How many cyclist deaths on a short stretch of road..

[Herman Toothrot]

So how many deaths before engineers are called in to make the road safer for cyclists? The road my house is on is between a town and the train station (Wallingford and Cholsey station) so lots of people cycling to and from the train station every day. Since I have lived here two cyclists have been killed, both admittedly drunk drivers but the road isn't safe as its arrow straight but narrow.

Really as it has such high cycling traffic it should have a cycle path built alongside, it is just fields on one side of which Grundon have only just bought so Council should be easily able to compulsory purchase a strip along the road.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1754618.driver_fl...

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newse...

Edited by Herman Toothrot on Saturday 13th June 21:39

[Fastpedeller]

But, don't we have to say the road isn't in itself dangerous, it's the behaviour of the roadusers?
Maybe tougher sentencing MAY help, with wider publicity of that tougher sentencing. As a good start it should be a LIFETIME BAN where drunk driving is involved, because it is very much avoidable. If the driver can afford a few pints they can afford a taxi - No Excuses. Very sad cases, and the victims' families have a lifetime sentence.

[Mr Will]

Fastpedeller said:

But, don't we have to say the road isn't in itself dangerous, it's the behaviour of the roadusers?
Maybe tougher sentencing MAY help, with wider publicity of that tougher sentencing. As a good start it should be a LIFETIME BAN where drunk driving is involved, because it is very much avoidable. If the driver can afford a few pints they can afford a taxi - No Excuses. Very sad cases, and the victims' families have a lifetime sentence.

Engineering, Education, Enforcement - In that order.

It looks like it's a narrow, fast road with poor lighting and if it's attracting a significant amount of cycle traffic then it's not fit for purpose. A decent cycle lane to remove the conflict would be a perfect solution IMHO.

[Herman Toothrot]

Yes no lighting, pavement is also very narrow & only on one side, road itself is wide enough for two cars but becomes a squeeze if say a bus is coming one way and a car the other, buses or lorries both ways and it's one brushing the hedge and the other tyres on the curb.

The station is on the main line into Paddington from Oxford, 1hr to London so busy with commuters hence lots of people on Bromptons doing the trip from Wallingford.

I have searched for other accidents but not found any online info, however people in the village, local ouncillors etc say over the years there have been numerous people knocked off bikes and even pedestrians on the pavement hit, not fatal so not making mainstream news hence hard to find and have campaigned for a cycle path for the last decade.

People always say councils do nothing until someone dies, well now two have died I wondered if it may prompt some action.

Edited by Herman Toothrot on Sunday 14th June 17:02

[SteveSteveson]

A prime example of a road where you should be in primary position. I don't think a cycle lane is the answer, but better education. Educating cyclists to cycle in a more assertive way and educating drivers that they have every right to. Putting a cycle lane on a country road like that just reenforces the idea that we are secondary citizens on the road.

[Herman Toothrot]

I disagree in this case, if more people had the balls to cycle primary position at night down this road it'd just result in more flattened cyclists as the cars baring down at 60/70mph would have even less room to get past and more likely to hit the cyclists - both these fatalities were cars travelling the same direction and driving straight into the back of the cyclists.

[Magic919]

I'm not sure we should change roads in order to accommodate drunk drivers.

[Mr Will]

SteveSteveson said:

A prime example of a road where you should be in primary position. I don't think a cycle lane is the answer, but better education. Educating cyclists to cycle in a more assertive way and educating drivers that they have every right to. Putting a cycle lane on a country road like that just reenforces the idea that we are secondary citizens on the road.

Primary position works well in towns, but there it's just asking for trouble. With a 50+ mph speed differential it only takes a moment of inattention (or "sun in my eyes") and you've got another flat cyclist, primary position or no primary position.

What would be the downside to a decent, separate cycle lane? Few junctions to negotiate, plenty of space and would make the ride far more accessible to a wide variety of people, rather than just fit confident roadies.

[Fastpedeller]

Magic919 said:

I'm not sure we should change roads in order to accommodate drunk drivers.

Indeed - Time for lifetime bans is long overdue. There has been enough education on drunk driving that everyone knows the risks!

[SteveSteveson]

Mr Will said:

Primary position works well in towns, but there it's just asking for trouble. With a 50+ mph speed differential it only takes a moment of inattention (or "sun in my eyes") and you've got another flat cyclist, primary position or no primary position.

What would be the downside to a decent, separate cycle lane? Few junctions to negotiate, plenty of space and would make the ride far more accessible to a wide variety of people, rather than just fit confident roadies.

If someone is not going to see you they will hit you no matter where you are, unless the road is particularly wide and the driver does not have to move out at all to go past you. It's just a matter of being hit by the near side or off side of the car in the cases you mention. Being out in the road makes you more visible as you are not blending in with anything at the side of the road. I cycle out in the road where I feel people will try and squeeze past wherever I need to, no matter what the speed limit.

Not sure what "fit roadies" have to do with anything. Fitness should have nothing to do with confidence. That's why I say we need education for both sides. Telling more cyclists "the road is not safe, you should not be on it" just makes the rest of the roads less safe. One of the biggest issue is drivers lack of care for cyclists and a feeling they are an enemy.

[Mr Will]

SteveSteveson said:

If someone is not going to see you they will hit you no matter where you are, unless the road is particularly wide and the driver does not have to move out at all to go past you. It's just a matter of being hit by the near side or off side of the car in the cases you mention. Being out in the road makes you more visible as you are not blending in with anything at the side of the road. I cycle out in the road where I feel people will try and squeeze past wherever I need to, no matter what the speed limit.

Not sure what "fit roadies" have to do with anything. Fitness should have nothing to do with confidence. That's why I say we need education for both sides. Telling more cyclists "the road is not safe, you should not be on it" just makes the rest of the roads less safe. One of the biggest issue is drivers lack of care for cyclists and a feeling they are an enemy.

So I could cycle that road with my 6 year old daughter could I, as long as we took primary position? Or is that fking nuts? Vehicular cycling works for the few, not the majority. I want a country where the majority can cycle safely. (and I say that as one of the few - I'm a club cyclist who commutes by bike daily in London rush-hour).