Entries tagged with “cycling safety”.


OK so its not the snappiest of titles, but this post has a serious point, I have long been in favour of a law of stricter liability being included in the Scottish legal code. When Brenda Mitchell started her campaign for stricter liability I welcomed it on this blog. Now Alison Johnstone MSP has introduced a motion to the Scottish Parliament (Motion S4M-07934) calling for debate on a stricter liability. In order trying and encourage other MSPs to sign the motion I sent them the following letter:

I am writing to you to ask you to support Motion S4M-07934.

In a civilised country the function of the law should be to protect the vulnerable, currently in Scotland we situation on the roads where bulling of vulnerable road users is endemic. With the recent release of the 2012 statistics for reported road casualties in Scotland showed that the number of cycling deaths increased by 22% and pedestrian deaths increased by 33%. It is worth noting that while there may have been a small rise in the number of people cycling, about 2%, walking as a means of transport is continuing to decline. Therefore, it is clear that the current laws are failing to protect vulnerable road users. For this reason I ask you to support Motion S4M-07934. The introduction of stricter liability would bring Scotland into line with other European countries which have far higher levels of active travel and lower death rates for vulnerable road users.

Obviously stricter liability by its self is not going to be enough to bring about a safer environment, but it is an important part of the package. Scotland should be looking towards a sustainable safety approach, and consider a “Vision Zero” policy that requires that fatalities and serious injuries are reduced to zero by 2030, as an increasing number of countries around the world are doing. Let make Scotland a better place to live.

Yours sincerely,

Kim Harding, BSc, MPhil

 

I will of course up date this post with their replies (should they respond) as I receive them. I would urge others to write to their MSPs to ask them to support this motion.

Replies in the order which they have arrived:-

Neil Findlay MSP:

Neil has asked me to thank you for your email and to let you know that he is a member of the Cross Party Group on Cycling and has an interest in this issue.

Neil hopes to attend the debate, parliamentary business permitting.

 

Sarah Boyack MSP:

Thank you for your email on your support for Alison Johnstone MSP’s forthcoming debate in the Scottish Parliament and the information you have provided, setting out your position.

On behalf of the Lothian Labour team, I hope that it will prove helpful that as the Deputy Convenor of the Cross Party Group on Cycling I have an active interest and I will be there on the 29th and intend to take part in the proceedings that afternoon.

 

Kezia Dugdale MSP:

Kezia would like to thank you for taking the time to write to her on this issued.

Kezia has signed this motion and is looking forward to the debate tomorrow afternoon.

Kezia and the Scottish Labour Party remained open minded to the proposal and she looks forward to sharing your views in tomorrow’s debate.

 

Notably, Marco Biagi MSP, Gavin Brown MSP, Cameron Buchanan MSP and Margo MacDonald MSP, didn’t bothered to reply or even acknowledge my e-mail.

The motion was debated on the 29th October 2013, a full transcript can be found here. It shows a range of social attitudes, the usual dribble about cyclists on the pavements (make the roads safer and people won’t feel the need to cycle on the pavements, on the mainland of Europe this is not an issue), a certain amount of macho bullshit someone who famously failed to complete the 2012 Pedal of Scotland ride (even though 5 year old did), and an interesting number of comments on the need for more and better quality cycle infrastructure.

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

I was among the “key stakeholders” who were consulted on the Nice Way Code advertising campaign, I strongly advised against the approach taken and tried to warn them that it was likely to result in a backlash from many ordinary people. However, my advice was ignored (I should add that I was not alone in expressing unease at the tone and message being sent by the Ad campaign). It was clear from the outset that it was never going to create a “culture of tolerance” on Scotland’s roads, after all this sort of respect approach has been around for 100 years, and there is no evidence that any such campaign has worked so far.

Sally Hinchcliffe, one of the organisers of Pedal on Parliament, who helped draft the letter, said: “I’ve never seen such anger online – and this was in response to what should have been an innocuous campaign asking people to get along. Instead, we’ve felt we were being demonised for running red lights, treated as though we’re a separate species, and told to ‘grow up’ for cycling on pavements. The tone was really misjudged and seemed, if anything, to make out that it would be our fault if we were hit by a car – even though statistics show that when people are knocked off their bikes it’s far more likely to have been the driver at fault than the cyclist. I’m a law-abiding cyclist, like everyone else I know who rides a bike, and to have our own government seemingly pandering to this stereotype of cyclists as lawless and a danger to themselves is really galling.” It also has to be remembered that this campaign has been launched at a time when the number of people being killed on the roads while riding a bicycle is rising (as are the number of pedestrian fatalities). This is something which Cycling Scotland would rather not talk about, prefering to state that the total number of deaths on the roads is down (this is due to reduced numbers of fatalities among car occupants, at a time when people are driving less distance and at lower top speeds due to the recession).

The Nice Way Code was launched by the Scottish Transport Minister Keith Brown MSP on the 5th August 2013, and was immediately met with large scale derision. Many people, across Scotland and beyond, feel that is it a massive waste of public money and as a result they have joined forces to write an open letter to the Scottish Government, asking for the Nice Way Code campaign to be scrapped. The campaign, which was intended to promote ‘mutual respect’ among road users, has triggered widespread anger among cyclists who feel that the adverts – particularly one showing a cyclist running a red light. The adverts have attracted controversy on social media with thousands of negative comments, blogs and tweets (and spoof twitter accounts) coming from cyclists and non cyclists alike, far beyond Scotland. The letter immediately garnered dozens of signatures as soon as it was posted on Facebook and tweeted, with over 80 people signed up in just over 24 hours. This letter has now been sent to a wide range of Scottish newspapers, the First Minster Alex Salmond MSP and cc’d to Keith Brown MSP.

The letter reads:

The Nice Way Code is failing in its own terms

At the launch of the Nice Way Code, Transport Minister Keith Brown said, “The Nice Way Code campaign seeks to build a culture of tolerance and patience between cyclists, motorists, pedestrians and all other road users across Scotland.” However, everything that has come out of this campaign – which was paid for out of the Active Travel budget – seems likely instead to create conflict, reinforcing divisions between people based merely on their mode of transport. One advert encourages cyclists not to run red lights simply in order not to give other cyclists a bad name (and not because it’s dangerous and discourteous, not least to pedestrians) – lumping all cyclists together and implying bad behaviour by a tiny minority justifies hostility to everyone who chooses to ride a bike.

As cyclists we are used to hearing from a few uninformed drivers that ‘all’ cyclists run red lights, ride on the pavement, hold up traffic and generally deserve to be treated like obstacles on the road. But we never expected our own government to run adverts saying the same thing. As nine cyclists have died on Scotland’s roads already this year, it’s unsurprising that this campaign seems to have angered almost everyone who regularly rides a bike.

Safer roads will not come from lecturing people and pandering to stereotypes. We believe they will come from rethinking our current emphasis on designing roads purely for motor traffic and redesigning them to remove the sort of conflicts these adverts reflect. Pending that, it’s clear that many people who don’t ride bikes themselves are unaware of the needs of cyclists on the road. A campaign that really aimed to build a culture of patience and tolerance could have helped to educate them about these things, and to get cyclists, drivers and pedestrians to see things from each others’ point of view. Calling cyclists names is not it.

We urge the Scottish government to recognise that it has made a mistake and to pull this campaign before it ramps up tensions on the road even further. We suggest that it takes this opportunity to start a real dialogue between road users about how we can recognise that we are all people, and behave accordingly.

Signatories

Adrian Roberts, Dalkeith
Alan Munro, Pedal on Parliament, Glasgow
Andrew Lamberton, Edinburgh EH6
Andrew W.D. Smith
Andy Lulham, Crawley
Andy Preece, Glasgow
Anthony Robson, Edinburgh, EH15
Barnaby Dellar, EH15
Barry O’Rourke EH23
Ben Cooper, Kinetics, Glasgow
Bill Kennedy, Currie, Edinburgh
Bill Telfer, Langholm
Brian Mackenzie, Inverness
Bruce MacDonald, Edinburgh, EH11
C.A. Looby, Edinburgh
Chris Byrne, Edinburgh
Chris Hill, CityCyclingEdinburgh.info
Christine Helliwell, Edinburgh
Colin Davidson,
Colin Lindsay, Edinburgh
Dave du Feu, Linlithgow
Dave Holladay, Glasgow, G3
David Brennan, Pedal on Parliament, Glasgow
David Edgar, Glasgow
David Gardiner, Laid Back Bikes, Edinburgh
David Hembrow, Assen, The Netherlands
David McKeever, Glasgow
David Monaghan, Edinburgh, EH10
David Morrison, Edinburgh, EH6
David Wilcox, Bristol
Davie Park, Edinburgh, EH11
Denise Marshall, Falkirk
Diana Laing, Edinburgh
Diane Adams, Edinburgh, EH10
Dougie Overbars, Edinburgh
Duncan MacLaren, Edinburgh
Duncan Wallace, Edinburgh, EH11
Eva Viktoria Ballin, Edinburgh
Fran Henderson
Garry Dawes, South Shields
Graeme Hart, Hart’s Cyclery, Edinburgh
Grant Mason, Edinburgh
Heidi Docherty, Edinburgh
Henry Whaley, Edinburgh, EH12
Hugh Thomas, Pedal on Parliament, Edinburgh
Ian Bruce, Edinburgh
James Thomson, Kinross
Jemma Smith
Jenny Wilson, Edinburgh
John and Rosie Rutherford, Dumfries
Karen Sutherland, Gorgie, Edinburgh
Keith Walters, Dumfries
Ken Murray, Edinburgh
Keridwen Jones, Edinburgh, Spokes member
Kim Harding, Pedal on Parliament, Edinburgh
Lee Kindness, Edinburgh, EH15
Lynne and Ian McNicoll, Edinburgh
Mark Macrae, Edinburgh
Mark Treasure, Chair, Cycling Embassy of Great Britain
Martyn Wells, Edinburgh, EH10
Neil Bowie, Carse of Gowrie, Perth
Niall Anderson, Edinburgh
Nigel Shoosmith
Paul Jakma, Glasgow
Paul Milne, Dunbar
Philip Ward
Richard Pelling, Fyvie, Aberdeenshire
Robert Gormley, Edinburgh
Ronald Brunton, Edinburgh
Rory Fitzpatrick, EH11
Ros Gasson, Edinburgh
Ruari Wilson
Ruth Kirk, East Kilbride
Sally Hinchcliffe, Pedal on Parliament & Cycling Dumfries, Dumfries
Sara Dorman, Pedal on Parliament
Scott Hutchinson, Edinburgh
Scott Simpson
Sean Allan, Edinburgh EH8
Shan Parfitt, Aberdeen
Shaun McDonald, Edinburgh / Ipswich
Stephan Matthiesen, Edinburgh
Sweyn Hunter, Kirkwall, Orkney
Tom Orr, Edinburgh EH21
Tom Russell EH15
Tony Stuart KY11
Ulli Harding, Edinburgh
Verity Leigh, Edinburgh

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

Yesterday I was at Holyrood for the placing of two Ghost Bikes outside the Scottish Parliament. There was also a Tombstone showing the numbers of people who have been killed while riding a bicycle on Scotland’s roads over the last five years (the tally on the Tombstone showed 35 deaths). Following the press call, the tombstone was moved to the Meadows, as this is probably the busiest cycle path in Edinburgh. What we didn’t know at the time of the press call was that the tally on the tombstone had become out of date already. Another person had died, bringing the total for this year to nine, which equals the total for 2012, and it’s only July. As a consequence, the following press coverage was sombre. However, it wasn’t long before the usual voices started blithely blaming the victims, rather than the real issues on our roads.

It should be remembered that changing mode of transport doesn’t necessarily make people more or less careful, but it does change the amount of damage that they can do to others. When you are in control of heavy and dangerous machinery , a moment’s inattention can be fatal, but not necessarily for the operator. One of the paradox effects of modern car safety design has been to convince drivers that they are invulnerable, and this has increased the risk to others.

The solution to this is to take a harm reduction approach: A) restrict speed (and therefore the risk of harm to others) where motor vehicles and more vulnerable road users are mixed (and enforce speed limits). B) provide safe space for vulnerable road users, separated from motor vehicles where speed and volume of motor vehicles can not be reduced. C) place the responsibility for safety on those most capable of doing harm and hold them responsible when they do harm. This third point is a very real problem, there is a grim joke that if you want to get away with murder, use a car. Of course most deaths on the roads are not premeditated, but a report by the insurance company AXA has calculated that there are over 800 deaths a year on British roads due to “disrespectful driving”.

If our roads are to be made safer, we have to change the culture of driving. This CAN be done, just look at France. Twenty years ago French drivers where notorious for their driving habits, and yet today ask anyone who has cycled in France recently, and you will hear glowing reports about safe driving. What brought about this change? The use of the legal system to change driver behaviour, the introduction of the strictest Strict Liability laws in Europe (note: the UK is one of only five countries not to have such a law), a law requiring drivers to give cyclists road space, and strict enforcement of the speed limits. All of this has combined to make France a major destination for cycle tourism (although not all cyclists think that French drivers are that safe).

Culture is something that can change and something we have to change to make the roads safer. There is also the suggestion that we can’t have mass cycling here because we don’t have a “cycling culture”, but there is no reason why we could not have a “cycling culture” here, we just need a safer road environment. This is not just good for “cyclists”, it is good for pedestrians too, and we are all pedestrians at some point.

Until this happens we are, sadly, going to see more Ghost Bikes appearing on our streets.

The nine cyclists who have died on Scotland’s roads so far this year are:

  • Alastair Dudgeon, 51, Kincardine (A985) 6th January
  • Alistair MacBean, 74, Inverness (A82) 22nd January
  • Charles Aimer, 42, Errol (A90) 17th March
  • Craig Tetshill, 21, Gorthleck (unclassified road) 16th May
  • Kyle Allan, 8, Aberdeen (Great Northern Road) 21st May
  • David Wallace, 52, Perth (West Mains Avenue) 12th June
  • Douglas Brown, 79, West Lothian (B9080), 11th July
  • Connor Shields, 14, Ellon (A975), 17th July
  • Mary Brook, 59, Drumnadrochit (A831), 22nd July

When will this madness end?

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

Following the death of yet another cyclist on Scotland roads I was deeply saddened to see the following letter in The Herald newspaper:

Onus should be on the cyclists
Tuesday 23 July 2013

ONCE again the strict liability law is being peddled with the aim of protecting cyclists and pedestrians (Agenda, The Herald, July 19).

The writer, Brenda Mitchell, states “our goal is to change the culture among road users”.

As a pedestrian and former cyclist I would suggest that rather than attempting to change the law and further burdening other road users the only culture that needs changing is that of the cyclist.

Among the initiatives they may consider adopting are wearing suitable clothing and protective equipment (for head and hands) and obeying the current motor traffic laws – and not riding upon the footpath.

Perhaps it is also time for legislators to require all cyclists to fit, and sound, a suitable warning device in order to alert unsuspecting pedestrians to their presence.

In short, the public at large would be better protected if cyclists obeyed the law as it stands rather than seeking to introduce legislation that would be nothing more than another impost upon the motoring public who, after all, already pay to use the road.

Ian F Mackay,

5 Smillie Place,

Kilmarnock.

 

Lets just take a closer look, Mr Mackay starts by asserting that he is a “pedestrian and former cyclist”. Why does he feel the need to do this? We are all pedestrians at some point, and why is he a “former cyclist”? Oddly he doesn’t tell us, he also doesn’t let us know whether or not he is a driver (although it is implied), again why? Could it be that he is embarrassed to admit to being a driver, when he goes on to complain about “further burdening other road users” before going on to suggest that the only problem is with cyclists. Which other road users would this be? Are pedestrians and horse riders going to feel that a strict liability law is going to burden them? Or would the more vulnerable users of public space feel that a law making the operators of dangerous and heavy machinery being used that space liable (under civil law) for their actions, giving the most vulnerable greater protection? After all, this has been shown to be effective in the workplace where there is a strict liability on employers to ensure safe working practices.

He suggests that cyclists “may consider adopting wearing suitable clothing and protective equipment (for head and hands)” – is this for the protection of other roads user? Or merely trying to pass the blame when cyclists are injured by negligent actions of other road users? To use the workplace analogy again, the use of “safety equipment” is not a substitute for operating potentially dangerous machinery in a safe manner.

Then comes “obeying the current motor traffic laws – and not riding upon the footpath”. Hum, are cyclists “motor traffic”? Certainly they are traffic, as are pedestrians (the origin of the word traffic is from the Arabic word taraffaqa, which means ‘to walk along slowly together’, only in the late 20th century did it become “to drive along slowly together”, we needn’t go into the origin of the word “jam”). However, according to Mr Mackay, it is the failure of cyclists to obey laws which is the cause of all the harm to roads users. This fails to explain why none of the 54 pedestrians killed on Scotland’s roads last year were killed by people riding bicycles.

Next, we come to “Perhaps it is also time for legislators to require all cyclists to fit, and sound, a suitable warning device in order to alert unsuspecting pedestrians to their presence.” How exactly will this help to deal with the problem of 54 pedestrians killed on Scotland’s roads? Some of those werenmown down by motor vehicles driven on the footway, others killed while crossing the road at pedestrian crossings by motorists jumping the lights. Oh, but of course, Mr Mackay isn’t concerned with the real issue of people being killed or the roads being too dangerous for many people to ride a bike on. He has given no thought as to why shared use paths are over crowded and how we might go about dealing with this issue, such as making the roads safer and providing a fairer allocation of space to non-motorists. He is more worried that bad drivers might actually be held to account for the injuries and deaths they cause, which is what would happen if we were to “introduce legislation that would be nothing more than another impost upon the motoring public” (although . The version I have proposed would also apply to cyclists).

Instead, according Mr Mackay bad driving is apparently OK and should continue to tolerated, on the grounds that “the motoring public who, after all, already pay to use the road.” So there we have it, we shouldn’t do anything to hold bad drivers to account, because they pay “road tax”. Of course there is a major flaw in this argument, there is no such thing as “road tax” , we all pay for the roads, and we should all have the right to be safe from harm by others whilst using those roads.

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

I was recently asked to write something about cycle safety. OK, so it was for another place, but I thought I would try it out here first. Well my first thought was “is cycling dangerous”? Well no, not really, over the last 40 years cycling, along with most forms of road travel, has become safer, mainly due to attempts to idiot proof cars.

Cyclists account for only 4% of road fatalities (2008 UK figures) compared with 17.1% for motorcyclists, 19.6% for Pedestrians, and 50.2% for car occupants. When these figures are adjusted to reflect the numbers of people travelling and the distance they travel, we find that riding a motorbike is the most dangerous, followed by travelling in a car! The level of risk involved in cycling is about the same as (or lower than) walking, even though most cyclists are riding on the road (it should be noted that in the UK on average 70 people are killed by motor vehicles on the pavement every year). Indeed regular cyclists have a life expectancy that is at least 2 years longer than average, they have fitness levels of someone 10 years their junior, also better mental health and are healthier in older age.

It is strange then that many people’s perception of road safety is the opposite. I often hear parents saying that they won’t let their children ride on the road, even though they did as children, because “it is more dangerous now”. Where does this idea come from? When I did start to research this post, I carried out an internet search for “cycle safety”. The top hits were mostly sites sponsored by the British Government, which all start by telling you how dangerous cycling is and quoting the number of cycle casualties, without putting the figures into context. An object lesson in how not to promote cycling as a safe activity and put them off by using fear. The simple fact is, cycling is safe when compared to risky activities such as gardening and travelling by car. The most effective way to reduce the likelihood of injury when cycling is to increase the number of people who cycle. When cycle use doubles, the risk of injury per cyclist falls by 35% to 40%. Having clearly stated that cycling is safe, it has to be recognised that no activity is 100% safe and there are risks out there. So what can you do to minimise the risks further?

First off, your bike should be the right size for you and set up so that you are comfortable. If you are not sure how to do this, then seek advice from an organisation like the Bike Station or your local bike shop.

Next, make sure you maintain your bicycle properly, here are a few things to check on a regular basis:

  • Tyres: take a quick look, make sure are no tears or bulges in the tyre wall, then check the tyre pressure. If it is low, pump up and wait a few minutes to check for any punctures, and if necessary change the inner tube.
  • Wheels: spin both wheels, watch for wobbles which may suggest a loose or broken spoke. If the spokes are fine and the wheel still wobbles, don’t ride as the wheel need to be serviced. Finally check the quick release levers (if fitted) on the wheel hubs and make sure they are secure so that the wheel will not come loose.
  • Brakes: check the brake pads and replace if worn. Test the brakes by rolling the bike forward (while standing next to it) and applying the front brake, the back of the bike should rear up. Then roll the bike back and apply the rear brake, this time the front of the bike should rear up. If necessary tighten the brake cables. Also check that the cables are in good condition and not frayed.
  • Controls: stand astride of the front wheel, gripping it with your knees, and waggle the handle bars, to make sure nothing is loose. If there is movement don’t ride, as the bike needs to be serviced. Also check the brake and gear levers and cables, to make sure they are in good working order.
  • Drive train: check the gears by lifting the rear wheel off the ground and turn the pedals by hand. If the gears do not change easily, the gear cable may have stretched. Also look at the chain, it should be clean and running smoothly, oil if necessary, especially if it shows signs of rust. Then grip the pedal tightly and check to see if there is any play in the crank-arm/bottom bracket. If you find problems here, again don’t ride as the bike needs to be serviced.
  • Saddle: make sure the saddle is the right height for you and is in line with the frame, also make sure the maximum height mark on the seat post is not visible.
  • Drop Test: lift the bike 5-10cm off the ground, then let it drop, is there anything loose or rattling?

Advice for cycling on the roads:

If you are new to cycling or haven’t cycled on the road for a long time, then cycle training could be a good idea. The CTC maintains a list of Accredited Cycle Trainers qualified to the National Standards throughout the UK. Remember, cyclists do have the right to ride on the roads, and they should ride with respect to the rules of the road and other road users.

So here are a few things cyclists should do:

  • You should always be able to stop within the distance you can see.
  • Ride positively and decisively. It helps motorists to understand what you plan to do.
  • Think ahead. Anticipate drivers’ actions. Catch their eye.
  • Be visible. Ride well clear of the kerb, wear something colourful, and always use lights in poor day-time visibility or after dark.
  • Show drivers what you plan to do. Always look and signal before you start, stop or turn. Ride a straight line past parked cars rather than weaving in and out between them.
  • Move over, when it’s safe and convenient. Two-abreast is often OK, but try not to hold up other traffic.
  • Follow the Highway Code, it is there for everybody.

And a few things cyclists should not do:

  • jump red lights, it is not big and it is not clever
  • ride on pavements (unless they are shared use paths or you are under the age of ten)
  • ride across pedestrian crossings (unless it is a Toucan crossing)
  • attempt to filter up the left hand side of long vehicle waiting at road junctions, even if the driver is not signalling left.

Just to keep things balanced (let’s not forget that driver error is the cause of 85% of road traffic accidents), here is a list of things drivers should do:

  • do not jump red lights, the Highway Code applies to you too
  • Think bike. Expect to see cyclists, and take care.
  • Slow down and drive smoothly. Keep within speed limits. Expect sudden movements by cyclists, especially in windy weather and on bad road surfaces.
  • Signal: always at roundabouts and every time you pass a cyclist.
  • Watch for riders on the inside, don’t overtake them before you turn left. Don’t cut them up.
    Don't cut up cyclist
    (Rule 182 Highway Code)
  • Give cyclists space – at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car – and never force past them.
    Give cyclists space
    (Rule 163 Highway Code)
  • Be patient – a few seconds for a cyclist will not affect your total journey time, it is all those other cars on the roads which are causing the congestion.
  • Right-turning cyclists need space and time.
  • Park considerately and always look for cyclists before opening a car door.
  • Use dipped headlights, cyclists are dazzled by full-beam headlights, just like everyone else.
  • Expect speed from bikes. Think of a bike as a vehicle – it is. Cyclists can be fast movers – 20mph or more.
  • Advanced stop lines: Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g., if the junction ahead is blocked. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.
    Advanced Stop Lines
    Rule 178 Highway Code

Finally a few other things which drivers should know:

  • Cyclist do have the right to use the roads and they do pay for them as well, we all pay for the roads.
  • Cyclists can feel threatened by inconsiderate driving. They have a right to space on the road and need extra room at junctions and roundabouts where cars change speed, position and direction.
  • Cyclists ride away from the kerb, not to annoy motorists but:
    • to avoid drains, potholes and debris
    • to be seen as they come to junctions with side roads
    • to discourage drivers from squeezing past when it’s too narrow
  • Cyclists turning right are exposed – and need extra consideration from motorists, especially on multi-lane roads with fast-moving traffic.
  • Cyclists can be forced into faster traffic – by vehicles parked in cycle lanes, at junctions or on double yellow lines, so be considerate when you park.

Final thoughts:
Mutual respect and consideration for other road users makes for safer and more enjoyable travel for all. Acknowledging a courtesy does make a difference, so don’t be shy.

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

Bear