Today I was interviewed by BBC Surrey about the new Cycle facilities that are being built leading to Walton Bridge.
My objections to the scheme have not really changed from the time of the consultation and I hope I articulated them clearly.
Surrey has planned a series of shared use pavement cycle facilities, shared with pedestrians, that are narrow, stop at every junction and require cyclists to cross the main road multiple times to follow them. Surrey claim these are high quality following best practice from the Dutch. On the Surrey website you can see some pictures, mostly of how they new facilities will make things worse for people on bikes and see Surrey gloss over that they are not building cycle paths at all but letting cyclists share the pavements.
One of the goals of the facilities is to reduce injuries amongst people on bikes. However when I spoke to the officers at the consultation they admitted they did not expect existing people on bikes to use them because Surrey conceded they were not of a high enough standard for existing cyclists. Given this it is hard to see how they will result in a casualty reduction.
Of course those people on bikes who do choose to use them will be put into conflict with pedestrians, putting both pedestrians and people on bikes in danger.
Those people on bikes who Surrey don’t expect to use the facilities and continue to use the road can look forward to even more animosity from a small, but significant minority of motorists who will use their vehicles to attempt to intimidate people on bikes off the road.
All in all Surrey are going to spend a large amount of a small cycling budget on a scheme that will make cycling, slower, more dangerous and less pleasant.
Many years ago when cycling through the Alps we were descending the Foscagno Pass when one of my travelling companions had the misfortune to hit a hole in the road or some gravel, loose control of his bike and crash. Since we were young and foolish this happened at speed probably somewhere between 35 and 40 mph possibly more. Not having speed computers back then it’s hard to tell for sure.
They were carried off the mountain by some locals in a white Fiat, at great speed waving a white handkerchief out of the window, while their bikes were taken away by a man in a van and delivered later to the hospital where the white Fiat was taking them. The kindness of strangers is a wonderful thing.
The result of this crash was my friend ended up in Hospital in Bormio with 10 stitches in his head and a very snazzy net covering his head. He was lucky.
His bike was not.
The force of the crash had destroyed the front wheel, forks and frame along with other more minor damage.
Since I was in front when the crash happened I missed all of this and so got to ride to Bormio.
The good news was that he was able to continue the trip after one day out and get over the mighty Stelvio Pass the next day, once we found a bike and converted it from being an Italian racing bike into a going to ride around Europe Touring bike. He took it much slower on the descent.
Did his helmet save his life? No. He was not wearing one. This was 1985 when helmets really did not exist for most cyclists. However if he had been wearing one and survived I would, to this day, be telling everyone that it had saved his life. I would believe it.
Could a helmet have prevented his head injuries? May be. Could it have broken his neck again may be. We will never know but I know it would not have saved his life.
This is my first hand anecdote that makes me distrust helmet saved his/her/my life anecdotes more than anything else.
I realise this post is close to trolling, since any post on bicycle helmets is close to trolling, so if you are going to comment please keep it civil.
Surrey are consulting on what they describe as “continuous, safe, high quality cycle paths”.
I am pretty sure I should feel very happy about The Times campaign to make cycling safe. However they seem to have forgotten their own hand in the problems for cyclists. So here is what I wrote on their campaign site:
First start would be to look inside The Times. Jeremy Clarkson and Matthew Parris have both called for cyclists to be maimed for no other reason that being cyclists.
This attitude needs challenging and having powerful figures in the media presenting stupid and dangerous views needs to end. Time for Matthew “Piano Wire” Parris to write a real apology and get onside to change attitudes & Jeremy Clarkson to grow up and realise that cyclists are not the problem and his childish threats have real consequences when acted out by others.
It’s easy to call for change in others but if you are not prepared to change as well those calls will have little impact.
Last week someone on a cycling forum posted a challenge for 2012 -
12 in 12
12 imperial centuries in 12 months, but the twist is you have to do 1 a month.
With the weather so good yesterday I embarked on the first century of the year with a friend. I planned the route electronically but since the demise of my bike GPS had to use paper maps for the bits I did not know. The “new” map/ were copyright in 1990, the old one from 1980!
Since it is not summer I did not ride this on my summer bike but instead on my commuter, with dynamo and saddle bag. On a normal Sunday ride on this I can keep up, a bit slow up the hills but not to much of a problem.
On a longer ride and one that seemed to have little flat riding after the first cafe, which itself was on the top of a hill, the road seemed to go up and down and up and down with each up the bike felt heavier and heavier.
We missed a turning in SouthWater that meant we had the pleasure of Horsham’s roads to deal with. Quite how a small town could build such unpleasant roads for cyclists is beyond me but we survived and more importantly it did not reduce the mileage. There would be nothing worse than going out to ride 100 miles only to get back and discoverer it was 99.99 miles.
Not long after Horsham we were in St Leonard’s Forest on a route I have cycled many times home so my spirits lifted a bit at least I knew when the hills were going to be.
Managed to get back and the final distance was 107 miles. The route is here.
I am now looking forward to February’s ride but pondering if one day in February could become an honorary summers day so I can ride a light bike!
I should be pleased that TfL are at last talking about “Improving cycling safety” however reading their post I am left confused.
The blog points out that for the first time in 10 years we now have no bendy buses on the roads of London. These bendy buses were so dangerous for cyclists that the Mayor made a priority of scrapping them at considerable cost. Apparently improved training for the drivers was not an option.
The bit that confuses me is that the bendy buses have killed the grand total of 0 cyclists. In 10 years these buses, which are so dangerous that they must be scrapped, have not actually killed a single cyclist.
Yet at the same time, lorries have killed more than I can count and the Mayor’s solution for the dangers from lorries? Better training and some mirrors, both of which would be voluntary.
Now I’m the last person to want bendy buses back, from a cyclist’s point of view they were terrible but the solution is not removing the buses, not unless you are also removing the really dangerous vehicles: lorries.
The solution is real high quality cycling infrastructure separated from the lorries, the bendy buses, the Taxis, motorcycles and cars. Note I say high quality. Not a dash of blue paint that stops when it gets to a junction.