen them position themselves at the left side of a line of traffic and then swing across to turn right ignorant of the cars moving. Just tonight in the rain I turned into Gale lane from Askham Lane end ,moved towards the road centre to give a cyclist a wide birth only to be confronted by three cyclists in dark clothing with no lights pulling out from behind parked cars and spread out in what looks like an RAF attack formation. As a cyclist, surely you see what i see day in day out? Or do cyclists have selective vision?

To be fair I also slate the pot heads and chav's for driving like idiots and have mentioned many times there love of bragging rights for breaking the speed limit by 20 to 30mph now, instead of 10 to 20mph as in a 30 zone.
[quote][p][bold]Rachy123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]deckhanddave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rachy123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]deckhanddave[/bold] wrote: How about giving cyclists lessons on how to ride? Also the value of wearing light clothing and using bike lights? Give the motorist half a chance of seeing you. Remember we are driving around watching for speed limit changes and potholes so have little time to concentrate on looking for dark cyclists going hell for leather across give way junctions without slowing.[/p][/quote]You'd like to think, however, that cycling during the day (in this summer, no less) that I wouldn't need to use lights OR a high-vis jacket in order to not be cut up by drivers wanting to turn left (I'm looking at you, junction from Nunnery Lane to Blossom Street).[/p][/quote]Sorry, but if that was aimed at me cutting you up personally, I think you have the wrong person. I haven't been down Nunnery Lane in years let alone turned left into Blossom Street from there. Were I to go that way for anything I would use Scarcroft Road rather than Nunnery Lane.[/p][/quote]My point wasn't aimed at you at all. It was one experience of many I have had to highlight the fact that "not being able to see cyclists" is not a very good excuse when most cycling (by myself, anyway) is done during the day.[/p][/quote]Rachy 123 Thanks for clarifying that. It was the I'm looking at you comment that made me think you might have been thinking I was responsible. For every one sensible cyclist I see twenty that are idiots. I see them every day, cycling with earphones in both ears. They swerve out from the kerb to go past cars that are parked. Clifton green, they seem to think the traffic lights are for cars only. The tear **** along and then duck in between cars just to get to the front of a traffic queue. I've seen them position themselves at the left side of a line of traffic and then swing across to turn right ignorant of the cars moving. Just tonight in the rain I turned into Gale lane from Askham Lane end ,moved towards the road centre to give a cyclist a wide birth only to be confronted by three cyclists in dark clothing with no lights pulling out from behind parked cars and spread out in what looks like an RAF attack formation. As a cyclist, surely you see what i see day in day out? Or do cyclists have selective vision? To be fair I also slate the pot heads and chav's for driving like idiots and have mentioned many times there love of bragging rights for breaking the speed limit by 20 to 30mph now, instead of 10 to 20mph as in a 30 zone. deckhanddave
  • Score: 2

2:17pm Sat 16 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

For every one sensible cyclist I see twenty that are idiots. I see them every day, cycling with earphones in both ears. They swerve out from the kerb to go past cars that are parked. Clifton green, they seem to think the traffic lights are for cars only. The tear **** along and then duck in between cars just to get to the front of a traffic queue. I've seen them position themselves at the left side of a line of traffic and then swing across to turn right ignorant of the cars moving. Just tonight in the rain I turned into Gale lane from Askham Lane end ,moved towards the road centre to give a cyclist a wide birth only to be confronted by three cyclists in dark clothing with no lights pulling out from behind parked cars and spread out in what looks like an RAF attack formation. As a cyclist, surely you see what i see day in day out? Or do cyclists have selective vision?


Completely agree! You can be anti-bad cycling and pro 20mph zones, pro-cyclist rights and pro-cycle lanes though. Don't let the idiots (even if they appear to be in the majority - sigh) make you throw babies out with bathwater!
[quote]For every one sensible cyclist I see twenty that are idiots. I see them every day, cycling with earphones in both ears. They swerve out from the kerb to go past cars that are parked. Clifton green, they seem to think the traffic lights are for cars only. The tear **** along and then duck in between cars just to get to the front of a traffic queue. I've seen them position themselves at the left side of a line of traffic and then swing across to turn right ignorant of the cars moving. Just tonight in the rain I turned into Gale lane from Askham Lane end ,moved towards the road centre to give a cyclist a wide birth only to be confronted by three cyclists in dark clothing with no lights pulling out from behind parked cars and spread out in what looks like an RAF attack formation. As a cyclist, surely you see what i see day in day out? Or do cyclists have selective vision? [/quote] Completely agree! You can be anti-bad cycling and pro 20mph zones, pro-cyclist rights and pro-cycle lanes though. Don't let the idiots (even if they appear to be in the majority - sigh) make you throw babies out with bathwater! BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Sat 16 Aug 14

deckhanddave says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
For every one sensible cyclist I see twenty that are idiots. I see them every day, cycling with earphones in both ears. They swerve out from the kerb to go past cars that are parked. Clifton green, they seem to think the traffic lights are for cars only. The tear **** along and then duck in between cars just to get to the front of a traffic queue. I've seen them position themselves at the left side of a line of traffic and then swing across to turn right ignorant of the cars moving. Just tonight in the rain I turned into Gale lane from Askham Lane end ,moved towards the road centre to give a cyclist a wide birth only to be confronted by three cyclists in dark clothing with no lights pulling out from behind parked cars and spread out in what looks like an RAF attack formation. As a cyclist, surely you see what i see day in day out? Or do cyclists have selective vision?


Completely agree! You can be anti-bad cycling and pro 20mph zones, pro-cyclist rights and pro-cycle lanes though. Don't let the idiots (even if they appear to be in the majority - sigh) make you throw babies out with bathwater!
Tried that but they don't fit down the plug hole ;-). On a serious note, cyclists always seem to be taking the moral high ground yet ride like Kamikaze lemmings going to a party! If I aren't just avoiding hot hatch idiots high on pot then I'm trying my damnedest not to kill a cyclist no matter how hard they try. Add to this having eyes in the back of my head to see the 20mph 'Now you see me, now you don't' signs. Dodging potholes, speed ramps, chicanes and whatever other obstacles CYC invent to make motoring a misery, no wonder York is getting a bad reputation as an anti car City. I often wonder how cyclists avoid the hot hatch brigade and pot heads?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]For every one sensible cyclist I see twenty that are idiots. I see them every day, cycling with earphones in both ears. They swerve out from the kerb to go past cars that are parked. Clifton green, they seem to think the traffic lights are for cars only. The tear **** along and then duck in between cars just to get to the front of a traffic queue. I've seen them position themselves at the left side of a line of traffic and then swing across to turn right ignorant of the cars moving. Just tonight in the rain I turned into Gale lane from Askham Lane end ,moved towards the road centre to give a cyclist a wide birth only to be confronted by three cyclists in dark clothing with no lights pulling out from behind parked cars and spread out in what looks like an RAF attack formation. As a cyclist, surely you see what i see day in day out? Or do cyclists have selective vision? [/quote] Completely agree! You can be anti-bad cycling and pro 20mph zones, pro-cyclist rights and pro-cycle lanes though. Don't let the idiots (even if they appear to be in the majority - sigh) make you throw babies out with bathwater![/p][/quote]Tried that but they don't fit down the plug hole ;-). On a serious note, cyclists always seem to be taking the moral high ground yet ride like Kamikaze lemmings going to a party! If I aren't just avoiding hot hatch idiots high on pot then I'm trying my damnedest not to kill a cyclist no matter how hard they try. Add to this having eyes in the back of my head to see the 20mph 'Now you see me, now you don't' signs. Dodging potholes, speed ramps, chicanes and whatever other obstacles CYC invent to make motoring a misery, no wonder York is getting a bad reputation as an anti car City. I often wonder how cyclists avoid the hot hatch brigade and pot heads? deckhanddave
  • Score: 1

1:56am Tue 19 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

I don't agree with this nonsense about using earphones when cycling is somehow 'wrong'. There are some types which electronically emit a sound frequency which blocks out background noise, and I don't think it's safe to use those when riding; but all other types all leak sound inward when you're on a bike no matter what people may think... and then think of this - those who complain about cyclists riding with earphones in, do they play music or the radio whilst driving whilst having all the windows shut? I can go past cars waiting in traffic, and can hear whatever it is they're playing even from several cars back and even though their windows are all closed - there's no way they'd hear an emergency vehicle coming along either behind them or at a junction.
And for every cyclist with earphone in, there is *at least* one driver going along using their mobile phone, or worse texting.
I don't agree with this nonsense about using earphones when cycling is somehow 'wrong'. There are some types which electronically emit a sound frequency which blocks out background noise, and I don't think it's safe to use those when riding; but all other types all leak sound inward when you're on a bike no matter what people may think... and then think of this - those who complain about cyclists riding with earphones in, do they play music or the radio whilst driving whilst having all the windows shut? I can go past cars waiting in traffic, and can hear whatever it is they're playing even from several cars back and even though their windows are all closed - there's no way they'd hear an emergency vehicle coming along either behind them or at a junction. And for every cyclist with earphone in, there is *at least* one driver going along using their mobile phone, or worse texting. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

7:32am Tue 19 Aug 14

deckhanddave says...

Magicman! wrote:
I don't agree with this nonsense about using earphones when cycling is somehow 'wrong'. There are some types which electronically emit a sound frequency which blocks out background noise, and I don't think it's safe to use those when riding; but all other types all leak sound inward when you're on a bike no matter what people may think... and then think of this - those who complain about cyclists riding with earphones in, do they play music or the radio whilst driving whilst having all the windows shut? I can go past cars waiting in traffic, and can hear whatever it is they're playing even from several cars back and even though their windows are all closed - there's no way they'd hear an emergency vehicle coming along either behind them or at a junction.
And for every cyclist with earphone in, there is *at least* one driver going along using their mobile phone, or worse texting.
I totally agree with the comment regarding cars with boom boxes. I hate feeling other peoples music whilst sitting in traffic jams. As for cyclists. Wearing both ear phones in and playing loud music both distracts and effectively drowns out cars engine noise coming from behind. I know because I've had bikes pull out to go around parked cars without looking behind or being aware I was there. So, those wearing earphones, according to you can hear me. Yet they ride oblivious to my presence so therefore must be absolute moronic idiots! I think not. They are wrapped up in there music to the extent they either don't hear anything because they play their music loud like idiots with boom boxes or they are just distracted by it. As for mobile phone use whilst driving, again I agree but guess what? How many cyclists do you think I've seen riding no handed whilst texting or telephoning? So yes, there are idiots and to**ers in both camps with no defence for either. I do believe the law would class most of this under a lack of due care and attention.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: I don't agree with this nonsense about using earphones when cycling is somehow 'wrong'. There are some types which electronically emit a sound frequency which blocks out background noise, and I don't think it's safe to use those when riding; but all other types all leak sound inward when you're on a bike no matter what people may think... and then think of this - those who complain about cyclists riding with earphones in, do they play music or the radio whilst driving whilst having all the windows shut? I can go past cars waiting in traffic, and can hear whatever it is they're playing even from several cars back and even though their windows are all closed - there's no way they'd hear an emergency vehicle coming along either behind them or at a junction. And for every cyclist with earphone in, there is *at least* one driver going along using their mobile phone, or worse texting.[/p][/quote]I totally agree with the comment regarding cars with boom boxes. I hate feeling other peoples music whilst sitting in traffic jams. As for cyclists. Wearing both ear phones in and playing loud music both distracts and effectively drowns out cars engine noise coming from behind. I know because I've had bikes pull out to go around parked cars without looking behind or being aware I was there. So, those wearing earphones, according to you can hear me. Yet they ride oblivious to my presence so therefore must be absolute moronic idiots! I think not. They are wrapped up in there music to the extent they either don't hear anything because they play their music loud like idiots with boom boxes or they are just distracted by it. As for mobile phone use whilst driving, again I agree but guess what? How many cyclists do you think I've seen riding no handed whilst texting or telephoning? So yes, there are idiots and to**ers in both camps with no defence for either. I do believe the law would class most of this under a lack of due care and attention. deckhanddave
  • Score: 1

10:22am Thu 21 Aug 14

Mr Trellis says...

How many cyclists in York have been prosecuted for traffic offenses ?
Maybe this paper should make a FOA request to North Yorkshire Police
My guess is NONE
How many cyclists in York have been prosecuted for traffic offenses ? Maybe this paper should make a FOA request to North Yorkshire Police My guess is NONE Mr Trellis
  • Score: 0

10:28am Thu 21 Aug 14

deckhanddave says...

Has anyone seen the following yet?

bbc.co.uk/
news/
uk-15975720

It shows the location of every road death in York from 1999 to 2010. It sure does support the need for City wide 20mph zones! Well, maybe not.
Has anyone seen the following yet? bbc.co.uk/ news/ uk-15975720 It shows the location of every road death in York from 1999 to 2010. It sure does support the need for City wide 20mph zones! Well, maybe not. deckhanddave
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree