Level Crossing lesson for cyclist

[soil]

It's not a perception, it's experience. For example, when walking from Lower Marsh (near Waterloo) to Marble Arch, I counted 84 cyclists. 48 of them committed one or more of the offences I've listed.
When driving along Ruckholt Road in Leyton, there are five sets of traffic lights. I counted 24 cyclists go through one or more red lights, and none who stopped at them.There were three near misses with other vehicles.
Driving from Forest Gate to King's Cross in the dark, the split of cyclists with lights and without is pretty much 50:50.

Ruckholt Road is dangerous and designed with no consideration for cyclists.

Typical cycling conditions:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z-11ECU2hTI/TiMNZ5jY5LI/AAAAAAAAFZs/Irir-H6uzR0/s1600/ruckholt+rd.JPG

There is a cycle lane here which sandwiches cyclists between parked cars on the one side (serious risk of death if motorists open the door into their path) and articulated lorries on the other.

The purpose of this cycle lane is to permit motorists to pass cyclists closer than would otherwise be safe.

The road is lethal and a mess and you need to cycle with that in mind.

If you cycle as the road engineers would have you do, you place your life in other's hands. Not a good idea.

I can't comment on the generic 'going through red lights' without seeing specific examples, but I have cycled down that way a few times and the standard of driving and consideration is very poor, and breaches of the Highway Code by drivers are pretty much continuous.

I would imagine that cyclists just want to get out of the way of the crappy driving (let's not forget that the proportion of unlicensed, uninsured drivers in London is very high). Waiting at the red light is not necessarily safer than going through it.

 

[stut]

And that's relevant how? You said that my points were perceptions. They aren't perceptions, they are experiences. This is what I have actually seen happen.
So as far as you are concerned, because my experiences don't match your view, they are nonsensical and can be discounted?

No, it's just that unverifiable personal accounts are statistically meaningless.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you only saw 84 cyclists between Waterloo and Marble Arch, and suspect that means that there were an awful lot you didn't notice, precisely because they were doing nothing to notice.

I am quite scared of machete-wielding penguins, though. Can you imagine?

 

[90019]

I would imagine that cyclists just want to get out of the way of the crappy driving

So that's justification for crappy cycling?


Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Buttsy]

Maybe not all of you, but every night I drive back from the station along Botley road having completed my shift I see many cyclists without lights, nearly always one of them will ignore the red lights either at the bottom of Frideswide sq or the lights at the junction leading into Osney industrial estate. Do these morons not realise how difficult they are to see at night especially when wearing dark clothing.:roll:

For the record I am a cyclist myself.

I go that route from the station myself. I use lights and stop at any red light, as I would in my car. I tend to head home via Osney Island and Willow Walk to avoid traffic. It p****s me off when bikes jump the bus lane lights onto the Botley Road and have no lights on.

The other day I was almost hit by a 'Brompton' who had decided that they wouldn't stop at the pelican before Osney bridge and ride the pavement over the bridge instead (narrow as you know). He had the temerity to accuse me of not signalling left onto the island as he almost T-boned me as he was chugging it down the path. I did point out that he was on the pavement, any pedestrian would have seen me indicate and that had he been on the road, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[soil]

Sure, in rural areas, you see a lot more people riding on pavements. Many councils are gradually making them shared usage anyway, and I have no problem with that. I am not anti-cyclist, or else I'd have to get rid of my own bike. I just get increasingly frustrated when so many people deny there's a problem or seek to hit back with examples of bigger dangers, as if that matters.

In Hatfield, a number of years ago, a woman was hit by a kid on a bike that cycled at speed by the exit of Asda - and took her out. I believe she survived, but not after a long time in hospital (possibly in a coma, but I can't recall all the finer details). The town centre is now a no-cycling area in many places, although you obviously still see the kids riding around ignoring it.

That's my point though.

'A number of years ago' someone was injured by a bicycle in Hatfield. Now it's a no-cycling area.

I am not clear if there is a causal connection between these two events, but they tried to do something similar in Woking, to make it no-cycling. Here there have not been any injuries at all, but people will saying that there MIGHT be injuries.

In the mean time there are ACTUAL DEATHS on the local roads due to motor vehicles, and it's just 'oh well', and they don't do anything about it.

It's a definite double standard whereby even an injury a number of years ago is still today informing public policy, whereas daily motor vehicle related carnage is just par for the course.

 

[jon0844]

Can anyone else notice parallels between (bad) cyclists that don't see what they're doing as wrong, and fare evaders that blame everyone but themselves when caught? Similar mindset I'm sure.

I will say that some of the cycle 'lanes' are absolutely pathetic and the people who designed them should be in court for putting lives in danger. They're particularly bad in many London boroughs because there's such limited room for proper facilities, and councils are desperate to add to their overall number of miles covered - even if they're dangerous and don't even join up properly.

It's a little better where I live, although one major cycle route created to link the new business park to the railway station ends just as you get to the most dangerous roundabout in the town centre. There are aspirations to put in a crossing for bikes further up the road but to be honest, despite the huge cost to build it, most cyclists wouldn't bother to detour for it and just continue to take the risk of using the roundabout.

Cyclists are vulnerable, but boy do some make it far more likely that they'll come a cropper.

 

[soil]

So that's justification for crappy cycling?


Two wrongs don't make a right.

Going through a red light isn't necessarily crappy cycling any more than 80mph on the motorway is necessarily bad driving.

If you are riding on a road such as Ruckholt Road you need to think about your own safety. It's you versus the motor car, and if you feel safest going through the red light, that's your look out.

 

[EM2]

Ruckholt Road is dangerous and designed with no consideration for cyclists.

Except the five sets of lights I refer to are at the South end of the road. I've just noticed that this is actually the Eastway, and doesn't become Ruckholt Road until the junction for Asda.
http://goo.gl/maps/zUL5s Nice wide lanes, ASLs, no real reason to pass red lights.

 

[90019]

Going through a red light isn't necessarily crappy cycling any more than 80mph on the motorway is necessarily bad driving.

If you are riding on a road such as Ruckholt Road you need to think about your own safety. It's you versus the motor car, and if you feel safest going through the red light, that's your look out.

And sod the motorist you cycle out in front of who has the choice of evasive action or a collision because you've not bothered to look and see what's coming?

 

[jon0844]

'A number of years ago' someone was injured by a bicycle in Hatfield. Now it's a no-cycling area.

I am not clear if there is a causal connection between these two events

I am pretty sure there is a link, as people were demanding something was done and eventually something WAS done. Many other people came forward to say that they'd been involved in similar incidents, and for a while the police were actively trying to enforce the law on riding on the pavement.

s you might imagine, there was then a lot of outrage from people saying it was heavy handed and cycling on the pavement wasn't dangerous, and the exact same argument that it's safer for cyclists to be on the pavement because of the risks on the road.

All totally predictable stuff.

This was an exceptionally bad case, but by no means unique. I'm always flabbergasted when someone on a pavement in a town (any town) will ride along nearest the shops - having no way to know when someone will step out. Again, it's sheer luck that more collisions don't occur.

 

[EM2]

Going through a red light isn't necessarily crappy cycling any more than 80mph on the motorway is necessarily bad driving.

They are both illegal, and they should both be punished. If I do either, and I get caught, I can't complain but if you saw the recent 'Route Masters' programme on BBC2 where they showed Police issuing penalties for cyclists going through red lights, there were comments like 'Well, I think it's safer', implying that 'So I'll do what I like'.

 

[jon0844]

I read a study years ago that suggested many cyclists actually don't know (quite genuinely) that they are supposed to abide by the laws of the road. No training at school and no guidance from anyone else.

Now I'm sure that the majority of cyclists know full well what they're doing, but have convinced themselves that it's okay - using safety as a justification and defence, but I'm sure that a lot of people that hire a Boris Bike probably are simply ignorant.

I know the rules are written at each bike hire point, but I bet they're not read.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A few years back, 'Critical Mass' cycling events were all the rage. The idea being that if there's enough cyclists on a given stretch of road, the 'safety-in-numbers' aspect will come into play and motorised vehicles will not be able to intimidate cyclists. The philosophy behind 'critical-mass' cycling is to convince drivers that far from slowing the traffic, the cyclists are traffic.

This being the case, traffic laws really should apply to cyclists. Personally when I'm cycling I will NEVER disobey traffic signals, though there are a number of things cyclists can do to minimise the risk of them becoming a casualty of poor driving. This includes recognising when dismounting might be a better option, and indeed occupying the centre of a traffic lane (assuming cycle lanes aren't provided) when passing traffic islands in order to discourage the irritating habit of many motorists which is to overtake at the narrowest possible point.

Not to put too fine a point on it, some people are selfish idiots and sadly there's not much the average person can do about it. Those selfish motorists/cyclists/whatever might finally learn the lesson if they ended up killing me, but it's not my job to educate them if it costs me my life.

 

[90019]

A few years back, 'Critical Mass' cycling events were all the rage. The idea being that if there's enough cyclists on a given stretch of road, the 'safety-in-numbers' aspect will come into play and motorised vehicles will not be able to intimidate cyclists. The philosophy behind 'critical-mass' cycling is to convince drivers that far from slowing the traffic, the cyclists are traffic.

Nowadays, I'm rather ashamed to admit I used to take part in the Edinburgh Critical Mass.
Thankfully, the later ones had so few people that it was just a small social bike ride and never really got in anyone's way. Those ones were by far the most enjoyable.

 

[soil]

I am pretty sure there is a link, as people were demanding something was done and eventually something WAS done. Many other people came forward to say that they'd been involved in similar incidents, and for a while the police were actively trying to enforce the law on riding on the pavement.

s you might imagine, there was then a lot of outrage from people saying it was heavy handed and cycling on the pavement wasn't dangerous, and the exact same argument that it's safer for cyclists to be on the pavement because of the risks on the road.

All totally predictable stuff.

Well yes, not sure why it doesn't happen when people get killed by cars though.

This was an exceptionally bad case, but by no means unique. I'm always flabbergasted when someone on a pavement in a town (any town) will ride along nearest the shops - having no way to know when someone will step out. Again, it's sheer luck that more collisions don't occur.

Well perhaps, but given that trained professional road engineers build cycle lanes between parked cars and traffic, which creates the risk of being knocked into traffic, as in this case

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20725496

it seems rather improbable that Joe Cyclist would be aware of the risk of cycling near shops.

 

[jon0844]

Must you always turn every incident with a cyclist and a pedestrian into something involving a motorist?

Joe Public should be well aware of the potential outcome of flying along a road, passing shops where people will not only go INTO shops but OUT OF them. When these idiots get off their bike, they're pedestrians themselves!

If they're not aware of that, God help us all. I hope these people don't have driving licences too. Wait a minute; fancy that, many of these dangerous cyclists might also be the dangerous motorists you keep speaking of!

 

[dannypye9999]

my honest opinion is I think its time all these dangerous death crossings were demolished with proper road bridges built. Our trains have got faster and will continue to get faster and more dangerous. What a stupid woman.

 

[jon0844]

I don't see any need to change the crossings over this. She's a stupid woman and will probably always be a stupid woman, but I don't see why we should shell out millions to get rid of crossings that aren't dangerous when NOT used by stupid people.

As trains get faster, we will see less crossings remain anyway, but we make the changes as and when necessary.

What I would like to see for such crossings is plastic posts in the centre of the road to stop motorists (but probably not cyclists!) from pulling over to the wrong side of the road to weave between the barriers.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

And the sirens and flashing red lights aren't enough of a warning?

The sirens stop sounding when the barriers are down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPEH65kAcvs

 

[Tomnick]

my honest opinion is I think its time all these dangerous death crossings were demolished with proper road bridges built. Our trains have got faster and will continue to get faster and more dangerous. What a stupid woman.

Do you mean all level crossings of all types (why?), or just ones classed as "dangerous death crossings" (bearing in mind that they're all subject to risk assessment processes, so shouldn't be dangerous if used properly, unless something's gone wrong with that process or subsequent actions). Who pays?

 

[stut]

Dangerous Death Crossings should definitely be outlawed. Quite who thought them up I've no idea. Perhaps they can be replaced by Safe Fluffy Crossings instead?

On a similar note, I think somebody should ban Death Beds. An inordinate number of people seem to perish on these abominations. At a minimum, we should export them to Belgium and Switzerland.

 

[dannypye9999]

Do you mean all level crossings of all types (why?), or just ones classed as "dangerous death crossings" (bearing in mind that they're all subject to risk assessment processes, so shouldn't be dangerous if used properly, unless something's gone wrong with that process or subsequent actions). Who pays?

I mean all Level crossings. Sooner or later there will be another death.

 

[NSEFAN]

I mean all Level crossings. Sooner or later there will be another death.

How many people are killed by trains on crossings? How many people are killed by crossing the road?

I'd be willing to bet that the latter is a greater number, and hence where we should be spending money on resources to reduce deaths. Replacing crossings with bridges is expensive, and in many cases impossible without heavy remodelling of the local roads.

It would be nice to have no deaths on the railways at all, but if you reduce this risk then the stupid people will just find another dumb way to die.

 

[jon0844]

On fast, and busy, railways I would say that we should be seeking to ultimately get rid of crossings - if only to improve traffic flows. You do that as and when you upgrade the network, and over a period of time.

But on rural routes where there aren't many trains, I can't see why a crossing with all the necessary warning bells and lights, barriers etc can't work just fine.

Go to mainland Europe, where most railways aren't even fenced off, and you have very open crossings and they cope. We seem to go to the other extreme and demand that even the dumbest people are protected from themselves, which means that they end up used to just doing whatever they like because someone else is looking out for them.

Until one day, their luck runs out for a range of reasons.

 

[GB]

The sirens stop sounding when the barriers are down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPEH65kAcvs

To be honest, I thought that the siren at all AHB level crossings continued to sound while the crossing was activated...Im kind of suprised that a crossing such as this which is in close proximity to the station (which its self is staggered) does not do so.

 

[Tomnick]

I mean all Level crossings. Sooner or later there will be another death.

Accidents on level crossings are, ultimately, inevitable - that's why, as with most things in life, it's about making the risk as low as reasonably possible, rather than eliminating it altogether. Take a full-barrier crossing, operated from the adjacent signal box - how do you justify replacing that with a bridge on safety grounds? Would you agree that the substantial sum of money involved might be more effectively spent elsewhere?

 

[Llanigraham]

I mean all Level crossings. Sooner or later there will be another death.

Well since it is the train that causes the death, perhaps we should just ban all the trains. Problem solved!

Do you have any idea of the number of Level Crossings there are in this country that could not be replaced?

You aren't Bob Crow are you?

 

[TOCDriver]

I mean all Level crossings. Sooner or later there will be another death.

I agree one hundred percent. I also think that we should ban roads because somebody will die on them tonight.

 

[90019]

I agree one hundred percent. I also think that we should ban roads because somebody will die on them tonight.

I don't think you're going far enough - I think we should ban people, because they keep getting themselves killed.

 

[matchmaker]

To be honest, I thought that the siren at all AHB level crossings continued to sound while the crossing was activated...Im kind of suprised that a crossing such as this which is in close proximity to the station (which its self is staggered) does not do so.

The yodalarms at all AHB crossings continue to sound until the barriers are raised again.