falling off bikes since 1975

I then asked LPRS about traffic schemes that force traffic following a main route to give way to every vehicle pulling into or out of side-roads. After feigning ignorance (again!) of such schemes - I had to provide them with examples and remind them that cyclists are traffic too - they again bowed to Highways best practice.

Woah!

According to LCCs own cycling strategy^[6] 25% of cycling accidents are caused by vehicles pulling out of a sideroad into the path of a cyclist, and 5% by a vehicle overtaking a cyclist then turning left.

Furthermore in the event of such an accident this type of cycle lane moves the liability from the motorist to the cyclist. Yes, the motorist who could see the cyclist he is going to cut up has right of way over the cyclist who can’t see the motorist that’s going to hit him unless he makes a 180 degree look over his shoulder, whilst approaching a sideroad. When the cyclists view is obscured by street furniture - as it is on some of our local junctions - then the situation is even more ridiculous.

Do LPRS really believe that such schemes are safe? Here’s what they have to say:

“It will have been considered by the engineers who implemented the scheme that this was the safest way to operate these lanes.”

Sloping shoulders and trust the engineers to rely on best practice and do a good job.

Why don’t they admit that they don’t understand our concerns because they travel everywhere in metal boxes. Once they’ve acknowledged this ignorance they could try and improve themselves by coming out and seeing for themselves the problems on the ground.

“It falls outside our speed, seat-belts, drink-driving remit”.

Here’s how dumb best practice and the engineers using it are when it comes to cycle lane design.

Lancashire County Councils own best practice^[7] for cycle scheme design only takes into account solo bicycles.

Lancashire County Councils own best practice does not take into account the space requirements of tag-a-longs.

I’ll admit that such combinations are a rarity on the roads in general, but they are commonplace in areas around schools. Here is an example of a very vulnerable road user, a parent/child combination, yet Highways designers put refuges into local cycle lanes, within yards of a primary school, that are too short for such combinations. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they even looked at best practice, but it’s nosubstitute for common sense. That despite claiming to have undertaken a traffic survey - which should have picked up the combinations I see every day using this route. Designers refused to come out of their offices to meet with the Local Councillors who were expressing their concerns at the scheme. They preferred to computer model it to actually come and see if there were real problems on site.

What they did doesn’t come across as very expert to me, yet these are the folk LPRS capitulate to.

“It falls outside our speed, seat-belts, drink-driving remit”.

Cycle deaths rose in 2005^[8], attributed to increased numbers of cycle commuters. That will be commuters on busy roads where traffic speeds are a crawl, and where LPRS speed camera vans are not about because they’d earn nothing. Sod policing the standard of driving and catching that knob on a mobile phone who’s just driven in and out of the cycle lane. I think LPRS are in a state of denial about poor cycle scheme design contributing to accidents at such times of day, when there are increased numbers of cars turning into and out of side roads, and children cycling to school.

“It falls outside our speed, seat-belts, drink-driving remit”.

How about improving road safety by improving road design, and not treating the victims as those to blame? Imagine that. Well, apparently not at the LPRS. They might as well just come out and say that if you ride a motorbike/horse/bicycle and are hit by a car or have an accident well, it’s your own fault for being there in the first place.

Efforts at the County Cycle Liaison Meetings have been unable to get the designers out of their ivory towers to come and see the problems they create. It looks like Highways think we’re a nuisance, and if they ignore us we’ll go away. LPRS will not help or use their influence on Highways to change their attitude.

After all, they don’t ride bikes or horses. They don’t understand what it’s like to be nudged by the wing mirror of that guy who took his attention off the traffic - you - to look at his speedo when he spotted their camera van. And we expect to ride in the cycle lane where he’s parked his camera van! God we’re selfish bastards!

“It falls outside our speed, seat-belts, drink-driving remit”.

I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again. It doesn’t look like LPRS is working for cyclists. To that we can add horse-riders and motorcyclists.

LPRS have provided no evidence (phone, email, website) to the contrary.

Acccording to the signs as you cross the border Lancashire is a County Where Everyone Matters. Unless you’re a biker, horserider, or cyclist, and if you’re all three, then as far as LPRS are concerned you’re off their radar.

References

References are provided to aid the LPRS in overcoming their ignorance.

[1]
BBC, File On Four, ‘Hidden menace’ on UK’s roads, 22 Feb 2005

[2]
NRA, Press Release, 24 Jan 2002

[3]
BHS Scotland, Information Sheet on SMA (DOC)

[4]
BHS, Safety Symposium

[5]
MAG, April 2005 (PDF)

[6]
LCC Draft Cycling Strategy, (DOC)

[7]
Lancashire, The Cyclists County, (PDF)

[8]
2005 Transport Statistics

Footnote: it is gratifying to see from our stats that folk are visiting this site after searching for “lancashire partnership for road safety” and we are steadily climbing up the Google rankings for this search.

When we reach the front page we’ll be harder for them to ignore. So much for their PR budget of £200,000.