h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Good stuff! I would sometimes like to wear a notice saying "There are as many people on this bike as in that car" but there's not enough space.

I ride a recumbent around town and have done a 1000 mile trip North to South of France in 18 days on it. What do you ride? Mountainbike?

See my bit A891830 "Cycling: the future is laidback"

Cheers
~Recumbentman

What do I ride? See http://www.chapmancentral.com - the seat is 15" off the ground and laid back at 26º, friends!

The government have installed cycle tracks etc on the roads, I see very few bikes in them. Mostly they are blocked every few hundred yards by cars, there may be a law against this but no-one bothers to correct it. My children and I ride on our suburban pavements, always on the outside and stopping or going into the road for pedestrians. If this is not acceptable I may as well sell all our bikes. The only time we use the roads is on holiday in Norfolk etc, we take them up in a trailer.
The solution to cycling is staring us in the face. Allow cyclists more access on the outside of the pavement in the suburbs with pedestrians having right of way. Also cyclists would be required to have compulsory insurance.

You say "The government have installed cycle tracks etc on the roads, I see very few bikes in them." That's because very often they were designed with no reference to cyclists. Many cycle lanes are too narrow, too poorly maintained, or blocked by parked cars. They also place the cyclist out of the main flow of traffic, making it more likely that a motorist entering the road will not see us. All criticisms levelled at the first cycle lane in Britain in 1935, and in 70 years not one of these problems has been addressed.

You say "Mostly they are blocked every few hundred yards by cars, there may be a law against this but no-one bothers to correct it." There is a law against it if the dividing line is solid.

You say "My children and I ride on our suburban pavements, always on the outside and stopping or going into the road for pedestrians. If this is not acceptable I may as well sell all our bikes." It is acceptable for children, but not for adults. The reasons are simple enough, but the most compelling for me is that riding on the pavement is (depending on location) between three and eleven times more dangerous than riding on the road. My children (6 and 9) travel to school with one of us on a three-seater bike. Michael also rides his own bike on the road, but little Pete is too young yet and hasn't the control or observation skills. Michael has recently passed his Cycling Proficiency course. He is a confident and capable cyclist.

You say "The solution [...] allow cyclists more access on the outside of the pavement in the suburbs with pedestrians having right of way." I disagree profoundly. In my view the way to encourage cycling is to provide good quality training for adults, preferably free of charge. Riding on the road becomes dramatically less dangerous and less scary once you have the skills. Read Cyclecraft, by John Franklin (from The Stationery Office) for more information; the "solution" is also to ensure that the road environment is safe for all road users, not just those in cars. "Solutions" which depend on removing cyclists from the road are never a solution, as they merely put off the inevitable point where the cyclist must join the traffic (or walk), and they inhibit the learning of the skills which enable us to use the roads safely. Riding on the road is not dangerous. It is not without risk (neither is driving) but the BMA says that the benefits outweigh the risks by more than 20:1.

Such "solutions" are also pointless since if you took every single pedestrian and cyclist off the roads you would still have millions of crashes, hundreds of thousands injured, tens of thousands seriously injured and thousands killed every year. The problem of road danger is not cyclists or pedestrians, it is carelessly driven cars. To deliver a real improvement in road safety all that is required is for everybody to drive (and cycle and walk) according to the Highway Code.

You say "Also cyclists would be required to have compulsory insurance." That is an excellent way of deterring cycling. Most regular road cyclists have insurance, the people who will be deterred are those who ride only occasionally. Raising barriers to cycling is not smart. In any case the risk posed by cyclists is so small that the cycling organisations can offer a million pounds' worth of public indemnity as a free membership benefit.

More accidents are caused by negligent pedestrians than by negligent cyclists, so if bikes must be insured then so must pedestrians. Or we could take the view that since almost all fatal accidents on the roads involve a motor vehicle, the motor vehciles are the dangerous items and they are the ones which should be insured. As of course a large number are not. Which raises another question: cars are large, expensive, traceable. Even so, up to 10% of cars in some areas are untaxed, uninsured and untested. How would you enforce an insurance scheme for bikes?

The best way to improve the treatment of cyclists is for there to be more people cycling. At the moment we're in a spiral of decrease, as people take to cars (and drive their children about) because they see it as too dangerous for them to cycle -- and it consequently becomes more dangerous.

When lawyers cycle in sufficient numbers, it will be safe to cycle. See A1009144: "Cyclists: be safe - be seen as a bad target".

Point of information, Mr Chairman. Cycling is not in a spiral of decline in the UK the numbers cycling are increasing steadily and the casualty rate is falling as a result.

Glad to hear the news from the UK. Here in Dublin the figures show a steep decline.