Found this to explain more ... The Times
hereand
here Tweet linkThe Times wrote:
Cities Fit For Cycling
In November, Times journalist Mary Bowers was just yards from arriving at work on her bike when she was hit by a lorry. Mary, 27, is still not conscious and is making a slow recovery in hospital.
Tragically, such an accident is far from rare. More than 27,000 cyclists have been killed or seriously injured on British streets in the past 10 years.
On the urban roads of Britain today cyclists need to be fit for cities. Cycling should be both safe and pleasurable. Ministers, mayors and local authorities must build cities that are fit for cycling.
The Times has launched a public campaign and 8-point manifesto calling for cities to be made fit for cyclists:
1) Trucks entering a city centre should be required by law to fit sensors, audible truck-turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.
2) The 500 most dangerous road junctions must be identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and Trixi mirrors that allow lorry drivers to see cyclists on their near-side.
3) A national audit of cycling to find out how many people cycle in Britain and how cyclists are killed or injured should be held to underpin effective cycle safety.
4) Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes, providing £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.
5) The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.
6) 20mph should become the default speed limit in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes.
7) Businesses should be invited to sponsor cycleways and cycling super-highways, mirroring the Barclays-backed bicycle hire scheme in London.
8) Every city, even those without an elected mayor, should appoint a cycling commissioner to push home reforms.
Cannot say that I agree with it all and to sign up would imply that you do. I do agree with some of the principals and disagree with others:
1) Hauliers have enough on their plate and a reminder to look ought to work but how about funding the mirrors and are given to lorries. All the points speak of big bully tactics than a community all pulling together. That misses a good opportunity.
This would be better and obtain more approval, than further 'demands' on an already struggling industry (to large extents).
(It also implies that if you don't find the money then you can't care and that isn't right in principal, as if you introduce a new rule making it one that people want to help with than told to do, ought to be the aim - encouragement not enforcement.
2) Why only 500 ? Why limit a survey surely all junctions that have a problem need to have proper engineering /design solutions.
And why then prioritise cyclists at traffic lights ? I managed for years in London and I tried very hard to ensure of my safety. This idea that lights should favour one road user over another is segregating road users and we need less of that and an overall responsible attitude that we are all people that need to work together. All lights apply to everyone and lets not complicate it further. Does this mean that we have a light sequence for bikes then buses then taxis then cars ? Who defines the hierarchy ?
3) Tweaks to current road safety research will produce this information and likely cost a lot less as an add on than a whole new set of research data. Surely bike sales will help to indicate how many people cycle and considering all the data that the HMRC must hold one would think they ought to have this data already. Agree totally that by understanding how the incidents occur we can better put in place policies that may help to prevent further injury to people and property.
4) Why 2% and why 'next generation cycle routes, whatever that is ? Why not use some of it to provide 'people routes' for everyone to travel (horse-riders, cyclists, walkers etc etc) it just needs to be basic good quality surface. We haven't got the luxury to spend much - we are not well off but in serious debt. So basic will just have to do and if communities want more then why not contribute time and effort to help do their 'stretch' if they want more than a simple route. We do not 'need' targets and numbers to tell us a place has a cycle route, we just need it add to SatNavs and a logical map or guide probably supplied through a website that all cycling clubs etc can contribute to.
5) I approve of good quality training as it can help everyone to learn and understand. I'd like to know too what is wrong that we have potentially become so intolerant of others. This needs to understand the psychology too.
6) I cannot agree to this and even if a very few areas may benefit I would never blindly approve of this and it makes no real sense. I am quite sure that if some of the enforcement techniques are approved over the next 5 years, then many people will find themselves criminalised when going a little over 20mph, when no one is around and no danger has been created. The rules will become (as they already are) disrespected. What about the cyclists that have no front or rear or either lights they are a potential danger too.
7) On the face of this, it maybe good but is there room for 'super-highways'. What new rules will be needed to ensure all cyclists will know how to behave in the safest manner? Who will be around to enforce it ? Or will a drone run up and down the lanes ?
8) Waste of public money - as we only need a government approval and demand to the local Councils, and it is covered. That way the National approach makes it all uniform and simple than each individual area creating their own route type and signs and layouts.
Why not just have the local cycling groups join forces, and meet with the local council engineers directly to show progress although even that is un-necessary if central Gov have laid down the law on a route system. I am also sure that Company sponsoring -say by Giant, Scott should help improve the number of routes. Old railway lines have already been converted and that is great and fun but for all not just cyclists.
What they are really doing is a cycle road network. Not a bad idea but I think where possible first, we should always improve the existing roads to allow cyclists to travel confidently and safely. Even sweeping the roads to the very edges would help.
I do agree that there will be local issues but nothing that local Councils can't cope with. If councils are so unwieldy then that needs to be directly addressed and improved.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
