The Student Room Group

Should the UK be doing more for cyclists?

I cycle, and for that reason I am very pro-cycle for when it gets bought up for transport and any debate.

But I also have recognised in the last month how stupid some people are when cycling (though you can get stupid people everywhere), for example on a busy road you should not be on your phone.

But I found a couple of articles that interested me.

BBC News - Paris to let cyclists skip red lights
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33446899

Is this something that should be allowed in the UK?

Personally even just for my own safety I always stop at red lights unless it's at night and the roads are completely dead. I also see a lot of near misses and actually have seen a collision too when a cyclist went through a red light, which wasn't pleasant to witness.

The Guardian - 'If there aren't as many women cycling as men... you need better infrastructure'
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/09/women-cycling-infrastructure-cyclists-killed-female?CMP=twt_gu

I don't really agree with her views on women/men but I like the idea that we need better infrastructure, Brighton have made some great developments in this area over the last 5/10 years to improve cycle accessibility and safety, something which I hope continues as it's really good for a better ride, and a safer ride too. No one wants to be pulling out behind buses and trapped on the side of a uneven road in a tight space beside lorries.

So do you think Britain should work towards better cycle facilities, transport and safety? Should we make helmets/lights/mirrors/bells/not crossing red lights/not cycling on pavements legal?

Scroll to see replies

Yes, we should definitely work towards better cycle facilities. There needs to be a target that by 2025 all roads that are wide enough(except obviously long distance ones like motorways, dual carriageways etc) should have cycle lanes. If the road is not wide enough for a cycle lane and has a pavement, then cycling on the pavement should be allowed. This will maximise the number of places in which cyclists have a safe space in which to get from A to B. However, I think that bells should be compulsory and that we should also look at speed limits for cyclists, particularly on pavements, so that pedestrians can also feel safe, and that it should be illegal to cycle in the road where there is a cycle lane or a pavement. Also, I think that when we've got more people cycling, we should move towards making helmets compulsory.
Reply 2
Cyclists jumping red lights is definitely a problem, but it's by no means the worst one. I've seen people on bikes do some incredibly dangerous stuff, all of course with absolutely zero accountability. It doesn't matter how dumb cyclists are, if one hits a vehicle it's automatically the driver's fault.

Accountability is a double-edged sword of course. if you start introducing a heap of bureaucracy to cycling it's obviously going to reduce the number of people who take up two wheels. But if cyclists can just get away with anything it's clearly going to pose problems for other road users.
Cyclists should operate under the same rules as cars - as they currently do. I don't skip red lights. It's more about keeping solidarity with traffic rather than safety. If someone has to overtake me again then their head would probably explode.

Also more needs to be done so that drivers know what to do around cyclists. I have rarely been frustrated by cyclists as a driver. The rare exception is when they insist on riding two abreast and not allowing overtaking - which should be a punishable offence.

But letting cyclists cycle on pavements is insane. My bike is made of carbon fibre and I travel at an average speed of 20mph on a short journey. If some idiot with a pram hit me then I would do some serious damage. More devoted cycle paths should be made where possible, but otherwise the current rules are the best they possibly could be.
Reply 4
Original post by EverybodyHz
Also more needs to be done so that drivers know what to do around cyclists. I have rarely been frustrated by cyclists as a driver. The rare exception is when they insist on riding two abreast and not allowing overtaking - which should be a punishable offence.


Riding two abreast is perfectly legal, it's in the highway code.

Why are you, in your mode as a driver at that point, entitled to overtake? What's so frustrating about waiting for a gap?

Surely you as a cyclist would rather a car driver wait until a gap was big enough to overtake you safely rather than squeeze by when there's not really enough space?
Reply 5
Original post by Drewski
Riding two abreast is perfectly legal, it's in the highway code.


Well sort of. The full text of the rule is:

"[You should] never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

Arguably, if there are cars waiting to overtake that would count as "busy" and the cyclists should move over to let the cars pass. But with this being a "should" rule, it doesn't have any legal authority of course.
Original post by Drewski
Riding two abreast is perfectly legal, it's in the highway code.

Why are you, in your mode as a driver at that point, entitled to overtake? What's so frustrating about waiting for a gap?

Surely you as a cyclist would rather a car driver wait until a gap was big enough to overtake you safely rather than squeeze by when there's not really enough space?


I don't think it should be legal for cyclists to ride two abreast in front of traffic. As a cyclist, the slipstream is advantageous so there is no benefit to cycling two abreast for speed. As a cyclist I would never do it with cars behind. The highway code also says ALLOW OVERTAKING. So while it i legal for cyclists to ride two abreast, it can be interpreted that doing so in front of traffic is not. And if I were a police officer, I would probably use this interpretation of the highway code. I live near many single carriageway A class country roads, and there is nothing more frustrating than car-width objects refusing to allow overtakes by pulling in.

Personally I don't mind if a car gives me a foot of room to my right hand side. Unless he hits me I don't really care. As a driver I would give at least a metre of room but that's because you don't know how competent the cyclist is.
Reply 7
Original post by EverybodyHz
The highway code also says ALLOW OVERTAKING. So while it i legal for cyclists to ride two abreast, it can be interpreted that doing so in front of traffic is not.


A car driving in front of another isn't denying overtaking, so two cyclists - who take up much less road space than a car would - could not possibly be determined to be denying any overtaking.

The only way that rule could be used against cyclists is if they were traveling as a peloton with dozens of riders straddling the lanes.
Original post by Drewski
A car driving in front of another isn't denying overtaking, so two cyclists - who take up much less road space than a car would - could not possibly be determined to be denying any overtaking.

The only way that rule could be used against cyclists is if they were traveling as a peloton with dozens of riders straddling the lanes.


You are wrong with the first point. If the A9 (notorious long and frustrating Scottish road) is busy, and a car driven by granny is moving along at 40mph with a queue of 60mph intended traffic behind, there is an expectation that she will pull in at regular intervals to allow faster traffic to pass. If she does not do this and a police car happens to be in that queue then she will be prosecuted. In areas where there are no dual carriageways then it can be quite serious. Allowing overtaking is legally compulsory for all road users.
Original post by EverybodyHz
I don't think it should be legal for cyclists to ride two abreast in front of traffic. As a cyclist, the slipstream is advantageous so there is no benefit to cycling two abreast for speed. As a cyclist I would never do it with cars behind. The highway code also says ALLOW OVERTAKING. So while it i legal for cyclists to ride two abreast, it can be interpreted that doing so in front of traffic is not. And if I were a police officer, I would probably use this interpretation of the highway code. I live near many single carriageway A class country roads, and there is nothing more frustrating than car-width objects refusing to allow overtakes by pulling in.

Personally I don't mind if a car gives me a foot of room to my right hand side. Unless he hits me I don't really care. As a driver I would give at least a metre of room but that's because you don't know how competent the cyclist is.


If they're cycling two abreast, that halvens the amount you have to spend in the opposite lane.
Original post by EverybodyHz
Allowing overtaking is legally compulsory for all road users.


Only when it's safe to do so.
Original post by EverybodyHz
You are wrong with the first point. If the A9 (notorious long and frustrating Scottish road) is busy, and a car driven by granny is moving along at 40mph with a queue of 60mph intended traffic behind, there is an expectation that she will pull in at regular intervals to allow faster traffic to pass. If she does not do this and a police car happens to be in that queue then she will be prosecuted. In areas where there are no dual carriageways then it can be quite serious. Allowing overtaking is legally compulsory for all road users.


Highway code says to pull in, if possible, where safe, if necessary to prevent a "long queue".

It would take an extremely over zealous police officer to take that one on.

The onus, however, is still on you not to be an irrational tool behind the wheel.
Original post by The Socktor
If they're cycling two abreast, that halvens the amount you have to spend in the opposite lane.


Sometimes a road can be wide enough for bike/car/car to be side by side. Not always though.

Original post by The Socktor
Only when it's safe to do so.


Yup.
Original post by Drewski
Highway code says to pull in, if possible, where safe, if necessary to prevent a "long queue".

It would take an extremely over zealous police officer to take that one on.

The onus, however, is still on you not to be an irrational tool behind the wheel.


There are responsibilities to be carried by both drivers and cyclists in making the road a safer place.

Where I come from it is not over zealous for a police officer to do this. In some places single carriageways are the only way to travel, and therefore impeding large queues of traffic also slows down the police on duty.
Original post by GuppyFox

BBC News - Paris to let cyclists skip red lights
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33446899

Is this something that should be allowed in the UK?

Personally even just for my own safety I always stop at red lights unless it's at night and the roads are completely dead. I also see a lot of near misses and actually have seen a collision too when a cyclist went through a red light, which wasn't pleasant to witness.


My immediate response to allowing cyclists to jump red lights is "That's crazy" but according to that article, tests have shown that this doesn't lead to more accidents. If that's genuinely true then I suppose it's fine? There doesn't appear to be a link to that study but I find it hard to believe that they'd put that into law if the study wasn't decent.
Original post by Plagioclase
My immediate response to allowing cyclists to jump red lights is "That's crazy" but according to that article, tests have shown that this doesn't lead to more accidents. If that's genuinely true then I suppose it's fine? There doesn't appear to be a link to that study but I find it hard to believe that they'd put that into law if the study wasn't decent.


One would assume that it would be (here, at least) that you could always turn left, even on a red light, because you'd at least be going with traffic. You'd have to assume they wouldn't let you turn right across a flow of traffic whether you fancied.
Reply 16
Having been to Amsterdam and seen the amount of cyclists there i would say yes.

The main reason i think is just the roads, not being a strong cyclist i wouldn't trust myself going onto potentially busy roads without practice that i wouldn't get without doing it. Therefore most cyclists you see on actual roads aren't really people who don't cycle usually as a sport.

More dedicated cycle lanes (which can be tiny) would encourage more people to cycle, or just common sense approaches such as allowing cyclists onto blatantly dead paths.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by GuppyFox
I also have recognised in the last month how stupid some people are when cycling
So do you think Britain should work towards better cycle facilities, transport and safety? Should we make helmets/lights/mirrors/bells/not crossing red lights/not cycling on pavements legal?

I'm a long-standing (or should that be long-pedalling?) keen cyclist, but I'm quite prepared to admit that cyclists can be stupid and display poor roadcraft. That includes professional cyclists - look at this year's Paris-Roubaix, for example. The race directors had instructed riders to not cross a level crossing as a TGV was imminently coming through, yet some continued anyway.

Compulsory helmets? Fine.

Lights? They already are compulsory for the hours of darkness.

MIrrors & bells? No, thanks, it'd ruin the lines of my bikes! I've said cyclists can be stupid, but so can pedestrians. Some just don't use their eyesight, and their environmental awareness is poor.

Cycling on pavements and jumping red lights? They already are illegal. Or are you arguing that they should be legal?

Should cycling infrastructure be improved for cyclists? Yes, absolutely. I think for the culture to change and for people to start cycling more rather than using their cars, facilities at workplaces etc. will need to be vastly improved, too (more cycle parking and changing facilities/showers).

Reply 18
I'm not a huge cyclist, but there have been a couple of incidents on my bike that have scared and angered me.

The first has happened twice; I was waiting at a red light to cross a railway bridge (the road there is single-lane). I'll admit that I'm slower than a car so I take more time to get over, but twice now I have got to the top of the bridge, the lights have changed, and a car or van moves off as if they haven't seen me (which I think is pretty unlikely). I have checked the highway code; it says that on a green light, you move off if the way is clear. When I am cycling over the top of the bridge, it should be obvious that the way is not clear. I have obeyed the lights, I am not cycling on the pavement.

The second thing happened yesterday. A lorry was parked on the cycle lane, and the direction of the road means I cannot see around it. The only other vehicles using the road are buses. Fortunately there was a car in whose reflection I could see the oncoming traffic, but it was nevertheless scary.

I would absolutely like more to be done, even if it's just signs saying 'Beware - cyclists'.
Reply 19
Original post by jimmy_looks_2ice
I'm a long-standing (or should that be long-pedalling?) keen cyclist, but I'm quite prepared to admit that cyclists can be stupid and display poor roadcraft. That includes professional cyclists - look at this year's Paris-Roubaix, for example. The race directors had instructed riders to not cross a level crossing as a TGV was imminently coming through, yet some continued anyway.

Compulsory helmets? Fine.

Lights? They already are compulsory for the hours of darkness.

MIrrors & bells? No, thanks, it'd ruin the lines of my bikes! I've said cyclists can be stupid, but so can pedestrians. Some just don't use their eyesight, and their environmental awareness is poor.

Cycling on pavements and jumping red lights? They already are illegal. Or are you arguing that they should be legal?

Should cycling infrastructure be improved for cyclists? Yes, absolutely. I think for the culture to change and for people to start cycling more rather than using their cars, facilities at workplaces etc. will need to be vastly improved, too (more cycle parking and changing facilities/showers).



Are those actually legal/illegal though? Even if they are/aren't, there should be better education and clearer rules on this kind of thing. I always ride on the road unless I am travelling a short distance (up to 200m) where it is emptyish and more dangerous to be on the road, then id be on a pavement but at a reduced speed. Parents and people usually tell me i should be riding on the pavement to be safe.

I agree with everything else though, though at times when I cycle I do wish I had some type of mirror system as it is hard to look behind and not crash into something, but I am not putting massive ugly mirrors on my bike.

Quick Reply

Latest