London Fixed-gear and Single-speed

But fully segregating cyclists from motorised traffic would mean that all those people afraid of cycling would no longer have anything to be afraid of.

Ergo, it opens cycling to many people who currently consider it too dangerous.

Of course they do- if only cyclists can use them, then how can they collide with a car?

This isn't anti car per se, there is room for cars when the environment limits their potential to harm people, like when they are driven a slower speeds in places where people live like cities and towns. If drivers using motorways drive a higher speeds that may be less risky, i don't know but on my road in London or where I ride shop play I'd rather they moved slower

And I'm sure they'd rather you weren't in their way.

No middle ground!

?
That's a combative way of looking at things. Car drivers are in my way all the time, one person moving around in a huge wide heavy tin box yet I'm happy to wait behind them when they need me to. Shouldn't they do the same when I need room

Why are they in the way? Would paying attention to speeding up traffic flow, reducing congestion and increasing average speeds move them out of your way?

Maybe increasing the speed limit to 40mph on major arteries would be a good thing?

Haven't followed the trail back to source, but from todays bike blog post by Matt Seaton

So you probably suspect right. I always suggest it as the biggest barrier to cycling, even if it's often dismissed by others.

On the questions for cycle training, point 2) *could* (note, not should) be responded with a no, drivers aren't trained to expect cyclists in primary position, so reactions of confusion and anger are not uncommon.

Try this one:

Bikeability Level 3 certificate becomes a pre-requisite to obtaining a provisional driving license.

Easy

WIN WIN

Yes, if they can use them, which you have already conceded is not the case in most of London or, I would say, most other towns. At some point cyclists and motorists (and pedestrians) have to share space.
Your characterisation of the discussion as being between pro and anti car people is just not valid, not on this sub-forum anyway.

^^ is anyone lobbying for it then?

It effectively makes Bikeability Mandatory (something folks on here argue against), for anyone wishing to drive of course, yet is clearly win win.

edit above, and when all the drivers are doing it, non driving cyclists will maybe feel more pressure to go see what all the fuss is about and do the training? I dunno?

If we take my devils advocate position to it's logical conclusion (which is boring me, so it must be boring you) then no, they don't.

Cycle lane ends=cyclist gets off and pushes until they get to a new cycle lane.

And to the next point- are you serious?

No you couldn't. Ignoring the last 5years or so the roads in London and in a lot of place outside of London still are the preserve of motorists: Check the stats:

"smooth, fast flowing traffic" it wasn't

Ok, so slow all traffic (including bicycles) to 5mph then?

it has often been mooted. I suppose aiming to train all School kids is a start and there will be a generation of drivers who have had training.

The emphasis at the moment is training professional drivers which is happening due to various legislation and insurance reasons

Yes, I am serious Neil. Who is this 'we' who have not given any thought? People who spend their lives doing just that - thinking about this stuff, discussing it (and not just with other people who agree with them), going to endless boring meetings, banging their heads against brick walls in order to try and make some progress? They have knee jerk respsonses do they?
Maybe there is a bit of that out there on the wider LFGSS but not in here; and frankly you sound patronising and arrogant when you come on and start talking like that.

Rubbish. Unless you suggest an unimaginable amount of money being spent on increasing the width of roads/current cycle infastructure what happens when cycle lanes are so clogged up with cyclists sticking rigidly to their lane how is that safer for cyclist on cyclist collisions? (I'm thinking of cable street or the cycle lanes on Chingford Road that place cyclists squarely in the door zone of parked cars)

So it's a coincidence that you all sound rabidly anti-motorist then?

Or is that the natural position of any right thinking cyclist?

Looking at ways or reducing the source of danger is anti danger not anti motorist!

(You still in devils advocate mode, good on you for your perseverance?)

Cool.

Dr Robert explained that they changed the website because:
"we were re-invigorating the organisation and putting regular blogs up on our site - so we wanted a new site. We haven't been able to close down the old one - yet. If we do we will try and find a space for the old publications."

From Doctor Robert in an email to me: A few copies of "Death on the Streets: Cars and the mythology of road safety" are still available. It was published in 1993 but is still relevant today.

Send £18 (I charge a bit extra since it is out of print), including postage and packaging to me (made payable to "Robert Davis") at Road Danger Reduction Forum, PO Box 2944, LONDON NW10 2AX. I'll send you a copy, signed if you want it.

Cheers, David. I need to get a copy so I'll contact Bob.

Neil, you shouldn't get too hung up on the term 'benign'. It's a very simple transport jargon convention to group public transport (here 'benign' is often prefaced by 'relatively'), cycling, and walking under this heading. If it's any consolation to you, there is no equivalent use of 'malign modes of transport'. The reason why these modes are considered benign is simply because of their evident benefits, which of course applies particularly to cycling and walking. No need to recite these here.

The label isn't necessarily all helpful, as one thing that puts people off cycling is precisely the idea that cycling is terribly virtuous and the preserve of the sainted few. This is obviously not the case.

Also, beware of the 'segregationist' vs. 'integrationist' 'debate'. This is a massive red herring for lots of reasons. Most of these controversies are overplayed and very unproductive.

It is true that fear of road danger is typically cited as the main reason against cycling, but there are many other factors, too. This one tends to steal the limelight as it's seen as an unanswerable argument by many. It's not--cycle training answers it, for instance. The psychology of avelopia is quite fascinating, really, almost as interesting as TNRC flouncer excuses. :)

Anyway, if I elaborated on all that it would become an even longer post ...

That sort of thing doesn't need any thought given, the speed limit is literally that, if the people tend to ride right at the speed limit (says 30mph), then a 20mph one would mean motorists are likely to stick to it.

less noise pollution, less aggression (i.e. quick acceleration inbetween traffic light), less chance of a collision (shorter braking distance), less speed difference between cyclists and motorised vehicles, etc.

the reason why we tend to agree on such thing without giving much though is that we've experience riding on the road of London, we've already learnt how much a difference it would make to simply reduced the speed limit, especially when we look back at our own incident such as getting rear-ended due to impatient driver, or getting overtook with millimetre to spare right at the speed limit, etc.

Having arrived back from Copenhagen, I realise why the particular Danish people behave as they do - not because they're danish, but because of the infrastructure and the used of the bicycles.

What I've noticed in Copenhagen is the astounding lack of motorised vehicles, in comparison to London that is, I've rarely ever seen a traffic jam that's equal to London, the people I've spoken to in Copenhagen considered a mere 7-10 cars line-up to be a "bit of a traffic jam" which amused me to no end.

because of the lack of traffic jam; those who chosen to take a motorised vehicles is no longer in a rush as they always get to their destination on time regularly.

because of the above, drivers are fairly relaxed, and are more patient when waiting at a traffic light, in London, drivers are almost always caught at a traffic jam regularly, so when they see an empty road, they tend to gun it during this small section of freedom.

incidentally the same goes to the cyclists, they're rarely ever need to slow down at lots, thus almost a lots of them waited at traffic light, even when there's no motorised vehicles to be seen at all.

I realise I went a bit off topic, but it's pretty clear of the obvious advantage of riding a bicycle, moreso, I've always talked to the car owner about how to make the most out of their cars by merely riding a bicycle, this is a win-win for me as the more I talked about the insurance they saved, the less they spend on petrol, etc. the more they can able to use their vehicles for other scenario, such as a holiday, a weekend break etc. where they'll be able to enjoy driving the cars instead of being stuck in traffic jams.

"That sound great! what can I do to achieve that?"

"a bicycle, it's a car's best friend"

They also have an astounding lack of 7.5 million people.

It's a smaller city too (close to 2 millions people though) with 36% rode their bicycle, just that percentage make a staggering difference.

Ok, take three roads from my commute, Lyndhurst Way, Adys Road and Lordship Lane.

Which of these is safest, most pleasant to cycle down, and the best example of urban planning, and why?

Why don't you answer that Dammit? I don't know your area that well
A tree lined road with flowers in the verges, with a lower speed limit, with with interesting things to look at, shops and people walking around perhaps may be preferable to more people and encourage cycling.

You don't... You do what they do in ancient city centers all over the world. Massivly restrict motor vehicle access on some roads and instantly create a usable network.

Failed there, already! (perhaps many times over)

I'm a little shocked... Damit homework fail.

A great deal of though has been expended on this topic. As far as I am aware the average speed of a car in London is well below 20mph. I am told that this is mainly due to to sheer volume of traffic and the effect of drivers speeding between delays. Rushing to the next tailback is part of the problem as it just grows the tailback faster then it can be relieved. Restricting speed actually will decrease journey times, madly enough, as it would smooth flow. Hitting 40 mph between stationary delays is the current status quo.

A 20mph limit would be far from being "I'm alright Jack and sod the others"... quite the opposite in fact.

There is a major issue of air quality associated with speeding too... a bugbear of mine.

"Cyclist" and "Motorist" are both meaningless terms. Personally, I am not anti-motorist as this would involve a good degree of self loathing. Without reciting my life story, suffice to say that I have a great deal of experience with "motors" of many sorts and own a big fat family car which I enjoy hauling my big fat family around in from time to time.

I am "Pro Londoner" though... That's why I am revolted by the way we have transformed the built environment to favour motorised transport. It could all be so much better. Working to improve our enviroment doesn't imply being anti anything.

It is widely recognised that speed limits don't cause people to drive at these limits. Lower speed limits do reduce speeds, but for a 30mph limit this will mean people driving at around 30-35mph (or, indeed, lower), and similarly around 20mph (although there appears to be a particular issue with 20mph; I don't drive so can't comment, but some people tell me that 20mph sits awkwardly between two gears (is it first and second?) and drivers find it uncomfortable to drive at).

I don't quite understand whether you're arguing here that Copenhagen wins out because of its infrastructure or because of the other factors you cite (or all of them). Did you mean to write 'not because they're Danish, not because of the infrastructure or the use of the bicycles'? It would be interesting to hear more about your experience of Copenhagen.

There are various figures around for Copenhagen. 36%/37% is the figure of commuting by bike, 22%/23% is the overall modal share. See:

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2009/12/...openhagen.html

(I believe that the statistical information in this article is correct, although there is also questionable information on this blog.)

Anyway, this doesn't really have much to do with RDR.

There is no need to restrict motor vehicle access that much, but motor vehicle permeability. There is still plenty of access needed, e.g. for deliveries. In fact, it is good if access is maintained but pointless local journeys are strongly discouraged by careful management of permeability.

Being 'anti-car' (whatever that's supposed to mean) or 'anti-motorist' is extremely stupid and a lose-lose position. Cars are very useful things, but their use has to be carefully managed so that we get the best out of them rather than, as is currently often the case, the worst.

We are all mixed-mode users and none of us are 'motorists' or 'cyclists'. We seek to use the mode of transport most appropriate to our journey. One thing that RDR and other initiatives aim at is giving people a free choice of appropriate mode, which as you know is currently very severely restricted, partly owing to fear of road danger.

20mph sits just below the third gear. The third gear is the first "driving gear". Second gear is really just for acceleration. Having driver's driving in the second gear will mean they are able to accelerate most swiftly...

I obey 30kph (18 mph?) when there is possibilities to peds/vehicles entering from behind parked cars etc. I often drive under limit the if limit is 40 kph in that kind of conditions. But if there is a "pointless" 30kph limit with no possibility of people entering the roadway, I drive the slowest speed comfortable with the 3rd gear. To save petrol.

My apologise, I do often confused my point, I meant to write "not because they're Danish, but because the infrastructure and the use of the bicycles" that allowed a perfect balance between peds, motorised vehicles, and cyclists.

Thank you Oliver for that concise definition of exactly what i meant... :-) You are, as ever, the voice of reason.

We've just written this report together with Southwark Living Streets - it may be of interest to people on here: https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/sit...rt-07Mar12.pdf

Sorry, just got to bump this thread.

You're clearly not into thread danger reduction.

"A mantra you can carry about in traffic: when a situation feels dangerous to you, it's probably more safe than you know; when a situation feels safe, that's precisely when you should be on guard"
Tom Vanderbilt
Traffic

Lambeth Council is making a film messaging drivers:
Give cyclists space:
Expect riders in traffic stream at junctions
Expect them to ride in the middle of the lane when avoiding parked cars.


Sometimes riders ride out of cycle lanes when they need to especially while passing side roads.

Naughty drivers in Lambeth will soon be offered an alternative to a £60 fine and 3 points on their licence...

Dr Robert Davis, Road Danger Reduction forum chair talking abour RDR (and helmets) on (at 2: 41) skynews2012lowdefshort

Road danger reduction made simple by yehuda moon
http://yehudamoon.com/10122012/