RichardStamper

I raised the (un)safety of the hire bikes at the STFC site Safety Management Committee meeting last week, and this concern should get escalated to the campus through STFC management.

I’m not sure what significant need the “cycle bypass” is serving. It is only “active” when there is a heavy flow out of Thomson Avenue turning right to go south without this being regularly interrupted by traffic heading north to interrupt that flow. This is relatively uncommon and is most likely at the end of the day when there will also be few cyclists approaching from the north. Combine this with the non-layby bus stop and you will have cyclists needing to merge back in to the main carriageway by a road-crossing pinch-point, then potentially move further right to overtake a stationary bus, all in a very short stretch of road.

Good report – very clear.

One observation is that it seems odd to me that there although four routes were surveyed, the route which actually had marginally greater use than any of the others (the A4185) is the only route for which HarBUG has no identified priority project for infrastructure.

This is a fine example of classically bad practice by the council. Second-hand information from a parent of a child at King Alfred’s school is that pupils have been instructed to use the pavement leaving the school on bikes. Since pavement cycling is illegal it looks like the council is being helpful by “converting” the pavement into a shared use path by painting some white lines, ignoring the fact that the result will meet none of the DoT guidelines on such facilities and will be generally unsatisfactory for pedestrians and cyclists alike. Motorists might be happy I guess.

I believe the cycle path between Abingdon and Drayton arose through a similar mechanism – in that case the police got fed up with pedestrians complaining about cyclists on the pavement – and the result is a path that is good in parts and hazardous in others.

As it happens, I’ve just had a letter published in the Oxford Times on this subject. Text below:

Nigel Clarke’s simple three-point plan for improving cycle safety has one flaw – his second point, that cyclists should always use cycle paths when provided. I can do no better than to quote the opening paragraphs of Chapter 13 of the official Stationary Office publication “Cyclecraft”, recommended reading for the national cycle training standard “Bikeability”.

“Most people believe that the segregation of cyclists from other traffic by the provision of cycle paths and other facilities is the ideal way to improve cycling safety. But in reality experienced cyclists often avoid using cycle paths, even if this means riding along busy roads. The value of cycle facilities varies considerably, as does the quality of what is provided.

It is a mistake to think that cycle facilities are inherently safer than using the general roads.

Most facilities are not safer, particularly for a similar level of mobility, and there is evidence that some facilities are both hazardous in themselves and lead to unsafe cycling practices.”

In and around Oxford there are some cycle facilities that do help cyclists by providing convenient and safe routes. Sadly, many others are so badly designed or maintained that they are both more dangerous and less convenient for cyclists than the roads. As a regular cyclist, I have lost count of the number of times I have been abused by motorists for not using a cycle path. Could I put in a plea for those motorists not to honk their horns, gesticulate, wind down their windows and shout at cyclists to “use the effing cycle path”, but to consider that they may be on the road because it is the safest place for them to be?