I finally had to replace a tyre, having given up the fight with it slowly falling apart and allowing myself to finally inspect the damage closely (instead of trying to pretend it didn’t exist)
It looked like this: (and is a good advertisement of what can happen if you leave a tyre too long)
The mystery is what caused the damage? It looks like braking damage, both from skidding through the rubber to the canvas in a reckless fixed gear deceleration move, or several, and from badly adjusted brakes rubbing the sidewalls. But these things are impossible. I have a freewheel and am very attached to it, so there’s been no sliding the wheel at lights, and I’ve made a conscious effort to only use the front brake for the last months. The brake blocks on the back aren’t even worn, compared to the wear and tear on the front ones. I’ve not been skidding, the wheel’s not buckled, and the brakes haven’t been rubbing the tyre. So how exactly has the tyre fallen apart? I guess the only answer could be my explosive acceleration ripping the tyre apart under pressure. I must be some sort of racing god, as yet undiscovered. Or I should have kept the guarantee and receipt and claimed on a slightly faulty product. It’ll be one or other of those.
To wrap up a slightly dull post about tyres I was interested to see a video posted on the internet of a commute to work from Camden to Angel. All good and nice to see, except it might have been a good idea to not jump a couple of red lights on the day you chose to film, wouldn’t it?
Talking of Camden, the council there are introducing a range of new loops on lampposts to lock to which should help to make riding in the borough more attractive. Expect to see more bikes locked up outside North London gigs soon.
A
Thanks for the post!
ReplyDeleteDid I jump some red lights? Hrmm.. Hopefully I did it safely. You know most experienced cyclists will tell you that waiting at a red light is actually dangerous, as pulling away from the lights along with all the accelerating cars is a dangerous operation, and possibly creates more danger than the act of cycling through the red light. In pracice, around half of cyclists go through red lights, and in general the police do not enforce this law.
Don't forget that traffic lights were invented to aid traffic and pedestrian flow, not to increase safety. Since cycling through them does not affect traffic / pedestrian flow, the original reason does not apply to bikes.
Some councils are starting to change the rules to accomodate bikes. In Hackney, cyclists are allowed to go both ways on one-way roads. Other councils are already considering allowing this and it is already common in Europe.
Mark
By the way, I have posted up a kind of follow up video. Check it out here: http://bit.ly/2Dmqju
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading, and it’s a very interesting video, so I hope you don’t mind us using it here.
You make some good points about traffic lights, and it’s something we’ve mentioned before here and here. Between us we’d certainly be lying if we said we never jumped red lights, but I think it’s worth mentioning a couple of things. I realise it’s one of the biggest debates amongst cyclists in London, so I’ll apologise in advance for the soapbox!
An experienced cyclist should get away well ahead of a car in the first few metres after a light changes, as bicycles accelerate over short distances far faster than cars, and so they should be safe, especially with advance stop boxes (although I guess you barely ever see cars sticking to them). It’s inexperienced cyclists who might be in danger pulling away with the cars, but surely in more danger trying to jump the light when they don’t have as much control of the bike?
While it’s true that the police seem to generally turn a blind eye, I don’t think you can guarantee it. I’ve been pulled over after safely crossing a zebra crossing that the following patrol car thought someone had half a foot onto already, so I guess it depends on how they’re feeling on the day. I could certainly have done without the lecture on my way to work!
Finally, I take your point about keeping the flow of traffic and pedestrians moving, but I don’t see how a bike mixing it up across a busy pedestrian crossing keeps the pedestrians moving? If there ends up being a disagreement in the middle of the road (believe me, I’ve seen that as well) then everyone gets held up.
We’re all in favour of rules accommodating cyclists, and think it’s superb that councils across London are looking at ways to make it safer to cycle. It seems to me that the more all the cyclists in the city do to improve and maintain their image as responsible road users then the more these changes are likely to come about, and the better everyone riding in the city will find it.
A
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteNo worries about using the video. I'm happy to get feedback! You've made some really good points as well. I think that regardless of your stance on the red light issue, all road users -- pedestrians, drivers, cyclists -- can agree that the flow of traffic can be improved.
While you're correct that experienced cyclists ought to be able to pull away well ahead of accelerating cars, what about inexperienced cyclists who don't have the burst power or confidence to do so? And while it's true that inexperienced cyclists might increase their risk by jumping red lights, why not make it optional rather than legislating against the entire cycling community? I don't mean to poke holes in your comment. Rather, I'm illustrating how difficult a problem this is to crack. There are so many aspects to think about that it's tough to find a solution which is both acceptable to all road users and -- this is important -- costs little to nothing to implement on a city-wide scale.
One of the quickest, easiest, cheapest (it's free) legal measures that can be taken immediately is to allow cyclists to turn left at red lights, provided they give way to all other vehicles or pedestrians who have the right of way. I come from America, where we drive on the right side of the road and it's legal for cars to turn right on red, provided drivers yield to any entities who have the right of way. From my perspective, it seems odd that, in the UK, where you drive on the left side of the road, cars (and bicycles!) are prohibited from turning left on red.
Part of Boris Johnson's 2008 mayoral campaign was to allow cyclists to turn left at red lights. Earlier this year, he wrote a letter to the DfT outlining his plan, but he never submitted a formal proposal to change the left-on-red law for cyclist. It's a shame, really.
In Copenhagen, quite possibly the ideal urban cycling encironment, there are dedicated cyclist traffic lights. A similar solution in London would be too costly to implement, but there's a cheaper alternative: simply lengthen the phase of the yellow light before it turns green. The new rule would be, "Cyclists treat the yellow light as a green." As little as 3-5 seconds would make a big difference and ought not to anger even the most impatient drivers. Of course, this solution is not without expense, but it's way cheaper than
What do you think? Left on red? Longer yellow lights? Would these measures improve the overall flow of road users, without adversely affecting anyone?
Mark
Mark,
ReplyDeleteOnce again you make some very good points and I utterly agree that it’s not an easy one to solve in a way that would satisfy everyone.
I’m dubious about the idea of lengthening the amber phase of traffic lights, simply because I think it wouldn’t, in practice, change much. Drivers in London are quick to take advantage of any chance to get through the lights and save a few seconds. I think that lights staying on amber for longer would just mean more cars going through and more chances being taken. I don’t think that it would clear space for cyclists, and might possibly make it more dangerous as drivers raced through. In theory the idea of a separate light system for bikes is great, but it would have to be separate from the existing lights to have any real impact. In that case cyclists would have to sign up to obey them. Currently I’m sure that cyclists see cycle only lights, where they exist, as similar to pelican crossings – an aid, but not essential to obey if it’s safe to go anyway.
I agree with you about the idea of being allowed to turn left on red. Having driven myself in California and Florida I did find it useful and sensible to be not held up at lights when it was clear to turn. Provided cyclists did give proper way to pedestrians I could see that working very well. Let’s hope that that issue gets reopened at some point from the Mayor’s office.
Ultimately I think the best solution for improving the flow of traffic might be simply the actual obeying of the rules that are already in place. For example, and as I think you mentioned recently yourself, if advance stop boxes and the highway code instructions to “Give other traffic, especially cyclists, time and room to move into the correct lane” were followed properly then we might all be safer. After all, we have to share the roads and so any solution is a compromise, so the only answers are finding a way to respect other road users and share the roads.
A
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. I love this dialogue we're having because it allows me to think through ideas from different angles.
You might have misunderstood the idea about amber lights. You said, "I think that lights staying on amber for longer would just mean more cars going through and more chances being taken. I don’t think that it would clear space for cyclists, and might possibly make it more dangerous as drivers raced through." I'm not talking about the amber following green, but rather amber following red. So the new light phase would be:
green -> amber (current length) -> red -> pause for opposing traffic -> amber (extended length for bikes to get a head start) -> green
Red and green would continue to apply to all modes of traffic - bikes, cars, motorbikes, busses, etc. The only difference is the amber following the red: its extended length would provide cyclists a head start on motorized vehicles.
You are correct that we'd all be safer if the existing rules and instructions were followed properly, but without a social-moral imperative of responsibility amongst all road users, can we really expect such self-policing? It seems to me that a sustained and costly effort by the city to police these rules would be required, or else nothing will change -- and if the city felt it a worthy cause, they would have already engaged in such an effort!
I think the only realistic, cost-free solution to improving the flow of traffic is to get more drivers onto bicyles. Less cars mean more space on the road, therefore all road users move more freely around the city and more efficiently. Plus, taking a bicycle as often as possible is a very positive way of contributing to society.
Best,
Mark
Mark,
ReplyDeleteI think I might have got the wrong idea about your thoughts on amber lights. As you explain it, it makes a lot more sense, rather than having drivers screaming through the lights just before they turn red. I can see it working, although I wouldn’t hold out too much hope for drivers ending the practice of anticipating the green light. In London especially, spending too long waiting for the green light usually means getting beeped, in my experience.
Ultimately it all comes down to road users following the rules that exist already, or any new rules that get proposed. As you say it’s hard to ensure that everyone does take responsibility, but that doesn’t mean that, as a group, cyclists can’t set the example and work within the laws that exist. Arguably by doing that cyclists build an image of responsibility and could actually encourage other road users to follow. For example, a car driver watching bikes jumping red lights is, surely, less likely to feel inclined to obey the advance stop box which is there to benefit cyclists. A pedestrian who’s been buzzed past by a cyclist shooting over a pelican crossing on red isn’t likely to be well inclined towards a shared-use pavement where they exist. You’re right that the police (probably rightly) have other priorities, which any number of Parliamentary Committees isn’t going to change, but that doesn’t mean that everyone shouldn’t try to follow the rules. In the end it’s everyone keeping to the traffic laws (even when the police aren’t watching) that keeps the traffic flowing at all.
I thoroughly agree that the best way to improve congestion and traffic flow is to get more people onto bikes, as well as all the benefits that more cyclists offer to society, it will free up more space on the roads. In order to do this there still needs to be a massive improvement in the infrastructure that allows secure bike parking and more places offering facilities for cyclists, whether that’s showers or areas to let wet clothing dry out.
A