Advocacy & Safety - A Step Back for the Brits?

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features/article1746923.ece

- and an interesting snippet:

The row has been thrown into sharper focus by the unintended publication 12 days ago of a document produced by Transport for London (TfL) that suggested cyclists who obeyed the rules of the road were more likely to be killed or injured than those who did not.

If the obeying the rules of the road means never leaving a bike lane, then that conclusion is completely understandable.

If the obeying the rules of the road means never leaving a bike lane, then that conclusion is completely understandable.

Actually it reads as though they are trying to implement this... and that is NOT what has been required in the past.

Frankly, I would like to see that report.

The report considered the accident rate of riders obeying red signals and RLJers. There was also evidence that women were more likely to be killed or seriously injured by trucks while waiting on red.

The subject needs more research and examination of what actually happened in such collisions - many were left-turning (UK, remember) trucks.

Amongst other factors considered by commentators were, coming up inside the trucks and being in the driver's blind spot, rider being just in front of vehicle and in blind spot created by height of lower edge of windscreen, women riders being less experienced/assertive in their road position, etc.

This is typical of the friction that develops between cyclists and motorists when there are enough cyclists on the road for motorists to actually notice the increase. Expect more of this in the future as cycling continues to surge in popularity. Motorists are not going to give up their hegemony of the roads without a fight.

This is typical of the friction that develops between cyclists and motorists when there are enough cyclists on the road for motorists to actually notice the increase. Expect more of this in the future as cycling continues to surge in popularity. Motorists are not going to give up their hegemony of the roads without a fight.

What is typical?

the friction

the friction

"The friction" is typical of the friction? (I replaced "this" from your previous post with your answer)

I'm trying not to put words in your mouth when interpretting your previous post. What I assume you mean by "this" (the first word in your reply and used again in the second sentence) is either cyclists breaking the law or motorist/cyclist conflicts resulting in injuries/death. I don't which one or if I'm even in the ballpark.

you asked what is typical, not what typical friction is.

IMO, the typical friction when all of a sudden there are 'too many' cyclists, is for the motorists to start behaving badly towards the cyclists and demanding that the cyclists be removed from the road, which, after all, is 'owned' by the motorists.

you asked what is typical, not what typical friction is.

IMO, the typical friction when all of a sudden there are 'too many' cyclists, is for the motorists to start behaving badly towards the cyclists and demanding that the cyclists be removed from the road, which, after all, is 'owned' by the motorists.

You said: "This is typical of the friction that develops between cyclists and motorists when there are enough cyclists on the road for motorists to actually notice the increase."

That was the "this" I was asking about since you never defined what "this" was. You refer to "this" again in the next sentence but still don't make it clear what you are referring to. I believe that, based on your reply, you were trying to make a statement such as this:

"This increase in collisions involving cyclists who strictly obey the rules of the road is typical of the friction that develops between cyclists and motorists when there are enough cyclists on the road for motorists to actually notice the increase because motorists start behaving badly towards the cyclists and demand that the cyclists be removed from the road."

Is that a correct statement? I'm really not trying to be annoying, although I'm sure this has been annoying. I do want to figure out what you were getting at with your original statement. If what I assembled above is true, then I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion assuming that you don't have the accident reports just like I don't. If you do, or if anyone else does, I'm very interested in reading up about it.

Motorists are not allowed to turn on red in Britain. They turn when the signal changes. This makes them more likely to hit a cyclist who overtakes and waits next to them curbside than one who jumps the light. It's unclear how many cyclists it takes to make truck drivers better at checking their blind spot before turning.

The Dutch solution is to prohibit turning when the cyclists go via separate signal phases. This delays either the motorists or the cyclists, often both, due to less time for each phase. The vehicular cycling solution is require right-turning drivers to merge to the curb and through cyclists to stay farther from the curb, in-line with straight traffic, at intersections.

...an interesting snippet...
I tend to just get in the line of traffic at stoplights.
I'm in the US, so it's right-turn drivers that are the risk. I used to watch for turn signals, still do a lot--but that's simply not enough. Lots of drivers don't use them, and when they pull up to a stoplight or stop sign, they don't have their right turn signal on, they look forward and left, and then turn.

I've had four close calls and all four times it was exactly this: being right-turned on. And all four times, none of the drivers stopped, or even looked back, or even realized that anything had happened despite the fact that I ran into their cars.

So when I'm in city traffic, I just plain get in the way sometimes. If I have to make drivers wait for me to make sure they see me, then so be it.
~

You said: "This is typical of the friction that develops between cyclists and motorists when there are enough cyclists on the road for motorists to actually notice the increase."

That was the "this" I was asking about since you never defined what "this" was. You refer to "this" again in the next sentence but still don't make it clear what you are referring to. I believe that, based on your reply, you were trying to make a statement such as this:

"This increase in collisions involving cyclists who strictly obey the rules of the road is typical of the friction that develops between cyclists and motorists when there are enough cyclists on the road for motorists to actually notice the increase because motorists start behaving badly towards the cyclists and demand that the cyclists be removed from the road."

Is that a correct statement? I'm really not trying to be annoying, although I'm sure this has been annoying. I do want to figure out what you were getting at with your original statement. If what I assembled above is true, then I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion assuming that you don't have the accident reports just like I don't. If you do, or if anyone else does, I'm very interested in reading up about it.
I'm not talking strictly about collisions. I'm more significantly talking about incidents of motorist hazings of cyclists (e.g. passing or following too closely), to inappropriate 'suggestive' comments directed at cyclists by motorists, and other incidents of harrassment and/or aggressive driving by motorists directed at cyclists.

I'm not talking strictly about collisions. I'm more significantly talking about incidents of motorist hazings of cyclists (e.g. passing or following too closely), to inappropriate 'suggestive' comments directed at cyclists by motorists, and other incidents of harrassment and/or aggressive driving by motorists directed at cyclists.

Ok, I was confused since the article was strictly about collisions. Either way, I'm interested in how you come to that conclusion if you feel like discussing it. Your conclusion seems to be at odds with most cycling advocates who state that the more cyclists on the road, the safer cycling will become. I generally disagree with them but I think it's for different reasons than you do.

Ok, I was confused since the article was strictly about collisions. Either way, I'm interested in how you come to that conclusion if you feel like discussing it. Your conclusion seems to be at odds with most cycling advocates who state that the more cyclists on the road, the safer cycling will become. I generally disagree with them but I think it's for different reasons than you do.
I think they are talking about the 'good motorists' (e.g. even tempered, non-aggro, don't want to hit anything [but still may or may not be distracted at any given moment]) who respond to more cyclists by driving more carefully around them. Even these motorists can become frustrated by increasing numbers of cyclists on the arterial streets and lobby for their removal, typically to side streets.

I'm talking about the own-the-road, in-your-face, aggro type motorists who are actually enraged in one way or another by all the cyclists suddenly appearing 'in their way' on 'their' road, and actually take direct action against the cyclists. This action doesn't necessarily appear in any sort of statistical tally, esp. of collisions, but it is occurring nonetheless.

And don't get me wrong, I've seen a lot of bad bike lane design in Portland, and there always seem to be paint and path people pushing their agenda in the Transportation Department; more often than not locally, I find myself arguing against bad bike lane design or proposed bike lanes in what I consider to be inappropriate locations. In my opinion, most of the designs could be better, and sharrows would be more useful for cyclists in most locations where cyclist safety is an issue on an arterial street. I think it would be generous to say that PDOT gets their bike lane design and execution right about 50% of the time. Even the well-designed and properly located bike lanes (e.g. no parked cars or large #s of intersections) still often have issues with things like oversized drainage grates, etc..