Brighton and Hove most dangerous UK city for cyclists and pedestrians (From The Argus)

That's because when there's an accident instead of the council dealing with hotspots they don't bother eg Roedean road the limit is 30 than all of a sudden a 50 sign right on the corner I mean comeon sack these idiots !

The new pedestrian crossing "green man" lights that the council are installing are a total waste of money and a danger. When crossing the road, you look ahead, not at low level to the side. This is just the council's highways department trying to keep their budget and their staff. Sack the lot of them!

I cycle and walk and here are the dangers:
The new pelican crossings where the green man box has been removed from the opposite side of the road.
Coombe road junction for
Cyclist travelling into town as cars
Turn left.
Shared cycle lanes without kerbing - pedestrians, children and did wander into them. I suffered a broken collar bone after a dog walker let the elastic lead out to full length and the dog pelted across the lane.
Ouch. Simple fixes.

Anybody noticed anything missing from the article above ???

There's NO reference to PEDESTRIAN SAFETY either by the Argus reporter or by Brighton and Hove City Council, who regard people without pedals attached to their feet as a nuisance -- getting in the way of their darlings, the ever more pampered cyclists.

Currenly, the council are hoping to smuggle through plans to let cyclists let rip along one of the last refuges for pedestrians -- Hove Promenade.

Come on, Brighton Argus. It's time to fight the corner of overlooked pedestrians !

Ban ALL buses from Oxford st! Its one of the most dangerous roads in brighton, there are more buses there than in the bus depot! the way they swing around the corner of london rd is unbeliveable. Everyday I see people standing on the pavement waiting to cross and they are only inches away from the buses, Only a matter of time.

It's not a question of more and more expensive schemes costing hundreds of thousands.
It's a question of priority and in the town centre the main priority should be pedestrian; all vehicles including cyclists giving way.
Put simple white crossing markings at every junction and pinch point - this makes it obvious to pedestrians where they may cross, and obvious to drivers and riders as to where they are likely to see them.
The UK has the 2nd highest pedestrian casualty rate in the EU and though it is debatable a strong body of opinion is that we very simply do not have sufficient safe places to cross.
Every single town I visit on the 'mainland' has these simple systems and enforced pedestrian priority. In the UK we have opted for the expensive and IMHO unworkable solution.

Dear Ben James, I have to question the statistics that you have quoted in this story. According to the Dept of Transport road accident statistics, in 2011 was 107 - it's been around this level for as long as I can remember. So I cannot understand the figure you quote of 157 for Brighton alone.
The Dept of Transport stats can be found here.
http://assets.dft.go
v.uk/statistics/rele
ases/reported-road-c
asualties-gb-main-re
sults-2011/reported-
road-casualties-in-g
reat-britain-main-re
sults-2011.pdf

Please can you explain this statistical discrepancy, or amend the article to qualify the statistic - because it clearly cannot be an annual figure.

Thank you.

To clarify, the total number of pedal cyclist deaths across the UK in 2011 was 107 - according to the Dept of Transport.

lorrie1 wrote:
Ban ALL buses from Oxford st! Its one of the most dangerous roads in brighton, there are more buses there than in the bus depot! the way they swing around the corner of london rd is unbeliveable. Everyday I see people standing on the pavement waiting to cross and they are only inches away from the buses, Only a matter of time.

or people could just stand back from the kirb until the little green man lets them know it's safe to go,or they can just walk across whenever they feel like it as they do now

Bring on the 20mph and speed bumps asap.. I live near the cricket ground and there are numerous cars that speed around way too fast. I don't know if it is a certain demographic, alpha males, with an arrogant outlook on life and others lives. But there are accidents waiting to happen. I moved here to get away from all those aggressive road morons like in London... so let's slow it all down, its a relaxed coastal town.. not a formula one race track...

Shoddy reporting. These statistics do not justify the headline.

The figures are per head of population and give no consideration to the proportion of people who are actually walking or get on their bike. To find the most dangerous part of the UK, you need to use "rate adjusted" figures.

So there could easily be other reasons behind these numbers. For example, if Brighton and Hove have a high active-travel rate then you would expect the accident rate PER HEAD OF POPULATION to be high also. This doesn't mean cycling/walking is more dangerous, it just means there are more people doing said activities.

Having said that, I think all UK towns and cities have a long way to go before the safety of pedestrians and cyclists matches that of, say, Holland where a cyclist is EIGHT TIMES less likely to be injured by a motor vehicle.

Come on Argus, send Ben James on a statistics course!

The Argus has interpreted these statistics one way. The headline could just have easily read: ‘Brighton and Hove - the UK City with the Most Careless Cyclists and Pedestrians.' The number of times, as a motorist, I have had to break as pedestrians walk into the road without looking in this city, cannot be counted. Dodging cyclists pedalling up a one- way-street the wrong way can be just as difficult. It’s all too easy to demonise the motorist, as the Ian Davey and the Greens seem to make their number one priority. And let’s not forget that the motorist will often be a pedestrian as well, and sometimes a cyclist. We are not talking about mutually exclusive groups, as the Greens seem to so fervently believe.

bluemonday wrote:

lorrie1 wrote:
Ban ALL buses from Oxford st! Its one of the most dangerous roads in brighton, there are more buses there than in the bus depot! the way they swing around the corner of london rd is unbeliveable. Everyday I see people standing on the pavement waiting to cross and they are only inches away from the buses, Only a matter of time.

or people could just stand back from the kirb until the little green man lets them know it's safe to go,or they can just walk across whenever they feel like it as they do now

everyone has a responsibility for their own safety, and not blame others. oxford st is perfectly safe, if you stand away from the kerb, and wait for the green man, and use your eyes and ears. how many times have you seen a pedestrian walk out either on the phone or with things stuck in their ears, without looking. people get hurt because they don't take care! maybe it shows that cyclists and pedestrians in brighton and hove are just interested in themselves and nothing else.

Don: but this all points back to the city... if peds/bikes had infrastructure that allowed them to get where they want to safely and efficiently they wouldn't put themselves into conflict with motorists so often.

Give more roadspace to cyclists and more priority to pedestrians and the conflicts caused by said users inventing their own rules will go away.

Totally agree that we're not mutually exclusive groups.

davyboy: you are not perfectly safe behind the kerb whenever there is motorised traffic around. Dozens of pedestrians are injured each year by cars *on the pavement*.

Don Pedro wrote:
The Argus has interpreted these statistics one way. The headline could just have easily read: ‘Brighton and Hove - the UK City with the Most Careless Cyclists and Pedestrians.' The number of times, as a motorist, I have had to break as pedestrians walk into the road without looking in this city, cannot be counted. Dodging cyclists pedalling up a one- way-street the wrong way can be just as difficult. It’s all too easy to demonise the motorist, as the Ian Davey and the Greens seem to make their number one priority. And let’s not forget that the motorist will often be a pedestrian as well, and sometimes a cyclist. We are not talking about mutually exclusive groups, as the Greens seem to so fervently believe.

Ha ha! Those sweet innocent car drivers. Never in a rush to get from a to b.

25% of all groups are careless idiots but those moving a half a ton of metal around are more dangerous.

How many deaths were caused by dangeous cycling in the UK? One in the last two years.

WS wrote:
Dear Ben James, I have to question the statistics that you have quoted in this story. According to the Dept of Transport road accident statistics, in 2011 was 107 - it's been around this level for as long as I can remember. So I cannot understand the figure you quote of 157 for Brighton alone.
The Dept of Transport stats can be found here.
http://assets.dft.go

v.uk/statistics/rele

ases/reported-road-c

asualties-gb-main-re

sults-2011/reported-

road-casualties-in-g

reat-britain-main-re

sults-2011.pdf

Please can you explain this statistical discrepancy, or amend the article to qualify the statistic - because it clearly cannot be an annual figure.

Thank you.

Yes, the stats do sound fishy.

One in every 745 people in the city killed or seriously injured in a year? It's like Death Race 2000.

If the sort of mayhem and carnage reported by Ben James in this piece was really happening then wouldn't we have noticed before? This is just such bad and totally innumerate reporting.

easyrider wrote:
Anybody noticed anything missing from the article above ???

There's NO reference to PEDESTRIAN SAFETY either by the Argus reporter or by Brighton and Hove City Council, who regard people without pedals attached to their feet as a nuisance -- getting in the way of their darlings, the ever more pampered cyclists.

Currenly, the council are hoping to smuggle through plans to let cyclists let rip along one of the last refuges for pedestrians -- Hove Promenade.

Come on, Brighton Argus. It's time to fight the corner of overlooked pedestrians !

As far as the Hove Prom / Cycle issue goes it would make lots of sense to make the National Cycle Route 2 use the small bit of the prom that runs next to the lagoon. Not the 90% of the prom that's thinner and runs from the end of the lagoon to the King Alfred, but the wide bit with less pedestrians.

The roads and junction just north of Hove Lagoon are very dangerous and confusing, plus the bikes can't see children leaving the park and walking straight on to the bike lanes as that hedge is far too overgrown.

Changing the NCR2 so that it passes the other way around this lagoon is a sensible idea to improve safety for the users of all the facilities in that area.

I would hope the Old Shoreham Road cycle lanes are wide enough for Adam Pride - they take up a considerable amount of the total width.

In the places where cycle lanes exist there are many that only confuse cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. You get halfa***d bits that fizzle out after a few yards, some are so narrow the cyclist can't avoid the draincovers in the gutter so don't use them, and some really shouldn't be there in the first place.

In addition, cyclists wish to stay on their bikes so will try to ride up some steepish hills where there is no cycle lane, eg. Old Shoreham Road or New England Road between the railway bridge and Dyke Road or Seven Dials. These two are barely wide enough for two lanes of cars without a wobbling cycle struggling up the hill in too high a gear not taking their own safety into account. Cyclists coming down those two hills often overtake the queueing vehicles and then find they've nowhere to go when something comes up in the opposite direction - again not taking their own safety into account.

As davyboy says "everyone has a responsibility for their own safety". Everyone should use the road, cycle path or pavement with the necessary level of care that doesn't endanger themselves or other users rather than just doing whatever they please. The current "it's my right" thinking needs to change but don't ask me how when so many people just don't seem to care.

Stand and watch at Castle Square for a while. The amount of pedestrians that just amble across the road with the red man showing.

The old style lights were far better, but some people are just asking to be knocked down.

I agree that the lack of an obvious green man on the new crossings is ridiculous. And I don't agree with the argument that forcing you to look sideways makes things more safe - often the crossings are so busy that you simply can't see the green man now.

Secondly, sort out Western Road. It is plain dangerous. The complete lack of a pedestrian crossing for the majority of the city's busiest shopping street is a joke, as is the amount of time the crossing by Churchill Square allows for pedestrians to cross. The islands along Western Road are way too small. If you go half way with a pram, you do so at considerable risk.

I assume this is all to smooth the passage of the hundreds of half-empty buses that hammer up and down there all day. Buses, which I might add, are very happy to back up along Western Road nose to tail, making crossing the road even more difficult.

Start thinking about pedestrians rather than buses and taxis and place a couple more crossings along Western Road.

Please also inform Brighton and Hove bus drivers that it is not necessary to accelerate as fast as is physically possible for the 200 yards between each of their stops along this road (and Church Road).

Let's be honest now, how many times have you seen cyclists that go through red lights and don't even stop or slow down to see if the light is red. As a car driver if this happens and I wipe one out, who is it that appears int he dock....me. Let's make cyclists take out insurance and have tests like other road users. If you want to use the road, behave and comply with the rules and regs that covers the use of the roads.

There is a simple explanation for all of this: people are stupid.

I hope those people who support the cause of pedestrians -- statistics aside -- will join the Living Streets local group. (I also hope that risk-taking walkers, and there are undoubtedly some, will stop and think before jay-walking etc.) Those new crossing lights certainly don't help, nor does encouraging cyclists to enter pedestrian lanes or vice-versa.

Getreal you lot wrote:
Let's be honest now, how many times have you seen cyclists that go through red lights and don't even stop or slow down to see if the light is red. As a car driver if this happens and I wipe one out, who is it that appears int he dock....me. Let's make cyclists take out insurance and have tests like other road users. If you want to use the road, behave and comply with the rules and regs that covers the use of the roads.

I agree with your tough approach to road use. When ever I see a car parket in the advanced cycle zones (which is about 40% of car drivers) I get out my hammer and smash their bonnet up, and smash them too if they argue with me. They get so annoyed, and I'll be the one in the dock!

I know it's not as fun as orphaning some cyclist's children as you like to do but it still has a similar feel-good fascistic ring to it.

Getreal you lot wrote:
Let's be honest now, how many times have you seen cyclists that go through red lights and don't even stop or slow down to see if the light is red. As a car driver if this happens and I wipe one out, who is it that appears int he dock....me. Let's make cyclists take out insurance and have tests like other road users. If you want to use the road, behave and comply with the rules and regs that covers the use of the roads.

go through lights...yes there are a fair few. But whilst there may be a fair few I havent seen many people killed or injured by such behaviour. On the other hand, I have seen quite a few people injured by cars.

Crystal Ball wrote:
There is a simple explanation for all of this: people are stupid.

And your not one of them are you Crystal ball, or should that be bull???

This document may help the debate:

It is the 'off crossing' casualties which are of note.
Perhaps it is because we have so few safe places for pedestrians to cross that our attrition rate is so high?

http://www.fiafounda
tion.org/Documents/R
oad%20Safety/eurotes
t_final_report_p_cro
ssings_290108_v3.pdf

So basically a cyclelane should be used to cycle in ok hmm ok then

So basically a cyclelane should be used to cycle in ok hmm ok then

Old Ladys Gin wrote:

Spanners wrote:

Enema of the peephole wrote:
Having witnessed the disgraceful and dangerous behaviour of the vast majority of cyclists using the seafront and promenade I can say with confidence that, with very few exceptions, they are scumbags. Pedestrians do not report the huge numbers of incidents where they are abused and assaulted by these appalling gits. One well-kitted out Lycra clad, helmet wearing, cyclist collided with a child in a pushchair whose mother had just used the crossing near the pier. He sneered and asked what she thought she was doing. Absolute scum. If anyone wishes to defend fellow cyclists using the seafront then first take a walk down there on a busy day and objectively record the actions of these awful louts .

you are of course completely correct - the action of one man on a bicycle means that anyone on bicycle is the same.
And a bloke in a car swore at me once whilst cutting me up - so anyone you dares get ina car is a total kn0bjockey

As for pedestrians - well there were loads shouting, swearing and swilling cider in the cycle on the seafront on saturday. So anyone with legs (or at least anyone who uses them) is the same. Total barstewards the lot of 'em Enema - you are a troll or an idiot. Either way you proves Crysall Ball's point.

In fairness there were a few cyclists seemingly insisting on using the cycle lane last Saturday, in conditions when it should have been obvious they could not eg Too many people standing on it.
Nobody has 'right of way' on the roads but you may use your 'priority' if the conditions permit.
Turning this debate into a bike/car type things will no good at all.
We need a change in general attitude and frankly IMHO sweeping changes in priorities, both practical and mental.

...and that won't happen whilst the motoring fraternity attempt to exterminate all other forms of transport for their own ends, whatever those may be.

I'm a great fan of the philosophy that one gets what one deserves, one gets the results according to one's input.

The motoring fraternnity have labelled ALL cyclists as guerillas of the roads, as ne'er do wells. So that's pretty much what the motorists are often presented with.
The only reason that I'm not knocked off my bike is that I command the space around me as best I can - I don't cycle in the gutter, I make sure everyone can see me, and I make sure that im decisive. If a motorist comes close to knocking me off then I stand my ground and threaten to knock them over - intimidation works both ways.
Until motorists start treating cyclists as real people then I'm not sure how we can find the middle ground.

Old Ale Man wrote:

Crystal Ball wrote:
There is a simple explanation for all of this: people are stupid.

And your not one of them are you Crystal ball, or should that be bull???

I see you employ the same proof reader as the Argus.

Join the masses.

I would ensure that one part of the motorists driving lesson and driving test is to ride a bike around the city for at least two hours, day and nighttime. This would instill a sense of the cyclists point of view to the motorist and therefore a car driver would experience a cyclists hazard for motor traffic and vice versa

Also not covered in the article is the fact that so many pedestrians will cross at traffic lights when lights are green/amber for the traffic; I'm sure there must be many near misses, or not so near misses that contribute to these figures.

I also agree on other posters points about the the new pedestrian lights; whilst the theory might make sense (looking at the lights in the direction of traffic) its not much use when you're crossing the road and you can't see what colour the light.

I cycle, walk, take the bus and drive around Brighton. So hopefully I can see this oft repeated debate from many sides

I believe that Brighton is more dangerous than other cities for a number of reasons:
- many people who live in Brighton have not learnt to drive and are not active drivers. This makes them less aware as pedestrians and cyclists. Not just to cars but to buses which seem to pose a larger threat!
- Buses and cyclists take red lights as optional items. Great when you're on the bus as you get there quicker but so many near misses
- pedestrians ignore lights on crossings. A take from a bus of near misses would be quite something. I've seen a number of passengers go "ahhh" at a very near miss more than once
- cycle lanes are not that clear in many places so pedestrians and cycle collide.... In some places there are cycle lanes where there really is no space - so usually full of pedestrians
- not all bus lanes are for cyclists too. However this is often not clear and signing is poor for cyclists

So many issues. Key I think is awareness and personal responsibility however you travel. And a bit of patience. But not everyone has learnt this and less car driving skills in the population (as greens would like) means less cycling and pedestrian skills to see the world as buses, cars, lorries etc see it....

cycling is not safe as no one who take s a push bike to the road or in most cases the pavement never has to take a test nor do they have to have there bikes checked for safety ,were as car are taxed and tested and to drive one you need to be licensed

Cyclestrian wrote:
Shoddy reporting. These statistics do not justify the headline.

The figures are per head of population and give no consideration to the proportion of people who are actually walking or get on their bike. To find the most dangerous part of the UK, you need to use "rate adjusted" figures.

So there could easily be other reasons behind these numbers. For example, if Brighton and Hove have a high active-travel rate then you would expect the accident rate PER HEAD OF POPULATION to be high also. This doesn't mean cycling/walking is more dangerous, it just means there are more people doing said activities.

Having said that, I think all UK towns and cities have a long way to go before the safety of pedestrians and cyclists matches that of, say, Holland where a cyclist is EIGHT TIMES less likely to be injured by a motor vehicle.

Come on Argus, send Ben James on a statistics course!

Good point.

martyt wrote:
cycling is not safe as no one who take s a push bike to the road or in most cases the pavement never has to take a test nor do they have to have there bikes checked for safety ,were as car are taxed and tested and to drive one you need to be licensed

wonderful. sweeping statements make everything true. If licences make everyone obey the rules of the roads then i guess there is no need for traffic police at all then? I assume that every car on the road is perfect working order, even thought they only have to be once a year? what kind of test do you propose? what age range should testing start? shall we also get pedestrians to take a test as they often use the roads without a licence as well. it's nonsense like this that muddies the water of sensible debate. all roads users need to be aware of other people. the infrastructure needs to take in to account mixed usage rather than shoe horning non cars in to unsuitable spaces.

martyt wrote:
cycling is not safe as no one who take s a push bike to the road or in most cases the pavement never has to take a test nor do they have to have there bikes checked for safety ,were as car are taxed and tested and to drive one you need to be licensed

cyclists dont have the benefit of anti lock brakes and a safety cage, so I'm pretty sure cyclists are far more ware of their own mortality than someone stuck in a one tonnet heap of metal on the mobile phone with the stereo blaring out.

chilliman wrote:
I would hope the Old Shoreham Road cycle lanes are wide enough for Adam Pride - they take up a considerable amount of the total width.

In the places where cycle lanes exist there are many that only confuse cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. You get halfa***d bits that fizzle out after a few yards, some are so narrow the cyclist can't avoid the draincovers in the gutter so don't use them, and some really shouldn't be there in the first place.

In addition, cyclists wish to stay on their bikes so will try to ride up some steepish hills where there is no cycle lane, eg. Old Shoreham Road or New England Road between the railway bridge and Dyke Road or Seven Dials. These two are barely wide enough for two lanes of cars without a wobbling cycle struggling up the hill in too high a gear not taking their own safety into account. Cyclists coming down those two hills often overtake the queueing vehicles and then find they've nowhere to go when something comes up in the opposite direction - again not taking their own safety into account.

As davyboy says "everyone has a responsibility for their own safety". Everyone should use the road, cycle path or pavement with the necessary level of care that doesn't endanger themselves or other users rather than just doing whatever they please. The current "it's my right" thinking needs to change but don't ask me how when so many people just don't seem to care.

I walk up and down the viaduct twice p/day and the amount of accidents i nearly see a week is disturbing. The road needs to be wider but with the bridge it isnt possible. I sympathise with cyclists but the road isnt wide enough and you can see motorists getting fed up with them holding traffic up. I often see cyclists skipping the lights - dangerous there.

Crazy idea, but why don't the government mandate cycle helmets for cyclists!?

brightonian1234 wrote:
Crazy idea, but why don't the government mandate cycle helmets for cyclists!?

...so a bit of plastic on my head is going to stop a tonne of metal slamming into me is it? How would that 'stop' an accident?
Helmets are only worthwhile for those accidents not involving a car/ lorry

brightonian1234 wrote:

chilliman wrote:
I would hope the Old Shoreham Road cycle lanes are wide enough for Adam Pride - they take up a considerable amount of the total width.

In the places where cycle lanes exist there are many that only confuse cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. You get halfa***d bits that fizzle out after a few yards, some are so narrow the cyclist can't avoid the draincovers in the gutter so don't use them, and some really shouldn't be there in the first place.

In addition, cyclists wish to stay on their bikes so will try to ride up some steepish hills where there is no cycle lane, eg. Old Shoreham Road or New England Road between the railway bridge and Dyke Road or Seven Dials. These two are barely wide enough for two lanes of cars without a wobbling cycle struggling up the hill in too high a gear not taking their own safety into account. Cyclists coming down those two hills often overtake the queueing vehicles and then find they've nowhere to go when something comes up in the opposite direction - again not taking their own safety into account.

As davyboy says "everyone has a responsibility for their own safety". Everyone should use the road, cycle path or pavement with the necessary level of care that doesn't endanger themselves or other users rather than just doing whatever they please. The current "it's my right" thinking needs to change but don't ask me how when so many people just don't seem to care.

I walk up and down the viaduct twice p/day and the amount of accidents i nearly see a week is disturbing. The road needs to be wider but with the bridge it isnt possible. I sympathise with cyclists but the road isnt wide enough and you can see motorists getting fed up with them holding traffic up. I often see cyclists skipping the lights - dangerous there.

cyclists 'holding up the traffic' on viaduct road? Methinks its the volume of traffic that is holding up the traffic!!
As a cyclist I nimbly skip through that bottleneck but yes, it does mean needing to go either on the outside or the inside of the traffic and either way isn't ideal.

NickBtn wrote:
I cycle, walk, take the bus and drive around Brighton. So hopefully I can see this oft repeated debate from many sides

I believe that Brighton is more dangerous than other cities for a number of reasons:
- many people who live in Brighton have not learnt to drive and are not active drivers. This makes them less aware as pedestrians and cyclists. Not just to cars but to buses which seem to pose a larger threat!
- Buses and cyclists take red lights as optional items. Great when you're on the bus as you get there quicker but so many near misses
- pedestrians ignore lights on crossings. A take from a bus of near misses would be quite something. I've seen a number of passengers go "ahhh" at a very near miss more than once
- cycle lanes are not that clear in many places so pedestrians and cycle collide.... In some places there are cycle lanes where there really is no space - so usually full of pedestrians
- not all bus lanes are for cyclists too. However this is often not clear and signing is poor for cyclists

So many issues. Key I think is awareness and personal responsibility however you travel. And a bit of patience. But not everyone has learnt this and less car driving skills in the population (as greens would like) means less cycling and pedestrian skills to see the world as buses, cars, lorries etc see it....

I'd suggest everyone who wants to learn to drive a car first of all finds out what it is like to be the most vulnerable of all road users - yes, a cyclist - and then and only then moves onto become a motorist.

graham_Seagull wrote:

NickBtn wrote:
I cycle, walk, take the bus and drive around Brighton. So hopefully I can see this oft repeated debate from many sides

I believe that Brighton is more dangerous than other cities for a number of reasons:
- many people who live in Brighton have not learnt to drive and are not active drivers. This makes them less aware as pedestrians and cyclists. Not just to cars but to buses which seem to pose a larger threat!
- Buses and cyclists take red lights as optional items. Great when you're on the bus as you get there quicker but so many near misses
- pedestrians ignore lights on crossings. A take from a bus of near misses would be quite something. I've seen a number of passengers go "ahhh" at a very near miss more than once
- cycle lanes are not that clear in many places so pedestrians and cycle collide.... In some places there are cycle lanes where there really is no space - so usually full of pedestrians
- not all bus lanes are for cyclists too. However this is often not clear and signing is poor for cyclists

So many issues. Key I think is awareness and personal responsibility however you travel. And a bit of patience. But not everyone has learnt this and less car driving skills in the population (as greens would like) means less cycling and pedestrian skills to see the world as buses, cars, lorries etc see it....

I'd suggest everyone who wants to learn to drive a car first of all finds out what it is like to be the most vulnerable of all road users - yes, a cyclist - and then and only then moves onto become a motorist.

it always amazes me how many cyclists do not wear helmets,high visibility clothing and don't even have lights on there bikes,these things will not save lives themselves but making yourself more visible is certainly going to help somebody see you coming abit more easily

graham_Seagull wrote:

Old Ladys Gin wrote:

Spanners wrote:

Enema of the peephole wrote:
Having witnessed the disgraceful and dangerous behaviour of the vast majority of cyclists using the seafront and promenade I can say with confidence that, with very few exceptions, they are scumbags. Pedestrians do not report the huge numbers of incidents where they are abused and assaulted by these appalling gits. One well-kitted out Lycra clad, helmet wearing, cyclist collided with a child in a pushchair whose mother had just used the crossing near the pier. He sneered and asked what she thought she was doing. Absolute scum. If anyone wishes to defend fellow cyclists using the seafront then first take a walk down there on a busy day and objectively record the actions of these awful louts .

you are of course completely correct - the action of one man on a bicycle means that anyone on bicycle is the same.
And a bloke in a car swore at me once whilst cutting me up - so anyone you dares get ina car is a total kn0bjockey

As for pedestrians - well there were loads shouting, swearing and swilling cider in the cycle on the seafront on saturday. So anyone with legs (or at least anyone who uses them) is the same. Total barstewards the lot of 'em Enema - you are a troll or an idiot. Either way you proves Crysall Ball's point.

In fairness there were a few cyclists seemingly insisting on using the cycle lane last Saturday, in conditions when it should have been obvious they could not eg Too many people standing on it.
Nobody has 'right of way' on the roads but you may use your 'priority' if the conditions permit.
Turning this debate into a bike/car type things will no good at all.
We need a change in general attitude and frankly IMHO sweeping changes in priorities, both practical and mental.

...and that won't happen whilst the motoring fraternity attempt to exterminate all other forms of transport for their own ends, whatever those may be.

I'm a great fan of the philosophy that one gets what one deserves, one gets the results according to one's input.

The motoring fraternnity have labelled ALL cyclists as guerillas of the roads, as ne'er do wells. So that's pretty much what the motorists are often presented with.
The only reason that I'm not knocked off my bike is that I command the space around me as best I can - I don't cycle in the gutter, I make sure everyone can see me, and I make sure that im decisive. If a motorist comes close to knocking me off then I stand my ground and threaten to knock them over - intimidation works both ways.
Until motorists start treating cyclists as real people then I'm not sure how we can find the middle ground.

You are too keen (perhaps to the point of obsession) to verbose and you lose your argument because of it.

easyrider wrote:
Anybody noticed anything missing from the article above ???

There's NO reference to PEDESTRIAN SAFETY either by the Argus reporter or by Brighton and Hove City Council, who regard people without pedals attached to their feet as a nuisance -- getting in the way of their darlings, the ever more pampered cyclists.

Currenly, the council are hoping to smuggle through plans to let cyclists let rip along one of the last refuges for pedestrians -- Hove Promenade.

Come on, Brighton Argus. It's time to fight the corner of overlooked pedestrians !

Why is it that every city I travel to, be it European, Australian or Asian manages to allow pedestrians and cyclists to share the same space without rants from fools appearing in the local press. Its not even an issue abroad!

Getreal you lot wrote:
Let's be honest now, how many times have you seen cyclists that go through red lights and don't even stop or slow down to see if the light is red. As a car driver if this happens and I wipe one out, who is it that appears int he dock....me. Let's make cyclists take out insurance and have tests like other road users. If you want to use the road, behave and comply with the rules and regs that covers the use of the roads.

I know as the days get shorter, there will be masses of bikes with no lights cycling along in the dark as there is every year

Aren't these stats essentially meaningless, as they don't take into account the level of walking and cycling taking place?

I hear Australia has many more shark attacks than Switzerland. So Switzerland must be a better place to surf.

I am a cyclist, a motorist and 'white van man'. Just today I saw a cyclist riding between Saltdean and Peacehaven in such a way that he could easily have been injured by a distracted motorist. Also, as I drove through Brighton earlier several pedestrians just walked into the road without looking first. However, I see this idiotic behaviour by ALL road users and pedestrians ALL the time.
Frustratingly it is simply human nature to behave in such a way and we as road users and pedestrians ALL need to drive, ride and walk with awareness as we ALL make mistakes now and then.
So, please, just chill out and stop blaming others for things we ALL do on occasion.

Let's hope the KitKats take a break from their airy-fairy Green obsessions; read these pleas and get their fingers out.

Sor' i' ou', Jase, 'for you gets yersel' vo-id oft Carnsil !

This is after the Council spent £1,500,000 improving pedestrian safety in North Street and Western Road which basically involved lowering the kerbs and narrowing the road.
Also, a 20mph limit will do no good because cyclists still cycle across junctions, on pavements and through red lights at speed. Pedestrians just wander like lemmings across roads peering at the phone/i-pod/mp3 they have in their hands and blindly following the person in front who is blindly following the person in front.....
Stand outside the station or the Clock Tower or Western Road and watch people putting themseves in danger.
Too many politically correct apologists in this town

This car hating council will be grinning from ear to ear whilst reading this cr@p

How many pedestrians where killed on the pavement or whilst crossing at a controlled point? how many cyclists where hit whilst jumping lights or undertaking a car turning left?

If you give "facts and figures" can you at least explain how they relate to Brighton & Hove

BrightonHoveboy wrote:
This is after the Council spent £1,500,000 improving pedestrian safety in North Street and Western Road which basically involved lowering the kerbs and narrowing the road.
Also, a 20mph limit will do no good because cyclists still cycle across junctions, on pavements and through red lights at speed. Pedestrians just wander like lemmings across roads peering at the phone/i-pod/mp3 they have in their hands and blindly following the person in front who is blindly following the person in front.....
Stand outside the station or the Clock Tower or Western Road and watch people putting themseves in danger.
Too many politically correct apologists in this town

I know! Pedestrians and cyclists have a death wish every time they leave their houses but car drivers are all angels who are fully aware of what's going on around them at all times and are never distracted at all.

That's why there are never any accidents on motorways as cyclists and pedestrians aren't allowed on them.

You can stand outside any traffic junction in Brighton and never see a single car stop in the advanced cycle zones or park on a double yellow line. You actually become a proper saint when you get given your driver's licence.

And don't get me started on the pollution caused by pedestrians and cyclists.

Now, where's the rest of my sherry?

Interesting that one key group of road users aren't included in this set of stats. These are the people who are least likely to be bored, distracted, busy doing something else at the same time (telephones, headphones, nosepicking etc), drunk, on drugs,or just a bit simple. For the sake of their lives this lot have to take their roadcraft seriously and inhabit a culture of ability, skill, compulsory and further training and the capacity to make the correct decisions in the blink of an eye. By far the most vulnerable group but consequently the most switched on, the motorcyclists. Delighted not to be featured in a list of idiots who shouldn't be allowed out unsupervised.
Take up biking, be skilful.

nocando wrote:
Interesting that one key group of road users aren't included in this set of stats. These are the people who are least likely to be bored, distracted, busy doing something else at the same time (telephones, headphones, nosepicking etc), drunk, on drugs,or just a bit simple. For the sake of their lives this lot have to take their roadcraft seriously and inhabit a culture of ability, skill, compulsory and further training and the capacity to make the correct decisions in the blink of an eye. By far the most vulnerable group but consequently the most switched on, the motorcyclists. Delighted not to be featured in a list of idiots who shouldn't be allowed out unsupervised.
Take up biking, be skilful.

You can not be serious, every time I drive I just, at the last minute - and almost too late, see a biker blasting up the sui-side at RIDICULOUS speed. It happened 3 times today in a 22 mile journey, one IDIOT, on a chopper in Viaduct Road, was almost crushed between a bus and a van! Even now, from my garden, I can hear the F***wits burning up and down the A26 between Lewes and Newhaven at extremely high speeds. Many bikers are very courteous but there are also many who are just complete and utter IDIOTS.

BrightonHoveboy wrote:
This is after the Council spent £1,500,000 improving pedestrian safety in North Street and Western Road which basically involved lowering the kerbs and narrowing the road.
Also, a 20mph limit will do no good because cyclists still cycle across junctions, on pavements and through red lights at speed. Pedestrians just wander like lemmings across roads peering at the phone/i-pod/mp3 they have in their hands and blindly following the person in front who is blindly following the person in front.....
Stand outside the station or the Clock Tower or Western Road and watch people putting themseves in danger.
Too many politically correct apologists in this town

Hear Hear!!

nocando wrote:
Interesting that one key group of road users aren't included in this set of stats. These are the people who are least likely to be bored, distracted, busy doing something else at the same time (telephones, headphones, nosepicking etc), drunk, on drugs,or just a bit simple. For the sake of their lives this lot have to take their roadcraft seriously and inhabit a culture of ability, skill, compulsory and further training and the capacity to make the correct decisions in the blink of an eye. By far the most vulnerable group but consequently the most switched on, the motorcyclists. Delighted not to be featured in a list of idiots who shouldn't be allowed out unsupervised.
Take up biking, be skilful.

Yes but please learn to be QUIET. Not all of you are noisy -- revving unecessarily at traffic lights to impress bystanders and pillion girlfriends. I guess those sad displays emanate mostly from those in the motorcycling fraternity who are heading to the penis enlargement centre.

lorrie1 wrote:
Ban ALL buses from Oxford st! Its one of the most dangerous roads in brighton, there are more buses there than in the bus depot! the way they swing around the corner of london rd is unbeliveable. Everyday I see people standing on the pavement waiting to cross and they are only inches away from the buses, Only a matter of time.

so where would you route them and what would happen to all those poor defenceless zimmers wanting to get to coop for when it opens? or the people that run across the road in the gap between the red man vanishing and the green light going on, or the cars that are now flooding down oxford street as a cut through instead of using Baker street. (Oi COUNCIL - CASH COW - BUS LANE FINES!)

oh i just thought, we had this story last week with not so many comments so must be time to increase page counts again.
all we need now is a discussion on the fact that dog pooh in the road/pavement makes cyclists/pedestrians wobble into path of oncoming traffic and its actually dog SH1 t that causes the accidents

Has anyone seen a cyclist making use of the Old Shoreham Road scheme yet? What a waste of public funds!

Anyone up for starting a campaign to bring back the green and red men? It would seem that this is one issue that brings many of us with differing world views together. I would join.

Also, it is time for a concerted effort to improve the pavements. Many have required relaying for years and dipped kerbs should be at every junction without argument. Having pushed a pram around, I realise just how poor the pavements are. I don't know how anyone with a wheel chair or mobility scooter gets on without dipped kerbs, it must be a nightmare (and one that most of us will encounter in later life).

On_the_Level wrote:
Has anyone seen a cyclist making use of the Old Shoreham Road scheme yet? What a waste of public funds!

It is a bit like the first motorways. When they were first built they were pretty empty. As time went by the network enlarged and they became popular and encouraged more people to drive.

So, you are lucky to be in early on the same phenomena in B&H. As the quality cycleroute network enlarges so they will become more popular.

On_the_Level wrote:
Has anyone seen a cyclist making use of the Old Shoreham Road scheme yet? What a waste of public funds!

No one has driven along my road for a good ten mins now....what a waste of taxpayer cash

kennydoit wrote:
The new pedestrian crossing "green man" lights that the council are installing are a total waste of money and a danger. When crossing the road, you look ahead, not at low level to the side. This is just the council's highways department trying to keep their budget and their staff. Sack the lot of them!

Exactly. I wrote to the council and our old Labour MP who contacted the DoT. They know what is best for us. They were designed to speed up traffic at light controlled pedestrian crossings where pedestrians will tend to look in the direction of the oncoming traffic. By detecting the presence of a pedestrian they can change to green to speed up traffic if the road is clear. Pedestrians look in all directions at junctions and these lights have been used in a sitution they were not dsigned for. Often because there is no pedestrian light opposite the curb side lights are not seen. At some junctions it is easier to see the green pedestrian lights at other crossing points when the actual crossing is still red. The Old Steine is a good example of this. They are a disaster but nobody will admit to making a mistake, as usual.

Cyclestrian wrote:
Shoddy reporting. These statistics do not justify the headline.

The figures are per head of population and give no consideration to the proportion of people who are actually walking or get on their bike. To find the most dangerous part of the UK, you need to use "rate adjusted" figures.

So there could easily be other reasons behind these numbers. For example, if Brighton and Hove have a high active-travel rate then you would expect the accident rate PER HEAD OF POPULATION to be high also. This doesn't mean cycling/walking is more dangerous, it just means there are more people doing said activities.

Having said that, I think all UK towns and cities have a long way to go before the safety of pedestrians and cyclists matches that of, say, Holland where a cyclist is EIGHT TIMES less likely to be injured by a motor vehicle.

Come on Argus, send Ben James on a statistics course!

Corrrect & if B&H has twice the national average of cyclists & as it is the 2nd most visited city in UK for tourists & top for drinking ones the stats amount to nl more than a hill of beans

Pedestrians,wheelcha
ir users,families with children avoid Hove promenade .
Used to have no cycling signs.Not anymore its a dangerous stretch taken over by speeding cyclists.Council it wont be long when pedestrians will start to sue.

Ben James should have been much clearer with his statistics. He doesn't even quote a period in his second paragraph. Was that 157 cyclists killed in Brighton & Hove in a month, a year, ten years or this century so far? This is very poor reporting.

graham_Seagull wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:
Crazy idea, but why don't the government mandate cycle helmets for cyclists!?

...so a bit of plastic on my head is going to stop a tonne of metal slamming into me is it? How would that 'stop' an accident?
Helmets are only worthwhile for those accidents not involving a car/ lorry

That's right, there are only accidents involving a lorry travelling at you front on at 80mph.
Sorry to use a cleche but if every cyclist was made to wear a helmet and that saved one life then that would be a success.

brightonian1234 wrote:

graham_Seagull wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:
Crazy idea, but why don't the government mandate cycle helmets for cyclists!?

...so a bit of plastic on my head is going to stop a tonne of metal slamming into me is it? How would that 'stop' an accident?
Helmets are only worthwhile for those accidents not involving a car/ lorry

That's right, there are only accidents involving a lorry travelling at you front on at 80mph.
Sorry to use a cleche but if every cyclist was made to wear a helmet and that saved one life then that would be a success.

In Holland few, if any, cyclists wear helmets and that includes moped riders.
In addition very few bikes seem to have brakes - not the sit up and beg type anyhow.
There are cars, tramlines, buses and pedestrians yet the country has one of the lowest casualty rates in the EU, of all types of road user.
Why? attitude and regulation largely, ingrained over generations; those two things will bring down casualty rates and they both need - education.

Old Ladys Gin wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:

graham_Seagull wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:
Crazy idea, but why don't the government mandate cycle helmets for cyclists!?

...so a bit of plastic on my head is going to stop a tonne of metal slamming into me is it? How would that 'stop' an accident?
Helmets are only worthwhile for those accidents not involving a car/ lorry

That's right, there are only accidents involving a lorry travelling at you front on at 80mph.
Sorry to use a cleche but if every cyclist was made to wear a helmet and that saved one life then that would be a success.

In Holland few, if any, cyclists wear helmets and that includes moped riders.
In addition very few bikes seem to have brakes - not the sit up and beg type anyhow.
There are cars, tramlines, buses and pedestrians yet the country has one of the lowest casualty rates in the EU, of all types of road user.
Why? attitude and regulation largely, ingrained over generations; those two things will bring down casualty rates and they both need - education.

@old ladys gin, ok great observation, now how do we implement "education"?

brightonian1234 wrote:

Old Ladys Gin wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:

graham_Seagull wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:
Crazy idea, but why don't the government mandate cycle helmets for cyclists!?

...so a bit of plastic on my head is going to stop a tonne of metal slamming into me is it? How would that 'stop' an accident?
Helmets are only worthwhile for those accidents not involving a car/ lorry

That's right, there are only accidents involving a lorry travelling at you front on at 80mph.
Sorry to use a cleche but if every cyclist was made to wear a helmet and that saved one life then that would be a success.

In Holland few, if any, cyclists wear helmets and that includes moped riders.
In addition very few bikes seem to have brakes - not the sit up and beg type anyhow.
There are cars, tramlines, buses and pedestrians yet the country has one of the lowest casualty rates in the EU, of all types of road user.
Why? attitude and regulation largely, ingrained over generations; those two things will bring down casualty rates and they both need - education.

@old ladys gin, ok great observation, now how do we implement "education"?

Purely my suggestions but:
Make the Highway Code law and not a code, and simplify it.
Make priorities clear eg; The Highway Code used to say regarding drivers approaching pedestrian crossings - zebra type 'Be sure to see and give way to pedestrians crossing or intending to cross'.
That was clear and unambiguous.
Drink driving laws changed attitudes by regulation, education and enforcement.
Provide many more opportunities for pedestrians to cross the road in safety - not expensive animal named crossing but simple white lines.
Give pedestrians absolute priority in town centres and make prioritie elsewhere legal and enforceable eg In Germany and other countries vehicles must give way to both pedestrians and cyclist when turning left and right, even when the lights are in the vehicles favour.
All EU countries committed to reducing road casualty rates by at least 50 percent by this year, and most have done it.
The UK has done it as regards motorised users but we lag seriously behind when it comes to the most vulnerable on the road.
A remnant of the old class sytem? Generations of accepted bad practice?
I think these two things definately contribute.

Old Ladys Gin wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:

Old Ladys Gin wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:

graham_Seagull wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:
Crazy idea, but why don't the government mandate cycle helmets for cyclists!?

...so a bit of plastic on my head is going to stop a tonne of metal slamming into me is it? How would that 'stop' an accident?
Helmets are only worthwhile for those accidents not involving a car/ lorry

That's right, there are only accidents involving a lorry travelling at you front on at 80mph.
Sorry to use a cleche but if every cyclist was made to wear a helmet and that saved one life then that would be a success.

In Holland few, if any, cyclists wear helmets and that includes moped riders.
In addition very few bikes seem to have brakes - not the sit up and beg type anyhow.
There are cars, tramlines, buses and pedestrians yet the country has one of the lowest casualty rates in the EU, of all types of road user.
Why? attitude and regulation largely, ingrained over generations; those two things will bring down casualty rates and they both need - education.

@old ladys gin, ok great observation, now how do we implement "education"?

Purely my suggestions but:
Make the Highway Code law and not a code, and simplify it.
Make priorities clear eg; The Highway Code used to say regarding drivers approaching pedestrian crossings - zebra type 'Be sure to see and give way to pedestrians crossing or intending to cross'.
That was clear and unambiguous.
Drink driving laws changed attitudes by regulation, education and enforcement.
Provide many more opportunities for pedestrians to cross the road in safety - not expensive animal named crossing but simple white lines.
Give pedestrians absolute priority in town centres and make prioritie elsewhere legal and enforceable eg In Germany and other countries vehicles must give way to both pedestrians and cyclist when turning left and right, even when the lights are in the vehicles favour.
All EU countries committed to reducing road casualty rates by at least 50 percent by this year, and most have done it.
The UK has done it as regards motorised users but we lag seriously behind when it comes to the most vulnerable on the road.
A remnant of the old class sytem? Generations of accepted bad practice?
I think these two things definately contribute.

agree with pretty much everything you have said.

I'd also consider taking out airbags in cars, and most of the internal padding.

When I had a knackered old Fiesta in the early 90's (the CAR, not the magazine ;) it gave me the awareness of my own mortality and that of those around me, whereas my nicely padded out BMW doesnt have the same effect.

I'd make everyone learn to ride a bike before learning to drive a car as well, as that equips a person with the connection with pedestrians and other road users like nothing else.

graham_Seagull wrote:

Old Ladys Gin wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:

Old Ladys Gin wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:

graham_Seagull wrote:

brightonian1234 wrote:
Crazy idea, but why don't the government mandate cycle helmets for cyclists!?

...so a bit of plastic on my head is going to stop a tonne of metal slamming into me is it? How would that 'stop' an accident?
Helmets are only worthwhile for those accidents not involving a car/ lorry

That's right, there are only accidents involving a lorry travelling at you front on at 80mph.
Sorry to use a cleche but if every cyclist was made to wear a helmet and that saved one life then that would be a success.

In Holland few, if any, cyclists wear helmets and that includes moped riders.
In addition very few bikes seem to have brakes - not the sit up and beg type anyhow.
There are cars, tramlines, buses and pedestrians yet the country has one of the lowest casualty rates in the EU, of all types of road user.
Why? attitude and regulation largely, ingrained over generations; those two things will bring down casualty rates and they both need - education.

@old ladys gin, ok great observation, now how do we implement "education"?

Purely my suggestions but:
Make the Highway Code law and not a code, and simplify it.
Make priorities clear eg; The Highway Code used to say regarding drivers approaching pedestrian crossings - zebra type 'Be sure to see and give way to pedestrians crossing or intending to cross'.
That was clear and unambiguous.
Drink driving laws changed attitudes by regulation, education and enforcement.
Provide many more opportunities for pedestrians to cross the road in safety - not expensive animal named crossing but simple white lines.
Give pedestrians absolute priority in town centres and make prioritie elsewhere legal and enforceable eg In Germany and other countries vehicles must give way to both pedestrians and cyclist when turning left and right, even when the lights are in the vehicles favour.
All EU countries committed to reducing road casualty rates by at least 50 percent by this year, and most have done it.
The UK has done it as regards motorised users but we lag seriously behind when it comes to the most vulnerable on the road.
A remnant of the old class sytem? Generations of accepted bad practice?
I think these two things definately contribute.

agree with pretty much everything you have said.

I'd also consider taking out airbags in cars, and most of the internal padding.

When I had a knackered old Fiesta in the early 90's (the CAR, not the magazine ;) it gave me the awareness of my own mortality and that of those around me, whereas my nicely padded out BMW doesnt have the same effect.

I'd make everyone learn to ride a bike before learning to drive a car as well, as that equips a person with the connection with pedestrians and other road users like nothing else.

Perhaps you last para is a clue to the better rates of attrition in Holland as almost everyone has ridden or does ride a bike - You see very few fat people as another useful by product :) though of course the country is largely flat!
I couldn't say I'd advocate removing airbags etc as this is progress. I read that Volvo now has an external airbag for pedestrians 'benefit' !!
Any safety improvement is worthwhile as there will still be genuine accidents rather than collisions.
I drive, sometimes, a little convertible that is low and you can hear, smell and see everything going on around you; and yes it certainly makes you much more aware of your mortality!!
In the end it will come down to attitude and a willingness/obligati
on to change.
Frankly I cannot see the EU putting up with our poor performance and out of step way of doing things for very much longer.
I for one will not be moaning about that little incursion on our 'rights' when it does happen :) :)
All this from an avid petrol head - which doesn't mean you have to be single minded or extreme.

I am from Brighton and both a cyclist and driver and to be honest I would put more blame on cyclists than car drivers from what I witness everyday.

I cycle to work everyday, from Portland Road Hove, to half way along Church Road. Not a long distance I admit but everyday I see cyclists have no respect for other road users. Cyclists riding side by side chatting, through red lights, through crossings, going the wrong way on one way roads. Considering all this happens on a 3km ride it astounds me that car drivers are always to blame.

As both a cyclist and driver I would say cyclists need to show more respect for the roads. I am sure there are people who will shoot this comment down but if all this happens on 3km then I dread to think what happens in the rest of Brighton.

Also I do appreciate there are awful drivers and I see a lot of these but for every bad driver I see there are 5 bad cyclists.

Pedestrians and cyclists don't mix the pavement is for pedestrians, no other town/city allows or puts up with cyclists on the pavements

Brightonian4325432 wrote:
I am from Brighton and both a cyclist and driver and to be honest I would put more blame on cyclists than car drivers from what I witness everyday.

I cycle to work everyday, from Portland Road Hove, to half way along Church Road. Not a long distance I admit but everyday I see cyclists have no respect for other road users. Cyclists riding side by side chatting, through red lights, through crossings, going the wrong way on one way roads. Considering all this happens on a 3km ride it astounds me that car drivers are always to blame.

As both a cyclist and driver I would say cyclists need to show more respect for the roads. I am sure there are people who will shoot this comment down but if all this happens on 3km then I dread to think what happens in the rest of Brighton.

Also I do appreciate there are awful drivers and I see a lot of these but for every bad driver I see there are 5 bad cyclists.

if you cycled so often then you would certainly have experienced 3 or 4 close shaves along your journey from motorists.
I wear his vis, signal, and am respectful of other road users - until I'm nigh on knocked off - but I will always have a story or two to recount of close shaves over a short journey through town.

graham_Seagull wrote:

Brightonian4325432 wrote:
I am from Brighton and both a cyclist and driver and to be honest I would put more blame on cyclists than car drivers from what I witness everyday.

I cycle to work everyday, from Portland Road Hove, to half way along Church Road. Not a long distance I admit but everyday I see cyclists have no respect for other road users. Cyclists riding side by side chatting, through red lights, through crossings, going the wrong way on one way roads. Considering all this happens on a 3km ride it astounds me that car drivers are always to blame.

As both a cyclist and driver I would say cyclists need to show more respect for the roads. I am sure there are people who will shoot this comment down but if all this happens on 3km then I dread to think what happens in the rest of Brighton.

Also I do appreciate there are awful drivers and I see a lot of these but for every bad driver I see there are 5 bad cyclists.

if you cycled so often then you would certainly have experienced 3 or 4 close shaves along your journey from motorists.
I wear his vis, signal, and am respectful of other road users - until I'm nigh on knocked off - but I will always have a story or two to recount of close shaves over a short journey through town.

Perhaps you would be interested in the survey done in, I believe, Germany as regards HiViz jackets.
I can't find the reference but in essence it said that more people wearing HiViz are knocked off bikes than those who don't wear it.
It's something to do with the eye being attracted to bright colours which means they will generally give them less clearance!
A case of what you do to protect yourself can be used against you perhaps?
I drive several cars, two of the same make and model, one dark blue, the other bright yellow.
A personal experiment is that other vehicles will follow the yellow one more closely than the blue one; strange but true and certainly what I have found. It is noticeable and remarkable, quite distinct.
Food for thought?

Whilst looking for the reference I came across this article which busts a lot of myths and contains some solid advice.


http://www.leeds.ac.
uk/leedsbug/work.htm

chrisinbrighton wrote:
Pedestrians and cyclists don't mix the pavement is for pedestrians, no other town/city allows or puts up with cyclists on the pavements

Berlin has shared routes though the difference is that it is a different colour, usually red sometimes green, so pedestrians and cyclists have no doubt.
http://forward-and-b
ackward.blogspot.co.
uk/2009/02/off-kuff-
mentions-safe-passin
g-bill-and.html

read these rules from the Highway code, and then try to recognise the majority of Brighton & Hove cyclists

Rules for cyclists (59-82)

These rules are in addition to those in the following sections, which apply to all vehicles (except the motorway section). See also 'You and your bicycle'.
You and your bicycle
59
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark

60
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.

61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
62
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.

63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
Multi-lane carriageways (133-143)
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

65
Bus Lanes. Most bus lanes may be used by cyclists as indicated on signs. Watch out for people getting on or off a bus. Be very careful when overtaking a bus or leaving a bus lane as you will be entering a busier traffic flow. Do not pass between the kerb and a bus when it is at a stop.
66
You should
keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
keep both feet on the pedals
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
not ride close behind another vehicle
not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted
67
You should
look all around before moving away from the kerb, turning or manoeuvring, to make sure it is safe to do so. Give a clear signal to show other road users what you intend to do (see 'Signals to other road users')
look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path
be aware of traffic coming up behind you
take extra care near road humps, narrowings and other traffic calming features
take care when overtaking (see Rules 162-169)
Download 'Signals to other road users' (PDF, 100K)Opens new window
Help with PDF files
Overtaking (162-169)
68
You MUST NOT
carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner
ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.

70
When parking your cycle
find a conspicuous location where it can be seen by passers-by
use cycle stands or other cycle parking facilities wherever possible
do not leave it where it would cause an obstruction or hazard to other road users
secure it well so that it will not fall over and become an obstruction or hazard
71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).

Road junctions (170-183)
Road junctions
72
On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
73
Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners. Be aware that drivers may not see you. They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb.
74
On the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before completing the turn. It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road.
75
Dual carriageways. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. When crossing wait for a safe gap and cross each carriageway in turn. Take extra care when crossing slip roads.
76
Full details about the correct procedure at roundabouts are contained in Rules 184–190. Roundabouts can be hazardous and should be approached with care.
Roundabouts (184-190)
Roundabouts
77
You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should
be aware that drivers may not easily see you
take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout
watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout
78
Give plenty of room to long vehicles on the roundabout as they need more space to manoeuvre. Do not ride in the space they need to get round the roundabout. It may be safer to wait until they have cleared the roundabout.
Crossing the road
79
Do not ride across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.
80
Toucan crossings. These are light-controlled crossings which allow cyclists and pedestrians to share crossing space and cross at the same time. They are push-button operated. Pedestrians and cyclists will see the green signal together. Cyclists are permitted to ride across.
81
Cycle-only crossings. Cycle tracks on opposite sides of the road may be linked by signalled crossings. You may ride across but you MUST NOT cross until the green cycle symbol is showing.

82
Level crossings/Tramways. Take extra care when crossing the tracks (see Rule 306). You should dismount at level crossings where a ‘cyclist dismount’ sign is displayed.
Road works, level crossings and tramways (288-307)

easyrider wrote:

nocando wrote:
Interesting that one key group of road users aren't included in this set of stats. These are the people who are least likely to be bored, distracted, busy doing something else at the same time (telephones, headphones, nosepicking etc), drunk, on drugs,or just a bit simple. For the sake of their lives this lot have to take their roadcraft seriously and inhabit a culture of ability, skill, compulsory and further training and the capacity to make the correct decisions in the blink of an eye. By far the most vulnerable group but consequently the most switched on, the motorcyclists. Delighted not to be featured in a list of idiots who shouldn't be allowed out unsupervised.
Take up biking, be skilful.

Yes but please learn to be QUIET. Not all of you are noisy -- revving unecessarily at traffic lights to impress bystanders and pillion girlfriends. I guess those sad displays emanate mostly from those in the motorcycling fraternity who are heading to the penis enlargement centre.

Loud pipes save lives. Pull the clutch in and blip the throttle to alert idiot pedestrians, cyclists and motorists that are about to stray into your path without looking. Got to be loud enough to be heard over headphones, mobile telephones and big boom car sound systems.
The noise is for our personal safety.

Let's face it the only thing Brighton council is interested in is gay pride sod the rest of us !!!

If you are using loud tail pipes in the same way as a horn on a car (or a bell on a bike, those few that have them) then you obviously realise that, as per the Highway Code, Roadcraft, The Institue of Advanced Motorists, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents - that the noise means 'I am here' and never 'Get out of my way'.
Pedestrians are the most vulnerable of road users and should never be harrassed or intimidated, and yes, some of them are idiots, but that doesn't decrease the amount of respect required.
There's also a handy little maxim:
'Always be able to stop safely within the distance you can see to be clear'.
Honestly, calling other road users idiots, as roads are shared space, honestly doesn't do you any favours.

DC Brighton wrote:
I agree that the lack of an obvious green man on the new crossings is ridiculous. And I don't agree with the argument that forcing you to look sideways makes things more safe - often the crossings are so busy that you simply can't see the green man now.

Secondly, sort out Western Road. It is plain dangerous. The complete lack of a pedestrian crossing for the majority of the city's busiest shopping street is a joke, as is the amount of time the crossing by Churchill Square allows for pedestrians to cross. The islands along Western Road are way too small. If you go half way with a pram, you do so at considerable risk.

I assume this is all to smooth the passage of the hundreds of half-empty buses that hammer up and down there all day. Buses, which I might add, are very happy to back up along Western Road nose to tail, making crossing the road even more difficult.

Start thinking about pedestrians rather than buses and taxis and place a couple more crossings along Western Road.

Please also inform Brighton and Hove bus drivers that it is not necessary to accelerate as fast as is physically possible for the 200 yards between each of their stops along this road (and Church Road).

if i accelerated as fast as possible in a bus i would kill somebody. the reason people are not dying is because we don't accelerate as fast as possible and you are talking a load of rubbish.

If im wrong show me the casualties you bell end.

Maybe cyclists should stop for a red light once in a while.

Anyone can see that all the pedestrian crossings and every junction is rigged in favour of vehicular traffic.
Until that position changes, and the potentially dangerous crossings are removed, this will not improve.

Getreal you lot wrote:
Let's be honest now, how many times have you seen cyclists that go through red lights and don't even stop or slow down to see if the light is red. As a car driver if this happens and I wipe one out, who is it that appears int he dock....me. Let's make cyclists take out insurance and have tests like other road users. If you want to use the road, behave and comply with the rules and regs that covers the use of the roads.

I think it is Switzerland where they actually have registration plates for bicycles. I would make cyclists at least take the cycling proficiency test before being allowed out on the road.

lorrie1 wrote:
Ban ALL buses from Oxford st! Its one of the most dangerous roads in brighton, there are more buses there than in the bus depot! the way they swing around the corner of london rd is unbeliveable. Everyday I see people standing on the pavement waiting to cross and they are only inches away from the buses, Only a matter of time.

Buses have to swing round that corner like any other, so what is unbelievable about it?
If they didn't then they would cut over the pavement. Silly comment lorrie.

Any pedestrian who walks across a road with a red man showing an gets knocked down has only themselves to blame.

Sp00ny wrote:
Maybe cyclists should stop for a red light once in a while.

Great for you to contribute here. It's this kind of insightful response we need more of to really forward the debate.

I'll try and keep the flow going by responding with an alternative viewpoint. Here goes. Ahem.

Maybe cars should indicate once in a while?

How was that?

I think if we work together on this we can really get something going here and maybe make a difference to peoples lives.

Fercri Sakes wrote:

Sp00ny wrote:
Maybe cyclists should stop for a red light once in a while.

Great for you to contribute here. It's this kind of insightful response we need more of to really forward the debate.

I'll try and keep the flow going by responding with an alternative viewpoint. Here goes. Ahem.

Maybe cars should indicate once in a while?

How was that?

I think if we work together on this we can really get something going here and maybe make a difference to peoples lives.

"If we work together". That is a big "if" !

I'm afraid unthinking selfishness is too often the cause of resentment between cyclists and pedestrians.

On two separate occasions on Hove Promenade yesterday, I politely pointed out to cyclists that the Promenade is reserved for pedestrians only.

One replied: "But I was only cycling a few yards to reach the beach."

I suggested that accidents don't differentiate between those cycling 'just a few yards' and those going further.

The cyclist agreed and, with a smile, dismounted.

The second cyclist told me to f*ck off and cycled off down the Promenade at speed.

Draw your own conclusions.

in France knocking a cyclist off her bike and 'knocking' a cyclist once off her bike are common place

victorian roads + former tory councillors + bribes + Roger French + NCP traffic flow planning department + corruption = Brighton's roads

easyrider wrote:

Fercri Sakes wrote:

Sp00ny wrote:
Maybe cyclists should stop for a red light once in a while.

Great for you to contribute here. It's this kind of insightful response we need more of to really forward the debate.

I'll try and keep the flow going by responding with an alternative viewpoint. Here goes. Ahem.

Maybe cars should indicate once in a while?

How was that?

I think if we work together on this we can really get something going here and maybe make a difference to peoples lives.

"If we work together". That is a big "if" !

I'm afraid unthinking selfishness is too often the cause of resentment between cyclists and pedestrians.

On two separate occasions on Hove Promenade yesterday, I politely pointed out to cyclists that the Promenade is reserved for pedestrians only.

One replied: "But I was only cycling a few yards to reach the beach."

I suggested that accidents don't differentiate between those cycling 'just a few yards' and those going further.

The cyclist agreed and, with a smile, dismounted.

The second cyclist told me to f*ck off and cycled off down the Promenade at speed.

Draw your own conclusions.

I certainly agree with the hero who told you to f*ck off, what's it got to do with you?

sdhgfhfuyt wrote:

easyrider wrote:

Fercri Sakes wrote:

Sp00ny wrote:
Maybe cyclists should stop for a red light once in a while.

Great for you to contribute here. It's this kind of insightful response we need more of to really forward the debate.

I'll try and keep the flow going by responding with an alternative viewpoint. Here goes. Ahem.

Maybe cars should indicate once in a while?

How was that?

I think if we work together on this we can really get something going here and maybe make a difference to peoples lives.

"If we work together". That is a big "if" !

I'm afraid unthinking selfishness is too often the cause of resentment between cyclists and pedestrians.

On two separate occasions on Hove Promenade yesterday, I politely pointed out to cyclists that the Promenade is reserved for pedestrians only.

One replied: "But I was only cycling a few yards to reach the beach."

I suggested that accidents don't differentiate between those cycling 'just a few yards' and those going further.

The cyclist agreed and, with a smile, dismounted.

The second cyclist told me to f*ck off and cycled off down the Promenade at speed.

Draw your own conclusions.

I certainly agree with the hero who told you to f*ck off, what's it got to do with you?

It's called 'safety', Silly Billy!

Apologies if this has already been discussed but I'd like to know why those new style pedestrian crossings have been installed across town. You know the ones where you have to look backwards as you cross the road to make sure the man is still green and with no audible signal to cross - at least audible to me if there is. Does anyone know if accident rates at these crossings specifically have increased? I can't believe they haven't.