Frideswide Square revamp plans 'a deathtrap' warn cyclists (From Oxford Mail)

If cyclists obeyed the highyway code there will be no problems. The world does not revolve around cyclists. They do not have to be put first everytime. We need to keep trafic flowing not produce trafiic jams like the area does now.
"Cyclox vice-chairman Richard Mann said: “We were shocked when we saw the plans. We talked to the council a year ago about how the designs could be improved and it’s been ignored"
SO WHAT. It's about time motorists (who contribute thousands more to the road network than cyclists) were given priority.
He said: “Roundabouts are especially difficult for less experienced and assertive cyclists. They may choose to stick to the left-hand side of the lane, even when intending to travel right.”
THEN DON'T CYCLE ON THE ROAD if you can't.

If motorists obeyed the highway code.....It is quite extraordinary, in this day and age, that our Oxford beaurocrats can be so short sighted, as to not give serious consideration, to the needs of cyclists in a city such as ours, noted for its use of this form of urban transport, which is especially appropriate, for many many reasons, in congested streets such as ours.

Bart

The plans that the Council has mean that even cyclists who are confident on the road and obey the Highway Code 100% will be at danger.

And people in cars, if they follow the Highway Code 100%, won't be able to overtake cyclists for the whole square most of the time.

So both sets of road users are going to be very unhappy.

No buses currently turn left from the Botley Road into the station, so this is a non-concern as well.

Roundabouts can be dangerous for cyclists, but it is possible to lay out a 'shared space' scheme, which the proposal is, to make it them safer. THey can be marked out to stress that cyclists turning right approach the roundabout on the right-hand side of the running lane, just like they would at any normal crossroads.

The design brief for the Square states that traffic speeds will be 10-15 mph, ie much easier for cyclists to negotiate.

“And if we want to make cycling the normal mode of transport in Oxford, that’s not good enough.”

Who are the "we"? Even the city council are only aiming for 25% of journeys to be made by cycle.

It's about time more consideration was given to the reasonable needs of ALL road users, and less attention paid to the self-justifying spokesmen of interest groups.

“Roundabouts are especially difficult for less experienced and assertive cyclists. They may choose to stick to the left-hand side of the lane, even when intending to travel right.”

If a cyclist does not know how to cycle correctly on the road, then they should go and study the highway code (see point 184 - approaching roundabouts), then stay away until they understand about lanes and positioning.

Speaking as a cyclist (as well as motorist, pedestrian etc) I don't see how we (cyclists) can begin to expect others to prioritise our needs over others until we prioritise and take responsibility for our own safety. Or insist on legislation that orders it!

On my way to work I am in the tiny minority wearing a helmet, reflective clothing and lights. Why should other cyclists expect others to consider their safety when they don't themselves?

We should insist that helmets and reflective clothing are made a legal requirement, that bikes can only be sold with fixed non removable lights, that we pay a nominal road tax. And that is just to start.

Then, and only then, can we start making demands on authorities and other road users to take our demands seriously.

Think about cars - would drivers dream of not wearing a seatbelt these days? Would you buy a car without lights? Is it acceptable to take to the road without tax? Of course not - that is why they are taken seriously.

If Cyclox started campaigning for law changes to force cyclists to be safe, I might join. At present they just seem like yet another 'woe is me - everybody should put me first before I do anything to help myself' campaign group.

Rant over - just off to don my helmet, reflective vest and cycle across the city not undertaking, cutting over pavements, jumping red lights etc.

Lady Penelopee wrote:
“Roundabouts are especially difficult for less experienced and assertive cyclists. They may choose to stick to the left-hand side of the lane, even when intending to travel right.”

If a cyclist does not know how to cycle correctly on the road, then they should go and study the highway code (see point 184 - approaching roundabouts), then stay away until they understand about lanes and positioning.

Perhaps the drivers also need to stay out of the way until they've learned the rules. See point 187:
In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to
* cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout. Allow them to do so

eatmygoal wrote:
Speaking as a cyclist (as well as motorist, pedestrian etc) I don't see how we (cyclists) can begin to expect others to prioritise our needs over others until we prioritise and take responsibility for our own safety. Or insist on legislation that orders it!

On my way to work I am in the tiny minority wearing a helmet, reflective clothing and lights. Why should other cyclists expect others to consider their safety when they don't themselves?

We should insist that helmets and reflective clothing are made a legal requirement, that bikes can only be sold with fixed non removable lights, that we pay a nominal road tax. And that is just to start.

Then, and only then, can we start making demands on authorities and other road users to take our demands seriously.

Think about cars - would drivers dream of not wearing a seatbelt these days? Would you buy a car without lights? Is it acceptable to take to the road without tax? Of course not - that is why they are taken seriously.

If Cyclox started campaigning for law changes to force cyclists to be safe, I might join. At present they just seem like yet another 'woe is me - everybody should put me first before I do anything to help myself' campaign group.

Rant over - just off to don my helmet, reflective vest and cycle across the city not undertaking, cutting over pavements, jumping red lights etc.

"with fixed non removable lights"

Not practical. If my lights were as old as my bike, they'd need the batteries replacing every half hour.

"that we pay a nominal road tax"

Nobody pays road tax in the UK. Cyclists already pay the appropriate amount of *emissions* tax, which happens to be £0.00.

There are already plenty of rules that apply to all road users but some cyclists ignore - lights after dark, stopping at the reds, staying off the pavement, noticing 1-way-systems. Those should be enforced before we start demanding cyclist-specific rules to protect them from *other* road users.

King Joke wrote:
No buses currently turn left from the Botley Road into the station, so this is a non-concern as well.

Roundabouts can be dangerous for cyclists, but it is possible to lay out a 'shared space' scheme, which the proposal is, to make it them safer. THey can be marked out to stress that cyclists turning right approach the roundabout on the right-hand side of the running lane, just like they would at any normal crossroads.

The design brief for the Square states that traffic speeds will be 10-15 mph, ie much easier for cyclists to negotiate.

``The design brief for the Square states that traffic speeds will be 10-15 mph''

Then I hope that's signposted and properly enforced, and not just some theoretical limit to justify a poor design.

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
If cyclists obeyed the highyway code there will be no problems. The world does not revolve around cyclists. They do not have to be put first everytime. We need to keep trafic flowing not produce trafiic jams like the area does now.
"Cyclox vice-chairman Richard Mann said: “We were shocked when we saw the plans. We talked to the council a year ago about how the designs could be improved and it’s been ignored"
SO WHAT. It's about time motorists (who contribute thousands more to the road network than cyclists) were given priority.
He said: “Roundabouts are especially difficult for less experienced and assertive cyclists. They may choose to stick to the left-hand side of the lane, even when intending to travel right.”
THEN DON'T CYCLE ON THE ROAD if you can't.

``If cyclists obeyed the highyway code there will be no problems.
THEN DON'T CYCLE ON THE ROAD if you can't.''

64 - You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

Highway Code:

You must not drive faster than the speed limit for the road and your type of vehicle.

163: give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)
------------

Guess that eliminates most (and I mean 99%) of motor vehicle drivers then!
------
As I have written before: most `bad cyclists' are chaffing at the bit to get into a car. There are no idiot `cyclists'`pedestria
ns' or `drivers'. Just idiots. And so roads HAVE to be designed to protect the vulnerable first.
Its just physics that motor vehicles congest and kill more than others.

Tingly Neurons wrote:

eatmygoal wrote:
Speaking as a cyclist (as well as motorist, pedestrian etc) I don't see how we (cyclists) can begin to expect others to prioritise our needs over others until we prioritise and take responsibility for our own safety. Or insist on legislation that orders it!

On my way to work I am in the tiny minority wearing a helmet, reflective clothing and lights. Why should other cyclists expect others to consider their safety when they don't themselves?

We should insist that helmets and reflective clothing are made a legal requirement, that bikes can only be sold with fixed non removable lights, that we pay a nominal road tax. And that is just to start.

Then, and only then, can we start making demands on authorities and other road users to take our demands seriously.

Think about cars - would drivers dream of not wearing a seatbelt these days? Would you buy a car without lights? Is it acceptable to take to the road without tax? Of course not - that is why they are taken seriously.

If Cyclox started campaigning for law changes to force cyclists to be safe, I might join. At present they just seem like yet another 'woe is me - everybody should put me first before I do anything to help myself' campaign group.

Rant over - just off to don my helmet, reflective vest and cycle across the city not undertaking, cutting over pavements, jumping red lights etc.

"with fixed non removable lights"

Not practical. If my lights were as old as my bike, they'd need the batteries replacing every half hour.

"that we pay a nominal road tax"

Nobody pays road tax in the UK. Cyclists already pay the appropriate amount of *emissions* tax, which happens to be £0.00.

There are already plenty of rules that apply to all road users but some cyclists ignore - lights after dark, stopping at the reds, staying off the pavement, noticing 1-way-systems. Those should be enforced before we start demanding cyclist-specific rules to protect them from *other* road users.

You make my points for me. I am proposing that cyclists DO pay a tax - you can't have rights without responsibility. My argument is that if we did contribute, we would be better placed to make demands!

Re lights - you make no point whatsoever! If all new bikes were fitted with lights using the same technology that current lights use, it would make no difference except bikes would have them. Cars can and do, bikes should too.

I agree with your last point - my point is it should be us cyclists and cycle groups demanding enforcement. This is basic good PR for us and shows us taking responsibility and acknowledging that the majority of cyclists give the rest of us a bad name. We need to get our own house in order before issuing demands.

Congestion will always be a problem on Oxford's roads - and can only get worse if roads are planned and designed primarily for private cars.

It simple. Give people decent and safe alternatives to driving and roads will be safer, less congested and less polluted.

If the current car centric plans for Frideswide Square are implemented no one stands to benefit, especially not drivers who will be doomed to spend even more time stuck in traffic jams of their causing.

There is no `road tax' for anyone. And only having one for cyclists? ...makes no sense.. it would cost more than it makes.... and experience with fuel-taxed and licensed cars suggests it doesn't affect their kill-rate.

There is no real enforcement of rules regulating motor vehicles behaviour (constant speeding, texting, bullying, red light running).

Next the motor lobby will want pedestrians to wear high viz and helmets.

Whats that you say? Pedestrians have pavements (maybe they should be taxed ?)
a) that doesn't stop untaxed, uninsured reckless motor vehicles from killing them.
b) Setting that aside (!), then cyclists should have a larger proportion of streets turned over for their exclusive use.

I can see the problem - you have 7 roads leading into Frideswide's square: Hythe Bridge St, Park End St, Hollybush Row, Becket St, Botley Road, the railway station and Rewley Road, with a total of 17 lanes running in and out. You've got 3 sets of traffic lights totalling at least 37 traffic light posts, you've got 8 pedestian crossings, you've got Park End St running head long into the bus stop, which, if you don't pay close attention to the forest of signals and signs you end up running head long into a bus.
How about a flyover or a hamburger roundabout?
Actually here we go - I've found the link:
https://myconsultati
ons.oxfordshire.gov.
uk/inovem/consult.ti
/frideswidesquaredes
ignapproaches/consul
tationHome -
Have a look at the 'Background information and design proposals' file - I think most of the proposals are a noticeable improvement to what's already there.
I can see why roundabout proposal is best for cars and not so good for cyclists. Given that cyclists have a natural tendency to hop onto the pavement when they perceive the roads to be too dangerous or chaotic, they might as well include include cycle lanes in the pedestrianised zones to warn pedestrians that they are likely to be sharing their space with cyclists -like they have in Holland.
Hey presto! Everyone's happy including Bart, who, not meaning to make any judgement on his character, is probably rather a difficult person to please :-D

I can see the problem - you have 7 roads leading into Frideswide's square: Hythe Bridge St, Park End St, Hollybush Row, Becket St, Botley Road, the railway station and Rewley Road, with a total of 17 lanes running in and out. You've got 3 sets of traffic lights totalling at least 37 traffic light posts, you've got 8 pedestian crossings, you've got Park End St running head long into the bus stop, which, if you don't pay close attention to the forest of signals and signs you end up running head long into a bus.
How about a flyover or a hamburger roundabout?
Actually here we go - I've found the link:
https://myconsultati
ons.oxfordshire.gov.
uk/inovem/consult.ti
/frideswidesquaredes
ignapproaches/consul
tationHome -
Have a look at the 'Background information and design proposals' file - I think most of the proposals are a noticeable improvement to what's already there.
I can see why roundabout proposal is best for cars and not so good for cyclists. Given that cyclists have a natural tendency to hop onto the pavement when they perceive the roads to be too dangerous or chaotic, they might as well include include cycle lanes in the pedestrianised zones to warn pedestrians that they are likely to be sharing their space with cyclists -like they have in Holland.
Hey presto! Everyone's happy including Bart, who, not meaning to make any judgement on his character, is probably rather a difficult person to please :-D

Oops! My comment has been posted twice - sorry!

Mcgroo, I'm not difficult to please, but it annoys me a lot when anything regarding cyclists they are painted as saints and motorists as sinners. It's about time cyclists starting taking responsibility for themselves. Cyclox are the worse offenders, not once will they hold their hands up and say "yep, cyclists do need training, take some responsibility for thier actions", but this never happens.

@eatmygoal

`` You make my points for me. I am proposing that cyclists DO pay a tax - you can't have rights without
responsibility.''

The upkeep of the roads comes out of general taxation, which I do pay. Are you arguing that only cyclists earning below the Personal Allowance have no rights?

``My argument is that if we did contribute, we would be better placed to make demands! ''

We contribute by making our journeys (which we were going to make anyway) in a way that creates less noise and pollution, and uses less space, than if we'd put another car on the road. It's not as if cyclists are *wearing out* the road.

Cyclists having tax discs would mean ignorant drivers have to think of some other reason to look down on cyclists, but that doesn't make them right.

``Re lights - you make no point whatsoever! If all new bikes were fitted with lights using the same
technology that current lights use, it would make no difference except bikes would have them.''

And in a few years, when the technology has improved again, we'd have to upgrade the whole bike to replace them. And it won't do anything to fix the problem of people cycling in the dark because the batteries have gone flat.

What would more likely happen is that, like every other "fixed" part of a bike, it'd be necessary to remove the lights to mend/upgrade them, in which case it's possible to take them off with a few tools and a few minutes. Which would make decent lights a prime theft target, like wheels and saddles, and we're back to quick-release lights that people can take with them when they leave their bike locked up anywhere outdoors.

``my point is it should be us cyclists and cycle groups demanding enforcement''

Yes, I agree that we should visibly play by the rules. I went to a Cyclox meeting where this was under discussion - some cyclists and some motorists ignore rules that protect more vulnerable road users. Many of both groups get away with it, and we can argue whether it's because they don't know or don't care, but we need to dig out the statistics - actual prevalence and harm done - before deciding how to tackle it.

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
Mcgroo, I'm not difficult to please, but it annoys me a lot when anything regarding cyclists they are painted as saints and motorists as sinners. It's about time cyclists starting taking responsibility for themselves. Cyclox are the worse offenders, not once will they hold their hands up and say "yep, cyclists do need training, take some responsibility for thier actions", but this never happens.

From the Cyclox website http://www.cyclox.or
g/what-we-say/ :

Bike Polite: We think cyclists will get a better deal if they are polite to other road users – not scaring pedestrians, and not egregiously cycling through red lights.

McGroo wrote:
I can see the problem - you have 7 roads leading into Frideswide's square: Hythe Bridge St, Park End St, Hollybush Row, Becket St, Botley Road, the railway station and Rewley Road, with a total of 17 lanes running in and out. You've got 3 sets of traffic lights totalling at least 37 traffic light posts, you've got 8 pedestian crossings, you've got Park End St running head long into the bus stop, which, if you don't pay close attention to the forest of signals and signs you end up running head long into a bus. How about a flyover or a hamburger roundabout? Actually here we go - I've found the link: https://myconsultati ons.oxfordshire.gov. uk/inovem/consult.ti /frideswidesquaredes ignapproaches/consul tationHome - Have a look at the 'Background information and design proposals' file - I think most of the proposals are a noticeable improvement to what's already there. I can see why roundabout proposal is best for cars and not so good for cyclists. Given that cyclists have a natural tendency to hop onto the pavement when they perceive the roads to be too dangerous or chaotic, they might as well include include cycle lanes in the pedestrianised zones to warn pedestrians that they are likely to be sharing their space with cyclists -like they have in Holland. Hey presto! Everyone's happy including Bart, who, not meaning to make any judgement on his character, is probably rather a difficult person to please :-D

Actually McGroo makes a valid point; the Square will be a 'shared space'. On some of the designs there will be diagonal patterns marked out in paving from one corner of the square to the other. There will be nothing to stop the cyclists using these rather than having to negotiate the roundabouts.

The shared space idea is brilliant. Just look how well it works on The Cowley Road. All the cyclists sharing the pavement with (and scaring the living day lights out of) pedestrians. Whilst keeping the road clear for us motorists. As the old saying goes "keep death off the roads, stick cyclists on the pavements".

Tingly Neurons wrote:

King Joke wrote: No buses currently turn left from the Botley Road into the station, so this is a non-concern as well. Roundabouts can be dangerous for cyclists, but it is possible to lay out a 'shared space' scheme, which the proposal is, to make it them safer. THey can be marked out to stress that cyclists turning right approach the roundabout on the right-hand side of the running lane, just like they would at any normal crossroads. The design brief for the Square states that traffic speeds will be 10-15 mph, ie much easier for cyclists to negotiate.

``The design brief for the Square states that traffic speeds will be 10-15 mph'' Then I hope that's signposted and properly enforced, and not just some theoretical limit to justify a poor design.

THere will be no need for enforcement, the speed will be self-enforcing owing to the volume of traffic, the throughput through the roundabouts, and the natural caution with peds, cyclists etc milling about in the shared space.

King Joke wrote:
``THere will be no need for enforcement, the speed will be self-enforcing''

Then it won't hurt to put up "15" signs around the junction, will it?

``owing to the volume of traffic, the throughput through the roundabouts, and the natural caution''

"natural caution" doesn't last. It works every couple of months, when the Frideswide Sq lights break and everyone has to pay close attention to what everyone else is doing; but when the layout becomes the norm, road users soon get accustomed and some of those with engines will go back to hitting 20 whenever they can.

``with peds, cyclists etc milling about in the shared space.''

Yeah, shared spaces don't fix everything either. Cyclists then get to choose between sharing with the motorists, who have big fast vehicles but at least have some legal requirements about competence and sobriety, or with pedestrians who don't need to have read the highway code (or even be able to read) and are only restricted by "drunk and disorderly" laws.

Tingly Neurons wrote:
King Joke wrote: ``THere will be no need for enforcement, the speed will be self-enforcing'' Then it won't hurt to put up "15" signs around the junction, will it? ``owing to the volume of traffic, the throughput through the roundabouts, and the natural caution'' "natural caution" doesn't last. It works every couple of months, when the Frideswide Sq lights break and everyone has to pay close attention to what everyone else is doing; but when the layout becomes the norm, road users soon get accustomed and some of those with engines will go back to hitting 20 whenever they can. ``with peds, cyclists etc milling about in the shared space.'' Yeah, shared spaces don't fix everything either. Cyclists then get to choose between sharing with the motorists, who have big fast vehicles but at least have some legal requirements about competence and sobriety, or with pedestrians who don't need to have read the highway code (or even be able to read) and are only restricted by "drunk and disorderly" laws.

The legal speed limit is 20mph, are you suggesting the council waste another few hundred thousand quid on consultation to get a traffic order to lower the limit to 15mph for just over a hundred yards of road.

Lord Pete McVay wrote:"
"Tingly Neurons wrote:
"Then it won't hurt to put up "15" signs around the junction, will it?"

"The legal speed limit is 20mph, are you suggesting the council waste another few hundred thousand quid on consultation to get a traffic order to lower the limit to 15mph for just over a hundred yards of road."

Please show your working.

THrough gritted teeth, McVey is right. It's not just making the signs. You need to do some legal stuff as well, and run a consultation. Once the lawyers are involved the costs go through the roof. If the legal limit is ony 5 mph above the design speed of the the Square it really probably isn't worth it.

Stop arguing cyclists vs. motorists, it's stupid.

Instead, attack OCC for another ABSURD road layout, and the almost certainty that it will run over time and budget, landing us with an even bigger bill and more disruption (this will be one area to avoid like the plague when they start work on it).

Cyclox does frequently call for cyclists to ride responsibly - with lights, not on pavements, stopping at red lights, etc.

One of the problems with the County's plans for the square are that it is the responsible cyclists who will get hurt. The ones who take refuge on the pavement (and by the way the plans aren't for shared space at all) will be safer, but will no doubt get abused here for upsetting pedestrians.

The sensible thing to do is for the council to come up with better plans.

Tingly Neurons wrote:

Lady Penelopee wrote: “Roundabouts are especially difficult for less experienced and assertive cyclists. They may choose to stick to the left-hand side of the lane, even when intending to travel right.” If a cyclist does not know how to cycle correctly on the road, then they should go and study the highway code (see point 184 - approaching roundabouts), then stay away until they understand about lanes and positioning.

Perhaps the drivers also need to stay out of the way until they've learned the rules. See point 187: In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to * cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout. Allow them to do so

I stand corrected!

I always thought that if lanes were specifically marked i.e. left lane for left and straight on, and right lane for turning right, then cyclists had to obey this.

(I did know that if the lanes weren't marked, cyclist can stay on the left and continue round...)

EMBOX1 wrote:
Stop arguing cyclists vs. motorists, it's stupid. Instead, attack OCC for another ABSURD road layout, and the almost certainty that it will run over time and budget, landing us with an even bigger bill and more disruption (this will be one area to avoid like the plague when they start work on it).

So traffic lights didn't work, now roundabouts are 'absurd' - please explain your proposal for the Square Embox.

this is not easy to solve, as it is a very congested junction. every road user has a part to play in the ultimate safety of everyone. someone mentioned 'shared spaces' as they have abroad, and this seems a sensible option. there are good and bad on both sides, but with a little consideration, all can get along happily. it would help if cyclists obeyed the highway code, at least the bit about using lights, but some will, some won't. the police crackdowns never seem to do any good, as there are still many without at night. please be aware that lights will keep you alive.

Cyclox does frequently call for cyclists to ride responsibly - with lights, not on pavements, stopping at red lights, etc.
They also ask for cyclists to ride through red lights when its safe!! Double talk or what!

Bart; you are wrong. Cyclox says that the law should be changed to allow left turns on red for cyclists, like they do in France and many parts of the USA. It also says that there are lots of places where a cycle route round a red light would be safe - like already happens on Botley Road. But it certainly doesn't say that cyclists should go through red lights.

And in any case, what on earth has that got to do with Frideswide Square?

Dan..I am right!! On the Cyclox website they state "Too many cyclists jump red lights, the
only real solution to this problem is to remove the need/desire to jump red lights. If we only ask cyclists to stop at junctions where they really need to stop, but allow
them to proceed at junctions where there isn’t a real need for them to stop" Then who decides which junctions they should stop at???
There are approx 20,000 cyclists in Oxford compared to 50,000 cars, so why is the priority always on the cyclists? It's about time the majority was taken into consideration.

Eurgh. Why is it that anytime the word 'cyclist' or 'bicycle' are in a story title, the comments section instantly fills up with bigotted hate-ramblings (from both sides i might add) from dribbling idiots. Cyclist have just as much right to use the road as a car, there is just a lack of empathy between the two.

Make cycling/driving tests a joint discipline, make drivers understand why cyclists want a bit more shoulder room, make cyclists understand why driver's get annoyed by errant cycling.

Gaaaggghh!!

"Both include three small roundabouts and a one-way system around the square."....
.....It won't work, we'll end up with more congestion than we get at the moment, guarantee it.

Why not put it back to how used to be 20 odd years back? before the current layout was introduced. It was a "shared" space then too. Everyone shared the same bit of road. Cyclists, drivers, busses.
I havent looked at the new plans, but as its Oxford do the roundabouts ALL have trafic signals on them? Only in Oxford where every roundabout has traffic signals. Do away with all the traffic lights and make everyone LOOK at whats happening on the road in front of them. Cyclists and drivers. Someone made a comment here. There's no bad cyclists or drivers, just idiots. Thats certainly true.

After nearly being run over by a cyclist whilst crossing the pelican crossing (lights for traffic on red and green man flashing) on High Street this week, I have to agree with Bart_Simpson1 on this one. A trip into Oxford these days is like riding through the middle of the Tour De France but in this race, everyone has their own rules than have nothing in common with those in the Highway Code.
I have also seen many cars cut cyclists up when turning left and a double decker pull out on a young mum with a toddler in a baby seat and nearly kill them at the junction of Woodstock Road/Giles Street.
Be careful folks.

Lady Penelopee wrote:

Tingly Neurons wrote:

Lady Penelopee wrote: “Roundabouts are especially difficult for less experienced and assertive cyclists. They may choose to stick to the left-hand side of the lane, even when intending to travel right.” If a cyclist does not know how to cycle correctly on the road, then they should go and study the highway code (see point 184 - approaching roundabouts), then stay away until they understand about lanes and positioning.

Perhaps the drivers also need to stay out of the way until they've learned the rules. See point 187: In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to * cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout. Allow them to do so

I stand corrected!

I always thought that if lanes were specifically marked i.e. left lane for left and straight on, and right lane for turning right, then cyclists had to obey this.

(I did know that if the lanes weren't marked, cyclist can stay on the left and continue round...)

Still - would help if cyclists signalled their intention, I drive around Oxford a lot and never see a cyclist indicating their intention