# 5 Cyclists dead in 1 week in London



## Utopia (Nov 14, 2013)

*5 dead in 1 week in London!!! *
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24936942

*So sad, and needless. If it were a drug killing people it'd be banned in minutes! 
*
If you can sign this - http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-our-cyclists?source=facebook-share-button&time=1384367055

You never know it might make a difference!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

its a shit state of affairs but 38degrees? what did their liberal petitions ever achieve.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 14, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> its a shit state of affairs but 38degrees? what did their liberal petitions ever achieve.



5 innocent people dead needlessly & you focus on the validity of the group hosting the online petition. Good grief.


----------



## Boycey (Nov 14, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> its a shit state of affairs but 38degrees? what did their liberal petitions ever achieve.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_Degrees#Results


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

> Being nominated for an Observer ethical award as campaigning group of the year in May 2011.


lol


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 14, 2013)

This is a weird statistical blip especially as cyclist no.s drop off in autumn as the weather worsens. Personally I find sunny November mornings the best.
Anyway hope it can focus minds on transforming london's roads.


----------



## moon (Nov 14, 2013)

We need a protest!! Does anyone know if there is one planned???


----------



## Crispy (Nov 14, 2013)

moon said:


> We need a protest!! Does anyone know if there is one planned???


Keep an eye on LCC and their Space For Cycling campaign, they often organise protest rides. There was a circular protest ride at Bow roundabout last night: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zefrog/sets/72157637643133044


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

Good luck to the groups, such as 38 degrees and also the CTC, who are lobbying TFL and the DFT.  A change of policy is clearly needed as those in power are doing close to fuck all to cater for rising cycling levels.

The DFT are continuing to plan for ever increasing car use.  If they planned for increasing levels of cycling then we could start to get the decent infrastructure needed to enable safe cycling.

This recent piece in the Times explains how the DFT are planning to fail.  As they are planning for reduced cycling levels, budgets will be set and spent accordingly http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3916039.ece


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

i've said it before and i suppose i'll say it again but the number of accidents could be lowered by, among other measures, a mite more cyclist training. for example, every day i see cyclists heading down a street clearly and repeatedly marked 







i have seen a cyclist go under a bus on that street. there is a reason it is marked 'no cycles'. perhaps a quick read of the highway code might be a good starting point for cyclists.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 14, 2013)

Your insight is valuable, as ever


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i've said it before and i suppose i'll say it again but the number of accidents could be lowered by, among other measures, a mite more cyclist training. for example, every day i see cyclists heading down a street clearly and repeatedly marked
> 
> 
> 
> ...




there is no code. Only the strong survive. A cyclist on a road is a rabbit among wolves. 

so be brer. Full of tricks, swift and cunning. My people will never die.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Your insight is valuable, as ever


a vacuous, content-free post from you? what a surprise.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i've said it before and i suppose i'll say it again but the number of accidents could be lowered by, among other measures, a mite more cyclist training. for example, every day i see cyclists heading down a street clearly and repeatedly marked
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cycle training is definitely important but the common factor of the deaths in London is busy roads and little, or not fit for purpose, cycle infrastructure.

The people dying are often very experienced cyclists.  Read the Times piece, and then follow the links to the other needless deaths and in many of the stories you read something along the lines of "Mrs Smith, a very experienced cyclist died while following cycle super highway at a notorious busy junction"

It's no surprise that people look for alternative routes, some of which seemingly needlessly ban cycling.  This blog explains why people go through a no cycling route to avoid Holburn, where several people have been recently killed.  In this case a little planning and investment could really save people lives. http://andywaterman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/death-on-holborn.html


----------



## Crispy (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> a vacuous, content-free post from you? what a surprise.


Sorry Pickman's I should not have engaged with you, it never ends well.

As for this junction, something badly needs doing, but I can't see a solution that's cheap or quick. Ideally, the whole lot should be demolished and a signal controlled flat junction put in its place. But it's the only crossing of the Lea for miles around; any works would cause Traffic Chaos.


----------



## Onket (Nov 14, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Sorry Pickman's I should not have engaged with you, it never ends


 
Fixed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Cycle training is definitely important but the common factor of the deaths in London is busy roads and little, or not fit for purpose, cycle infrastructure.
> 
> The people dying are often very experienced cyclists.  Read the Times piece, and then follow the links to the other needless deaths and in many of the stories you read something along the lines of "Mrs Smith, a very experienced cyclist died while following cycle super highway at a notorious busy junction"
> 
> It's no surprise that people look for alternative routes, some of which seemingly needlessly ban cycling.  This blog explains why people go through a no cycling route to avoid Holburn, where several people have been recently killed.  In this case a little planning and investment could really save people lives. http://andywaterman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/death-on-holborn.html


yes: but in the here and now what are you going to do? most people agree there should be improvements to infrastructure but that's not going to happen from some time yet. it won't help people cycling today, tomorrow, next week to keep harping on about investment when there are some practical steps which can be taken now both by individual cyclists - such as training - and by other road users, which may involve awareness training but could also entail additional mirrors on coaches as there are on many lorries. there is no one solution to this. i am aware of the experience of some of the cyclists who have died, but if you bothered reading my post you would have seen that i said training "among other measures" - do you want me to mention every last measure?


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes: but in the here and now what are you going to do? most people agree there should be improvements to infrastructure but that's not going to happen from some time yet. it won't help people cycling today, tomorrow, next week to keep harping on about investment when there are some practical steps which can be taken now both by individual cyclists - such as training - and by other road users, which may involve awareness training but could also entail additional mirrors on coaches as there are on many lorries. there is no one solution to this. i am aware of the experience of some of the cyclists who have died, but if you bothered reading my post you would have seen that i said training "among other measures" - do you want me to mention every last measure?



I did read you post.  I agreed with you that cycle training was important.  In replying to you I thought, perhaps naively, that we could have a constructive, non-confrontational exchange of ideas. 

If you want to mention 'every last measure' please do so and then and then perhaps we could have a conversation about them.

Back to my last post, in case I was not clear.  Personally I think proper investment in cycling is critical in improving the safety of cyclists.  Cycle training is also important but regardless of how experienced or well trained cyclists are they will continue to be needlessly killed where roads have not been planned for cyclists to use them.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Cycle training is definitely important but the common factor of the deaths in London is busy roads and little, or not fit for purpose, cycle infrastructure...





fredfelt said:


> ...regardless of how experienced or well trained cyclists are they will continue to be needlessly killed where roads have not been planned for cyclists to use them.



I'm an occasional or sporadic, rather than frequent or regular cyclist, but one of the things which strikes me is how unfit for purpose, how badly planned, much of the recent cycling infra-structure is.

The idea of creating a supposed cycling super-highway on a road like the A11, already busy beyond capacity with cars, lorries and buses is surely bound to lead to accidents when large numbers of cyclists are added to the existing users.

It would make much more sense for cyclists to be guided to lesser roads which don't have such a high volume of vehicles (and I know that this has happened in some places), but perhaps this doesn't get the same publicity as painting large roads bright blue.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> The idea of creating a supposed cycling super-highway on a road like the A11, already busy beyond capacity with cars, lorries and buses is surely bound to lead to accidents when large numbers of cyclists are added to the existing users.
> 
> It would make much more sense for cyclists to be guided to lesser roads which don't have such a high volume of vehicles (and I know that this has happened in some places), but perhaps this doesn't get the same publicity as painting large roads bright blue.



Unfortunately, if you look at a map, the A11 is the only way to cross the Lea for miles around. There are no alternatives.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> It would make much more sense for cyclists to be guided to lesser roads which don't have such a high volume of vehicles (and I know that this has happened in some places), but perhaps this doesn't get the same publicity as painting large roads bright blue.


My experience of the cycle routes in south London a few years ago is that they did just this, but also sent cyclists straight up the nearest hill.


----------



## agricola (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Cycle training is definitely important but the common factor of the deaths in London is busy roads and little, or not fit for purpose, cycle infrastructure.



I think its more that the infrastructure that exists isnt suitable for the numbers of trucks and large coaches that use these roads.  Banning them from most of central London - even if it was just between certain hours (say 0600-2100) - would probably have much more effect in terms of reducing deaths of cyclists and pedestrians.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

agricola said:


> I think its more that the infrastructure that exists isnt suitable for the numbers of trucks and large coaches.  Banning them from most of central London - even if it was just between certain hours (say 0600-2100) - would probably have much more effect in terms of reducing deaths of cyclists and pedestrians.


This is done in some cities. Bits of New York, I think? Not sure, but deliveries have to be made before x o'clock in the morning.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Unfortunately, if you look at a map, the A11 is the only way to cross the Lea for miles around. There are no alternatives.



That's true, but having crossed the Lea, there's no reason why the suggested cycle route should stay on the A11 all the way into the City. If I was making that journey regularly, I'd be looking for a route on smaller roads between the A11 and A13.

There will always be bottle-necks in particular places, but as a general rule of thumb it makes sense to me to keep cyclists seperate from the largest and busiest roads, especially those with lorries and buses which inherently have poor visability and which (as I understand it) have statistically worse rates for cyclist deaths than cars.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Back to my last post, in case I was not clear.  Personally I think proper investment in cycling is critical in improving the safety of cyclists.  Cycle training is also important but regardless of how experienced or well trained cyclists are they will continue to be needlessly killed where roads have not been planned for cyclists to use them.


seems to me that many cyclists place issues of speed above other road users (ducking onto pavements, going down one way streets the wrong way, cycling along roads they're prohibited from using, going through red lights) and in so doing undermine their own safety. cyclists imo frequently privilege their own use of the roads (and all too often pavements) above other road users and pedestrians on the foundation - which has some basis in fact - that the infrastructure's not right, ignoring that the infrastructure in cities often isn't really right for hgvs or for pedestrians. it's not as though cyclists are the only people not fully catered for by the existing infrastructure. perhaps learning to live within what there is now while agitating for a better situation would be more useful at the moment than a constant refrain of 'better infrastructure'. for years now people have been warned against undertaking hgvs and the like, yet people continue to do it, all too often ending in the employment of an undertaker. yes, there need to be changes. but there are measures which could be taken now, by cyclists, by drivers, by town planners, which would at least alleviate the problem. why not concentrate of achieving the more easily possible than an utter change to the cityscape which isn't going to happen for anyone for some time to come?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

Not 'many'. 'Some'. For instance, at rush hour, for every cyclist who dodges across the junction on a red light for pedestrians at Gray's Inn Road/Clerkenwell Road(safe enough to do if you're the only one doing it, but selfish because if everyone did it there would be chaos), there are 30 or 40 who don't. Those that do are usually couriers. Couriers do generally break the rules wherever they can - in order to make more money.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

agricola said:


> I think its more that the infrastructure that exists isnt suitable for the *numbers of trucks and large coaches* that use these roads.  Banning them from most of central London - even if it was just between certain hours (say 0600-2100) - would probably have much more effect in terms of reducing deaths of cyclists and pedestrians.



Numbers of large HGVs have already been reduced, but there's still scope for further reduction.

There's far less scope for reducing coaches and, particularly, buses, which actually have a far smaller physical footprint than the equivalent peloton which would be created if bus passengers transferred to bikes, even assuming all of them wanted to/were physically able to.

This sounds like the idea of someone who is only thinking of cyclists/from the perspecive of a cyclist...


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

If we kept the HGVs and got rid of the cyclists that would also work.


----------



## agricola (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> Numbers of large HGVs have already been reduced, but there's still scope for further reduction.
> 
> There's far less scope for reducing coaches and, particularly, buses, which actually have a far smaller physical footprint than the equivalent pelotan which would be created if bus passengers transferred to bikes, even assuming all of them wanted to/were physically able to.
> 
> This sounds like the idea of someone who is only thinking of cyclists/from the perspecive of a cyclist...



Coach numbers could be kept down by ensuring that they stick to one or two routes (the bottom of the A5 - Park Lane - Victoria - Vauxhall Bridge Road, and an East-West one from the A4 - along the Embankment - Lower Thames St - Tower Hill).  

Buses I specifically didnt mention because they arent anywhere near as much of a problem as trucks and coaches are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not 'many'. 'Some'. For instance, at rush hour, for every cyclist who dodges across the junction on a red light for pedestrians at Gray's Inn Road/Clerkenwell Road(safe enough to do if you're the only one doing it, but selfish because if everyone did it there would be chaos), there are 30 or 40 who don't. Those that do are usually couriers. Couriers do generally break the rules wherever they can - in order to make more money.


i see MANY cyclists doing the things i mention every day. perhaps not MOST, but certainly a reasonable proportion. and if i'm seeing dozens of cyclists doing this on my journey into work you can be assured there are a lot of other cyclists elsewhere in london who are doing exactly the same. the cyclists who jump on the south pavement at the junction you mention would easily number a hundred in an hour when i see at least four or five doing it during one traffic light cycle. that is MANY.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> If we kept the HGVs and got rid of the cyclists that would also work.



Only for a fairly restricted meaning of "work", but it makes as much sense as the idea that we can ban all motor vehicles bigger than a car


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> Only for a fairly restricted meaning of "work", but it makes as much sense as the idea that we can ban all motor vehicles bigger than a car


 
"Work" being less squished cyclists.  Or no squished cyclists if you do it properly.  Assuming we are not getting rid of them by squishing them wherever possible.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

agricola said:


> Coach numbers could be kept down by ensuring that they stick to one or two routes (the bottom of the A5 - Park Lane - Victoria - Vauxhall Bridge Road, and an East-West one from the A4 - along the Embankment - Lower Thames St - Tower Hill)...



That's not keeping numbers down, it's keeping them off most roads, which I think is a good idea. It would also be a good idea to encourage cyclists to use roads other than those which are used by coaches, by (at least) not designating them as cycle super highways...



agricola said:


> ...Buses I specifically didnt mention because they arent anywhere near as much of a problem as trucks and coaches are.



I'm not sure exactly where you're drawing the distinction between a bus and a coach, but I'm pretty sure I hear about more fatal accidents between cyclists and buses than cyclists and coaches. The story linked to in the OP mentions cyclists killed in collisions with a double-decker bus and a lorry (no mention of coaches). 

Both of them were on designated cycle super highways


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i see MANY cyclists doing the things i mention every day. perhaps not MOST, but certainly a reasonable proportion. and if i'm seeing dozens of cyclists doing this on my journey into work you can be assured there are a lot of other cyclists elsewhere in london who are doing exactly the same. the cyclists who jump on the south pavement at the junction you mention would easily number a hundred in an hour when i see at least four or five doing it during one traffic light cycle. that is MANY.



I would conservatively estimate that fewer than 10 per cent of cyclists behave in the way you describe, and I'd think it is probably fewer than 5 per cent. To me, that doesn't fall under the definition 'many'.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would conservatively estimate that fewer than 10 per cent of cyclists behave in the way you describe, and I'd think it is probably fewer than 5 per cent. To me, that doesn't fall under the definition 'many'.



So by the same definition, "not many" cyclists are killed on the road. I can't see what all the fuss is about


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would conservatively estimate that fewer than 10 per cent of cyclists behave in the way you describe, and I'd think it is probably fewer than 5 per cent. To me, that doesn't fall under the definition 'many'.


so 5 cyclists in a week's not too many then


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would conservatively estimate that fewer than 10 per cent of cyclists behave in the way you describe, and I'd think it is probably fewer than 5 per cent. To me, that doesn't fall under the definition 'many'.


 
I guess your definition of 'many' needs to be consistent if considering 5 deaths in a week as 'too many'.

edit: beaten to it by andysays...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

How many of the cyclists killed are doing these things? I think it is a mischaracterisation of the problem to point at the behaviour of a minority of cyclists unless that minority forms a majority of those killed.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How many of the cyclists killed are doing these things? I think it is a mischaracterisation of the problem to point at the behaviour of a minority of cyclists unless that minority forms a majority of those killed.


 
You speak as if you know the answer to that one.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 14, 2013)

I never understand the beef that people have with cyclists... Cycling is a fast and easy mode of transport and driving in London is foolish at best. I can understand if you have a disability and driving is the only way you can get around, but people commuting by car have no reason whatsoever to get angry at cyclists.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> I never understand the beef that people have with cyclists...


 
"People" don't understand the beef that cyclists have with absolutely everyone else.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> "People" don't understand the beef that cyclists have with absolutely everyone else.


All road users have a requirement to be aware of what is going on around them. It appears that some cyclists do have a degree of superiority due to alleviating pressure on public transport, congestion, the environment and also increasing the suppleness and muscle definition f their lean and sculpted bodies. But many drivers have more of a sense of entitlement, and due to feeling much safer in a car, are less aware of their surroundings.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would conservatively estimate that fewer than 10 per cent of cyclists behave in the way you describe, and I'd think it is probably fewer than 5 per cent. To me, that doesn't fall under the definition 'many'.



Taking this point further, if this notional 5% behave like this at this particular set of traffic lights, do you think it's likely that they regularly do so in other places and in other ways as well, or is their behaviour only confined to this one set of traffic lights?

And if, as seems likely to me, they get into the habit of behaving recklessly, with a reduced level of regard for the safety of themselves and other road users, are they not therefore statistically more likely to be involved in accidents than the other 95% who do follow the rules of the road, and more likely to end up the subject of one of these stories?

The point of this is not to prove that all cyclists are arseholes, but to suggest that the behaviour of this irresponsible few is of some significance to the problem of cycle accidents leading to injury and death.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> It appears that some cyclists do have a degree of superiority due to alleviating pressure on public transport, congestion, the environment and also increasing the suppleness and muscle definition f their lean and sculpted bodies.


 
Sums up a certain type of cyclist nicely <shudders>.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> Sums up a certain type of cyclist nicely <shudders>.


:B


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How many of the cyclists killed are doing these things? I think it is a mischaracterisation of the problem to point at the behaviour of a minority of cyclists unless that minority forms a majority of those killed.


if people are going to cycle in an anti-social manner which takes no concern of the interests or safety of others, then it is likely they will be less safe themselves. this need not end in death to end in tears - ending up studying the undercarriage of a bus and being taken to hospital is more likely than ending up with your innards on an hgv's outer tube.


----------



## agricola (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> I'm not sure exactly where you're drawing the distinction between a bus and a coach, but I'm pretty sure I hear about more fatal accidents between cyclists and buses than cyclists and coaches. The story linked to in the OP mentions cyclists killed in collisions with a double-decker bus and a lorry (no mention of coaches).
> 
> Both of them were on designated cycle super highways



The distinction comes because buses will usually be driven by someone who is familiar with London traffic, and more importantly because they are going to be using a set route that the cyclist is much more likely to be aware of.  That doesnt remove risk, but it does reduce it.  Also the story in the OP does mention that one of the deaths - Francis Golding's - was cyclist vs coach.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

I always think the logical thing to do is to completely separate large vehicles and cyclists - logistically not easy in a big old place like London. 

How do these designated cycle superhighways work - why the hell would you have a coach or HGV on such a lane?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if people are going to cycle in an anti-social manner which takes no concern of the interests or safety of others, then it is likely they will be less safe themselves. .


That's not necessarily true. A cyclist on the pavement is safe from cars. A cyclist crossing when there is a four-way red light for pedestrians may be safer doing that than waiting for the green light. Both of these are antisocial because if every cyclist did them, it would cause chaos, but anti-social, selfish cycling of the kind that couriers often engage in, for instance, isn't necessarily more dangerous to the cyclist.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> seems to me that many cyclists place issues of speed above other road users (ducking onto pavements, going down one way streets the wrong way, cycling along roads they're prohibited from using, going through red lights) and in so doing undermine their own safety. cyclists imo frequently privilege their own use of the roads (and all too often pavements) above other road users and pedestrians on the foundation - which has some basis in fact - that the infrastructure's not right, ignoring that the infrastructure in cities often isn't really right for hgvs or for pedestrians. it's not as though cyclists are the only people not fully catered for by the existing infrastructure. perhaps learning to live within what there is now while agitating for a better situation would be more useful at the moment than a constant refrain of 'better infrastructure'. for years now people have been warned against undertaking hgvs and the like, yet people continue to do it, all too often ending in the employment of an undertaker. yes, there need to be changes. but there are measures which could be taken now, by cyclists, by drivers, by town planners, which would at least alleviate the problem. why not concentrate of achieving the more easily possible than an utter change to the cityscape which isn't going to happen for anyone for some time to come?



You have identified that people have been warned against dangerous behaviour, yet they continue to do it.  Behaviour is, obviously, both taught and a product of the environment.  To quote you 'for years now people have been warned against undertaking hgvs and the like, yet people continue to do it'.  There is no amount of training that can protect people against what is essentially a dangerous environment.

Cyclists and pedestrians in many ways _have_ to attempt to privilege their own use of our streets over other vehicles.  This is because privilege for motorised vehicles is a fundamental design principle of the British built environment.  This assumed privilege is not universal.  What has a through grounding in fact (and not just 'some basis in fact') is that in countries which have a design hierarchy of their streets based on vulnerability are by far the safest streets for the most vulnerable.  They are also far more pleasant places for people to be.

Making roads safer for cyclists is mutually agreeable with making them safer for pedestrians.  I don't think that cyclists should be placed above pedestrians.  Any design should should take into account the priories of the most vulnerable first.

The cheap, short term solutions you seemingly suggest are not mutually exclusive with proper planning.  Why not have longer term goals?  Perhaps special training is required now because in many cases our roads, particularly in cities, are not fit for purpose.  But hy not take both short term and longer term measures?  

We can and should continue with short term patches to attempt to reduce the carnage on our roads.  However the experience of other countries clearly show that this, in conjunction, with long term planning is required to make our streets safer for the most vulnerable.

To me it seems that there are plenty of initiatives, generally executed by PR groups, currently aimed at telling people how to be safe.  Yet in the last week 5 cyclists have been killed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not necessarily true. A cyclist on the pavement is safe from cars. A cyclist crossing when there is a four-way red light for pedestrians may be safer doing that than waiting for the green light. Both of these are antisocial because if every cyclist did them, it would cause chaos, but anti-social, selfish cycling of the kind that couriers often engage in, for instance, isn't necessarily more dangerous to the cyclist.


you're highlighting cycling on pavements. i was thinking of cyclists going the wrong way down one-way streets, cycling down roads where they're prohibited, or going through red lights. these sorts of risk-taking behaviours are unlikely to be found in careful cyclists as they expose the cyclist to additional risk.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're highlighting cycling on pavements. i was thinking of cyclists going the wrong way down one-way streets, cycling down roads where they're prohibited, or going through red lights. these sorts of risk-taking behaviours are unlikely to be found in careful cyclists as they expose the cyclist to additional risk.


I gave two examples, the other of which was going through a red light. It may in certain instances be safer to the cyclist to jump a red light. Obeying all the rules isn't always the safest thing to do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> There is no amount of training that can protect people against what is essentially a dangerous environment


bollocks. yes, it is a dangerous environment, but people are trained to work safely in all manner of dangerous environments.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I gave two examples, the other of which was going through a red light. It may in certain instances be safer to the cyclist to jump a red light. Obeying all the rules isn't always the safest thing to do.


and cycling through stations?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> bollocks. yes, it is a dangerous environment, but people are trained to work safely in all manner of dangerous environments.


 
Agree with this, but also agree with these bits of what fredfelt says:



fredfelt said:


> Cyclists and pedestrians in many ways _have_ to attempt to privilege their own use of our streets over other vehicles.  This is because privilege for motorised vehicles is a fundamental design principle of the British built environment.
> ...
> Making roads safer for cyclists is mutually agreeable with making them safer for pedestrians.  I don't think that cyclists should be placed above pedestrians.  Any design should should take into account the priories of the most vulnerable first.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i see MANY cyclists doing the things i mention every day. perhaps not MOST, but certainly a reasonable proportion. and if i'm seeing dozens of cyclists doing this on my journey into work you can be assured there are a lot of other cyclists elsewhere in london who are doing exactly the same. the cyclists who jump on the south pavement at the junction you mention would easily number a hundred in an hour when i see at least four or five doing it during one traffic light cycle. that is MANY.



Do you think that training would solve this problem?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> and cycling through stations?


There are lots of ways to break the rules and put yourself in increased danger, clearly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Do you think that training would solve this problem?


It is often the most skillful and experienced cyclists who break the rules most often. I know a few couriers. They will all do a variety of the things Pickman's has highlighted where they think they can. And they are the most skillful cyclists on the roads.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're highlighting cycling on pavements. i was thinking of cyclists going the wrong way down one-way streets, cycling down roads where they're prohibited, or going through red lights. these sorts of risk-taking behaviours are unlikely to be found in careful cyclists as they expose the cyclist to additional risk.



At least for one of there problems a new solution is available.  







These signs have only recently become legal to install - http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cycles-e...cycling-campaign-welcomes-unrestricted-access


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

And lest we forget, until recently, you could be done for waiting in front of cars at a traffic light. I was pulled over once for doing this in the days before the cyclist-only zones. I was given a patronising lecture by a totally clueless copper about my dangerous behaviour. It is now officially recognised that this is the right thing to do.

Personally, I would formalise this even further and say that cars must wait for all cyclists to cross before they can move. Something along those lines is still needed.


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 14, 2013)

Someone I know saw a cyclist get fully mashed up by a delivery truck a few weeks ago as well in East London. 

I think it was probably this one, and from what I hear a helmet would have been little use...  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24823771


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

agricola said:


> The distinction comes because buses will usually be driven by someone who is familiar with London traffic, and more importantly because they are going to be using a set route that the cyclist is much more likely to be aware of.  That doesnt remove risk, but it does reduce it.  Also the story in the OP does mention that one of the deaths - Francis Golding's - was cyclist vs coach.



OK, I understand the distinction that you're making, and I agree that it makes some sense.

And you're right, it does mention one "cyclist vs coach" death - I obviously didn't read to the very end.

My preferred method of reducing accidents, both as an individual cyclist and as a suggested policy for planners, would be to keep cyclists off the busiest roads, by abandoning the ridiculous super highway bollocks, by encouraging cycling on smaller roads from which anything larger than a car is banned, and, in the longer term, by identifying existing bottle necks like Crispy's crossing the River Lea and building additional dedicated cycle lanes including bridges over rivers, railways if necessary. After this has been done, I'd also consider banning cycling on particularly busy roads where it's not possible to seperate cycles from buses, lorries, etc.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is often the most skillful and experienced cyclists who break the rules most often. I know a few couriers. They will all do a variety of the things Pickman's has highlighted where they think they can. And they are the most skillful cyclists on the roads.



Reminds me of a question that was in QI.  The answer was 'desire line'.  This is where people take the most appropriate route, despite a pavement showing them where they should go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_line

From the Wiki page it seems that in Finland they visit paths after snowfall to help plan routing in new parks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> OK, I understand the distinction that you're making, and I agree that it makes some sense.
> 
> And you're right, it does mention one "cyclist vs coach" death - I obviously didn't read to the very end.
> 
> My preferred method of reducing accidents, both as an individual cyclist and as a suggested policy for planners, would be to keep cyclists off the busiest roads, by abandoning the ridiculous super highway bollocks, by encouraging cycling on smaller roads from which anything larger than a car is banned, and, in the longer term, by identifying existing bottle necks like Crispy's crossing the River Lea and building additional dedicated cycle lanes including bridges over rivers, railways if necessary. After this has been done, I'd also consider banning cycling on particularly busy roads where it's not possible to seperate cycles from buses, lorries, etc.


Ultimately, separate cycle roads are the only safe solution. It's what they do in Holland. I would be interested to know the cycle safety record in Holland. I would guess it is very good.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> From the Wiki page it seems that in Finland they visit paths after snowfall to help plan routing in new parks.


 
That's some proper thinking there.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ultimately, separate cycle roads are the only safe solution. It's what they do in Holland. I would be interested to know the cycle safety record in Holland. I would guess it is very good.



Yeah, except you'd always get the old 5% of cyclists who thought they were better and more entitled than anyone else, who kept on the roads (except when they're on the pavement, of course), kept breaking the law, kept causing accidents and kept blaming everyone but themselves.

Ride carefully...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Do you think that training would solve this problem?


as i have said on another thread, it can't hurt to try. if cycling was taught at schools from, say, the age of 12 with refresher courses available then i would expect it to have some effect.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 14, 2013)

There's definitely a cultural difference of attitudes towards cyclists in The Netherlands. In Britain cyclists are seen as somewhat of a nuisance, whereas in The Netherlands cycling is a way of life and is much more accepted.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> as i have said on another thread, it can't hurt to try. if cycling was taught at schools from, say, the age of 12 with refresher courses available then i would expect it to have some effect.


Cycling proficiency courses are run by many schools. I took mine at the age of 11 (11 years ago) and passed with flying colours. You'd be surprised as to the rules that are advised, cycling 60cms from the pavement for example. Many drivers get hella angry at cyclists for being so far from the curb.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> as i have said on another thread, it can't hurt to try. if cycling was taught at schools from, say, the age of 12 with refresher courses available then i would expect it to have some effect.



I totally agree.  Cycling should, and I think, generally is, taught in schools.

At least in Oxford, cycle courses are offered through the universities and also some employers.  There are also guided rides, and specific rides for women who may be less willing to be assertive on the roads and feel intimated by club rides.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> There's definitely a cultural difference of attitudes towards cyclists in The Netherlands. In Britain cyclists are seen as somewhat of a nuisance, whereas in The Netherlands cycling is a way of life and is much more accepted.


Absolutely. Cyclists come first. Drivers second. Pedestrians a fairly distant last.  Thing is that most drivers in Holland are also cyclists.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> That's some proper thinking there.



Yup.  The point is that you have to take into account human nature.  It shouldn't be of any surprise that poor infrastructure causes the irritations that Pickman's model highlights.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> Yeah, except you'd always get the old 5% of cyclists who thought they were better and more entitled than anyone else, who kept on the roads (except when they're on the pavement, of course), kept breaking the law, kept causing accidents and kept blaming everyone but themselves.
> 
> Ride carefully...


Cyclists stick to the cycle paths in Holland. Why wouldn't they? It would be like a pedestrian walking down the middle of the road when there's a pavement there for them.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> Cycling proficiency courses are run by many schools. I took mine at the age of 11 (11 years ago) and passed with flying colours. You'd be surprised as to the rules that are advised, cycling 60cms from the pavement for example. Many drivers get hella angry at cyclists for being so far from the curb.


 
Where I live they do these 'cycling proficiency' things for adults who haven't rode a bike in ages.  Less 'testing' and more of a gently ride in a group on some fairly quiet roads at first.  

60cm from the pavement seems like a minimum to be clear of the drains - that would be a bare minimum, surely!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Cyclists stick to the cycle paths in Holland. Why wouldn't they? It would be like a pedestrian walking down the middle of the road when there's a pavement there for them.


there is a little pavement along the middle of much of oxford street: very handy


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Absolutely. Cyclists come first. Drivers second. Pedestrians a fairly distant last.  Thing is that most drivers in Holland are also cyclists.



In law they have something known as 'strict liability' which puts pedestrians first.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> 60cm from the pavement seems like a minimum to be clear of the drains - that would be a bare minimum, surely!


Current teaching is 1 metre minimum.
IE ride in primary unless you can't keep up with the traffic flow, then drop to 1 metre from the kerb if it is reasonable to do so - e.g you won't need to move out again very shortly because of an obstacle.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Cyclists stick to the cycle paths in Holland. Why wouldn't they? It would be like a pedestrian walking down the middle of the road when there's a pavement there for them.



Don't ask me, ask your red-light-jumping, pavement-riding, pedestrian-endangering, rule-breaking, everyone-else-blaming, can-do-no-wrong, cycling courier, ubermensch mates


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 14, 2013)

Pedestrians should always come first. Oldest form of transport!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> In law they have something known as 'strict liability' which puts pedestrians first.


Sounds sensible. Culturally, however, ime the pedestrian in a Dutch city feels that they are not the priority.


----------



## agricola (Nov 14, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> Pedestrians should always come first. Oldest form of transport!



Surely that was swimming?


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> If we kept the HGVs and got rid of the cyclists that would also work.


You could ban HGVs except in certain hours. It would make more sense for them to travel outside rush hour anyway.


----------



## agricola (Nov 14, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> You could ban HGVs except in certain hours. It would make more sense for them to travel outside rush hour anyway.



Indeed - in fact it might actually end up generating a few extra jobs as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

agricola said:


> Indeed - in fact it might actually end up generating a few extra jobs as well.


bearers


----------



## agricola (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> bearers


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Nov 14, 2013)

cycling is good for individuals and good for the transport of the population
we should be doing everything we can do to support it and not vilifying individual cyclists
some cyclists don't cycle well 
some cyclists  break road rules wilfully for the sake of it - yes, and?
some cyclists follow all the rules and end up in collisions
most cyclists learn to cycle well and follow most rules but break a few when it makes most sense for them and other road users (IME of cycling in London)


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

agricola said:


>







going down the lea


----------



## Boycey (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> The point of this is not to prove that all cyclists are arseholes, but to suggest that the behaviour of this irresponsible few is of some significance to the problem of cycle accidents leading to injury and death.



is there any suggestion how many of the 5 deaths were caused by reckless or dangerous cycling?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're highlighting cycling on pavements. i was thinking of cyclists going the wrong way down one-way streets, cycling down roads where they're prohibited, or going through red lights. these sorts of risk-taking behaviours are unlikely to be found in careful cyclists as they expose the cyclist to additional risk.



Whilst irritating, all those "risk-taking behaviours" are almost a total non-entity as a factor in cycling fatalities. So even if you could persuade the minority of cyclists who do them regularly it would have virtually no impact whatsoever on the number of deaths.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

Boycey said:


> is there any suggestion how many of the 5 deaths were caused by reckless or dangerous cycling?



Not as far as I can see, and I'm not trying to suggest that any of those individuals were reckless, necessarily, but I think it's impossible to argue that the fact that a small proportion of cyclists ride recklessly (as do a small proportion of car drivers, bus drivers, lorry drivers, etc) contributes to the level of accidents.

The thing that jumps out at me from that article, which I've mentioned already, is that so many of them happened on a Cycle Super Highway on the A11, where cyclists are positively encouraged to ride alongside cars, buses, lorries etc on a hugely busy road.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Whilst irritating, all those "risk-taking behaviours" are almost a total non-entity as a factor in cycling fatalities. So even if you could persuade the minority of cyclists who do them regularly it would have virtually no impact whatsoever on the number of deaths.



I'm sure that with the level of certainty you demonstrate in this post, you have to hand a comprehensive study proving this assertion beyond any doubt...


----------



## laptop (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> going down the lea








Circling over Wanstead


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> Not as far as I can see, and I'm not trying to suggest that any of those individuals were reckless, necessarily, but I think it's impossible to argue that the fact that a small proportion of cyclists ride recklessly (as do a small proportion of car drivers, bus drivers, lorry drivers, etc) contributes to the level of accidents.
> 
> The thing that jumps out at me from that article, which I've mentioned already, is that so many of them happened on a Cycle Super Highway on the A11, where cyclists are positively encouraged to ride alongside cars, buses, lorries etc on a hugely busy road.


Common sense can be a dangerous thing to use in guiding opinion. I'd want to see some figures showing how those small proportion are disproportionately represented in accidents. I'd also like to know how disproportionately represented occasional cyclists are - ie how big a factor experience is, whether or not you're a rule follower. And as your second para hints, there can be times where following the rules actually puts you in more danger.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> The thing that jumps out at me from that article, which I've mentioned already, is that so many of them happened on a Cycle Super Highway on the A11, where cyclists are positively encouraged to ride alongside cars, buses, lorries etc on a hugely busy road.


 
What exactly is this 'cycle superhighway' if it has buses and lorries on it?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Common sense can be a dangerous thing to use in guiding opinion. I'd want to see some figures showing how those small proportion are disproportionately represented in accidents. I'd also like to know how disproportionately represented occasional cyclists are - ie how big a factor experience is, whether or not you're a rule follower. And as your second para hints, there can be times where following the rules actually puts you in more danger.


 
Furthermore, it would be useful to see how variations in the levels of bad cycling by either idiots or the inexperienced contributes to the level of danger in general.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Whilst irritating, all those "risk-taking behaviours" are almost a total non-entity as a factor in cycling fatalities. So even if you could persuade the minority of cyclists who do them regularly it would have virtually no impact whatsoever on the number of deaths.


 
Citation needed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Whilst irritating, all those "risk-taking behaviours" are almost a total non-entity as a factor in cycling fatalities. So even if you could persuade the minority of cyclists who do them regularly it would have virtually no impact whatsoever on the number of deaths.


 

you're fucking fixated on deaths. have you not noticed i've also mentioned injuries? do you only get off on dead cyclists, are the injured and maimed not worthy of your attention?


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> What exactly is this 'cycle superhighway' if it has buses and lorries on it?



The cynic in me says it's just a corporate sponsored publicity campaign, which totally fails in its stated aims of giving people

safer, faster and more direct journeys into the city​
but you're welcome to make your own mind up.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> The cynic in me says it's just a corporate sponsored publicity campaign, which totally fails in its stated aims of giving people
> 
> safer, faster and more direct journeys into the city​
> but you're welcome to make your own mind up.


 
Interesting that none of the reports of deaths seem to refer to _Barclays_ cycle super highways.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Common sense can be a dangerous thing to use in guiding opinion. I'd want to see some figures showing how those small proportion are disproportionately represented in accidents. I'd also like to know how disproportionately represented occasional cyclists are - ie how big a factor experience is, whether or not you're a rule follower. And as your second para hints, there can be times where following the rules actually puts you in more danger.



Yeah, I can see how occasional/inexperienced cyclists might be disproportionately represented, as might those experienced cyclists who unfortunately become arrogant/complacent/above the rules that only apply to the common herd.

Hopefully Lo Siento. will post the definitive survey in a minute, and this will answer all our questions...

Edited to include tag


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> Interesting that none of the reports of deaths seem to refer to _Barclays_ cycle super highways.


people could think it was bankers being run down and indifference would reign


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> Furthermore, it would be useful to see how variations in the levels of bad cycling by either idiots or the inexperienced contributes to the level of danger in general.


Yep. How much of it is simply beyond the cyclist's control, whatever their abilities/considerate attitude? A fair bit, I would guess. The only time I've been knocked off my bike in London, it was entirely the driver's fault, and there is little I could have done.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> Yeah, I can see how occasional/inexperienced cyclists might be disproportionately represented, as might those experienced cyclists who unfortunately become arrogant/complacent/above the rules that only apply to the common herd.


Yes, I think both those groups might be there - but I'll reserve judgement as there may be factors we haven't thought of.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're fucking fixated on deaths. have you not noticed i've also mentioned injuries? do you only get off on dead cyclists, are the injured and maimed not worthy of your attention?


are you really in disagreement with him about this?  surely no one on this thread thinks that cyclists getting killed or injured is a thing to ignore?   I don't really think anyone on this thread believes that cyclists being killed and injured through contact with large vehicles is really because some cyclists jump red lights do they?  ok that's a lot of assumptions and you can pick holes in it if you like but is there not a basic agreement that cyclists need better provision and that larger vehicles need to change some of the ways they use the road* so that cyclists are more protected from danger?

cycling is not just about the individual benefits it's something that would benefit all people in transit across london - more trips achieved through cycling would relieve pressure on public transport and reduce some strain on nhs through improved fitness etc

*that could come from the times they are permitted into the centre
*their own training and awareness and thus their driving behaviour at junctions
*the equipment that large vehicles must fit and use that encourage them to look for cyclists


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

laptop said:


> Circling over Wanstead







cyclists ahoy


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. How much of it is simply beyond the cyclist's control, whatever their abilities/considerate attitude? A fair bit, I would guess. The only time I've been knocked off my bike in London, it was entirely the driver's fault, and there is little I could have done.


twice I've been in minor collisions with vehicles and a near miss
all three times the vehicle was in the wrong although all three times taught me to take more account of the behaviour of other drivers
yes this taught me that there are always more things I can do to cycle defensively but those three drivers should not have been doing what they did - why are drivers not being continually pressed to take account of what cyclists may do?  ie have to cycle round a drain cover or pothole unexpectedly?  or to want to be first off at the lights so as to be in a good road position before cars zoom past?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Miss-Shelf said:


> are you really in disagreement with him about this?  surely no one on this thread thinks that cyclists getting killed or injured is a thing to ignore?   I don't really think anyone on this thread believes that cyclists being killed and injured through contact with large vehicles is really because some cyclists jump red lights do they?  ok that's a lot of assumptions and you can pick holes in it if you like but is there not a basic agreement that cyclists need better provision and that larger vehicles need to change some of the ways they use the road* so that cyclists are more protected from danger?
> 
> cycling is not just about the individual benefits it's something that would benefit all people in transit across london - more trips achieved through cycling would relieve pressure on public transport and reduce some strain on nhs through improved fitness etc
> 
> ...


pls read my posts on this thread before continuing in this vein.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> pls read my posts on this thread before continuing in this vein.


I think you take an unnecessarily antagonist tone of posting about something you're probably in agreement with (sorry I read page one and four and skipped 2 &3 - maybe they would have made your view more apparent)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

Miss-Shelf said:


> twice I've been in minor collisions with vehicles and a near miss
> all three times the vehicle was in the wrong although all three times taught me to take more account of the behaviour of other drivers
> yes this taught me that there are always more things I can do to cycle defensively but those three drivers should not have been doing what they did - why are drivers not being continually pressed to take account of what cyclists may do?  ie have to cycle round a drain cover or pothole unexpectedly?  or to want to be first off at the lights so as to be in a good road position before cars zoom past?


Absolutely. You learn from your near-misses, which is why I suspect inexperience will be a significant factor in accidents - not because the cyclist is in the wrong necessarily, but because they didn't anticipate the stupidity of the driver. And this is the kind of experience that cycling proficiency courses cannot give you. Only hours on the road will give it to you.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Absolutely. You learn from your near-misses, which is why I suspect inexperience will be a factor in accidents - not because the cyclist is in the wrong necessarily, but because they didn't anticipate the stupidity of the driver. And this is the kind of experience that cycling proficiency courses cannot give you. Only hours on the road will give it to you.


although many accounts about injured and dead cyclists state they are experienced cyclists


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Miss-Shelf said:


> I think you take an unnecessarily antagonist tone of posting about something you're probably in agreement with (sorry I read page one and four and skipped 2 &3 - maybe they would have made your view more apparent)


i think you take a remarkably cavalier attitude to telling me what i think when you haven't - by your own admission - read what i think.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

Miss-Shelf said:


> although many accounts about injured and dead cyclists state they are experienced cyclists



Well, that is partly just down to time on the road. Men have more car accidents than women on average, due to no more strange a thing than that men drive more than women on average.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> *anticipate the stupidity of the driver*


 
....these 6 words should be repeated before any bike ride involving traffic of any kind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Absolutely. You learn from your near-misses, which is why I suspect inexperience will be a significant factor in accidents - not because the cyclist is in the wrong necessarily, but because they didn't anticipate the stupidity of the driver. And this is the kind of experience that cycling proficiency courses cannot give you. Only hours on the road will give it to you.


however cycling courses can give you a good foundation on which to build. just because someone's 'experienced' doesn't necessarily mean they're doing it right, it might mean they've done it wrong a lot of times and been lucky.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model I apologise for not reading all of the pages and admit that this probably would have presented a more balanced view of what you think


----------



## Utopia (Nov 14, 2013)

Excellent blog on cycle safety - http://leighdayblog.com/2013/07/05/tomorrow-i-will-kiss-my-two-beautiful-children/#more-139

"
*Tomorrow I will kiss my two beautiful children*
Tomorrow I will kiss my two beautiful children and lovely wife goodbye. I know that whilst I am doing this I will be wondering whether I will ever see them again. I am not a member of the emergency services, nor brave enough to be a soldier, I am a cyclist.
I know I will be buzzed by a motorist, passing me too close as if to make a point. Vehicles will speed toward me and sometimes even speed up when passing me going the opposite way on narrow rural roads. They will turn across my path or drive without due care and attention, I know it’s coming and I can do nothing to prevent it.
None of those who have been killed or maimed ‘on the bike’, who I have known personally, have done so because of something they did.
They include the victim of one ton of metal hitting him from behind, driven by a mother who was at that moment turning round to deal with her errant toddlers, or the victim of the  lorry driver who came down a slip road and drove straight over the cyclist he did not see......."

Worth a read.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> I'm sure that with the level of certainty you demonstrate in this post, you have to hand a comprehensive study proving this assertion beyond any doubt...



Sadly, although there's nothing in the cycling accident stats (http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx) to indicate that cyclists breaking the highway code has anything to do with fatalities (but there are indications that RLJing decreases your chance of being hit by an HGV http://www.rudi.net/node/16395), there's no study to prove the opposite. However, none of the well-publicised fatalities this year have involved any of the "high-risk behaviour" pickman's is on about. Given that neither you, nor he, has any reason whatsoever to imagine that it's "high risk cycling" that's the problem, seems to me that your agenda here is more about what irritates you about cyclists, rather than what would actually make cyclists safer.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're fucking fixated on deaths. have you not noticed i've also mentioned injuries? do you only get off on dead cyclists, are the injured and maimed not worthy of your attention?


I genuinely think you couldn't give a flying fuck about cyclists, dead or injured, beyond the minor irritation they inflict on you in your everyday life.


----------



## kittyP (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> as i have said on another thread, it can't hurt to try. if cycling was taught at schools from, say, the age of 12 with refresher courses available then i would expect it to have some effect.



But as a driver, you have more training than most cyclists and are much more accountable for behaving badly on the road, and still the amount of despicably bad drivers out there shocks me whenever I am in a car. Be it from lack of confidence, over confidence or downright recklessness. 
No matter how many road safety lessons we had as kids at school, people still as pedestrians use the roads recklessly. 
I am not saying that training from a young age would not help at all but I think it would far from solve the problem. 

Also, as with all road users, it's not always the ones using the roads recklessly that get hurt, often it's their impact on others that is the problem.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> But as a driver, you have more training than most cyclists and are much more accountable for behaving badly on the road, and still the amount of despicably bad drivers out there shocks me whenever I am in a car. Be it from lack of confidence, over confidence or downright recklessness.
> No matter how many road safety lessons we had as kids at school, people still as pedestrians use the roads recklessly.
> I am not saying that training from a young age would not help at all but I think it would far from solve the problem.
> 
> Also, as with all road users, it's not always the ones using the roads recklessly that get hurt, often it's their impact on others that is the problem.


i do not and never have driven


----------



## kittyP (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i do not and never have driven



I wasn't saying you had. 

I meant the Royal You, or something


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> I genuinely think you couldn't give a flying fuck about cyclists, dead or injured, beyond the minor irritation they inflict on you in your everyday life.


the dead are worse as it takes ages for the police to complete their investigations and clear the road. the injured are fairly quickly removed to hospital and life returns to normal.



if you really think what you claim to think you're fucked in the head. nowhere have i said or suggested such a thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I wasn't saying you had.
> 
> I meant the Royal You, or something





Apryl said:


> Pickman's model must be the leader of this board


----------



## kittyP (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>



Ha ha, you have that saved


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> however cycling courses can give you a good foundation on which to build. just because someone's 'experienced' doesn't necessarily mean they're doing it right, it might mean they've done it wrong a lot of times and been lucky.


Yes, I do not disagree.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the dead are worse as it takes ages for the police to complete their investigations and clear the road. the injured are fairly quickly removed to hospital and life returns to normal.
> 
> 
> 
> if you really think what you claim to think you're fucked in the head. nowhere have i said or suggested such a thing.


I'd say responding to the death of five cyclists in a week by talking about the same things you always talk about regarding cyclists, despite those things not featuring in any of the five accidents, shows a pretty gruesome determination to use these people's deaths to push your own agenda.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'd say responding to the death of five cyclists in a week by talking about the same things you always talk about regarding cyclists, despite those things not featuring in any of the five accidents, shows a pretty gruesome determination to use these people's deaths to push your own agenda.


but you've said i don't give a flying fuck about cyclists. if i don't give a flying fuck about cyclists then i don't have an agenda to push, do i?

all of this exists only in your head. there's nothing on this thread to substantiate your claim, or you'd have produced it.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> but you've said i don't give a flying fuck about cyclists. if i don't give a flying fuck about cyclists then i don't have an agenda to push, do i?


Correction for your insufferable pedantry. You care far less about whether cyclists are hurt and killed than you do about hectoring cyclists for whatever injustices you perceive them to have done to you as a group.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Correction for your insufferable pedantry. You care far less about whether cyclists are hurt and killed than you do about hectoring cyclists for whatever injustices you perceive them to have done to you as a group.


what you call my insufferable pedantry is just me showing you up for what you are on this issue: all over the fucking shop. if i wanted to hector people for injustices i felt i'd suffered, don't you think i would in fact hector people for injustices i felt i'd suffered?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what you call my insufferable pedantry is just me showing you up for what you are on this issue: all over the fucking shop. if i wanted to hector people for injustices i felt i'd suffered, don't you think i would in fact hector people for injustices i felt i'd suffered?



You have hectored people for said injustices on all manner of cycling threads, and it was the exact same stuff you're posting here, just with the (offensive) pretence that it's about our safety. Your first post on this thread was about cyclists going the wrong way down 1-way streets. How many of the 5 accidents in the OP resulted from people doing that? 0. It was totally fucking irrelevant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> You have hectored people for said injustices on all manner of cycling threads, and it was the exact same stuff you're posting here, just with the (offensive) pretence that it's about our safety. Your first post on this thread was about cyclists going the wrong way down 1-way streets. How many of the 5 accidents in the OP resulted from people doing that? 0. It was totally fucking irrelevant.


that's a lie. and you know it. why should i continue to engage with you when you're prepared to lie so flagrantly?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> that's a lie. and you know it. why should i continue to engage with you when you're prepared to lie so flagrantly?





Pickman's model said:


> i've said it before and i suppose i'll say it again but the number of accidents could be lowered by, among other measures, a mite more cyclist training. for example, every day i see cyclists heading down a street clearly and repeatedly marked
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, it's not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> No, it's not.


sorry, which part of that post says anything about a one-way street or people going the wrong way down it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento.  it's not a long post, which part of it says what you claim?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> sorry, which part of that post says anything about a one-way street or people going the wrong way down it?


The bit about the no-entry sign!?! Maybe you meant a bus lane or a tunnel or something. Is it any more relevant to the cases in the OP?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> The bit about the no-entry sign!?! Maybe you meant a bus lane or a tunnel or something. Is it any more relevant to the cases in the OP?


this is a no entry sign






but you didn't talk about that. you said i mentioned a one way street and people going the wrong way down it. perhaps you could show me where i mentioned that.

or you could apologise and piss off.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> this is a no entry sign
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh fuck off. You think you deserve an apology because of a slight mis-comprehension of one of your posts? Go on. I'm really really sorry that I mistook a no cyclists sign for a no entry sign. 

In other news. Your little anecdote about cyclists going past a no-cycling sign is of no reference whatsoever to the incidents in the OP, and you only brought it up because you have a pathological hatred of cyclists, and were happy to use people's deaths as an excuse to hector them, as per fucking usual.

Happy now? All straightened out?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Oh fuck off. You think you deserve an apology because of a slight mis-comprehension of one of your posts? Go on. I'm really really sorry that I mistook a no cyclists sign for a no entry sign.
> 
> In other news. Your little anecdote about cyclists going past a no-cycling sign is of no reference whatsoever to the incidents in the OP, and you only brought it up because you have a pathological hatred of cyclists, and were happy to use people's deaths as an excuse to hector them, as per fucking usual.
> 
> Happy now? All straightened out?


so we've gone from i don't give a fuck about them beyond the mild irritation they cause me to my apparently having a pathological hatred of cyclists. i haven't changed my view today, and none of your claims reflects my views on cyclists - the increasing hatred you think you discern over the past half hour exists purely in your imagination. the salience of my point is that the junction i have in mind is that where the architect was killed just the other day , it's long been a dangerous junction whether approached from the east along the (well signposted) bus-only bus lane or any other direction. btw if you're so easily confused by two very different signs (and there's still no explanation of whence you got the notion of people going the wrong way up a one-way street) perhaps you need to refresh your knowledge of the highway code.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. How much of it is simply beyond the cyclist's control, whatever their abilities/considerate attitude? A fair bit, I would guess. The only time I've been knocked off my bike in London, it was entirely the driver's fault, and there is little I could have done.



The Guardian bike blog had a piece about these death's which gives a little insight to your question

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/14/fifth-london-bike-death-bus-superhighway

Selected quotes from the story


> Boris Johnson has shrugged off calls for an urgent review of cyclingsafety in London after a man killed on Wednesday night became the fifth cyclist to die in the capital in nine days. The London mayor said that unless people obeyed the laws of the road, "there's no amount of traffic engineering that we invest in that is going to save people's lives".
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Boris Johnson and Darren Johnson just about seem to sum up the different points of view of this thread.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> so we've gone from i don't give a fuck about them beyond the mild irritation they cause me to my apparently having a pathological hatred of cyclists. i haven't changed my view today, and none of your claims reflects my views on cyclists - the increasing hatred you think you discern over the past half hour exists purely in your imagination. the salience of my point is that the junction i have in mind is that where the architect was killed just the other day , it's long been a dangerous junction whether approached from the east along the (well signposted) bus-only bus lane or any other direction. btw if you're so easily confused by two very different signs (and there's still no explanation of whence you got the notion of people going the wrong way up a one-way street) perhaps you need to refresh your knowledge of the highway code.



He wasn't going down the bus-only lane, hence it only seemed salient because you were looking for an opportunity to hector cyclists.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

Both cyclists. I used to live a couple of doors away from Darren Johnson in SE London. He's a regular cyclist, as is Boris J.

Not so surprised by Boris J's reaction. Probably thinks it will never happen to him, it's a typically Tory response: blame the unemployed for not having a job, blame the cyclists for being knocked over...


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Whilst irritating, all those "risk-taking behaviours" are almost a total non-entity as a factor in cycling fatalities. So even if you could persuade the minority of cyclists who do them regularly it would have virtually no impact whatsoever on the number of deaths.



Exactly.  To me there seems to be a bit of a pattern...

When cars often crash on a particular stretch of road people die, people refer to it as a 'dangerous junction', and quite quickly large sums of cash get spent in a redesign to fix the problem.

Where a road is designed badly for cyclists and pedestrians there is conflict, it's rarely fatal, and people grumble about inconsiderate cyclists.  There are calls to restrict access for cyclists and / or pedestrians and for extra policing.

Where cyclists end up getting killed it seems that rather than questioning the design of the road, the skills of the cyclist are called into question.  Where they wearing a helmet?  Was the road too busy for them to have been there in the first place?  Were they lit up like a Christmas tree etc.

Of course I accept I'm making sweeping generalisations, but I think there's some truth here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> He wasn't going down the bus-only lane, hence it only seemed salient because you were looking for an opportunity to hector cyclists.


tell you what, read the bit after the fucking comma.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> tell you what, read the bit after the fucking comma.


You mean the bit after the comma which actually contradicts the point you made in your first post? The bit that points out that the junction is dangerous regardless of whether you approach it legally or not? Really? That bit?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> You mean the bit after the comma which actually contradicts the point you made in your first post? The bit that points out that the junction is dangerous regardless of whether you approach it legally or not? Really? That bit?


there is no legal way for a cyclist to approach it from the east. approached from the east it is accessed by a narrow lane down which a bus and a cycle cannot pass side by side. the dangers posed from other directions are different. the clause you refer to does not in fact contradict what i said, it supplements it. but what you post in #144 confirms what i thought, that you don't read my posts with half the care and attention you think you do. and even when you do read them you don't understand what they fucking say or you wouldn't make such a twat of yourself.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> there is no legal way for a cyclist to approach it from the east. approached from the east it is accessed by a narrow lane down which a bus and a cycle cannot pass side by side. the dangers posed from other directions are different. the clause you refer to does not in fact contradict what i said, it supplements it. but what you post in #144 confirms what i thought, that you don't read my posts with half the care and attention you think you do. and even when you do read them you don't understand what they fucking say or you wouldn't make such a twat of yourself.





Pickman's model said:


> so we've gone from i don't give a fuck about them beyond the mild irritation they cause me to my apparently having a pathological hatred of cyclists. i haven't changed my view today, and none of your claims reflects my views on cyclists - the increasing hatred you think you discern over the past half hour exists purely in your imagination. the salience of my point is that the junction i have in mind is that where the architect was killed just the other day , it's long been a dangerous junction whether approached from the east along the (well signposted) bus-only bus lane or any other direction. btw if you're so easily confused by two very different signs (and there's still no explanation of whence you got the notion of people going the wrong way up a one-way street) perhaps you need to refresh your knowledge of the highway code.


tell you what, read the bit after the fucking comma


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 14, 2013)

As someone who lives outside London, these 'superhighways' seem to be having the exact opposite effect that they were intended to have.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> tell you what, read the bit after the fucking comma


what's your point, caller?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 14, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> As someone who lives outside London, these 'superhighways' seem to be having the exact opposite effect that they were intended to have.



Wel, the number of people cycling has is rising steeply, whether that's due to the CSHs or not is hard to say. If that's a measure of success, then they're working well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> As someone who lives outside London, these 'superhighways' seem to be having the exact opposite effect that they were intendede.


they're not super and they're not highways


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what's your point, caller?



I've already made it. 
The bit you've written after the comma states the Holborn junction is dangerous regardless of the direction it is approached from. Francis Golding approached it from a legal direction and was killed. Both of those points actually undermine your original point that cycle training was the key to cycle safety.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> tell you what, read the bit after the fucking comma.


 
This is not likely to be an effective way of correcting the behaviour of anyone who stops reading when they come to a comma.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> I've already made it.
> The bit you've written after the comma states the Holborn junction is dangerous regardless of the direction it is approached from. Francis Golding approached it from a legal direction and was killed. Both of those points actually undermine your original point that cycle training was the key to cycle safety.


you're lying again


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're lying again





> it's long been a dangerous junction whether approached from the east along the (well signposted) bus-only bus lane or any other direction.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. read my op again then apologise for misreprsenting me


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 14, 2013)

In what way are they not "super"?


----------



## agricola (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Boris Johnson and Darren Johnson just about seem to sum up the different points of view of this thread.



Both of the extreme views are equally wrong though - there is a simple way of dealing with HGVs (especially), and it would have a positive effect on reducing the number of cyclists killed on the roads.  (edit)  Instead, TFL actively work to promote the use of HGVs during the times when cyclists are much more likely to be on the road.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> In what way are they not "super"?


a strip of blue along a road is not super


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. let's take this in easy stages as you've shown you're far from being the sharpest tool in the box. i have seen someone injured at a dangerous junction where they shouldn't have been. two obvious issues here are 1) the general design of the junction, which as i have said is dangerous (for pedestrians as well as cyclists and drivers), and 2) a general point about understanding and obeying road signs. you've shown a flaccid grasp of road signs on this very thread, so it's not as though it is peculiar to only cycling novices. shall we continue this or are you getting tired of appearing a bit, er, thick?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i've said it before and i suppose i'll say it again but the number of accidents could be lowered by, among other measures, a mite more cyclist training. for example, every day i see cyclists heading down a street clearly and repeatedly marked
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll quote your OP for you, if that's any help.

On what planet is the post you accuse of "lying" a misrepresentation of this?



Lo Siento. said:


> I've already made it.
> The bit you've written after the comma states the Holborn junction is dangerous regardless of the direction it is approached from. Francis Golding approached it from a legal direction and was killed. Both of those points actually undermine your original point that cycle training was the key to cycle safety.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'll quote your OP for you, if that's any help.
> 
> On what planet is the post you accuse of "lying" a misrepresentation of this?


you say i claim training is "the" key to cycle safety. i don't. 

next.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 14, 2013)

I guess they would be more super if they went further south than Balham...


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you say i claim training is THE key to cycle safety. i don't. next.


It is _the only _thing you mention in your first response on a thread about cycling fatalities. It's obviously pretty bloody key.


----------



## Yelkcub (Nov 14, 2013)

I've been out in one of my own HGV's this afternoon. A number of cyclists, who with a modicum of common sense would have stayed behind me at lights, snuck into a tiny gap on my inside. Absolute craziness.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> It is _the only _thing you mention in your first response on a thread about cycling fatalities. It's obviously pretty bloody key.


and training is important, when you think that cyclists are going into a dangerous environment. but as i said in my op, there are other measures, such as road design and awareness training for motor drivers.

e2a: it's getting rather dull exchanging posts with a witling. either post up something interesting or piss off, it's not like you've added anything to this thread anyway.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Lo Siento. let's take this in easy stages as you've shown you're far from being the sharpest tool in the box. i have seen someone injured at a dangerous junction where they shouldn't have been. two obvious issues here are 1) the general design of the junction, which as i have said is dangerous (for pedestrians as well as cyclists and drivers), and 2) a general point about understanding and obeying road signs. you've shown a flaccid grasp of road signs on this very thread, so it's not as though it is peculiar to only cycling novices. shall we continue this or are you getting tired of appearing a bit, er, thick?



It's so very cutting to accuse people who disagree with you of being thick, I'm sure. 

Let me break something else down for you. 
What I'm talking about are _your_ priorities, and your evident anxious need to criticise cyclists. Your first post, where you bring up information that is totally irrelevant to the actual incidents in the OP, simply because you are anxious to criticise cyclists, is the evidence of this. Your later post, where you acknowledge that the junction in question is dangerous regardless of whether cyclists behave correctly or not actually reinforces the ridiculousness of _your _priorities in your first post. Do you get me?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> and training is important, when you think that cyclists are going into a dangerous environment. but as i said in my op, there are other measures, such as road design and awareness training for motor drivers.
> 
> e2a: it's getting rather dull exchanging posts with a witling. either post up something interesting or piss off, it's not like you've added anything to this thread anyway.



Other measures that your OP does not mention. And that your 2nd post explicitly says cyclists shouldn't concentrate on. In fact, you make no suggestions on this thread that are not implicit criticisms of cyclists.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i've said it before and i suppose i'll say it again but the number of accidents could be lowered by, among other measures, a mite more cyclist training
> 
> a quick read of the highway code might be a good starting point for cyclists.
> 
> ...



That's just the first 2 pages. Post after post criticising cyclists. On a thread about 5 people who were killed doing perfectly legal things on bicycles.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's so very cutting to accuse people who disagree with you of being thick, I'm sure.
> 
> Let me break something else down for you.
> What I'm talking about are _your_ priorities, and your evident anxious need to criticise cyclists. Your first post, where you bring up information that is totally irrelevant to the actual incidents in the OP, simply because you are anxious to criticise cyclists, is the evidence of this. Your later post, where you acknowledge that the junction in question is dangerous regardless of whether cyclists behave correctly or not actually reinforces the ridiculousness of _your _priorities in your first post. Do you get me?


if cyclists behave correctly then there is no danger to them along the bus lane i have referred to as they will not be in it. that should be a simple point: act according to the rule of the road at that point and there is no danger as you will not be there. i was introducing something i was aware of myself, something i had seen. and it seems to me that there is a great deal of similar behaviour by cyclists which puts them in danger: see, for example, Yelkcub's post above. now, it's recognised that junction is dangerous. while cyclists may well approach it legally, whether they do so sensibly is something more open to question. i will be interested to read the report of the inquest into francis golding. 

but you say i'm anxious to criticise cyclists. it should go without saying that cyclists behaving in an anti-social way, ignoring the rule of the road, should be fair game for criticism. but criticism is not simply putting the boot in but also suggesting remedies. i have made positive proposals on this thread. you haven't. you've blustered and lied and lied and blustered in the hope that you'll be able to land a few hits on me. however, imo the score's quite the reverse as you started off by putting the ball in the back of your own neck. either post something interesting and worth replying to or stick me on ignore. carrying on in the same vein just makes you look weak and vindictive rather than someone with a reasoned argument.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Other measures that your OP does not mention. And that your 2nd post explicitly says cyclists shouldn't concentrate on. In fact, you make no suggestions on this thread that are not implicit criticisms of cyclists.


i think you'll find my second post says nothing of the sort. you're very mendacious today.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 14, 2013)

moon said:


> We need a protest!! Does anyone know if there is one planned???



Well, I would hope that Critical Mass is well attended this month. If any are not aware, it is a friendly gathering of bike riders meeting on
the last Friday of every month at about 18:00 at South Bank, who just go for a friendly ride around town which may finish with a drink or two.
It is not organised and neither is it endorsed by the likes of LCC, CTA etc. Though many members of the two groups usually turn up.

As for solutions, one of them may be to bring back some sort of cycle training/road awarness sort of thing for everyone at school.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if cyclists behave correctly then there is no danger to them along the bus lane i have referred to as they will not be in it. that should be a simple point: act according to the rule of the road at that point and there is no danger as you will not be there. i was introducing something i was aware of myself, something i had seen. and it seems to me that there is a great deal of similar behaviour by cyclists which puts them in danger: see, for example, Yelkcub's post above. now, it's recognised that junction is dangerous. while cyclists may well approach it legally, whether they do so sensibly is something more open to question. i will be interested to read the report of the inquest into francis golding.
> 
> but you say i'm anxious to criticise cyclists. it should go without saying that cyclists behaving in an anti-social way, ignoring the rule of the road, should be fair game for criticism. but criticism is not simply putting the boot in but also suggesting remedies. i have made positive proposals on this thread. you haven't. you've blustered and lied and lied and blustered in the hope that you'll be able to land a few hits on me. however, imo the score's quite the reverse as you started off by putting the ball in the back of your own neck. either post something interesting and worth replying to or stick me on ignore. carrying on in the same vein just makes you look weak and vindictive rather than someone with a reasoned argument.


You're in your own little world.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 14, 2013)

Yelkcub said:


> I've been out in one of my own HGV's this afternoon. A number of cyclists, who with a modicum of common sense would have stayed behind me at lights, snuck into a tiny gap on my inside. Absolute craziness.


Have you ever seen 'Silly Cyclists' on youtube? Some of them are really lucky not to be killed or injured.

I am not having a go at ALL cyclists, by the way, just pointing out the ones who are idiotic enough to endanger themselves or others on the roads.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> That's just the first 2 pages. Post after post criticising cyclists. On a thread about 5 people who were killed doing perfectly legal things on bicycles.


while i don't dispute what they were doing was legal, i am not so sure that all of them were doing it sensibly. i note that there have not been five drivers charged and before drawing any conclusion on their behaviour i would prefer to wait for the inquests to report. you  may believe you know all you need to about the incidents. i don't agree. but it's my opinion that to minimise the number of cyclist dead some action should be taken by cyclists to help them avoid getting into the same position. i'm aware action needs to be taken in other areas too: and i have mentioned some of them on this thread. now pls either put me on ignore or post up something which moves things forwards because you're becoming rather tiresome.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> You're in your own little world.


have you read my second post (#13) yet?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> while i don't dispute what they were doing was legal, i am not so sure that all of them were doing it sensibly. i note that there have not been five drivers charged and before drawing any conclusion on their behaviour i would prefer to wait for the inquests to report. you  may believe you know all you need to about the incidents. i don't agree. but it's my opinion that to minimise the number of cyclist dead some action should be taken by cyclists to help them avoid getting into the same position. i'm aware action needs to be taken in other areas too: and i have mentioned some of them on this thread. now pls either put me on ignore or post up something which moves things forwards because you're becoming rather tiresome.


I really don't give a shit what you think of my contribution to this thread, and I'm not putting you on ignore. Your assumptions and prejudices in this post, and all your others, are pretty clear.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> seems to me that many cyclists place issues of speed above other road users (ducking onto pavements, going down one way streets the wrong way, cycling along roads they're prohibited from using, going through red lights) and in so doing undermine their own safety. cyclists imo frequently privilege their own use of the roads (and all too often pavements) above other road users and pedestrians on the foundation - which has some basis in fact - that the infrastructure's not right, ignoring that the infrastructure in cities often isn't really right for hgvs or for pedestrians. it's not as though cyclists are the only people not fully catered for by the existing infrastructure. perhaps learning to live within what there is now while agitating for a better situation would be more useful at the moment than a constant refrain of 'better infrastructure'. for years now people have been warned against undertaking hgvs and the like, yet people continue to do it, all too often ending in the employment of an undertaker. yes, there need to be changes. but there are measures which could be taken now, by cyclists, by drivers, by town planners, which would at least alleviate the problem. why not concentrate of achieving the more easily possible than an utter change to the cityscape which isn't going to happen for anyone for some time to come?





Lo Siento. said:


> Other measures that your OP does not mention. And that your 2nd post explicitly says cyclists shouldn't concentrate on. In fact, you make no suggestions on this thread that are not implicit criticisms of cyclists.



I'm pretty clearly paraphrasing you. If you think that's "lying", you're fucked in the head.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 14, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> 'Silly Cyclists' on youtube?



Is there a Partridge award for prematurely middle-aged presenters?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'm pretty clearly paraphrasing you. If you think that's "lying", you're fucked in the head.


that's not my second post. counting's not your strong suit, is it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> I really don't give a shit what you think of my contribution to this thread, and I'm not putting you on ignore. Your assumptions and prejudices in this post, and all your others, are pretty clear.


your assumption is you know what you're talking about, which is obviously only rarely the case.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> that's not my second post. counting's not your strong suit, is it.



Oh ffs. What the fuck does it matter if it's your second or third post? Your second post basically says the same thing anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Oh ffs. What the fuck does it matter if it's your second or third post? Your second post basically says the same thing anyway.


no, my second post is having a pop at crispy for a vacuous post. doesn't say anything about cyclists in at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

let's just cut to the chase: you think i'm a cunt. but you still have a higher opinion of me than i do of you.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> let's just cut to the chase: you think i'm a cunt. but you still have a higher opinion of me than i do of you.


Unsurprising. Apparently you have a pathological hatred of all cyclists.



> i've said it before and i suppose i'll say it again but the number of accidents could be lowered by, among other measures, a mite more cyclist training
> 
> a quick read of the highway code might be a good starting point for cyclists.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Unsurprising. Apparently you have a pathological hatred of all cyclists.


yes. you've said it before but it doesn't become any truer on repetition. if you highlight anything it's that i don't like anti-social cycling. you seem intent on defending such behaviour. i wonder why.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Oh ffs. What the fuck does it matter if it's your second or third post? Your second post basically says the same thing anyway.



Ah, you have stumbled into the area of 'meta-conversation' - a conversation about a conversation.  I experienced one of these with Pickman's model a few days ago.  I decided that, as a general rule, as soon as the conversation moves away from what you think, to what someone said in a particular post, it's time to leave it.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 14, 2013)

Lo SIento, you realise this war can never be won?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Ah, you have stumbled into the area of 'meta-conversation' - a conversation about a conversation.  I experienced one of these with Pickman's model a few days ago.  I decided that, as a general rule, as soon as the conversation moves away from what you think, to what someone said in a particular post, it's time to leave it.


not a bad rule


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Lo SIento, you realise this war can never be won?


he has to learn this lesson himself.


----------



## laptop (Nov 14, 2013)

My attention wandered. Had to do some work. Is it now officially the case that any person who doesn't acknowledge that _all_ cyclists are wonderfully angelic has a pathological hatred of _all_?

Is anyone doing any research on how this came to be the case?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

laptop said:


> My attention wandered. Had to do some work. Is it now officially the case that any person who doesn't acknowledge that _all_ cyclists are wonderfully angelic has a pathological hatred of _all_?
> 
> Is anyone doing any research on how this came to be the case?


because Lo Siento. is the arbiter of cycle-love here.


----------



## laptop (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> because Lo Siento. is the arbiter of cycle-love here.



Ah. Psychological research, rather than moral philosophy or criminology, then.

Or is there something physical about bicycles that has a somatic effect on susceptible individuals?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

laptop said:


> Ah. Psychological research, rather than moral philosophy or criminology, then.
> 
> Or is there something physical about bicycles that has a somatic effect on susceptible individuals?


cycling has a deleterious effect on the intellect of those whose cerebellums reside in their posteriors


----------



## laptop (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> cycling has a deleterious effect on the intellect of those whose cerebellums reside in their posteriors



Poetic.

Justice?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

laptop said:


> Poetic.
> 
> Justice?


perhaps


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 14, 2013)

laptop said:


> My attention wandered. Had to do some work. Is it now officially the case that any person who doesn't acknowledge that _all_ cyclists are wonderfully angelic has a pathological hatred of _all_?
> 
> Is anyone doing any research on how this came to be the case?



Well, no.  I don't think than anyone is claiming that anyone is angelic.

Personally I'm angry that five people, not cyclist, drivers, or what ever, five people have been killed in London in a week.  I'm angry that Boris Johnson thinks this to be acceptable.  Even if the people killed are at fault that does not make it okay.

Many of these people who have been killed have been using infrastructure designed specifically for cyclists - and that infrastructure is clearly not fit for purpose.

It's fuck all to do with cyclists being angelic.  It's beyond any phony war between cyclists and drivers.  It's about people getting killed and what to do about it.

If you blame the person getting killed then nothing can, nor will be done about it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> If you blame the person getting killed then nothing can, nor will be done about it.



Yep. Johnson is being a total cunt about it. In many accidents, both parties have made mistakes - the cyclist has done something a bit unwise or risky, the driver hasn't seen the cyclist when they really should have: a fatal combination of mistakes made in a built environment that makes such mistakes possible. 

This is no comment on the recent cases, but a general comment on how accidents tend to happen. And for Johnson to wash his hands of any responsibility for the bit he can change - the quality of the built environment - is disgraceful.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

As for this thread, pickman's, you have had a very general moan about a bunch of things that annoy you about the behaviour of a certain minority of cyclists, but you have made no link between those behaviours and cyclist accidents. That's a lack of analysis worthy of Boris Johnson himself, and your gripes appear to be utterly beside the point wrt to at least the last two deaths this week, and possibly all five.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2013)

I've just had a quick look for comparisons between Holland and the UK. Roughly the same number of cyclist deaths - around 150-200 mark per year - but many many times more cyclist miles are put in in Holland than the UK, approximately 10 times more. And very few people in Holland wear helmets - that isn't the reason for fewer deaths. And here is a difference - more than half of the people in Holland who die cycling are over 65, many of them just fall off, they are not crashed into.



> more than half of all cycle deaths last year were people over the age of 65, an incredible figure! In 2012, 200 people cycling were killed in the Netherlands, but of those 200 no less than 108 were over the age of 65! It becomes even more mind-boggling when you consider that 60% of all bicycle crashes with serious injuries were single vehicle crashes. No motor vehicle, no other cyclists, not even a pedestrian was involved. Dutch elderly seem to just fall off their bicycles and they often sustain severe injuries or they even die.



From here.

The quality of the built environment is overwhelmingly the key factor determining the frequency and nature of cycling accidents. Not naughty cyclists, not reckless helmet-avoiders.


----------



## laptop (Nov 15, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Well, no.  I don't think than anyone is claiming that anyone is angelic.



Can someone translate my post into Basic English for this person?

Ta.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 15, 2013)

We need proper space for cycling in London.

In practice this means segregated cycle lanes on busy/main roads and significant changes at junctions which separate cyclists and motorised traffic in space and time. We also need the quiet/backstreet routes promoting and improved; but cyclists are being killed by large vehicles at junctions on busy roads, so this must be the immediate focus. We need to reduce conflict.

Cycling is not just about enabling people to get to work quickly in London and reducing the strain on the roads and public transport, it's also about getting around your community and making London a liveable city. We need facilities that your 8 year old kids and your granny could use safely and confidently.

The reason proper infrastructure isn't happening is Boris Johnson and Transport for London are unwilling to consider _anything _which reduces 'traffic flow' or space for motorised vehicles. In the eyes of the politicians and TfL, the motor vehicle is king. And therein lies the problem.

Imagine what mass cycling and walking could do for our city. We could revolutionise London (and other towns and cities across the UK) by prioritising pedestrians and cyclists. But the political will isn't there yet.

However, I think the battle is being won...


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2013)

Utopia said:


> 5 innocent people dead needlessly & you focus on the validity of the group hosting the online petition. Good grief.




what were they innocent of?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 15, 2013)

This is the sort of thing the cycle 'superhighways' do: put people on bikes in direct conflict with heavy traffic - in this case, by encouraging cyclists across an exit where drivers are turning left. (It's at Oval, the corner of Kennington Park Road and Brixton Road.) This lady only just saves herself from getting squished under the wheels of a large van:



The fact this was captured on film has meant the driver has been traced and punished. Reducing these conflicts will help all road users. This sort of stuff happens every day on the roads in London.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The quality of the built environment is overwhelmingly the key factor determining the frequency and nature of cycling accidents. Not naughty cyclists, not reckless helmet-avoiders.



Of course it is, Pickman's Model is talking utter bollocks on this thread, as he always does, he always crops up to troll cycle safety threads - pretty shitty taste when so many have just been killed. 

And I'm loving his pettifogging legalism that because the police haven't charged any car drivers with anything, that's all ok when it's obviously part of the problem. I'm sure that's just what he says when the police kill someone. Actually it probably will be, give him enough years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> Of course it is, Pickman's Model is talking utter bollocks on this thread, as he always does, he always crops up to troll cycle safety threads - pretty shitty taste when so many have just been killed.
> 
> And I'm loving his pettifogging legalism that because the police haven't charged any car drivers with anything, that's all ok when it's obviously part of the problem. I'm sure that's just what he says when the police kill someone. Actually it probably will be, give him enough years.


i was under the impression that no car drivers were involved, that the vehicles had been hgvs, coaches etc. this may explain why you find no mention of car drivers. given even the most ardent apologist for cycling admits that in 1/3 of accidents involving cyclists the cyclists are at fault, it might be imagined that at least one of the unfortunate cyclists may have been to blame. however, no one yet knows all the ins and outs of all five accidents and rather than apportion blame what i in fact said was that i await the outcome of the inquests with interest. so, no i did not say that because the police haven't charged it's all ok.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As for this thread, pickman's, you have had a very general moan about a bunch of things that annoy you about the behaviour of a certain minority of cyclists, but you have made no link between those behaviours and cyclist accidents. That's a lack of analysis worthy of Boris Johnson himself, and your gripes appear to be utterly beside the point wrt to at least the last two deaths this week, and possibly all five.


i think you'll find i did, when i said above that cyclists who run red lights etc are likely themselves to be less safe. but hey, let's not let what i said get in the way of a good dig.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find i did, when i said above that cyclists who run red lights etc are likely themselves to be less safe. but hey, let's not let what i said get in the way of a good dig.



you asserted that there was a link. You did not demonstrate one. You're as bad as boris johnson.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> This is the sort of thing the cycle 'superhighways' do: put people on bikes in direct conflict with heavy traffic - in this case, by encouraging cyclists across an exit where drivers are turning left. (It's at Oval, the corner of Kennington Park Road and Brixton Road.) This lady only just saves herself from getting squished under the wheels of a large van:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact this was captured on film has meant the driver has been traced and punished. Reducing these conflicts will help all road users. This sort of stuff happens every day on the roads in London.




I remember that clip. But I have to say although the lorry driver was imo obviously driving like a cunt (ie normally for London), the junction's design makes conflict inevitable. The only way to take that junction safely is to get right out into the lane and not let anyone overtake, but then you are at risk of getting some nasty piece of work getting on your back wheel and blatting their horn at you for fun.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you asserted that there was a link. You did not demonstrate one. You're as bad as boris johnson.



He's talking crap as usual. Red-light jumping by motors is nearly always amber-gambling - dangerous and illegal but not_ that_ dangerous imo although it seems to me the degree of it is getting pretty gross ie more dangerous. But cyclists are often much safer if they jump lights - gyratories are the obvious example since it allows them to lane cross without being overtaken by accelerating cars. Anyone who used to cycle the Vauxhall gyratory before the cycle lanes were put on the pavement (I did it all the time) will know it was far far safer to get through traffic lights (regardless of colour) to traffic islands than to wait for 3 lanes of accelerating, merging and de-merging cars to be fighting through the same space. Sometimes it wasn't possible due to cars that had the green light making it too dangerous, but if it was possible it was absolutely crystal clear that it was safer.

Back in 2007 it was reported pretty widely that TfL suppressed a report that they believed showed that red-light jumping made cyclists safer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you asserted that there was a link. You did not demonstrate one. You're as bad as boris johnson.


you're worse than bj


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2013)

That doesn't surprise me. As i said earlier a really cyclist friendly thing to do would be to nake cars wait until all the cyclists at the front have crossed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're worse than bj


That doesn't work now does it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> Back in 2007 it was reported pretty widely that TfL suppressed a report that they believed showed that red-light jumping made cyclists safer.


a search of all english language news on nexis for 'transport for london' or 'tfl' and 'suppressed' and 'report' for the period 01 jan 2007 to 31 dec 2007 returns no results. perhaps you could provide a link to substantiate your claim.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That doesn't work now does it?


you said i made no link. i clearly made a link. you now say i haven't demonstrated a link. that's shifting the goalposts. i had done what you said i hadn't: if i'm as bad as bj, you're worse.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> a search of all english language news on nexis for 'transport for london' or 'tfl' and 'suppressed' and 'report' for the period 01 jan 2007 to 31 dec 2007 returns no results. perhaps you could provide a link to substantiate your claim.




Oooh look this took me all of 5 seconds on a little something I found called "Google"

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/male-cyclists-who-jump-red-lights-are-safer-7181197.html


----------



## weepiper (Nov 15, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> This is the sort of thing the cycle 'superhighways' do: put people on bikes in direct conflict with heavy traffic - in this case, by encouraging cyclists across an exit where drivers are turning left. (It's at Oval, the corner of Kennington Park Road and Brixton Road.) This lady only just saves herself from getting squished under the wheels of a large van:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact this was captured on film has meant the driver has been traced and punished. Reducing these conflicts will help all road users. This sort of stuff happens every day on the roads in London.




Oh my god that's a horrible bit of design.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Oh my god that's a horrible bit of design.



It really is, I used to have to use it every day. It replaced a previous dangerous design and made it worse, as every single cyclists could see. What's particularly annoying about it is that there is loads and loads of road space there for a dedicated cycle lane but instead there is this usual obsession with "maintaining capacity" (i.e capacity for motors, i.e. _reducing_ overall junction capacity). If it was a bottleneck like Herne Hill or something, I'd have some sympathy for the designers. But this junction is obviously going to kill someone, probably some poor sodding naive who's just started cycling and hasn't realised that they are zero-rated in importance once they get on a bike.

Meanwhile Pickman's Model and all the other little Clarksons will reflexively blame the victim.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you said i made no link. i clearly made a link. you now say i haven't demonstrated a link. that's shifting the goalposts. i had done what you said i hadn't: if i'm as bad as bj, you're worse.


Why not be a better person and admit you were wrong? There's no shame in it - you didn't realise the evidence went against what you thought. The problem isn't as you thought it was. You've learned something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> Oooh look this took me all of 5 seconds on a little something I found called "Google"
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/male-cyclists-who-jump-red-lights-are-safer-7181197.html


 one source = widely reported. cheers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> one source = widely reported. cheers.


Why not be a better person and admit you were wrong? There's no shame in it - you didn't realise the evidence went against what you thought. The problem isn't as you thought it was. You've learned something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why not be a better person and admit you were wrong? There's no shame in it - you didn't realise the evidence went against what you thought. The problem isn't as you thought it was. You've learned something.


you're like that bot who was about last night posting up shite. i haven't read the report fully so i won't comment yet except to say it doesn't conclude that cyclists should go through red lights to be safer, it says that means should be investigated to ensure the c.15% who do go through red lights obey the signals. as for evidence going against me, i have yet to see any evidence presented on the issue of cyclists going the wrong way down one-way streets, jumping on and off pavements, etc etc.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why not be a better person and admit you were wrong? .





I think you might be wasting your time here. You can see this with just about every exchange he has on U75. It's your basic PSB, they are highly educated and articulate but emotionally they're screwed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> It really is, I used to have to use it every day. It replaced a previous dangerous design and made it worse, as every single cyclists could see. What's particularly annoying about it is that there is loads and loads of road space there for a dedicated cycle lane but instead there is this usual obsession with "maintaining capacity" (i.e capacity for motors, i.e. _reducing_ overall junction capacity). If it was a bottleneck like Herne Hill or something, I'd have some sympathy for the designers. But this junction is obviously going to kill someone, probably some poor sodding naive who's just started cycling and hasn't realised that they are zero-rated in importance once they get on a bike.
> 
> Meanwhile Pickman's Model and all the other little Clarksons will reflexively blame the victim.


 i don't know how you can describe someone who can't drive and travels solely by walking or public transport as a little clarkson. you're right, of course, that there's a lot of diabolical design at junctions, whether south of the river in the example in the video, at holborn or at king's cross which can and should be changed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know how you can describe someone who can't drive and travels solely by walking or public transport as a little clarkson. you're right, of course, that there's a lot of diabolical design at junctions, whether south of the river in the example in the video, at holborn or at king's cross which can and should be changed.


Boris Johnson is a cyclist around London. Doesn't stop him being a twat towards cyclists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Boris Johnson is a cyclist around London. Doesn't stop him being a twat towards cyclists.


and i've not seen him described here as a little clarkson.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> I think you might be wasting your time here. You can see this with just about every exchange he has on U75. It's your basic PSB, they are highly educated and articulate but emotionally they're screwed.


your typical mo: cast aspersions on someone's mental or emotional state.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

Of course, it's my problem .



Crispy said:


> Sorry Pickman's I should not have engaged with you, it never ends well.





fredfelt said:


> In replying to you I thought, perhaps naively, that we could have a constructive, non-confrontational exchange of ideas.



[/quote]


Miss-Shelf said:


> I think you take an unnecessarily antagonist tone of posting





Lo Siento. said:


> You're in your own little world.





Lo Siento. said:


> I really don't give a shit what you think of my contribution to this thread, and I'm not putting you on ignore. Your assumptions and prejudices in this post, and all your others, are pretty clear.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 15, 2013)

Oh dear.

Unsubscribes from thread for the second time ....


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> your typical mo: cast aspersions on someone's mental or emotional state.



My "typical mo"? I'm sure you'll have hoards of links to all the posts where I continually do this.

I think you've not realised it's just what I say to _you_ - and that's because I think it's true. Although even here you're not quite right - "mentally" (if by this you mean intellectually) you are fine, it's your emotional foundation that is shot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> My "typical mo"? I'm sure you'll have hoards of links to all the posts where I continually do this.
> 
> I think you've not realised it's just what I say to _you_ - and that's because I think it's true. Although even here you're not quite right - "mentally" (if by this you mean intellectually) you are fine, it's your emotional foundation that is shot.


i don't have a hoards of your posts but i wouldn't be surprised if hordes of your posts contained similar claims.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> Of course, it's my problem .


i'm not seeing anything about being emotionally all over the place here.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't have a hoards of your posts but i wouldn't be surprised if hordes of your posts contained similar claims.





So you're talking shite then?


----------



## weepiper (Nov 15, 2013)

Tell me when the pointless derailing bickering's stopped yeah?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> So you're talking shite then?


no more than you with your abandonment of arguing and preference here for the ad hominem


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Tell me when the pointless derailing bickering's stopped yeah?


this is urban, where we have pointless bickering 24/7


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 15, 2013)

this is going nowhere :B


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

weepiper and TotallyGreatGuy - I got to say I am surprised that you think this is 'just pointless bickering' - ie that it's six of one, half a dozen of the other (not directly what you said TGG but implied in the context).

PM has a ton of form for pointless thread-fucking with attention-seeking antics and he's got a particular habit of trolling cycling threads (usually ones where people are trying to discuss safety) with snidey legalistic anti-cycling stuff. He's directly, visibly pissed off at least half the posters on this thread already. If enough people tell _him_ to piss off, even he might get the cue & then the thread might get somewhere useful.

But if you think that you can get a useful debate going with him included then I'm all eyes here, I haven't seen anyone else make a success of it, so good luck.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> weepiper and TotallyGreatGuy - I got to say I am surprised that you think this is 'just pointless bickering' - ie that it's six of one, half a dozen of the other (not directly what you said TGG but implied in the context).
> 
> PM has a ton of form for pointless thread-fucking with attention-seeking antics and he's got a particular habit of trolling cycling threads (usually ones where people are trying to discuss safety) with snidey legalistic anti-cycling stuff. He's directly, visibly pissed off at least half the posters on this thread already. If enough people tell _him_ to piss off, even he might get the cue & then the thread might get somewhere useful.
> 
> But if you think that you can get a useful debate going with him included then I'm all eyes here, I haven't seen anyone else make a success of it, so good luck.



There's absolutely no point engaging. This is what he does, all over the board, it's not just about cyclists.


----------



## Remus Harbank (Nov 15, 2013)

1) The 'super highways' are nothing but a PR piece that's slowly falling apart/fading into nothingness
2) Cycling should be encouraged, but there needs to be much better investment in infrastructure (I wouldn't get on a bike for anything at the moment)
3) HGV/Lorry/Van drivers are often under immense pressure/knackered and don't see/mind anything that's not a motorised vehicle, many are also from outside London, unfamiliar with the layout
4) Some cyclists do seem to think they are God's gift to the world, not realising that they are nothing but a few stone of soft, squishy flesh on a wireframe
5) Pedestrians are and should be king – they don't use any resources but their own and have the roughest deal really
6) Cyclists speeding down pavements should have their bikes confiscated, as should cyclists without lights at night
7) Highway code training should be absolutely mandatory when purchasing a bike – anything that can go up to 20mph is dangerous to anyone that can't
8) A truly better infrastructure is not going to happen any time soon – there's no real political will to change this (forget about the blonde _Cousin It _in city hall)


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

weepiper said:


> There's absolutely no point engaging. This is what he does, all over the board, it's not just about cyclists.



Ok fair enough. I feel like I have to post something in case it's one of the other poster's first encounter with him.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 15, 2013)

Pickman very clearly states he is a bully. Engaging with him is futile most of the time from what I have seen. He is clearly trolling (which I have nothing against) and people are taking the bait. DNFTT.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2013)

Not so sure about point 8), Remus. There has been an explosion of cycling in London in the past decade. The political will to change things could appear just as quickly.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 15, 2013)

Telling him to piss off (which I have no right to do really) would have the opposite effect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> weepiper and TotallyGreatGuy - I got to say I am surprised that you think this is 'just pointless bickering' - ie that it's six of one, half a dozen of the other (not directly what you said TGG but implied in the context).
> 
> PM has a ton of form for pointless thread-fucking with attention-seeking antics and he's got a particular habit of trolling cycling threads (usually ones where people are trying to discuss safety) with snidey legalistic anti-cycling stuff. He's directly, visibly pissed off at least half the posters on this thread already. If enough people tell _him_ to piss off, even he might get the cue & then the thread might get somewhere useful.
> 
> But if you think that you can get a useful debate going with him included then I'm all eyes here, I haven't seen anyone else make a success of it, so good luck.


let's see, have you tried that on this thread? or have you jumped in in a manner calculated to put most people's backs up? telling people to hound someone off a thread is more likely to have the opposite effect than to succeed.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> Telling him to piss off (which I have no right to do really) would have the opposite effect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> Engaging with him is futile most of the time from what I have seen.


why not try to engage, you might be surprised.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 15, 2013)

I said most of the time as a caveat. I imagine you would be a highly interesting fellow to discuss many subjects with.


----------



## Winot (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> I remember that clip. But I have to say although the lorry driver was imo obviously driving like a cunt (ie normally for London), the junction's design makes conflict inevitable. The only way to take that junction safely is to get right out into the lane and not let anyone overtake, but then you are at risk of getting some nasty piece of work getting on your back wheel and blatting their horn at you for fun.


 
I cycle home that way and noticed that since the resurfacing work the painted arrow now is a 'turn left' arrow rather than a 'turn left or go straight'.  No doubt that'll be used in the event of a future similar collision to argue that the cyclist was in the wrong lane .

Personally speaking I start off at the post office lights (facing the park) in the rh lane, stick to the right round the bend, then filter into the middle of the middle lane in order to go straight on at the junction in question.  I have been hooted at a number of times by drivers who I am 'holding up', but fuck 'em.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 15, 2013)

If I was routinely hooted at from behind, I would fit my twin air horns facing backwards.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> let's see, have you tried that on this thread? or have you jumped in in a manner calculated to put most people's backs up? telling people to hound someone off a thread is more likely to have the opposite effect than to succeed.





Shut up and get on with being a prick, you're less objectionable than when you pretend to be normal.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

Winot said:


> I cycle home that way and noticed that since the resurfacing work the painted arrow now is a 'turn left' arrow rather than a 'turn left or go straight'.  No doubt that'll be used in the event of a future similar collision to argue that the cyclist was in the wrong lane .
> 
> Personally speaking I start off at the post office lights (facing the park) in the rh lane, stick to the right round the bend, then filter into the middle of the middle lane in order to go straight on at the junction in question.  I have been hooted at a number of times by drivers who I am 'holding up', but fuck 'em.



It could be solved without any problem by letting cyclists go 20 seconds ahead of cars at those lights - or by making the left turn a traffic light turn and giving cyclists about 8 seconds start. The amount of effort that is put into facilitating the car-using minority in London is amazing, it's like they actually put in extra work to make the roads extra dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> Telling him to piss off (which I have no right to do really) would have the opposite effect.




The real solution is the Ignore function which has awesome new functionality - they are completely wiped out. It's both  and very .


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> Shut up and get on with being a prick, you're less objectionable than when you pretend to be normal.


it's disappointing how much of your discourse is based on 'do as i say not as i do'. your brief foray into trying to put forward an argument seems to have been more an aberration than theme.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> It could be solved without any problem by letting cyclists go 20 seconds ahead of cars at those lights - or by making the left turn a traffic light turn and giving cyclists about 8 seconds start. The amount of effort that is put into facilitating the* car-using minority* in London is amazing, it's like they actually put in extra work to make the roads extra dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.


Absolutely this. It's a simple, workable, effective solution. 

And the bit in bold is a very good thing to remember, too.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 15, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> Pickman very clearly states he is a bully. Engaging with him is futile most of the time from what I have seen. He is clearly trolling (which I have nothing against) and people are taking the bait. DNFTT.


 

you really havent been here very long have you ? you may see it as bullying, i see it as objective disagreement, and if you cant understand the actual posts im not surprised you see it as bullying.

As PM says try and engage, you might be surprised when you actually have an intellectual arguement


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 15, 2013)

Hey Pickman's model now you've got the bad cyclist behaviour off your chest, what do you think of my suggested solution in this post:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-1-week-in-london.317237/page-7#post-12704294

And the poor standard of road design in this video:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-1-week-in-london.317237/page-7#post-12704312


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 15, 2013)

Interesting list Remus.



Remus Harbank said:


> 1) The 'super highways' are nothing but a PR piece that's slowly falling apart/fading into nothingness
> 2) Cycling should be encouraged, but there needs to be much better investment in infrastructure (I wouldn't get on a bike for anything at the moment)
> 3) HGV/Lorry/Van drivers are often under immense pressure/knackered and don't see/mind anything that's not a motorised vehicle, many are also from outside London, unfamiliar with the layout


Yes, yes and yes.



Remus Harbank said:


> 4) Some cyclists do seem to think they are God's gift to the world, not realising that they are nothing but a few stone of soft, squishy flesh on a wireframe


Yeah there's lots of twats on bikes, just like there are lots of twats driving motor vehicles. But I think most cyclists are _acutely aware _of the fact they are merely soft, squishy flesh…which is why drivers will often get an earful from a cyclist when there's a near miss.



Remus Harbank said:


> 5) Pedestrians are and should be king – they don't use any resources but their own and have the roughest deal really


Yes. Any improvement in cycling infrastructure shouldn't be at the expense of pedestrians.



Remus Harbank said:


> 6) Cyclists speeding down pavements should have their bikes confiscated, as should cyclists without lights at night


No. This is typical knee-jerk nonsense. I know those activities are wrong, but do you think drivers should have their cars confiscated if they break the speed limit, mount the pavement or fail to put their lights on at night? The reason someone is cycling on the pavement may be they are too scared to cycle on the road - hence we need space for cycling.



Remus Harbank said:


> 7) Highway code training should be absolutely mandatory when purchasing a bike – anything that can go up to 20mph is dangerous to anyone that can't


I can't agree. There's lots of cycle training available, both for adults via local authorities and for kids in schools via the Bikeability scheme - and it's useful - but it's not the answer. We have extensive training and testing for drivers, but it still doesn't stop people driving like dicks. Proper space for cycling is what is required.



Remus Harbank said:


> 8) A truly better infrastructure is not going to happen any time soon – there's no real political will to change this (forget about the blonde _Cousin It _in city hall)


I agree. The mayor is saying the right things but not backing it up with action. You'll hear him say "we're putting £1billion into cycling" - this is actually £913million over 10 years, so £91m per year. And only half of that comes from TfL - the other half is from local authorities. So the cycle budget is actually £45m per year (a drop in the ocean compared to the roads budget) and lots of that goes on things other than infrastructure, such as the cycle hire scheme.

And although warm words have been coming from the Mayor and TfL via their recent cycle strategy, we're not seeing enough action on the ground. Lots of Boroughs/local authorities (who are responsible for the non-TfL roads, i.e. not the main roads) are still continually coming up with road and junction schemes which offer little more than paint on the road for cyclists. The Mayor is slowly being forced into action….but local authorities are still dragging their feet.


----------



## laptop (Nov 15, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> do you think drivers should have their cars confiscated if they break the speed limit, mount the pavement or fail to put their lights on at night?



No.

They should be made to eat the tyres.

They kill someone, the whole car.


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> you really havent been here very long have you ? you may see it as bullying, i see it as objective disagreement, and if you cant understand the actual posts im not surprised you see it as bullying.
> 
> As PM says try and engage, you might be surprised when you actually have an intellectual arguement



TBF TGG said PM was trolling not bullying and this is obviously a widely held opinion among posters on this thread.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 17, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> you really havent been here very long have you ? you may see it as bullying, i see it as objective disagreement, and if you cant understand the actual posts im not surprised you see it as bullying.
> 
> As PM says try and engage, you might be surprised when you actually have an intellectual arguement



I don't see it as bullying, I was merely stating a fact, good sir.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> I don't see it as bullying, I was merely stating a fact, good sir.


an opinion, not a fact.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2013)

co-op said:


> TBF TGG said PM was trolling not bullying and this is obviously a widely held opinion among posters on this thread.


so you say. in fact you've been making things up throughout this thread, such as half the posters on the thread being pissed off with me, with no support for your assertion beyond, er, your assertion.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 17, 2013)

So we have to have a pickman's model popularity vote to settle the matter? Sounds like fun.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2013)

Crispy said:


> So we have to have a pickman's model popularity vote to settle the matter? Sounds like fun.


the issue isn't one of popularity but of an assertion that of the 25 people who aren't me or co-op who have posted on this thread i have "visibly pissed off more than half".


----------



## Sue (Nov 17, 2013)

I agree with most of what Pickman's model has said. I don't cycle (or drive) and of course want cyclists to be able to cycle in a safe environment. I do though see a significant minority of cyclists doing extremely dangerous things (going through red lights and blindly crossing three lanes of traffic at one particular junction is one I see every day -- haven't seen anyone killed there yet (seen a few very near misses) but it must surely just be a matter of time). I don't know whether this kind of thing has contributed to these recent deaths but it must surely contribute to some of the accidents that occur. Obviously changes to infrastructure, better training for cyclists and better driving/awareness from drivers would help but cyclists do need to take more care.

In fact all road users need to take more care and pay more attention to other people. And cyclists showing more care where pedestrians are concerned would also help.


----------



## Winot (Nov 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the issue isn't one of popularity but of an assertion that of the 25 people who aren't me or co-op who have posted on this thread i have "visibly pissed off more than half".



Are you going to answer Brixton Hatter's question in post #256?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2013)

Winot said:


> Are you going to answer Brixton Hatter's question in post #256?


yes


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 18, 2013)

Crispy said:


> So we have to have a pickman's model popularity vote to settle the matter? Sounds like fun.


^ this.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 18, 2013)

There does not seem to be videos explaining to folk how to approach these junctions. I think there is a lot of scope for crowd sourced videos with experienced cyclists explaining to people how best to approach these junctions. Head cam shots with people explaining how to do it and the pitfalls kind of thing.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 18, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> There does not seem to be videos explaining to folk how to approach these junctions. I think there is a lot of scope for crowd sourced videos with experienced cyclists explaining to people how best to approach these junctions. Head cam shots with people explaining how to do it and the pitfalls kind of thing.


That would be a pretty sensible idea. I am surprised that no one has made any videos on this either.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> an opinion, not a fact.


"a bully, plain and simple" used to be your little bio under your name. But you knew that already.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> "a bully, plain and simple" used to be your little bio under your name. But you knew that already.


yes, it did. but fyi it's not a little bio. you have 'member' under your name, though it would be more appropriate if it was 'tool'.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 18, 2013)

Soz, not sure on the appropriate vernacular. And I'll get on that.


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 18, 2013)

> but fyi it's not a little bio


It's a "custom title". I feel so knowledgeable.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)

So, what's the police response to all this?

This morning they have been stopping cyclists to give them "advice", like telling them to wear a helmet and high-viz, neither of which are required for cyclists to be lawful on the road. Why do anything meaningful, when you can simply set up a PR exercise and blame the victims?

http://road.cc/content/news/99098-l...sts-without-helmets-advice-education-exercise

Interesting to note that, according to LBC, another police operation stopped 20 HGVs and they found a total of *60* separate offences, like drivers working for too long and vehicles in dangerous conditions.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 18, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> So, what's the police response to all this?
> 
> This morning they have been stopping cyclists to give them "advice", like telling them to wear a helmet and high-viz, neither of which are required for cyclists to be lawful on the road. Why do anything meaningful, when you can simply set up a PR exercise and blame the victims?



What complete bollocks. Wearing a helmet and hi-viz did nothing to stop my boss getting taken out by a taxi pulling a U-turn in front of him, breaking his collarbone, tearing a ligament and keeping him off his bike for 4 months.


----------



## laptop (Nov 18, 2013)

*Have-a-go heroes free woman trapped under car in Spitalfields accident*

Shame the East London Advertiser didn't pay for a licence to put the photo online: car on its side. (Had I been there I may have rolled it right over...)


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 18, 2013)

Fucking fed up of victim blaming in the media. It's a shame that some urbanites are doing the same.
Jog the fuck on you shitheels.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 18, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> So, what's the police response to all this?
> 
> This morning they have been stopping cyclists to give them "advice", like telling them to wear a helmet and high-viz, neither of which are required for cyclists to be lawful on the road. Why do anything meaningful, when you can simply set up a PR exercise and blame the victims?
> 
> ...



To avoid being called some kind of apologist for the poor behaviour of cyclists I feel that I first need to say that - yes a cyclist may well be at fault if they give killed by an HVG - but you raise an issue that really needs to be looked at.

Of the recent deaths the vast majority have been people killed by HGV's - while HGV's make up around 20% of the traffic in London.

I also recall a report where on a random stop of HGV drivers every single vehicle pulled over had at least one fault - with many vehicles falling well below the standard required.

The statistics show that buses show a much lesser risk.  Buses have much lower cabs and you have much better visibility when you drive one.  These cabs exist for HGV's but I assume the extra cost of these cabs can't be justified - even though mass adoption when replacing HGVs' would undoubtedly save lives.

The Road Haulage Association accept that visibility is a real problem with HGV drivers - their preferred route is to  do outreach sessions where they let people sit in HGV's to show just how much of a problem visibility is.   At the same time they lobby against any 'red tape' which could improve visibility for the vehicles.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 18, 2013)

From BBC live feed  1pm:
Cyclist death
Police say a cyclist has been killed in a crash in Camberwell, south-east London, just after noon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24989985

....guess what?, he was hit by a HGV!

So sad.


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 18, 2013)

Did I miss something, since when was it permissible for the police to detain cyclist for not wearing helmets and hi-viz jackets?


----------



## Utopia (Nov 18, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> Did I miss something, since when was it permissible for the police to detain cyclist for not wearing helmets and hi-viz jackets?


 
Not detaining....more like advising apparently.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> To avoid being called some kind of apologist for the poor behaviour of cyclists I feel that I first need to say that - yes a cyclist may well be at fault if they give killed by an HVG - but you raise an issue that really needs to be looked at.
> 
> Of the recent deaths the vast majority have been people killed by HGV's - while HGV's make up around 20% of the traffic in London.


HGVs actually make up around 4% of the traffic in London but are involved in 53% of cycling fatalities. (Source.) 

Most HGVs are really poorly designed. I've sat in the cab of one - it's shocking how poor the visibility is. Even with the 6 special mirrors they have to have now (lorries pre-2009 don't have to have the additional mirrors, which is totally crazy). They shouldn't really even be allowed on the road in rush hour imo, without a significant redesign. Apparently one of the reasons the cab is so high is to enable the cargo bit of the lorry to be as long as possible, so they can carry as much gear as possible (there is a length limit on lorries.) A lower cab with better side visibility (like dustbin lorries) would really help - but the freight lobby doesn't want to countenance anything which reduces the maximum possible load.

Making cyclists sit in the cab of an HGV for education purposes, rather than addressing the problems of visibility and road design, again puts the onus for safety on the cyclist, rather than on the authorities or motorists.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)

Utopia said:


> From BBC live feed  1pm:
> Cyclist death
> Police say a cyclist has been killed in a crash in Camberwell, south-east London, just after noon.
> 
> ...


fuuuuuck


----------



## andysays (Nov 18, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> ...The Road Haulage Association accept that visibility is a real problem with HGV drivers - their preferred route is to  do outreach sessions where they let people sit in HGV's to show just how much of a problem visibility is.   At the same time they lobby against any 'red tape' which could improve visibility for the vehicles.



I think you're right to point out the visibility problem which make it difficult for bus and, particularly, HGV drivers to see cyclists.

As someone who cycles, and also drives cars and larger vehicles in London, it strikes me that *some *(and I stress some) cyclists don't appear to realise this, and judging from the way they ride assume that all vehicles have the same visibility and maneuverability that they do (there are also car drivers who seem not to realise that HGVs have less visibility and a larger turning circle than them, BTW, it's not just cyclists).

There are limits to the extent that these problems can be physically overcome (though I'm not suggesting that we've anything like reached them), but *part* of the solution has to be cyclists recognising that when they share the road with buses and HGVs they need to be aware of these issues and ride accordingly.


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 18, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Not detaining....more like advising apparently.


Detaining: keep (someone) from proceeding by holding them back or making claims on their attention.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 18, 2013)

Would it be feasible for all HGV's to be given a London delivery window of say from 11pm to 6am?, is that possible/enforceable? Just asking?......


(2013 so far: 14 deaths, nine involving HGVs) BBC.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 18, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> Detaining: keep (someone) from proceeding by holding them back or making claims on their attention.


 
If 2 minutes worth of advice saves a life then i'm all for it.


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 18, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Would it be feasible for all HGV's to be given a London delivery window of say from 11pm to 6am?, is that possible/enforceable? Just asking?......


The mayor could do that overnight, except there's existing restrictions in place on night time deliveries.


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 18, 2013)

Utopia said:


> If 2 minutes worth of advice saves a life then i'm all for it.


I'm not a cyclist so not in a postion to argue, but I thought the jury was still out on the effectiveness of helmets.

Anyway, condolences to friends & family of today's casualty.


----------



## laptop (Nov 18, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Would it be feasible for all HGV's to be given a London delivery window of say from 11pm to 6am?, is that possible/enforceable?



I thought I remembered Mayor Ken doing that, or at least proposing it. Was it never passed? Did Boris undo it?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 18, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> I'm not a cyclist so not in a postion to argue, but I thought the jury was still out on the effectiveness of helmets.


 
Yes, but it gives the police something to do and hopefully keeps people off Boris's back.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 18, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> I'm not a cyclist so not in a postion to argue, but I thought the jury was still out on the effectiveness of helmets.
> 
> Anyway, condolences to friends & family of today's casualty.


 
The combination of lights, hi-viz clothing & helmets all makes cycling a lot safer.....sounds like thats what the old bill are pointing out, i'm a cyclist & the amount I see in London with none of the above beggers belief!


----------



## Crispy (Nov 18, 2013)

Remarkably sane and balanced article from the Standard: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-cyclist-deaths-on-londons-roads-8946603.html

I did not scroll down to the comments


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

Utopia said:


> The combination of lights, hi-viz clothing & helmets all makes cycling a lot safer.....sounds like thats what the old bill are pointing out, i'm a cyclist & the amount I see in London with none of the above beggers belief!



It makes cycling safer, but whether or not it makes cycling _a lot_ safer is questionable. Given the high proportion of HGVs involved in fatalities, this suggests to me that such things may not be the most important factor - doesn't matter what you're wearing if you're in the HGV's blind spot. 

Again, it's a reaction to cyclist deaths that looks primarily to the cyclists to change what they do, when that may very well not be the issue at all.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)

This is the scene of the latest death on Camberwell Road/Albany Road:







Looks like the lorry was turning left, so possibly another 'left hook' incident.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Remarkably sane and balanced article from the Standard: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-cyclist-deaths-on-londons-roads-8946603.html
> 
> I did not scroll down to the comments


Very good to see an article like that in the Standard of all places.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 18, 2013)

They've got much better recently. I'm guessing quite a few of their staff cycle these days.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Remarkably sane and balanced article from the Standard: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-cyclist-deaths-on-londons-roads-8946603.html
> 
> I did not scroll down to the comments


I took a peek and saw the phrase "scum cyclists" in comment #2 so swiftly closed the browser window.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Very good to see an article like that in the Standard of all places.


 
The Standard has been running regular stories about cycle safety (from a pro-cyclist viewpoint) for quite a while now tbf.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

Crispy said:


> They've got much better recently. I'm guessing quite a few of their staff cycle these days.


Yeah, probably, although that doesn't stop Johnson from being an arse.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


>



 Photoshopped, not real, though, sadly.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 18, 2013)

I was pretty shocked watching this.

What a crock of shit!


----------



## Utopia (Nov 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It makes cycling safer, but whether or not it makes cycling _a lot_ safer is questionable. Given the high proportion of HGVs involved in fatalities, this suggests to me that such things may not be the most important factor - doesn't matter what you're wearing if you're in the HGV's blind spot.
> 
> Again, it's a reaction to cyclist deaths that looks primarily to the cyclists to change what they do, when that may very well not be the issue at all.


 
'Safer' or 'a lot safer'....still makes it safer in my book.  As a cyclist, at the moment, all I can control is what I do.....making myself visable is something I can do.....staying as far away from HGV's(_inc running red lights, when the road is clear of pedestrians, to get ahead_) as is possible is another thing I can do.


----------



## andysays (Nov 18, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> This is the scene of the latest death on Camberwell Road/Albany Road:
> 
> Looks like the lorry was turning left, so possibly another 'left hook' incident.



Just so I understand the "rules" of this thread, it's off-limits to suggest that cyclists, even cyclists in general, may occasionally contribute to accidents in which they're involved, but baseless speculation about the fault of this particular HGV driver is fair game?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)

article in the Grauniad about today's various fuck ups 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/18/sixth-london-cyclist-killed-camberwell-lorry


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> Just so I understand the "rules" of this thread, it's off-limits to suggest that cyclists, even cyclists in general, may occasionally contribute to accidents in which they're involved, but baseless speculation about the fault of this particular HGV driver is fair game?


Er…where have I suggested that? 

In the photo above you can clearly see the lorry was turning left….but I don't know what happened, which is why I said 'possibly'. I'm not even blaming the HGV driver, just pointing out a possible left hook.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 18, 2013)

I know that junction. The whole road is horrible, but that one's nasty. There's an advance stop box, but no feeder lane. If you do take the gutter to get into it, you're squeezing between left turning traffic and a barrier. If I could remember where I put my magic town planning wand, I'd demolish all those 1 story shop extensions and restore the historic building line, allowing width for a proper segregated lane along there.


----------



## andysays (Nov 18, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Er…where have I suggested that?
> 
> In the photo above you can clearly see the lorry was turning left….but I don't know what happened, which is why I said 'possibly'. I'm not even blaming the HGV driver, just pointing out a possible left hook.



You've done that by pointing out one particular possibility, and using a distinctly pergorative term to describe it, where in fact there are a number of possible explanations and, unless and until we have further information, your speculation is unhelpful and can only serve to blame the HGV driver involved.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> You've done that by pointing out one particular possibility, and using a distinctly pergorative term to describe it, where in fact there are a number of possible explanations and, unless and until we have further information, your speculation is unhelpful and can only serve to blame the HGV driver involved.


Bore off. Or come up with some solutions.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)

Stats for cycling crashes/incidents (from memory): 67% the fault of the driver/motorist, 6% the fault of cyclists, the rest unknown.

e2a:


> statistics from the Department for Transport and Transport for London (TfL), among others, show that lawbreaking by cyclists is very rarely to blame for serious accidents. TfL figures showed cyclists breaking the law was identified as a factor in just 6% of cases where a rider was killed or badly hurt.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

Add that to the evidence that cyclists breaking the law are in certain instances (such as jumping red lights) making themselves safer, and there could even be a net positive safety effect to it. It simply isn't the issue to be highlighted here.


----------



## andysays (Nov 18, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Bore off. Or come up with some solutions.



If you care to look back over the thread, you'll see that I've attempted to do just that, come up with a range of possible solutions which don't simply blame one group for all the problems.



Brixton Hatter said:


> Stats for cycling crashes/incidents (from memory): 67% the fault of the driver/motorist, 6% the fault of cyclists, the rest unknown.
> 
> statistics from the Department for Transport and Transport for London (TfL), among others, show that lawbreaking by cyclists is very rarely to blame for serious accidents. TfL figures showed cyclists breaking the law was identified as a factor in just 6% of cases where a rider was killed or badly hurt.​


​It's worth remembering that there are things which cyclists (and other road users) can do which are not breaking the law, but can still contribute to them being involved in serious accidents.

One of them, which I unfortunately witness all too often, is attempting to undertake in the driver's blind spot an HGV which is signalling to turn left


----------



## hipipol (Nov 18, 2013)

Make that 6
Camberwell today
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...sh-with-lorry-at-camberwell-road-8947110.html


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> If you care to look back over the thread, you'll see that I've attempted to do just that, come up with a range of possible solutions which don't simply blame one group for all the problems.
> 
> 
> ​It's worth remembering that there are things which cyclists (and other road users) can do which are not breaking the law, but can still contribute to them being involved in serious accidents.
> ...



Another behaviour is to ensure that you cycle well out from the kerb.  This means that you are more easily seen and reduces the chance of a vehicle, in particular a HGV overtaking you and immediately turning left in front of you.

However I think there are far bigger factors in play here than the behaviour of individuals involved directly in each death.  Namely the built environment, and perhaps secondly the design and management of HGV's.

I think you can assume, for the sake of this argument, that human behaviour is more or less the same across much of the world.  It appears that other countries have made streets safe for cyclists through what is primarily long term investment in streets which are first and foremost designed for people, and not primarily streets which are designed to increae the capacity of vehicles.

You can blame the cyclist or the HGV driver all you like but IMO all this about individual behaviour largely a distraction from what really needs to be done to make our streets fit for purpose.


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 18, 2013)

hipipol said:


> Make that 6
> Camberwell today
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...sh-with-lorry-at-camberwell-road-8947110.html


Yeah, it was mentioned earlier a number of times.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> You can blame the cyclist or the HGV driver all you like but IMO all this about individual behaviour largely a distraction from what really needs to be done to make our streets fit for purpose.


Yep, spot on. In any individual incident, you may be able to attribute fault to one or other (or both) parties, but in looking at all incidents together, the reason for the number of incidents, wherever there may be individual fault, lies in this wider issue.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 18, 2013)

Its so frustrating that we don't have full details of all these "accidents".
Presumably experts WILL eventually get their hands on it and work out what happened and what could have been done.
Presumably the data would be more forthcoming in the case of the hundreds of serious non-fatal incidents that aren't being reported.

It seems bizarre that the police were out in London today lecturing cyclists on helmet wearing when that has nothing to do with very many of these incidents.


----------



## laptop (Nov 18, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Its so frustrating that we don't have full details of all these "accidents".



From the point of view of the bereaved, I guess there is an advantage to _some_ delay before the inquest.

I presume the London Cycling Campaign is getting transcripts of inquests, when they happen?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Its so frustrating that we don't have full details of all these "accidents".
> Presumably experts WILL eventually get their hands on it and work out what happened and what could have been done.
> Presumably the data would be more forthcoming in the case of the hundreds of serious non-fatal incidents that aren't being reported.
> 
> It seems bizarre that the police were out in London today lecturing cyclists on helmet wearing when that has nothing to do with very many of these incidents.



It's been a feature of the current Tory party in govt that they have taken an entirely evidence-free approach to policy-making, basing their decisions instead on prejudice, 'common sense' arguments and baseless supposition. This is no different.

It's the age-old logical fallacy:

Something must be done/This is something/Therefore we must do this

It's also, of course, about _being seen_ to be doing something.


----------



## andysays (Nov 18, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Another behaviour is to ensure that you cycle well out from the kerb.  This means that you are more easily seen and reduces the chance of a vehicle, in particular a HGV overtaking you and immediately turning left in front of you.
> 
> However I think there are far bigger factors in play here than the behaviour of individuals involved directly in each death.  Namely the built environment, and perhaps secondly the design and management of HGV's.
> 
> ...



I certainly agree that there are bigger factors than the behaviour of individuals, and earlier in the thread I've said what I think about the safety (absence of safety) of the recent cycle super highways. The most important thing is that streets are made safe, or as safe as they can be, for everyone who uses them.

I'm not seeking to blame any individual in any of these specific cases, but there are things which individual road users, cyclists and drivers of various classes of motor vehicles, can do to use the roads more safely, and to suggest that mentioning those is simply a distraction is really not helpful.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 18, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Its so frustrating that we don't have full details of all these "accidents".
> Presumably experts WILL eventually get their hands on it and work out what happened and what could have been done.
> Presumably the data would be more forthcoming in the case of the hundreds of serious non-fatal incidents that aren't being reported.



Exactly , I wrote to the LCC magazine once highlighting this point.  It's not morbid to know exactly what happened and for the public to be informed.

With the latest Camberwell fatality that looks a very common accident type.  What was the cyclist doing ? it's common sense now to keep well away from big trucks like that.


----------



## co-op (Nov 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> One of them, which I unfortunately witness all too often, is attempting to undertake in the driver's blind spot an HGV which is signalling to turn left



Don't get this argument.

What I don't understand is why it's ok to drive around busy urban streets in a 40 tonne vehicle with blind spots. I wouldn't be allowed to turn around on a building site in one without a banksman directing me and if I killed someone there'd be an automatic HSE inquiry. But do exactly the same on the public roads where ordinary people are just doing their local journeys and I can expect almost total impunity - 'oh they were in my blind spot' - it's ridiculous. 

If you're got a blind spot it's your responsibility since these days it's incredibly easy to neutralise.


----------



## co-op (Nov 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> Just so I understand the "rules" of this thread, it's off-limits to suggest that cyclists, even cyclists in general, may occasionally contribute to accidents in which they're involved, but baseless speculation about the fault of this particular HGV driver is fair game?



Silly post.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

co-op said:


> Don't get this argument.
> 
> What I don't understand is why it's ok to drive around busy urban streets in a 40 tonne vehicle with blind spots. I wouldn't be allowed to turn around on a building site in one without a banksman directing me and if I killed someone there'd be an automatic HSE inquiry. But do exactly the same on the public roads where ordinary people are just doing their local journeys and I can expect almost total impunity - 'oh they were in my blind spot' - it's ridiculous.
> 
> If you're got a blind spot it's your responsibility since these days it's incredibly easy to neutralise.



Quite. Sending cyclists to see what it's like driving an HGV is all well and good, and no doubt useful to know as a cyclist. But how about sending HGV drivers out on the roads on a bike? Who's the one driving the dangerous vehicle here?


----------



## weepiper (Nov 18, 2013)

Helmets will protect you from certain kinds of head injury but increase your chance of a rotational neck injury. No amount of hi-viz in the world will allow an HGV driver to see you if his mirrors are inadequate. Bikes should stay the fuck away from big vehicles at all times, in fact I have jumped off the bike onto the pavement at times when a lorry's pulled up behind me because I've got the heebie jeebies about whether he's aware of me or not. There shouldn't be railings round the pavement at junctions because it prevents cyclists from bailing out and gets them crushed.


----------



## laptop (Nov 18, 2013)

co-op said:


> Don't get this argument.
> 
> What I don't understand is why it's ok to drive around busy urban streets in a 40 tonne vehicle with blind spots.



But it happens. 

So everyone else needs to be aware that it happens, and fuck off out of the way.

Not a question of blame: a question of staying alive.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 18, 2013)

I suppose it depends what we're aiming for.
Urban cycling being reserved for especially highly skilled cyclists with the meek and mild ones taking a gamble with their lives, or the Dutch model where everyone can feel safe cycling.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Add that to the evidence that cyclists breaking the law are in certain instances (such as jumping red lights) making themselves safer, and there could even be a net positive safety effect to it. It simply isn't the issue to be highlighted here.


i asked you to reference this earlier in the thread and there was something of a resounding silence from you. perhaps you could produce the evidence to which you refer now. taking it on trust for the time being, while the cyclist may be safer, it is possible that such actions may make other road users less safe - for example, cyclists going through a red light which allows pedestrians to cross. this seems to me to be a situation in which cyclists may, as i have said above, privilege their own safety above those of other vulnerable users.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> It's worth remembering that there are things which cyclists (and other road users) can do which are not breaking the law, but can still contribute to them being involved in serious accidents.
> 
> One of them, which I unfortunately witness all too often, is attempting to undertake in the driver's blind spot an HGV which is signalling to turn left


I agree that is a nuts thing to do. Especially when they are indicating to go left.  

But our 'infrastructure' (Advanced Stop Lines, and their feeder lanes) in many cases actually encourages cyclists up the left of a lorry. Personally, I won't do it myself unless I am _absolutely sure _that the lights won't change whilst I'm doing so. I imagine many cyclists are making the same judgement as me. It's safer to be in front of the traffic and get a quick getaway when the lights go green, instead of being squashed up against the kerb in the middle of a queue of traffic.

What you can't stop as a cyclist is someone overtaking you, then cutting in on the left, like in that incident I posted earlier on in the thread.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 18, 2013)

There was another bike incident in Camden Town this afternoon, cyclist hit by a lorry at the main junction, don't know if the cyclist was killed.


----------



## spliff (Nov 18, 2013)

marty21 said:


> There was another bike incident in Camden Town this afternoon, cyclist hit by a lorry at the main junction, don't know if the cyclist was killed.


From BBC Local Live 





> London Ambulance Service says a man was treated at the scene for a "minor head injury" and taken to St Mary's Hospital.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2013)

spliff said:


> From BBC Local Live


are you sure? why not the royal free or uch, both of which are markedly nearer than st mary's


----------



## spliff (Nov 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> are you sure? why not the royal free or uch, both of which are markedly nearer than st mary's


I would have thought so too.


----------



## andysays (Nov 18, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I agree that is a nuts thing to do. Especially when they are indicating to go left.
> 
> But our 'infrastructure' (Advanced Stop Lines, and their feeder lanes) in many cases actually encourages cyclists up the left of a lorry. Personally, I won't do it myself unless I am _absolutely sure _that the lights won't change whilst I'm doing so. I imagine many cyclists are making the same judgement as me. It's safer to be in front of the traffic and get a quick getaway when the lights go green, instead of being squashed up against the kerb in the middle of a queue of traffic.
> 
> What you can't stop as a cyclist is someone overtaking you, then cutting in on the left, like in that incident I posted earlier on in the thread.



I agree that the infrastructure often encourages cyclists to undertake. I've done it myself and nearly come a cropper, so now I'm much more cautious, to the extent of waiting behind a bus or HGV if I don't have enough time and enough space to get past on the outside rather than attempting to squeeze through on the inside.

And I totally agree that it is more or less impossible to prevent cases of attempting to overtake and then cutting in. I've had it happen to me as a cyclist, and I hope that the experience has made me a more considerate driver when I'm driving, making sure I only attempt to overtake if I know I have enough time.

That's clearly what happened in the video you posted and the driver in that case was totally in the wrong, but we really shouldn't speculate about this other incident on the basis of one still photo.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)

How many people are going to be needlessly killed or seriously injured because of the lack of will from the politicians, TfL and local authorities?

I believe we WILL get the infrastructure we need - it's just a case of when. We are winning the moral argument and the practical argument. It's just a matter of time before the political argument is won. 

We need to take a little space and time from motorised vehicles on London's roads, and give it to pedestrians and cyclists. Motorists and politicians tend to be vehemently opposed to this and will say it can't be done. But it can - just look at the congestion charge (in place for about 10 years now) and the fact that almost every main road in London now has a bus lane (or two) on it. It can be done.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i asked you to reference this earlier in the thread and there was something of a resounding silence from you. perhaps you could produce the evidence to which you refer now. taking it on trust for the time being, while the cyclist may be safer, it is possible that such actions may make other road users less safe - for example, cyclists going through a red light which allows pedestrians to cross. this seems to me to be a situation in which cyclists may, as i have said above, privilege their own safety above those of other vulnerable users.


No you didn't. you asked someone else, who provided it for you in the form of a report from tfl.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 18, 2013)

Article from the Time (their cycle campaign is on the free bit of their website):

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3925308.ece

Chris Boardman saying ban HGVs from cities during rush hour.



> He applauded Mr Johnson’s pledge to invest almost £1 billion in cycling over the next decade, but said the Mayor had not honoured his commitment to copy cities like Paris, where large vehicles are only allowed to deliver between 10pm and 7am and medium-sized vehicles between 10pm and 5pm.
> 
> In central Paris in 2011, there were no cycling fatalities at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No you didn't. you asked someone else, who provided it for you in the form of a report from tfl.


a report from the standard. you said this report from the standard showed you were right and i was wrong. pls show me where in the tfl report it says you're right.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 18, 2013)

http://londonist.com/2013/11/road-users.php


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> a report from the standard. you said this report from the standard showed you were right and i was wrong. pls show me where in the tfl report it says you're right.


Your whole take on this is wrong, and evidence of all kinds has been produced on this thread to show you that. You won't change your position despite the evidence stacked up to show you that you are wrong-headed in your focus on bad cycling behaviour. Depressingly, there will be others out there with the same prejudiced position as yours, who will agree with Boris Johnson about the problem. 

I can see these deaths being used to push for compulsory helmets. But that won't stop the deaths, and after a while and a few dozen more deaths post-compulsory helmet introduction, real solutions that will work, such as banning lorries at certain hours and giving cyclists a head start at traffic lights will finally be considered. More people will need to die unnecessarily before that happens.


----------



## laptop (Nov 18, 2013)

FFS:

_De mortuis nil nisi bonum_ is *(a)* crap and *(b)* applies only to the individual, *not* the whole class of cyclists, or hang-gliers, or ballroom dancers.


----------



## Sue (Nov 18, 2013)

FFS, just saw a cyclist (no lights) going the wrong way down Shoreditch High St on the inside of a bus then go straight across the road into the  right lane without looking behind. Luckily the oncoming bus driver was going quite slowly. (Sorry, maybe not the right thread but FFS, he was lucky he wasn't killed.)


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 18, 2013)

There certainly are plenty of cyclists who already have a much higher threshold for risk ... young men kill them selves in huge numbers in cars - I've always seen a blurred boundary between that figure and that of male suicide.

But back to the subject.

Even knowing very few details these particular cyclists did not fit that description.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 18, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=filtering+is+not+compulsory&sm=3


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Your whole take on this is wrong, and evidence of all kinds has been produced on this thread to show you that. You won't change your position despite the evidence stacked up to show you that you are wrong-headed in your focus on bad cycling behaviour. Depressingly, there will be others out there with the same prejudiced position as yours, who will agree with Boris Johnson about the problem.
> 
> I can see these deaths being used to push for compulsory helmets. But that won't stop the deaths, and after a while and a few dozen more deaths post-compulsory helmet introduction, real solutions that will work, such as banning lorries at certain hours and giving cyclists a head start at traffic lights will finally be considered. More people will need to die unnecessarily before that happens.


1) you say i agree with boris johnson: i don't;

2) you could just have said you hadn't read or seen the tfl report.

one solution which doesn't seem to have occurred to you is to reduce the length of time an hgv driver can work before taking a break, as it is possible tiredness is a contributing factor to some of these accidents.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

Tbh attempting to alter the behaviour of cyclist or driver is tinkering at the edges. Physical separation of lorry and bicycle is the key to change.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2013)

marty21 said:


> There was another bike incident in Camden Town this afternoon, cyclist hit by a lorry at the main junction, don't know if the cyclist was killed.


Unfortunately, he was 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24989985

Six dead in two weeks. Fucking hell.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Unfortunately, he was
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24989985
> 
> Six dead in two weeks. Fucking hell.


Not Camberwell.
There has been much discussion already on the Camberwell killing


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i asked you to reference this earlier in the thread and there was something of a resounding silence from you. perhaps you could produce the evidence to which you refer now. taking it on trust for the time being, while the cyclist may be safer, it is possible that such actions may make other road users less safe - for example, cyclists going through a red light which allows pedestrians to cross. this seems to me to be a situation in which cyclists may, as i have said above, privilege their own safety above those of other vulnerable users.


As a pedestrian that has to regularly avoid cyclists going through a red light/green man at a very busy junction which was highlighted as one of the most dangerous in Glasgow, and as someone with a disability that can impede my walking, having to navigate vehicles/cyclists in the short time available is difficult enough.

I certainly don't need someone with their child on the back of the back trying to make it any harder, as has happened on 3 occasions recently. And he's not the only one - I've counted as many as three cyclists at once running the red light. It does not make it any safer for me as a pedestrian, quite the opposite.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Not Camberwell.
> There has been much discussion already on the Camberwell killing


Sorry, London geography not great. Does this mean it is seven dead?

marty21 was referring to an incident at camden town anyway, not camberwell.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 18, 2013)

No, 6


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> No, 6


Ah, re-read article - it refers to both Camberwell and Camden Town incidents.


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 18, 2013)

What's difficult about telling truckers you're surrounded by invisible cyclist so be fucking careful.


----------



## Callie (Nov 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Sorry, London geography not great. Does this mean it is seven dead?
> 
> marty21 was referring to an incident at camden town anyway, not camberwell.


no evidence the person in Camden has died. 'concious, breathing, treated for head injuries'

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/cycli...collision_with_lorry_in_camden_town_1_3013143


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> What's difficult about telling truckers you're surrounded by invisible cyclist so be fucking careful.


I have a lot of sympathy for the lorry drivers. If they have blind spots, they can be as careful as they like and still not be sure that the path is clear alongside them as they turn. Poor fuckers who kill cyclists, they may have been being careful, or they may have momentarily lost their care. That happens, and you can't legislate it out of existence. I feel sorry for them, too.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2013)

If people weren't in a such a hurry all the time, and took fewer risks, maybe the roads would be safer for everybody.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 18, 2013)

They are in a hurry though and people are natural risk takers


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have a lot of sympathy for the lorry drivers. If they have blind spots, they can be as careful as they like and still not be sure that the path is clear alongside them as they turn. Poor fuckers who kill cyclists, they may have been being careful, or they may have momentarily lost their care. That happens, and you can't legislate it out of existence. I feel sorry for them, too.


It'd be interesting to hear their side because sadly were unable to ask the cyclist.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

Why are people in a hurry? Lorry drivers are put under pressure by their bosses to deliver more quickly to make their bosses more money. Couriers also are under pressure to deliver quickly to make themselves more money. 

Coop raised the question earlier. In London at least, the question has to be asked: whose interests take preference in the running of the streets? Livingstone went some way towards representing the interests of someone other than the private motorist, whether car or freight, but we're still a very long way off a situation where the interests of the majority come first. The basic assumption of the driver that they can go where they want when they want is quite ingrained in our society, I think, and that is something that has to be changed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> It'd be interesting to hear their side because sadly were unable to ask the cyclist.


TBH I'm more interested in hearing what their bosses have to say for themselves.


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> TBH I'm more interested in hearing what their bosses have to say for themselves.


The bits I do hear is just what a dreadful mess the industry is in.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2013)

I have sympathy with the drivers, even if they were at fault. Almost especially if they were at fault - that is a terrible thing to have to live with.

But any boss who is at fault - for not providing adequate lorries or pressuring drivers to hurry up - they get no sympathy from me. Drag them over the coals.


----------



## Sue (Nov 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The basic assumption of the driver that they can go where they want when they want... [snip]


 
Unforunately, a significant minority of cyclists seem to feel the same going by my experiences as a pedestrian.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> They are in a hurry though and people are natural risk takers


And how much time do they really save by barrelling through pedestrians crossing at a green man, instead of waiting for a few seconds or so?

Why should my likelihood of being hurt increase because someone wants to risk running a red?


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 18, 2013)

After the police spent today stopping cyclists today to chat with them about wearing helmets and high viz perhaps the police could pull over some cars and lorries. 

"Excuse me sir, you've done nothing wrong but would you be so kind to look out for cyclists?"

I wonder how well that would go down.


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2013)

laptop said:


> But it happens.
> 
> So everyone else needs to be aware that it happens, and fuck off out of the way.
> 
> Not a question of blame: a question of staying alive.



Absolutely not arguing with this - I have been a London cyclist since the 1970s when you practically used to stop and talk to another cyclist if you saw one. I'm just arguing with the presumption that 'blind spots' are this Act of God that no one can do anything about: it was being made by a poster who was trying to claim that 'we' are all defaulting to an anti-lorry position when he was obviously unaware of how his default was pro-lorry.


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> After the police spent today stopping cyclists today to chat with them about wearing helmets and high viz perhaps the police could pull over some cars and lorries.
> 
> "Excuse me sir, you've done nothing wrong but would you be so kind to look out for cyclists?"
> 
> I wonder how well that would go down.





Woe betide the policeman who stops me on a bike to hand out advice - I get right on my soapbox about non-enforcement of speed limits by the police etc. I got pulled for jumping a red light on the Vauxhall gyratory once and ended up giving them a such a lecture about exactly why it was the safest way through that they walked off mid rant, wish I'd had it on camera. The words all came out right but also the cars coming round the corner kept doing exactly what I said they would - including jumping the lights of course. Kind of undermined their position.


----------



## Winot (Nov 19, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> After the police spent today stopping cyclists today to chat with them about wearing helmets and high viz perhaps the police could pull over some cars and lorries.
> 
> "Excuse me sir, you've done nothing wrong but would you be so kind to look out for cyclists?"
> 
> I wonder how well that would go down.



They were stopping cyclists *and* lorries on the same day for exactly this reason:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hgv-drivers-caught-in-bike-safety-operation-8946997.html

Chief Superintendent Glyn Jones, of Traffic Command, said: “The advantage of stopping both cyclists and lorry drivers in sight of one another is that quite often when you stop one, they complain the other hasn’t been stopped and vice versa. If we can target this effort during the rush hour, it will help things a lot as this is when the majority of cyclists are killed.”


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 19, 2013)

Boris wants cycling with headphones banned. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/boris-johnson-considers-banning-cyclists-headphones

Because all the middle-aged cyclists who were killed were wearing them were they ?
And jumping red lights ?

I bet they were all wearing helmets and hi-viz too....


----------



## T & P (Nov 19, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> After the police spent today stopping cyclists today to chat with them about wearing helmets and high viz perhaps the police could pull over some cars and lorries.
> 
> "Excuse me sir, you've done nothing wrong but would you be so kind to look out for cyclists?"
> 
> I wonder how well that would go down.


I'm a driver and I think that would be a great idea- not in those very words perhaps, but some advice/ reinforcement about checking around them, in particular when turning at junctions, would be great, and does not need to be patronising.

Then again I'm also a cyclist, so I'm perhaps more concious than non-cycling drivers about the importance of driving carefully and looking out for cyclists.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 19, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Boris wants cycling with headphones banned.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/boris-johnson-considers-banning-cyclists-headphones
> 
> ...


 
He's got a point on the dangers of wearing headphones whilst cycling in built up traffic though, a really stupid, reckless thing to do IMO.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 19, 2013)

Utopia said:


> He's got a point on the dangers of wearing headphones whilst cycling in built up traffic though, a really stupid, reckless thing to do IMO.


But how many actual serious accidents can be attributed to their use ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 19, 2013)

Utopia said:


> He's got a point on the dangers of wearing headphones whilst cycling in built up traffic though, a really stupid, reckless thing to do IMO.


Perhaps, but utterly irrelevant to the recent deaths, which, let us remember, were caused by collisions with either a lorry, a bus or a coach. That article goes on to talk about a copper telling cyclists to take more care. The whole thrust of the response is to tell cyclists to take more care.

This is not dealing with the problem. It is avoiding the problem. A raft of new measures regulating cyclists will  be brought in, and the killings will continue.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 19, 2013)

Not that I'm hugely worried because I live out in the sticks and see about one plastic copper every 6 months and our chief constable is more sensible than that - but my headphones are over-ear - I may have to spray them to match my skin tone / grey hair.


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 19, 2013)

Re: Boris headphones, It came up during one of his regular interviews with Feltz on Radio London, she bulldozed him into saying it - he also thought pedestrians shouldn't wear them or use their 'iPhones', the guy is a joke.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 19, 2013)

T & P said:


> I'm a driver and I think that would be a great idea- not in those very words perhaps, but some advice/ reinforcement about checking around them, in particular when turning at junctions, would be great, and does not need to be patronising.
> 
> Then again I'm also a cyclist, so I'm perhaps more concious than non-cycling drivers about the importance of driving carefully and looking out for cyclists.



Perhaps it is a good idea to offer this advice. 

I think I'm resistant to the idea as there's only so many people you can talk to - and it seems like these kind of actions may well be done as an excuse to obscure the real issue.  One which requires a vision, commitment and plenty of cash to solve. 

On the subject of cheap, headline grabbing exercises to show that 'something is being done' I note gg post about Boris and heeadphones.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 19, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Perhaps it is a good idea to offer this advice.
> 
> I think I'm resistant to the idea as there's only so many people you can talk to - and it seems like these kind of actions may well be done as an excuse to obscure the real issue.  One which requires a vision, commitment and plenty of cash to solve.
> 
> On the subject of cheap, headline grabbing exercises to show that 'something is being done' I note gg post about Boris and heeadphones.


Not so much cash necessarily. How much would it cost to ban lorries from central London during the rush hour and install new traffic lights that give cyclists a head-start? Those two measures combined would make a massive difference.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2013)

It was linked earlier up the thread but I am so angry about this:

"More than half of the lorry drivers stopped by police in a cycle safety operation this morning were found to be breaking HGV safety rules.

Police stopped 20 heavy goods vehicles at a checkpoint on Vauxhall Bridge and found offences relating to 10 lorries or their drivers.

Officers are investigating suspected irregularities with five more lorries. Only five were satisfactory.

Police said they identified 60 offences — the vast majority concerning drivers exceeding the limits on the time they are allowed to drive.

Two lorries were found to be dangerous, one with a serious tyre defect that left it in danger of bursting.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hgv-drivers-caught-in-bike-safety-operation-8946997.html

Oh  and(through gritted teeth!) good for the Standard for publishing these kind of balanced articles.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 19, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> But how many actual serious accidents can be attributed to their use ?


 
I really couldn't say but I commute on a bike daily as well as being a keen amateur cyclist at weekends and I tried using headphones whilst training on my bike in Vicky park & was astounded by just how it much it deadens your senses......people forget just how much we use our ears & I can imagine it would make a dramatic difference in traffic awareness.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2013)

If they're going to try and stop cyclists from playing music, then they should consider ripping out the in-car/lorry entertainment systems too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 19, 2013)

Utopia said:


> I really couldn't say but I commute on a bike daily as well as being a keen amateur cyclist at weekends and I tried using headphones whilst training on my bike in Vicky park & was astounded by just how it much it deadens your senses......people forget just how much we use our ears & I can imagine it would make a dramatic difference in traffic awareness.


I agree with this - I would never cycle in London with headphones on. But this is not what has been killing cyclists recently. And Johnson focusing on cyclist behaviour immediately after six people have been killed by large vehicles and there is no evidence that any of them was doing any of the things Johnson is talking about? It's disgusting, tbh. Johnson disgusts me.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 19, 2013)

editor said:


> If they're going to try and stop cyclists from playing music, then they should consider ripping out the in-car/lorry entertainment systems too.


 
Playing music and wearing headphones are 2 quite different things.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 19, 2013)

It depends on the phones, the volume and the circumstances.
The wind howls straight through mine.
Not having music would ruin most of my cycling.

 

When I drive a CAR on the other hand, I have to open all the windows and the sun roof - whatever the time of year.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 19, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Playing music and wearing headphones are 2 quite different things.


There have been studies done on driver safety and listening to the radio. There is a measurable increase in the likelihood of accidents where you have the radio on. I'll try to dig it out.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Playing music and wearing headphones are 2 quite different things.


Please explain the difference. Some car sound systems are so deafening that houses shake when they go by. I can't even imagine how distracting it must be to have all that going on in a car/lorry. And then you've got all that hands-free technology to distract the driver too.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There have been studies done on driver safety and listening to the radio. There is a measurable increase in the likelihood of accidents where you have the radio on. I'll try to dig it out.


 
Doesn't surprise me in the least.  Same would go for distractions from passengers/children etc.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 19, 2013)

editor said:


> If they're going to try and stop cyclists from playing music, then they should consider ripping out the in-car/lorry entertainment systems too.


 
Headphones don't normally allow any other sound into the ear, playing music does allow other sounds in to a point, in fairness your post didn't mention the level of the music was 'deafening'.....if thats the case then yes deafening music should also be banned then.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 19, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Playing music and wearing headphones are 2 quite different things.



Yup.  I don't often ride in London so I enlist the help of my sat nav - which I listen to through a headphone.


Anyway I wonder if Boris intentionally made this comment to deflect attention from his substandard cycle superhighways.


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 19, 2013)

Ban death people from cycling too.  (joke)


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 19, 2013)

How far do we put the onus of safety on cyclist - I'm too sacred to cycle in London but personally think sit-up-and-beg bikes look to be safer than head-down racers.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 19, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> I'm too sacred to cycle in London


 

Oooooooh get you, are you like Buddha or something then???!!!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 19, 2013)

I've changed a fair bit in my attitude as I've got older. I'm a much more defensive cyclist now, and pretty sedate. When I was younger, I admit that I enjoyed the thrill of cycling in London and bombing along. But again, it isn't the young and reckless who were killed last week.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> Ban death people from cycling too.  (joke)


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Headphones don't normally allow any other sound into the ear, playing music does allow other sounds in to a point, in fairness your post didn't mention the level of the music was 'deafening'.....if thats the case then yes deafening music should also be banned then.


Cars and lorries are often sealed, air-conditioned units. Throw in even an even moderately loud volume sound system and the prospect of hearing street noises (like the shout of a cyclist) are just about zero.

How many of the cyclists killed in London have been wearing headphones, btw?


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 19, 2013)

Today my spelling is atrocious


----------



## Utopia (Nov 19, 2013)

editor said:


> How many of the cyclists killed in London have been wearing headphones, btw?


 
If you read the thread you'll come across my response to a very similar question.

At this point no one knows if headphones were being worn or contributed to the accidents.  All I know is I wouldn't feel safe in traffic without the use of my ears.

Also I think its much more important that a cyclist can hear the traffic rather than the traffic hearing a cyclist.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Also I think its much more important that a cyclist can hear the traffic rather than the traffic hearing a cyclist.


It's more important that HGV drivers in dodgy vehicles get off the fucking roads.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2013)

Here's the real issue: 


> Nine of this year's 14 cyclist fatalities and five of last year's 14 deaths involved a heavy goods vehicle.
> 
> In Paris, where there are restrictions on lorries, there were no cyclist fatalities last year.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24999302


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2013)

editor said:


> It's more important that HGV drivers in dodgy vehicles get off the fucking roads.


 
Do you know whether any of the fatalities involved 'dodgy vehicles'?


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2013)

8ball said:


> Do you know whether any of the fatalities involved 'dodgy vehicles'?


Given that "_more than half of the lorry drivers stopped by police in a cycle safety operation this morning were found to be breaking HGV safety rules_," I'd say statistically there's a very good chance that some HGVs were indeed dodgy.

Source: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hgv-drivers-caught-in-bike-safety-operation-8946997.html


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 19, 2013)

Around 10 pedestrians per year are killed by HGVs in London, too. They are not just a danger to cyclists. 

This link has some interesting stats. Of pedestrians injured by vehicles jumping red lights, 4% were by cyclists. A pedestrian is 20 times more likely to be hit by a car jumping a red light than by a cyclist. It also says that between 1998 and 2007, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists on pavements, while in that time period, 54 were killed by motor vehicles. That's a staggering number - five people per year are killed by vehicles that plough into them _when they are on the pavement_. 

Cyclist bad behaviour may be annoying to pedestrians, but the danger it poses to them is tiny compared to the danger they are posed by motor vehicles.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2013)

editor said:


> Given that "_more than half of the lorry drivers stopped by police in a cycle safety operation this morning were found to be breaking HGV safety rules_," I'd say statistically there's a very good chance that some HGVs were indeed dodgy.
> 
> Source: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hgv-drivers-caught-in-bike-safety-operation-8946997.html


 
So you don't know, then.  Cheers for that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 19, 2013)

editor said:


> Given that "_more than half of the lorry drivers stopped by police in a cycle safety operation this morning were found to be breaking HGV safety rules_," I'd say statistically there's a very good chance that some HGVs were indeed dodgy.
> 
> Source: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hgv-drivers-caught-in-bike-safety-operation-8946997.html



It might be about half. In which case, it may not be an important factor - you could get all the hgvs up to speed and cyclists will continue to be killed. Take them off the streets during rush hour, morning and evening, at the very least.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It might be about half. In which case, it may not be an important factor - you could get all the hgvs up to speed and cyclists will continue to be killed. Take them off the streets during rush hour, morning and evening, at the very least.


Well that is the real issue, instead of trying to shift the entire blame onto cyclists.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Around 10 pedestrians per year are killed by HGVs in London, too. They are not just a danger to cyclists.
> 
> This link has some interesting stats. Of pedestrians injured by vehicles jumping red lights, 4% were by cyclists. A pedestrian is 20 times more likely to be hit by a car jumping a red light than by a cyclist. It also says that between 1998 and 2007, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists on pavements, while in that time period, 54 were killed by motor vehicles. That's a staggering number - five people per year are killed by vehicles that plough into them _when they are on the pavement_.
> 
> Cyclist bad behaviour may be annoying to pedestrians, but the danger it poses to them is tiny compared to the danger they are posed by motor vehicles.



If we are to follow Pickman's logic on this issue these figures clearly show that it's time to start training pedestrians how to cross roads, and walk on pavements.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It might be about half. In which case, it may not be an important factor - you could get all the hgvs up to speed and cyclists will continue to be killed. Take them off the streets during rush hour, morning and evening, at the very least.


 
Obviously getting the dodgy ones off the road is a good thing to do but no conclusions can be drawn about this particular spate of deaths from that alone.

The article also doesn't say how they decided to choose which ones to stop.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 19, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Boris wants cycling with headphones banned.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/boris-johnson-considers-banning-cyclists-headphones
> 
> ...



Personally, I don't wear headphones whilst cycling cos I like to hear what's going on about me, but banning them is not the answer. Wearing headphones whilst cycling is one of those things that some people feel instinctively is wrong, but have no real evidence to suggest there's a greater chance of accident/death.

Anyway, Boris Johnson has a fucking cheek to avoid the infrastructure question and instead focus on audio devices distracting cyclists on the road:






Also, no high-vis, no helmet, and look at that cable lock dangling dangerously near the front wheel/brakes!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 19, 2013)

Parliamentary Transport Select Committee is doing an evidence session on cycling on 2 December - you can send them a tweet/email etc if you want: http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...tee/inquiries/parliament-2010/cycling-safety/



> *We would like to hear views on:*
> 
> 
> Whether cycling is safe, particularly in towns and cities
> ...


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2013)

The guy who got killed in Camberwell was a volunteer at Cooltan 

("In December 2011, Mr Muzira, a father of two, won a “Local Heroes” award from the Bank of America for his voluntary  service. He chose to donate his £3,000 prize to CoolTan Arts.")  ;(


> The sixth London cyclist to die in a fortnight was a “local hero” who had won a prestigious award for his voluntary work, it emerged today.
> 
> Richard Muzira, who was described as a “wonderful man”, was dragged under the wheels of a tipper truck in Camberwell yesterday.
> 
> ...


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...was-local-hero-and-wonderful-man-8949254.html


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2013)

Worth seeing again:



TfL (Transport for London) have made a video showing just how blind lorry drivers are in some circumstances. This is great evidence for the argument that heavy-goods vehicles and bikes shouldn’t have to share the same road space


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 19, 2013)

editor said:


> The guy who got killed in Camberwell was a volunteer at Cooltan
> 
> ("In December 2011, Mr Muzira, a father of two, won a “Local Heroes” award from the Bank of America for his voluntary  service. He chose to donate his £3,000 prize to CoolTan Arts.")  ;(
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...was-local-hero-and-wonderful-man-8949254.html



shit  how awful


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 19, 2013)

editor said:


> Worth seeing again:
> 
> 
> 
> TfL (Transport for London) have made a video showing just how blind lorry drivers are in some circumstances. This is great evidence for the argument that heavy-goods vehicles and bikes shouldn’t have to share the same road space


I've sat in a cab like that. The visibility is shit. 

This video just goes to show how crazy it is the vehicles with such poor visibility are allowed on the roads. HGVs built since 2009 have to have 2 extra mirrors (making a total of 6) including one above the passenger door pointed downwards, to help see cyclists. (Hurrah for the EU, who brought in this law!) It looks like the lorry in the video doesn't have that additional mirror. And lorries older than 2009 can get away without the extra mirrors - which is scandalous in my opinion. They should be forced to be retro-fitted, it's not exactly expensive to add a mirror or two.

The even more ridiculous thing is that - instead of redesigning lorry cabs for better visibility - the London Mayor aims to encourage lorries to fit sensors and other safety equipment. And if lorries don't do this, they will simply be fined £200, rather than being banned from London roads. Absolutely crazy: just use cyclists lives as a cash cow for TfL


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 19, 2013)

Article on the CTC website, which among other things, reminds us that Boris has form for victim-blaming in cycle deaths:



> Boris Johnson hasn’t helped in the slightest, with his sickeningly insensitive comments in a radio interview.  He said “There's no question of blame or finger-pointing”, yet he then went straight on to do just that.  "Unless people obey the laws of the road and people actively take account of the signals that we put in, there's no amount of traffic engineering that we invest in that is going to save people's lives."
> 
> Boris has form when it comes to this kind of victim-blaming.  He once produced a made-up statistic, claiming that 62% of cyclists suffering fatal and serious injuries in London had been breaching the rules of the road at the time.  It took 4 months for him to admit that this statement was incorrect.



Also, TfL data suggests that cyclists are far safer road users than drivers or motorbikers:



> …[TfL data] suggest that 5% of cyclists' serious and fatal injuries involved red-light jumping or disobedience of junction controls by the cyclists themselves, compared with 15% by drivers or motorcyclists.



http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-ge...cking-responsibility-for-action-to-save-lives


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 19, 2013)

And another lorry redesign article: http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-chal...er-urban-lorry-to-reduce-lorry-cyclist-deaths






And some stats on causes of cycling KSIs (killed or seriously injured): Causes of London cyclists' serious and fatal injuries, 2007, 2008 and 2010


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not so much cash necessarily. How much would it cost to ban lorries from central London during the rush hour and install new traffic lights that give cyclists a head-start? Those two measures combined would make a massive difference.


you've not thought this through. fewer hgvs during rush hour = more hgvs outside rush hour, a greater concentration of them, and fucking with drivers' working patterns may lead to more accidents. try to think of the consequences of things you propose. turning to the traffic lights slowing down cars may lead to more cars going through yellow lights and rushing as soon as lights change, with increased ppotential for


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you've not thought this through. fewer hgvs during rush hour = more hgvs outside rush hour, a greater concentration of them, and fucking with drivers' working patterns may lead to more accidents. try to think of the consequences of things you propose.


it is already done in other cities whose experience we can learn from. So yes, I have thought it through. Unlike you who has thought through nothinf on this thread.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 19, 2013)

Surely the very least these lorries need is wheelarch covers, video cameras, proximity sensors like they have in aircraft (and underground train doors) , SERIOUS indicator repeaters with voice / beepers ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> it is already done in other cities whose experience we can learn from. So yes, I have thought it through. Unlike you who has thought through nothinf on this thread.


stop spouting bollocks. you've lied before on this thread and it's disappointing to see that continue


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you've not thought this through. fewer hgvs during rush hour = more hgvs outside rush hour, a greater concentration of them, and fucking with drivers' working patterns may lead to more accidents. try to think of the consequences of things you propose. turning to the traffic lights slowing down cars may lead to more cars going through yellow lights and rushing as soon as lights change, with increased ppotential for


accidents


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 19, 2013)

You have a peculiar aristolian attitude towards evidence. Aristotle got most things wrong too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have a peculiar aristolian attitude towards evidence. Aristotle got most things wrong too.


let's start with the tfl report. tell you what, quote the post that appears in - the tfl report, not a secondary source - and i'll see what i can do in way of an apology.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 19, 2013)

The CTC have started a letter writing campaign with the aim to urge the London Mayor to improve infrastructure.  

http://e-activist.com/ea-action/act...3888&ea.tracking.id=HGV-action&forwarded=true


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 19, 2013)

Mine would go something like "helmets and headphones" Boris ?

fuck right off.


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 19, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> shit  how awful[/quote
> 
> hhe was a genuinely lovely bloke, supported me and loads of other volunteers there. I hope his friends, family and all at cooltan are coping ok.


----------



## Onket (Nov 19, 2013)

This isn't a good article-

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/s...isky-for-cyclists-whatever-we-do-8948926.html

Today's paper.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 19, 2013)

Onket said:


> This isn't a good article-
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/s...isky-for-cyclists-whatever-we-do-8948926.html
> 
> Today's paper.


Terrible article, full of inaccuracies and evidence-free assertions. Simon Jenkins has always been a proper selfish right wing cunt. _Cyclists will always die, so let's do nothing._


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2013)

Excellent piece here:


> *Let's Stop Scoring Points Over Dead Cyclists*
> If you need a barometer of just how much a bunch of utter bastards humankind can be, look no further than a story about a cyclist dying on the roads of London.
> 
> Tragically, you won't need to look far - six in the last fortnight should give you plenty of ammunition - and it seems everybody has a little bit of hatred reserved for the people who leave home in the morning and end up lying in a morgue rather than sitting at a desk.
> ...


----------



## Crispy (Nov 19, 2013)

Onket said:


> This isn't a good article-
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/s...isky-for-cyclists-whatever-we-do-8948926.html
> 
> Today's paper.


SImon Jenkins is a qualified moron on almost every topic.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 19, 2013)

Here's your classic dumb cyclist in action in Brixton.  With cycling like this no wonder they had an accident.
I'm not that interested in all the press chatter. All these opinions were well known before all these events.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 19, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Mine would go something like "helmets and headphones" Boris ?
> 
> fuck right off.



Perhaps you could consider a slight change so you can stick with convention.  Address him as "Dear Mr Johnson", Boris may be a little informal.

The content is perfect though.


----------



## laptop (Nov 19, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> If we are to follow Pickman's logic on this issue these figures clearly show that it's time to start training pedestrians how to cross roads, and walk on pavements.



Not a terrible idea.

(As far as the pedestrians who'd rather be alive than In The Right go, anyway. 

Those who'd rather be In The Right, those who prefer to navigate the streets as the Ought To Be rather than as they are... evolution will take care of them.)


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 19, 2013)

laptop said:


> Not a terrible idea.
> 
> (As far as the pedestrians who'd rather be alive than In The Right go, anyway.
> 
> Those who'd rather be In The Right, those who prefer to navigate the streets as the Ought To Be rather than as they are... evolution will take care of them.)



Would you be happy to attend a course which tells you how to walk on a pavement?  One which tells you how to avoid cars which are driving at you?


----------



## laptop (Nov 20, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Would you be happy to attend a course which tells you how to walk on a pavement?  One which tells you how to avoid cars which are driving at you?



Pitch me. Tell me about how I'm going to get new tips for spotting drivers who, in the real world, are about to kill me.

Now pitch me as a 7-year-old, or rather pitch my headteacher on how her school ranking will be improved by my survival.

If you'd rather be dead than admit you have something to learn, evolution has an answer for you too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Laptop, you know better than most that 'common sense' can be a terrible guide. What evidence can you produce? What have you learned from this thread about the nature of the problem?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

Aussie website did a test on cyclists using headphones in traffic - turns out cyclists with headphones can hear just as much outside noise as drivers in cars, sometimes more.

http://rideons.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/an-ear-on-the-traffic/

Not that I'm defending it. Pisses on Boris's theory though.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 20, 2013)

laptop said:


> Pitch me. Tell me about how I'm going to get new tips for spotting drivers who, in the real world, are about to kill me.
> 
> Now pitch me as a 7-year-old, or rather pitch my headteacher on how her school ranking will be improved by my survival.
> 
> If you'd rather be dead than admit you have something to learn, evolution has an answer for you too.



Personally I don't think teaching adults basic road safety would make our streets safer - but as you are keen here's a resource for you.

http://www.brake.org.uk/info-resour...ty-resources-for-children-and-adults-with-sen


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Aussie website did a test on cyclists using headphones in traffic - turns out cyclists with headphones can hear just as much outside noise as drivers in cars, sometimes more.
> 
> http://rideons.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/an-ear-on-the-traffic/
> 
> Not that I'm defending it. Pisses on Boris's theory though.


That's certainly my experience over 26 years - of course you can't regulate for how loud people turn it up - and in-ear and noise-cancelling ones are a no-no - but then I'm sure there are people out there who deliberately wear earplugs to keep the wind out.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01kkx9j

I think he's been misrepresented.

But the headphone thing is barkingly wrong.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

There was some bod on there saying how as a driver he had to take loads of lessons and swot up on "box junctions" etc ... and by inference cyclists who aren't also drivers need to be extensively trained.

I got on a motorcycle at 17 and knew how the roads worked as a pedestrian and bus passenger - I grew up in a household with no car.
I had a few hours training around that time, but can't recall much of it sinking in.

I never had a driving lesson - after 7 years as a motorcyclist I just drove a three-wheeler around the block to work out how the non-synchro gears worked etc. I don't reckon non-motorcyclists actually have the skills to handle a 3-wheeler correctly.

There are *specific* survival skills though - but I can't remember ever thinking going up the inside of a bus was a good idea even when I fist got onto the road.

The past 26 years of riding a bicycle has taught me the most and I hope it reflects in the way I drive.

The bottom line though is we need all the stats about all the KSIs - what experience the people had and what they were doing at the time.


----------



## Onket (Nov 20, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Aussie website did a test on cyclists using headphones in traffic - turns out cyclists with headphones can hear just as much outside noise as drivers in cars, sometimes more.
> 
> http://rideons.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/an-ear-on-the-traffic/
> 
> Not that I'm defending it. Pisses on Boris's theory though.


 
The test should be headphone wearing cyclist vs non-headphone wearing cyclist. A driver is protected by his car, a cyclist isn't.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

Onket said:


> A driver is protected by his car, a cyclist isn't.


So is much more on the ball to start with.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Onket said:


> The test should be headphone wearing cyclist vs non-headphone wearing cyclist. A driver is protected by his car, a cyclist isn't.


Only if you apply the test to drivers and their radios, too. After all, it is the drivers who are in charge of the heavy, dangerous machine, not the cyclists. 

Is listening to the radio while cycling any more of a distraction to the cyclist than it is to a driver while driving? If not, then the most important thing to do wrt road safety is to ban radios from cars - the driver is in charge of a dangerous machine in the way that a cyclist is not.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

I wonder if not wearing headphones would be more useful as a cyclist in the Netherlands where there are lots of cyclists all close together ?

I'll lift off an earphone or two on unfamiliar roads ...


----------



## Onket (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Only if you apply the test to drivers and their radios, too. After all, it is the drivers who are in charge of the heavy, dangerous machine, not the cyclists.
> 
> Is listening to the radio while cycling any more of a distraction to the cyclist than it is to a driver while driving? If not, then the most important thing to do wrt road safety is to ban radios from cars - the driver is in charge of a dangerous machine in the way that a cyclist is not.


 
Yes, I see this. I just don't think that it's the correct comparison.

I think if you compare cyclists without headphones to cyclists wearing headphones you will find that those wearing headphones cannot hear other traffic as well, and are therefore more at risk.

Not sure about banning them, but certainly wouldn't wear headphones any more than I'd wear an eyepatch or try to cycle with one foot tied to my elbow.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

So shall we ban deaf cyclists ?
Or perhaps make them wear special badges on them or their bikes ?


----------



## Onket (Nov 20, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> So shall we ban deaf cyclists ?
> Or perhaps make them wear special badges on them or their bikes ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Onket said:


> Yes, I see this. I just don't think that it's the correct comparison.
> 
> I think if you compare cyclists without headphones to cyclists wearing headphones you will find that those wearing headphones cannot hear other traffic as well, and are therefore more at risk..



I reckon you are right. And as I said upthread, a similar study has already been done with cars - drivers not listening to the radio/music are safer. Not so much because they can hear the outside better, but because the radio/music is a distraction.


----------



## Onket (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I reckon you are right. And as I said upthread, a similar study has already been done with cars - drivers not listening to the radio/music are safer. Not so much because they can hear the outside better, but because the radio/music is a distraction.


 
It is pretty straightforward stuff, isn't it.


----------



## Sunray (Nov 20, 2013)

The head phone thing, people have forgotten about Motorbike riders who have a very heavy, solid, padded helmet around their head, with ear plugs in.

With open cupped headphones in I can hear far more than they can, even with the music on.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Onket said:


> It is pretty straightforward stuff, isn't it.


It is. But then you have to ask what are the acceptable limits of behaviour. Is listening to the radio in a car such a safety issue that radios should be banned from cars? Perhaps. I'm not sure. Long car journeys are made more bearable by a radio.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Sunray said:


> The head phone thing, people have forgotten about Motorbike riders who have a very heavy, solid, padded helmet around their head, with ear plugs in.
> 
> With open cupped headphones in I can hear far more than they can, even with the music on.


tbh, wrt safety, I think it is the distraction the headphones/radio provide that is the main issue. (Not that the idiot Johnson seems to realise this - or perhaps he does, and is such a cynical politician that he will happily use the issue as a distraction.)

And wrt cyclist deaths in London, this isn't the main issue at all, of course.


----------



## Sunray (Nov 20, 2013)

Is listening to music while walking along enough to get you killed on the road as a pedestrian by stepping into the road while distracted by the music?  

I have ear plug headphones that completely shield me from ambient noise playing music and I've never decided to walk into a road.


----------



## Onket (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is. But then you have to ask what are the acceptable limits of behaviour. Is listening to the radio in a car such a safety issue that radios should be banned from cars? Perhaps. I'm not sure. Long car journeys are made more bearable by a radio.


 
I'm not saying it's about banning stuff. It's about choosing to be safer.

The argument that cyclists can listen to headphones because drivers listen to the radio is a very odd one. I appreciate you're not making this argument, but it does appear to be hinted at on this thread, and has been elsewhere on the cycle commute thread, for example.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 20, 2013)

Onket said:


> It is pretty straightforward stuff, isn't it.



As for human psychology often what actually happens is the opposite to what seems obvious.

In this case for example, I would have thought that boredom would be a big risk factor in driving.  Therefore having the distraction of a radio as something to keep your mind occupied, would perhaps reduce boredom and help with your driving.

Either way, I think it's going to be hard to get solid evidence on the impact of headphones for cyclists or radio's for drivers.  Probably because any impact is likely to be marginal.  Partly for this reason I think Boris is way off the mark in going on about headphones as a response to this spate of cyclist deaths.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Onket said:


> I'm not saying it's about banning stuff. It's about choosing to be safer.
> 
> The argument that cyclists can listen to headphones because drivers listen to the radio is a very odd one. I appreciate you're not making this argument, but it does appear to be hinted at on this thread, and has been elsewhere on the cycle commute thread, for example.



I dislike banning stuff except where there is compelling evidence that it is the right thing to do. In this case, banning HGVs from city centres during rush hours morning and evening is something for which there is very compelling evidence. Also, as a basic principle, the more dangerous the thing you do potentially is to other people (in this case, the heavier your vehicle), the more the onus should be on you to minimise that danger: by ensuring your vehicle has safety features, your driver is not overtired and is properly trained, and also that you keep off the roads when they are really busy with vulnerable users. On city roads, the HGV should be the bottom priority, only allowed to use the roads where they are of minimal menace to others. Cities are for living in. Deliveries need to be made, but they do not need to be made during peak times. People do need to get to/from work during peak times.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> let's start with the tfl report. tell you what, quote the post that appears in - the tfl report, not a secondary source - and i'll see what i can do in way of an apology.


What gave you the idea that I was after an apology? 

My posts on this thread are there for all to see. As are yours.


----------



## rover07 (Nov 20, 2013)

I nearly got crushed against a barrier by a bus at Elephant and Castle roundabout. After that I adopted a policy of cycling in the middle of the lane where possible. So what if i'm slowing traffic down a bit, you're not going anywhere fast anyway.

OCCUPY IT!


----------



## Utopia (Nov 20, 2013)

rover07 said:


> I nearly got crushed against a barrier by a bus at Elephant and Castle roundabout. After that I adopted a policy of cycling in the middle of the lane where possible. So what if i'm slowing traffic down a bit, you're not going anywhere fast anyway.
> 
> OCCUPY IT!


 
Maybe you shouldn't have been undertaking a long vehicle on a roundabout next to a barrier with no escape route!

*Anticipate the stupidity of the driver*!


----------



## Crispy (Nov 20, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Maybe you shouldn't have been undertaking a long vehicle


They may have been overtaken.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 20, 2013)

Crispy said:


> They may have been overtaken.


 
If they were on a bike being overtaken by a bus on a roundabout then they should really work on their fitness levels


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

Utopia said:


> *Anticipate the stupidity of the driver*!


 
Anticipating the stupidity of cyclists is pretty vital too, especially the ones with no lights going perpendicular to flowing traffic from between parked cars with their hoodie up.  Fortunately that's not every day...


----------



## Utopia (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Anticipating the stupidity of cyclists is pretty vital too, especially the ones with no lights going perpendicular to flowing traffic from between parked cars with their hoodie up.  Fortunately that's not every day...


 
As a cyclist i'd rather focus on cars/lorries/buses which if hit me will hurt much more that a fellow cyclist, thank you please.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

Utopia said:


> As a cyclist i'd rather focus on cars/lorries/buses which if hit me will hurt much more that a fellow cyclist, thank you please.


 
Guess that explains them nearly hitting each other in that clip earlier.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Guess that explains them nearly hitting each other in that clip earlier.


 
Ummmm that clip(post #431) showed a dopey cyclist trying to squeeze through a closing gap between the bus & the van & clipping the van & coming off.........did you watch the clip or did you just see the still image in the post?


----------



## rover07 (Nov 20, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Maybe you shouldn't have been undertaking a long vehicle on a roundabout next to a barrier with no escape route!
> 
> *Anticipate the stupidity of the driver*!



I was waiting for a gap in the traffic with my foot on the kerb when a bus turning left cut very close to me. I'd only just moved into the area so was still unfamiliar with the best way to cross. Maybe I was in no danger and the bus driver knew exactly what angle to take and how close he could get but it scared the shit out of me. Those high granite kerbs don't help either.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 20, 2013)

rover07 said:


> I was waiting for a gap in the traffic with my foot on the kerb when a bus turning left cut very close to me. I'd only just moved into the area so was still unfamiliar with the best way to cross. Maybe I was in no danger and the bus driver knew exactly what angle to take and how close he could get but it scared the shit out of me. Those high granite kerbs don't help either.


 
Ah I see...sorry for assuming you were undertaking, those x2 roundabouts at E&C are pretty intimidating to even experienced cyclists!


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Ummmm...


 
Should probably have left it there.  I guess bumping into so many other cyclists is bound to lead to accumulative brain injuries.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 20, 2013)

Utopia said:


> Ah I see...sorry for assuming you were undertaking, those x2 roundabouts at E&C are pretty intimidating to even experienced cyclists!


I use to navigate them and they're not too bad if you take the lane. The Southern junction in particular is much improved. These days, I suffer the indignity of the blue paint and take the superhighway longcut aroudn the back and then up Southwark Bridge road. Much more pleasant, if slower.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

Crispy said:


> I use to navigate them and they're not too bad if you take the lane. The Southern junction in particular is much improved. These days, I suffer the indignity of the blue paint and take the superhighway longcut aroudn the back and then up Southwark Bridge road. Much more pleasant, if slower.


 
Do you find that blue paint run to be any use?  Looked like a terrifying gauntlet run of lorries from that Guardian video.


----------



## lighterthief (Nov 20, 2013)

In case it hasn't been posted the London Assembly has launched a survey asking for information from cyclists and other Londoners about cycling in the capital.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> The bottom line though is we need all the stats about all the KSIs - what experience the people had and what they were doing at the time.


Causes of London cyclists' serious and fatal injuries, 2007, 2008 and 2010 (TfL data)


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Causes of London cyclists' serious and fatal injuries, 2007, 2008 and 2010 (TfL data)


 
Surprised there aren't more 'dodgy U-turn' KSi's - I've seen a few near-misses of that kind - taxis about half the time.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

Need more info about age, experience, whether wearing headphones etc ...


----------



## Crispy (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Do you find that blue paint run to be any use?  Looked like a terrifying gauntlet run of lorries from that Guardian video.


My route is Brixton Hill -> Oval -> Elephant -> Southwark Bridge -> Barbican. Google Maps Directions (snipped at start and end, obviously!)

I take back streets and join Brixton Road at Atlantic Road. I join the blue paint at Oval, where it's really just the bus lane, all the way to Elephant. At the ped crossing before the junction proper, the blue paint turns off the road and goes through the back streets, avoiding the roundabout. It involves a few left-then-immediately-right turns, and two light-controlled crossings of the roads that radiate from the roundabout, but it gets me onto Southwark Bridge Road without having to deal with any 4 lane megaroads. The blue paint along SBR is pretty good. Not segregated, but wide and flat, although it does start and stop to allow for car parking. On-street residential car parking! In zone 1! A crime, IMO.

Then there's the junction with Southwark Street, which is completely unaltered and is a shit junction for cyclists. The approach to the bridge isn't great, with no marked bike lane, vehicles parked by the kerb, and a patch of motorbike parking right by the entrance to the segregated path over the bridge which is *just* wide enough for cyclists to overtake each other but not wide enough for it to feel comfortable.

Then the other side of the bridge, the blue paint disappears completely and you have to jostle with traffic in 2 lanes to get to the front of the lights. This junction is also shit for cyclists. After that it's City streets which aren't too bad.

I take this route because it's got less traffic and pollution, not because of the blue paint. The "superhighway" created no real new infrastructure and should have its nasty junctions (Oval, Kennington, Elephant, Southwark Road, Upper Thames Street) properly remodelled to give cyclists priority rather than lip service.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Do you find that blue paint run to be any use?  Looked like a terrifying gauntlet run of lorries from that Guardian video.


In general, the blue paint superhighways are little better than useless. However the bit at Elephant & Castle is ok, cos it takes you round the back of the two major roundabouts through quiet backstreets and cycle-only tracks. There's even some separated lanes in places. As Crispy says, it's slower, but much safer and more pleasant.

Some of it can be seen on this video:



And then continued on this video:



Worth mentioning that this type of infrastructure is the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Need more info about age, experience, whether wearing headphones etc ...


Apparently the police/TfL only record information which they believe is a factor in the accident.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Causes of London cyclists' serious and fatal injuries, 2007, 2008 and 2010 (TfL data)


Very interesting stats. Where there are comparable causes with reverse fault - disobeying junction priorities, for instance - the other vehicle is at fault roughly twice as much as the cyclist.(And the top cause is 100% the driver's fault, turning right into a cyclist, ffs.)

Those stats bear out the notion that cyclists are the most vigilant and careful of all road users, which given their vulnerability is not a surprise.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

If they bring in a petty rule about headphones, I hope they also adopt the Germans' seriousness about bicycle lighting too.
(Not entirely serious about this last thing though as I'm never going to get type approval for my DIY lights)


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> In general, the blue paint superhighways are little better than useless. However the bit at Elephant & Castle is ok, cos it takes you round the back of the two major roundabouts through quiet backstreets and cycle-only tracks. There's even some separated lanes in places. As Crispy says, it's slower, but much safer and more pleasant.
> 
> Some of it can be seen on this video:




So I guess 'it has its uses, in places' would be a reasonable summing up?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> So I guess 'it has its uses, in places' would be a reasonable summing up?


Yeah. They've taken a pre-existing route and improved it wherever it was cheap and unobtrusive to do so. Major road junctions are still overwhelmingly in favour of motor vehicles. But this is just CS7 - Merton to City. The one with all the deaths is CS2 Bow to Aldgate.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is listening to the radio while cycling any more of a distraction to the cyclist than it is to a driver while driving? If not, then the most important thing to do wrt road safety is to ban radios from cars - the driver is in charge of a dangerous machine in the way that a cyclist is not.



This is a bollocks of an argument. "If cyclists shouldn't listen to music neither should drivers, ner ner ner ner ner!" Straight out of the playground.

The fact is that people listening to music are less aware of what's going on around them than those that are using all their senses, regardless of their mode of transport. But if a driver fails to hear the car behind him while turning, chances are there'll be a few dented panels, whereas the cyclist gets wiped-out.

I don't agree with legislating to ban earphones, but cyclists should take responsibility for their own safety as well. Listening to music in London rush hour traffic, thus depriving themselves of a potentially life-saving sense, is fucking moronic.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> So I guess 'it has its uses, in places' would be a reasonable summing up?


In a tiny number of places!

I'd say about 5% of the superhighways are good infrastructure. There are a few good segragated bits, like the two-way contraflow cycle track along Cable Street. But most of it is just blue paint on busy main roads…which disappears at bus stops and forces cyclists out into the middle of the road and into conflict with fast-moving traffic. In fact, the bus lanes themselves are generally more useful than the blue lanes - at least they keep most of the traffic away from you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> This is a bollocks of an argument. "If cyclists shouldn't listen to music neither should drivers, ner ner ner ner ner!" Straight out of the playground.
> 
> The fact is that people listening to music are less aware of what's going on around them than those that are using all their senses, regardless of their mode of transport. But if a driver fails to hear the car behind him while turning chances are there are a few dented panels, whereas the cyclist gets wiped-out.
> 
> I don't agree with legislating to ban earphones, but cyclists should take responsibility for their own safety as well. Listening to music in London rush hour traffic, thus depriving themselves of a potentially life-saving sense, is fucking moronic.


You have missed my point. The driver is the one in charge of a dangerous machine. There is therefore more onus on the driver not to do things that distract them than the cyclist. And it isn't about not hearing others, it's about the distraction the radio/ipod provides. 

I don't agree necessarily with legislating either for cyclists or drivers wrt listening to music, but there is almost certainly a stronger case for banning radios from cars than there is for banning cyclists from wearing headphones.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have missed my point. The driver is the one in charge of a dangerous machine. There is therefore more onus on the driver not to do things that distract them than the cyclist.


 
Not sure about this.  The cyclist doesn't have carte blanche for unlimited stupidity purely by way of being more vulnerable.


----------



## co-op (Nov 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> The fact is that people listening to music are less aware of what's going on around them than those that are using all their senses, regardless of their mode of transport. But if a driver fails to hear the car behind him while turning chances are there are a few dented panels, whereas the cyclist gets wiped-out.
> 
> I don't agree with legislating to ban earphones, but cyclists should take responsibility for their own safety as well. Listening to music in London rush hour traffic, thus depriving themselves of a potentially life-saving sense, is fucking moronic.



Yes cars are mostly tootling along tramlines with the same car in front and the same behind for long stretches of stop-start etc - cycling is much more dynamic, the situation is always changing. Personally I'd never use headphones on a busy urban cycle, I think they're dangerous. And motorbikers shouldn't have to worry about what's behind them, they're basically just overtaking...it's eyes front really unless you are really lane-chopping.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Not sure about this.  The cyclist doesn't have carte blanche for unlimited stupidity purely by way of being more vulnerable.


I didn't say they should. But cyclists are an almost zero danger to others, as the stats show. Drivers are not. And that changes the balance of responsibility.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have missed my point.



No, you're missing mine. 

Cyclists are far more vulnerable than drivers. Therefore they should give themselves every possible advantage when cycling in heavy traffic. One such advantage is the ability to react to audible danger.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I didn't say they should. But cyclists are an almost zero danger to others, as the stats show. Drivers are not. And that changes the balance of responsibility.


 
Cyclists remain a danger to themselves, and cost a lot of money to clean up, so that has to figure into things.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> No, you're missing mine.
> 
> Cyclists are far more vulnerable than drivers. Therefore they should give themselves every possible advantage when cycling in heavy traffic. One such advantage is the ability to react to audible danger.



And because they are so vulnerable, cyclists are on average far more vigilant than drivers, as the accident stats show. I wouldn't cycle with headphones on personally, but in terms of the problem this is wrt accidents, I'd like to see evidence showing what difference it makes.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Not sure about this.  The cyclist doesn't have carte blanche for unlimited stupidity purely by way of being more vulnerable.



Quite the reverse in fact.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I wouldn't cycle with headphones on personally ...



Why not?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And because they are so vulnerable, cyclists are on average far more vigilant than drivers, as the accident stats show.


 
How do you come to this conclusion?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> How do you come to this conclusion?



Intuitively, I think that's fair. But that's not really the point is it?

There can be little doubt that sticking buds into ones ears and playing music through them reduces the ability to hear other things. Like vehicles.

Cycling in heavy traffic is dangerous and requires skill and attention. Reducing the amount of attention that one can give to potentially fatal situations is really, really stupid.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> How do you come to this conclusion?


Combination of two things: personal experience cycling and the need to look out for drivers and assume they haven't seen you; and by looking at the accident stats and seeing who is more commonly at fault.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Why not?


Same reason I don't wear them when walking. I like to be as aware as possible of my surroundings. I don't doubt that listening to music/the radio when cycling or driving, or walking for that matter, is a distraction that causes you to pay less attention to your surroundings.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Combination of two things: personal experience cycling and the need to look out for drivers and assume they haven't seen you; and by looking at the accident stats and seeing who is more commonly at fault.


 
Guesswork, then. 

"As the accident stats show..."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Guesswork, then.
> 
> "As the accident stats show..."


No, not guesswork at all. Read the accident stats Brixton Hatter linked to on the last page.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I like to be as aware as possible of my surroundings. I don't doubt that listening to music/the radio when cycling or driving, or walking for that matter, is a distraction that causes you to pay less attention to your surroundings.



Well there you go then.

I frequently used to give Mrs Spy bollockings for not taking out her earphones when crossing roads _as a ped_. It's not about the relative dangers of car drivers and cyclists listening to music. It's about taking a little more _responsibility for ones own safety_ and giving oneself every opportunity not to get hurt.

This attitude that some cyclists have that they should be able to do stuff "because car drivers do it", or that cycling is less dangerous to others than driving, is all very well, but would sound pretty fucking hollow spoken from a bed in intensive care.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, not guesswork at all. Read the accident stats.


 
Try again.  Then consider the relationship between your observations and your conclusions, as well as alternative interpretations, and confounding variables.  I expect better from you when it comes to this sort of thing. 

edit:  I'm just joshing, but I'm certainly not sure I was more vigilant when I cycled more than drove, though even then I wouldn't have been brave/foolhardy enough to take on London rush hour traffic


----------



## hash tag (Nov 20, 2013)

The cycle superhighways are worse than useless and could have been a factor in at least one of the deaths. I gather, and there is no way to confirm this, that one of the cyclists cycled like he had priority when he didn't. Those blue lines cost ten of millions and yet have no legislation covering them. Cars, buses, lorries, taxi's can all use them, therefore what's the point of them? At least with bus lanes, cars and lorries tend to keep out of them because they know they will be fined if they eneter them, thats why they are much safer for cyclists, though I never liked the idea of motorbikes being able to use the bus lane.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 20, 2013)

We wouldn't be having these arguments without the CS plan. It's a stepping stone to better cycle infrastructure. It a rough way of leading to a safer future. That's why TFL did it, not because it was ideal but it was fairly easy to do and didn't cost too much.  It moved things forward and now look how mobilised people are !


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> We wouldn't have been having these arguments without the CS plan. It's a stepping stone to better cycle infrastructure. It a rough way of leading to a safer future. That's why TFL did it, not because it was ideal but it was fairly easy to do and didn't cost too much.  It moved things forward and now look how mobilised people are !


 
If they can squish 20 or so more cyclists, think how mobilised people will be!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Well there you go then.
> 
> I frequently used to give Mrs Spy bollockings for not taking out her earphones when crossing roads _as a ped_. It's not about the relative dangers of car drivers and cyclists listening to music. It's about taking a little more _responsibility for ones own safety_ and giving oneself every opportunity not to get hurt.
> 
> This attitude that some cyclists have that they should be able to do stuff "because car drivers do it", or that cycling is less dangerous to others than driving, is all very well, but would sound pretty fucking hollow spoken from a bed in intensive care.


Attention is a very particular thing. We can only pay attention to one thing at a time. Everything else trundles along on autopilot until something appears that grabs our attention over to it. 

But if it were to be found that cycling with headphones is so dangerous that it should be banned, it would not unreasonable to point out that the same evidence also shows that drivers shouldn't listen to the radio.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> but if it were to be found that cycling with headphones is so dangerous that it should be banned, it would not unreasonable to point out that the same evidence also shows that drivers shouldn't listen to the radio.


 
I think it's reasonable to say that for some drivers at least it is better not to have the radio on to avoid distraction.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

Some drivers (and cyclists) shouldn't be trusted with pointy scissors.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Some drivers (and cyclists) shouldn't be trusted with pointy scissors.


 
They never let us ride the tricycle in nursery school while holding scissors.

What I mean is that some people are more likely to be distracted by a radio than others - it does not map in a simple way to how good a driver/cyclist they are otherwise.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Attention is a very particular thing. We can only pay attention to one thing at a time. Everything else trundles along on autopilot until something appears that grabs our attention over to it.



I disagree. Drivers are (or should be) constantly scanning the environment in front and behind for potential hazards, of which there are many. Cyclists should be too. "Autopilot" is what causes accidents.



> But if it were to be found that cycling with headphones is so dangerous that it should be banned, it would not unreasonable to point out that the same evidence also shows that drivers shouldn't listen to the radio.



No. The danger is to themselves, not necessarily others. The results of a 'collision due to music' in heavy traffic are far more catastrophic to cyclists than to drivers, so it does not follow that both situations should be treated equally at all. If I thought there was a reasonable chance that listen to music in the car could get me killed or seriously injured I'd have the stereo removed. Yet some cyclists are quite happy to bonk around in heavy traffic with buds in.

As I say, I don't agree with banning headphones. I just think people who wear them in city traffic are utter dullards.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> We wouldn't be having these arguments without the CS plan. It's a stepping stone to better cycle infrastructure. It a rough way of leading to a safer future. That's why TFL did it, not because it was ideal but it was fairly easy to do and didn't cost too much.  It moved things forward and now look how mobilised people are !


Interesting point that the CSs are a stepping stone to better infra. That may well be the case (certainly in the eyes of TfL) but there were warnings from the police and cycling organisations that the original CSs were inadequate and would lead to accidents, but TfL went ahead anyway, and look at the result. They should have been built properly in the first place - there's good practice from all over the world they could have copied, but they didn't.

I do think the simple act of waymarking routes with blue paint has encouraged more people to cycle (as has the cycle hire scheme) but cycling was on the increase anyway. From my experience, cycling was been increasily significantly in the early 2000s before any interventions. There was a particular boost after the congestion charge came in in 2003. But I don't think you can say the CS have mobilised people into action - there's been a huge cycling lobby for years (London Cycling Campaign, CTC, Sustrans, thousands of bloggers etc) and years of hard work from cycling activists is now beginning to bear fruit and get the issue heard more widely.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 20, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> That's certainly my experience over 26 years - of course you can't regulate for how loud people turn it up - and in-ear and noise-cancelling ones are a no-no - but then I'm sure there are people out there who deliberately wear earplugs to keep the wind out.


I doubt it.
Most people wear them cos listening to music while you travel is awesome.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> This is a bollocks of an argument. "If cyclists shouldn't listen to music neither should drivers, ner ner ner ner ner!" Straight out of the playground.
> 
> The fact is that people listening to music are less aware of what's going on around them than those that are using all their senses, regardless of their mode of transport. But if a driver fails to hear the car behind him while turning chances are there are a few dented panels, whereas the cyclist gets wiped-out.
> 
> I don't agree with legislating to ban earphones, but cyclists should take responsibility for their own safety as well. Listening to music in London rush hour traffic, thus depriving themselves of a potentially life-saving sense, is fucking moronic.


It may be, but people will still continue to do it cos they love it so much, like smoking and drinking too much.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> If I thought there was a reasonable chance that listen to music in the car could get me killed or seriously injured I'd have the stereo removed.


I'm not sure that's how our brains work. We certainly don't apply that to everything we do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What gave you the idea that I was after an apology?
> 
> My posts on this thread are there for all to see. As are yours.


and what a sorry, evidence-free sight they are


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> It may be, but people will still continue to do it cos they love it so much, like smoking and drinking too much.


you think listening to loud music is an addiction like drinking and smoking? btw how much is enough to smoke?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> btw how much is enough to smoke?


 
Like units of alcohol - it's 3 fags a day for a woman, 4 for a man.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> As I say, I don't agree with banning headphones. I just think people who wear them in city traffic are utter dullards.



We're pretty much in agreement then, I think. This is also my position (although 'dullards' is a little further than I'd go ).


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Very interesting stats. Where there are comparable causes with reverse fault - disobeying junction priorities, for instance - the other vehicle is at fault roughly twice as much as the cyclist.(And the top cause is 100% the driver's fault, turning right into a cyclist, ffs.)
> 
> Those stats bear out the notion that cyclists are the most vigilant and careful of all road users, which given their vulnerability is not a surprise.


there's a logic fuck-up there. can you spot it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> and what a sorry, evidence-free sight they are


You still here? 

Welcome to my newly established ignore list.  Bye.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> there's a logic fuck-up there. can you spot it?


 
Unless there are more than one I think we've already been over it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Unless there are more than one I think we've already been over it.


i'm thinking here of all the incidents in which no one was injured or only slightly injured, which are not recorded in the statistics presented. littlebabyjesus' assertion about cyclists being the most vigilant and careful road users may be backed up by the inclusion of such incidents: but without the data to support it, it is untenable. tell you what, let's have the stats up for horse-drawn hearses and see how many injuries they've been involved in over the same years. they might be more careful and vigilant than the cyclists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You still here?
> 
> Welcome to my newly established ignore list.  Bye.


grand


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm thinking here of all the incidents in which no one was injured or only slightly injured, which are not recorded in the statistics presented. littlebabyjesus' assertion about cyclists being the most vigilant and careful road users may be backed up by the inclusion of such incidents: but without the data to support it, it is untenable. tell you what, let's have the stats up for horse-drawn hearses and see how many injuries they've been involved in over the same years. they might be more careful and vigilant than the cyclists.


 
Similar thing, really - evidence vs. interpretation. 

For instance, I was never a terribly vigilant cyclist but never had many accidents (never with a car or truck - usually just crashing into things/falling off).


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 20, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> We wouldn't be having these arguments without the CS plan. It's a stepping stone to better cycle infrastructure. It a rough way of leading to a safer future. That's why TFL did it, not because it was ideal but it was fairly easy to do and didn't cost too much.  It moved things forward and now look how mobilised people are !



That's a good point, and a valid argument where you have weak neo-liberal government which is afraid to have any vision over and above that the market requires.

They have it the wrong way around.  TFL attempt to accommodate what is expected to be an ever increasing volume of motorised traffic.  It's a self fulfilling plan.

What's needed is a vision and a plan to where car dependency is reduced and people can get around much easier without feeling the need to be encumbered with a car. 

The problem is that their the half-arsed attempts at person friendly streets begrudgingly accommodates active travel, rather than plans for and therefore encourage active travel.


----------



## co-op (Nov 20, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> From my experience, cycling was been increasily significantly in the early 2000s before any interventions. There was a particular boost after the congestion charge came in in 2003.



I was a proper London cyclist in that era and I am absolutely sure from my own observations (yeah yeah unscientific) that it was the 2005 tube bombings that was the biggest one-day increase in cycling I have ever seen. It's never mentioned in the debates I see - maybe becuase the official narrative is that London Can Take It, when the reality was the tubes were running half empty for months.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Similar thing, really - evidence vs. interpretation.
> 
> For instance, I was never a terribly vigilant cyclist but never had many accidents (never with a car or truck - usually just crashing into things/falling off).



I'm not going to argue any more over the point except to say that I said 'bears out', meaning that it is the kind of thing I'd expect to see. But I'm not going to be drawn into endless wrangling over details in the wording of posts of the form that Pickman's seems to prefer.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

co-op said:


> I was a proper London cyclist in that era and I am absolutely sure from my own observations (yeah yeah unscientific) that it was the 2005 tube bombings that was the biggest one-day increase in cycling I have ever seen. It's never mentioned in the debates I see - maybe becuase the official narrative is that London Can Take It, when the reality was the tubes were running half empty for months.


Yep - that too.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 20, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I doubt it.
> Most people wear them cos listening to music while you travel is awesome.



I like to hear the world myself. Each to their own I guess.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

It depends on where and when.
Most of the traffic I encounter just needs a bit of ambient electronica mixed-in to de-fuse, but I would like a volume control so I can drown out the M32 when I pass under it twice a day.

If I'm out in the country, I may well choose to listen to real sky larks rather than RVW's interpretation.

Every so often when it's safe to do so, I'll get the full dance experience where the music takes me past the pain barrier and I become one with the bike.

Without music it becomes "exercise", or worse, "sport" or "commuting"...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

Can't remember if it's been mentioned on this thread yet, but there's a mass 'die-in' outside TfL's offices a week on Friday to protest about the recent deaths and lack of movement on infrastructure. From 5pm to 6.30pm.







https://www.facebook.com/events/568751353179586/?ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular

Should make this month's Critical Mass pretty busy!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 20, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I like to hear the world myself. Each to their own I guess.


I find that being alone with my own thoughts = autopilot on bike. Not good.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 20, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> It depends on where and when.
> Most of the traffic I encounter just needs a bit of ambient electronica mixed-in to de-fuse, but I would like a volume control so I can drown out the M32 when I pass under it twice a day.
> 
> If I'm out in the country, I may well choose to listen to real sky larks rather than RVW's interpretation.
> ...



I rarely listen to music on a bike but where there's constant traffic music through headphones are okay.  There's always something behind you so it's doesn't help to know if something is behind you IYKYIM!  You can always hear a horn with headphones in.

It's only on quiet roads when I start to rely on my hearing.  As there is not constant traffic it helps to know if something is coming.

As an aside a couple of years ago I did a solo cycle tour taking in Holland. I had some things to think about.  Anyway for a couple of occasions I enjoyed getting stoned, putting headphones in and then pottering along a cycle routes to my next destination.  Not once did I feel at risk, or that I put myself or anyone else at risk at all while I quietly floated along.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

Look at this shit article on the BBC website:

*



			8 radical solutions to protect cyclists
		
Click to expand...

*


> * - Introduce bike licences and numberplates*
> * - Ban vehicles from city centres*
> * - Allow cycling on the pavement*
> * - Allow cyclists to jump red lights*
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24998730

None of the solutions involve separating bikes and cars at junctions, or building infrastructure (apart from the slightly fantastical 'Build Elevated Cycling Routes').

One of the reasons media coverage of the cycling debate has got better is because many journalists are cyclists themselves (e.g. Peter Walker at the Guardian), or work with plenty of cyclists (Evening Standard.) But rubbish articles like this are still being penned by people who appear to know little about what cycling in London is like.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> I
> 
> As an aside a couple of years ago I did a solo cycle tour taking in Holland. I had some things to think about.  Anyway for a couple of occasions I enjoyed getting stoned, putting headphones in and then pottering along a cycle routes to my next destination.  Not once did I feel at risk, or that I put myself or anyone else at risk at all while I quietly floated along.


Dutch cycling infrastructure is, to our eyes at least, unbelievably good, both in the cities and countryside. Be brilliant if so many people took up cycling that we could move towards that.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Dutch cycling infrastructure is, to our eyes at least, unbelievably good, both in the cities and countryside. Be brilliant if so many people took up cycling that we could move towards that.


This video - although a bit twee and with some dodgy background music - shows the variety of Dutch infra


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

Jesus fuck - another one  (in Bristol)



> *Cyclist dies after collision with oil tanker in Failand*
> A cyclist has died after being in a collision with an oil tanker in Failand near Bristol, police have said.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-25023176


----------



## co-op (Nov 20, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> This video - although a bit twee and with some dodgy background music - shows the variety of Dutch infra



*sigh*

I mean this is what does my head in about things like the Parliamentary Transport Committee having a look at all these deaths and pondering "what do we do to stop it?", like it's this incredibly complex and maybe insoluble issue when it's blatantly incredibly easy, just go to a fucking country where they've done it, take note and implement. I'm old enough that I can remember when all the Dutch infrastructure etc was all new and exciting, but much of it's been in place now for 40 years, it's just political will that's missing in the UK.

For me it's obvious that it's inseparable from the right-wing triumph of this past 30 years in the UK - cars are so obviously a Daily Mail, tory issue that it's almost a point of honour with these wankers now that cyclists and pedestrians etc should be made to suffer for refusing to participate in the consumerism, the privatisation of public space, the obsessive, untrusting individualism that cars embody, the bullying hierarchy of the streets that uncontrolled vehicles impose, the massive handouts to corporate elites that they enable the way they can be used to flaunt status, the way that they can impose another few hours a day on the work treadmill for all sorts of people who can barely afford them but need them to join in...etc etc.

Maybe most bizarre of all the way that all this can attract the support of little Clarksons on the left who reflexively line up with the elites on this one. It's a dead giveaway of a tory-under-the-skin for me.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

Why not come out all the way and say that only Tories drive cars?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Why not come out all the way and say that only Tories drive cars?


I'll go so far as to say that it is a Tory attitude to reflexively blame cyclist behaviour for cyclist deaths on the roads. It is similar to the attitude that sees the unemployed blamed for their joblessness, and other attitudes such as those that place blame for crime levels at the door of single mothers.

That is archetypally tory in its approach - ignore the collective responsibility and the potential for solutions at the collective societal level; don't look beyond individuals whenever looking at a problem or apportioning blame; deny responsibility. Oh, and simply ignore any evidence that contradicts your position.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll go so far as to say that it is a Tory attitude to reflexively blame cyclist behaviour for cyclist deaths on the roads.


 
Is it New Labour to reflexively blame HGV drivers and Lib Dem to blame car drivers?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 20, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Jesus fuck - another one  (in Bristol)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-25023176



Are all of these people being crushed by left turning HGV's?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Are all of these people being crushed by left turning HGV's?


It's not clear yet.

The problem with these accidents is that the primary witness is dead. It seems there is often little other evidence, unless several bystanders were watching closely.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Are all of these people being crushed by left turning HGV's?


 
No!! They're lurching to the RIGHT!!!


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

For a couple of hundred quid you could have a video camera aimed down the left hand side with built-in proximity detection.

It's old tech.

That way there would be a video record of what happened too.

Make it as compulsory as a tachograph.

That's what I would do out of my own pocket if I found myself being forced to drive one of these lethal vehicles - along with strobes and beepers wired to the indicators.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

That's nice in the meantime but I think ultimately having things that go fast and weigh many tons mixing it in the same space with humans on bits of metal tubing and wire is what we need to change.


----------



## co-op (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Is it New Labour to reflexively blame HGV drivers and Lib Dem to blame car drivers?





New Labour shat their pants when the hauliers had a go at them over the Fuel Duty escalator in about 1998 as I remember and spent the next 10 years desperately placating them so the first bits wrong. But yes, to your broader point, private cars are basically right wing. Next.


----------



## co-op (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Why not come out all the way and say that only Tories drive cars?





Cos it'd be wrong?


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Nov 20, 2013)

If I listen to music whilst cycling I never use headphones, I only ever use the left earphone so I can still hear traffic (which is almost always is to my right).


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 20, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Look at this shit article on the BBC website:
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24998730
> ...


I did a real LOL to the body armour suggestion.
What kind of body armour deflects a 15 tonne truck?
The only thing I can think of is that roboexoskeleton Ripley kills the queen with in Aliens


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

co-op said:


> But yes, to your broader point, private cars are basically right wing.


 
That didn't take much coaxing. 

Are bicycles left wing?  Roller skates?
What about VW microbuses with flowers painted on them?

Does the colour matter?


----------



## co-op (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Are bicycles left wing?



Well as Jose Antonio Viera Gallo said, "el socialismo sólo puede llegar en bicicleta".


----------



## co-op (Nov 20, 2013)

Know what I mean?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

co-op said:


> Know what I mean?


 
I'm hoping not as a lycra-clad braying cunt on a fixie.


----------



## laptop (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Laptop, you know better than most that 'common sense' can be a terrible guide. What evidence can you produce? What have you learned from this thread about the nature of the problem?



Erm... for what do you seek evidence?


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 20, 2013)

TotallyGreatGuy said:


> If I listen to music whilst cycling I never use headphones, I only ever use the left earphone so I can still hear traffic (which is almost always is to my right).


That's what's good about the KSC75s - separate ears ..


----------



## Winot (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll go so far as to say that it is a Tory attitude to reflexively blame cyclist behaviour for cyclist deaths on the roads. It is similar to the attitude that sees the unemployed blamed for their joblessness, and other attitudes such as those that place blame for crime levels at the door of single mothers.
> 
> That is archetypally tory in its approach - ignore the collective responsibility and the potential for solutions at the collective societal level; don't look beyond individuals whenever looking at a problem or apportioning blame; deny responsibility. Oh, and simply ignore any evidence that contradicts your position.



This article makes a similar point, although not so explicitly party political:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...oad-deaths-bike-helmets-headphones?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Why not come out all the way and say that only Tories drive cars?



If you are interested on how cars have changed societies, and therefore people's perspectives you could start on the wiki page 'Effects on the automotive on societies' - or read this extract from an old Monbiot piece which touches on the subject.



> It is strange to see how the car has been overlooked as an agent of political change. We know that the breaking of the unions, the dismantling of the welfare state and the sale of council houses that Margaret Thatcher pioneered made us more individualistic. But the way in which the transition from individualism to the next phase of neoliberalism – libertarianism – was assisted by her transport policies has been largely ignored. She knew what she was doing. She spoke of “the great car-owning democracy”, and asserted that “a man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure”(13). Her road-building programme was an exercise in both civil and social engineering. “Economics are the method”, she told us, “the object is to change the soul.”(14) The slowly shifting consciousness of the millions who spend much of their day sitting in traffic makes interventionist government ever harder. The difference between the age of Herbert Morrison and the age of Peter Mandelson can be, in part, accounted for by the motorcar.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2013)

I can see the sense in that, although it shouldn't be overstated - cars have brought a lot of people increased freedom. But yes, it reduces problems down to the level of the individual - millions of individuals who see their problems with their cars as theirs and theirs alone to solve.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can see the sense in that, although it shouldn't be overstated - cars have brought a lot of people increased freedom. But yes, it reduces problems down to the level of the individual - millions of individuals who see their problems with their cars as theirs and theirs alone to solve.



Perhaps it should be overstated - in the words of Raoul Vaneigem we have this little gem.  He considered the car an 'alienating gadget' which 'enables us to get to work and consume, pollute, destroy the countryside, and save some empty time and kill ourselves'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> Perhaps it should be overstated - in the words of Raoul Vaneigem we have this little gem.  He considered the car an 'alienating gadget' which 'enables us to get to work and consume, pollute, destroy the countryside, and save some empty time and kill ourselves'.


and of course it makes people free every bank holiday to go where everyone else is going. it's not like the car gets you everywhere either, it only goes where there's a road.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> and of course it makes people free every bank holiday to go where everyone else is going. it's not like the car gets you everywhere either, it only goes where there's a road.



I've got a big, inefficient, estate car outside.  It is however useful for putting bikes in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> I've got a big, inefficient, estate car outside.  It is however useful for putting bikes in.


how many can you fit in there?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can see the sense in that, although it shouldn't be overstated - cars have brought a lot of people increased freedom.


 
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM!! Not collectively mandated freedom!


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 21, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> how many can you fit in there?



Two - but two huge bikes suitable for someone who's 6'7".  I was without a car for years but a mix of injury and change of circumstance lead me to get one.

Anyway there's a lot of truth in the last quote I posted.  The car has opened up the wilder places of this country, while at the same time destroying the character and wildness of these places.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2013)

in the angel: cops giving a cyclist a fixed penalty notice for going through a red light. looked in the sky for flying pigs or blue moon.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 21, 2013)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## hash tag (Nov 21, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> We wouldn't be having these arguments without the CS plan. It's a stepping stone to better cycle infrastructure. It a rough way of leading to a safer future. That's why TFL did it, not because it was ideal but it was fairly easy to do and didn't cost too much.  It moved things forward and now look how mobilised people are !



I think in the region of £20M per superhighway is a bit more than didnt cost too much. TFL consulted one or two cycle gropus before going ahead and then chose to ignore any recomendations.

Cycling has incresed on the roads a great deal since early 2000 thanks in no part to the CS's. I would like to think critical mass played its part is raising cycle araweness.


----------



## Sunray (Nov 21, 2013)

TFL have made this to show just how badly designed lorries are

http://dutchbikeguy.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/ultra-shocking-video-about-lorry-blind-spots/

They are like they are for no other reason than some laws dictating their overall length. They should define the trailer and cab length separately so manufacturers don't make them as thin as possible.

Construction lorries its just a cost thing and construction site access.  Could be a bit longer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23152918


----------



## artyfarty (Nov 21, 2013)

My two pennorth worth on earphones when riding.

I notice when I ride with earphones in,  my general awareness drops.
It's not so much that you cant hear the traffic, it's more that it encourages you to be less aware by insulating you from your surroundings. I have definitely noticed that I have more near misses whilst plugged in, which is why I dont do it any more.
Also I like talking to other cyclists now and again.


----------



## co-op (Nov 21, 2013)

8ball said:


> INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM!! Not collectively mandated freedom!



The _illusion_ of freedom, not actual freedom; the perfect metaphor for consumer capitalism.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2013)

artyfarty said:


> My two pennorth worth on earphones when riding.
> 
> I notice when I ride with earphones in,  my general awareness drops.
> It's not so much that you cant hear the traffic, it's more that it encourages you to be less aware by insulating you from your surroundings. I have definitely noticed that I have more near misses whilst plugged in, which is why I dont do it any more.
> Also I like talking to other cyclists now and again.


Thanks for that post - I think I probably need to wean myself off using them (it will be hard to give up). I never used to, until I started an 8 mile commute. I'm the sort of person who constantly needs to be plugged in, with an OST to accompany my life. 
I need to employ Ennio Morricone and orchestra to follow me about and respond to my moods. At a discrete, safe distance of course.
But then there is the trouble of the zone-out that happens when I have no music and I'm on a familiar route. I get home after a hard day's work with no memory of my journey home. Does anyone else get this? Like you've been on autopilot all the way home.
What is more dangerous? Autopilot or loud earphones?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 21, 2013)

It's not autopilot as such, you're just not laying down long-term memory.
I find it helps to narrate your journey to yourself. Keeps you focused on your surroundings.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2013)

Autopilot seems to be way more distracted and less alert than listening to music, though I may be talking shit. I find it _helps_ me concentrate rather than distracting me, like with reading. Can't read in silence much. The silence is deafening!


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 21, 2013)

My commute is hugely familiar after 26 years - but it's been a long time since I used loud music - it's just softening the edges - plus there's a fair bit of wildlife I like to incorporate in the mix.
Thankfully I have close interactions with only a handful of people / vehicles.

In terms of zoning out, when I do a 9 mile fast ride up the railway path full-on disco style, in my head I sometimes find I'm several *miles *ahead of where I actually and and have to consciously reset the clock.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2013)

I think I would rather have no music than quiet music...


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 21, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I think I would rather have no music than quiet music...


It's not exactly "drone" though - I thoroughly recommend these mixes for commuting - if you turn them up louder some of it is almost dance music - housey detroity urban stuff - the odd Martin Luther King speech ... I can dip in and out of it mentally.

http://www.deepmix.eu/

MP3s :-

http://deepmix.eu/select-e.php

Of course I don't actually know what your tastes are...


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 21, 2013)

Looks like the GLA want to hear from London cyclists prior to their 'Meeting on Cycling' in December

Survey


----------



## T & P (Nov 21, 2013)

I like cycling (and scootering, when I had a bike) in silence. You get time to think that you don't get when driving with the radio on. I also suspect cycling or biking to the tune of my favourite dance tracks would probably want me to go recklessly fast


----------



## Crispy (Nov 21, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Looks like the GLA want to hear from London cyclists prior to their 'Meeting on Cycling' in December
> 
> Survey


Done!
I was quite verbose


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2013)

T & P said:


> I like cycling (and scootering, when I had a bike) in silence. You get time to think that you don't get when driving with the radio on. I also suspect cycling or biking to the tune of my favourite dance tracks would probably want me to go recklessly fast


That time to think can get a bit too deep for comfort.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 21, 2013)

I used to use my commute to do my daily crying. 
A good reason to have music. 

These days I mostly think about nature and gears and improvements to my lights.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 21, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Thanks for that post - I think I probably need to wean myself off using them (it will be hard to give up).



Do you use them in heavy traffic? 

Doesn't it just _feel_ wrong?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Do you use them in heavy traffic?
> 
> Doesn't it just _feel_ wrong?


Yes! 
No, it feels right! 
If anything, it's safer in heavy traffic than on quiet roads


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> These days I mostly think about nature and gears and improvements to my lights.


I think about my family, my friends and work a LOT on my bike.
I often come up with ideas for work or better ways of saying/writing things in general when commuting.


----------



## Hellsbells (Nov 21, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I think about my family, my friends and work a LOT on my bike.
> I often come up with ideas for work or better ways of saying/writing things in general when commuting.


 
yeah, I've solved all kind of problems whilst cycling, worked out how to have difficult conversations with people, drafted essays, written lesson plans, & given myself various good talkings to!


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 23, 2013)

> *Met police chief backtracks over cycling comments*
> Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe says cycling is 'attractive option for many people', after earlier stating he would not ride in London





> The Metropolitan police commissioner was forced to backtrack after publicly stating he would never cycle in London due to traffic and safety concerns.
> 
> Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe initially told a radio show that while he understood why people cycled if they could not afford to drive or use public transport, it would not be his preference.
> 
> ...



http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/nov/22/met-police-chief-cycling-london

How many here cycle (In London) primarily to save money ?

My own situation in *Bristol *is skewed somewhat by the lack of public transport (particularly between where I live and where I work - no direct route), but I used to own a car and left it parked on the street - in spite of the traffic not being that bad and insurance probably costing more than the extra petrol.
I also have a near-dream cycle commute - live in town / work in the suburbs and largely offroad - cutting across the main roads rather than riding on them.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2013)

Saving money is quite a big factor, I would have thought.
Isn't it over a hundred a month in London for public transport? I have no idea why anyone in London would pay to maintain a car unless they had to use it a lot.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 23, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> How many here cycle (In London) primarily to save money ?


Even if i was rich I would still cycle - it's not just about saving money. It's about being the quickest, most convenient, most pleasant way to get around London. It's a no-brainer. Saving money is obviously a big bonus though - according to Ms Hatter, a month travelcard for Zones 1-2 is £120. The Chief of the Met is just another cunt who's totally divorced from reality - so rich and insulated from real life (being driven around by a chauffeur) that he assumes people cycle cos they can't afford the bus. Wanker.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 23, 2013)

Sunray said:


> TFL have made this to show just how badly designed lorries are
> 
> http://dutchbikeguy.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/ultra-shocking-video-about-lorry-blind-spots/
> 
> They are like they are for no other reason than some laws dictating their overall length. They should define the trailer and cab length separately so manufacturers don't make them as thin as possible.


The problem with that video is there is no additional mirror on that lorry. All lorries since 2009 have to have an additional mirror above the passenger door which faces downwards and shows the side of the HGV (i.e. where the cyclists are.) Not the best picture, but sort of like this:








In that video, the driver either doesn't look at that mirror, or the mirror itself is missing (it's not actually clear from the video whether the mirror is there or not.) So the video is slightly misleading. Having said that, lorries built before 2009 aren't required to have the additional mirror - it's a fucking disgrace that the law doesn't require the retro-fitting of this relatively cheap bit of life-saving equipment.


----------



## Hellsbells (Nov 23, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/nov/22/met-police-chief-cycling-london
> 
> How many here cycle (In London) primarily to save money ?


 
I do. Partly. But I also just love cycling and can't think of a much worse way to start the day then being stuck on an overcrowded, hellish rush hour tube.


----------



## Winot (Nov 23, 2013)

I don't cycle to save money - I do it because I love it - I actually enjoy my commute on the whole, despite the evident frustrations.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 24, 2013)

Had a bit of an argument with some old friends of mine tonight.  Was trying to get across that even though 'cyclists should not cross red lights/take unnecessary risks' was not in itself a bad message, perhaps saying that in response to several cyclists being killed when there wasn't even any evidence that those cyclists were at fault in that way was perhaps something of a cunt's trick.

Think I've lost a couple of friends...


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 24, 2013)

.


----------



## golightly (Nov 24, 2013)

Winot said:


> I don't cycle to save money - I do it because I love it - I actually enjoy my commute on the whole, despite the evident frustrations.


 
Absolutely.  Cycling is an important factor in keeping my sanity.  I'm not even sure that I do save much money when I consider the cost of maintenance and cycle gear.


8ball said:


> Had a bit of an argument with some old friends of mine tonight.  Was trying to get across that even though 'cyclists should not cross red lights/take unnecessary risks' was not in itself a bad message, perhaps saying that in response to several cyclists being killed when there wasn't even any evidence that those cyclists were at fault in that way was perhaps something of a cunt's trick.
> 
> Think I've lost a couple of friends...


 
I've had quite a lot of judgemental rubbish about cycling along the lines of, "You cyclists all..." from people whose views I generally respect on other topics.  Why the level of prejudice I wonder?  It's just another form of transport.  I get a real sense that car drivers and pedestrians (who don't cycle) do not consider that cyclists have the right to the road; that they are in some way trivial.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 24, 2013)

Keep seeing a load of crap about "19th century" versus "21st century" forms of transport.


----------



## rover07 (Nov 24, 2013)

In Brighton, you get people who seeth with anger against bikes. Partly it's the Greens introducing 20mph speed limit, increased parking charges and cycle lanes on main routes.

But mostly I think it's because the traffic is so bad. In the summer,it can take either 5 minutes or an hour (no way to tell when you set off) to cross from one side of the city to the other. Drivers sit sweating and fuming in their vehicles while cyclists skip past and off into the distance.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 24, 2013)

Winot said:


> I don't cycle to save money - I do it because I love it - I actually enjoy my commute on the whole, despite the evident frustrations.


Yes I 2nd that.  My commute isn't that convenient by public transport, cycling is the sensible choice really. Also it's fun. Whizzing over Waterloo bridge on a friday evening at sunset, why be stuck on the tube?


----------



## han (Nov 24, 2013)

Yes Waterloo Bridge, the view is glorious and different every time. 

I love my cycle commute, it keeps me sane. I have discovered a route on Bike Hub, the mobile app that uses the Cyclestreets mapping system. It means I am going along quiet side streets pretty much all the way from Brixton Hill to Euston (except Waterloo Bridge). 

The Bike Hub app has revolutionised my journey planning in London. I pretty much always choose the quiet routes and thus my cycling has been transformed from being a risky but exhilarating stop-start weaving in and out ride, to a nice chilled amble.

The great thing about the sidestreets = no traffic lights, no inexperienced cyclists wobbling along the superhighways......


----------



## han (Nov 24, 2013)

And practically no exposure to large vehicles. And because of no traffic lights, it's actually loads quicker than using main roads, once you've learnt a route. 

Honestly, when the I see people cycling between traffic on Euston Rd, I think 'why?! there are lovely quiet roads parallel to this monstrosity, why don't you use them?'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2013)

I much prefer the busier roads to the quiet streets and all the parked cars on either side of the road.
I don't want to slow down - part of the enjoyment of riding is the sprinting on the long flats and you can't do that on quiet streets or cycle paths.
I enjoy the thrill of being in heavy traffic too.


----------



## han (Nov 24, 2013)

You totally can sprint on quiet streets. It's easier, there's more room, lots of people do it. 

I like cycling fast too, and often really go for it. It's much more pleasant doing that if there's plenty of room and no threat of being knocked over.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2013)

You can't if their are parked cars unless it's a really wide road.
Or you'd be mad to.


----------



## han (Nov 24, 2013)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I enjoy the thrill of being in heavy traffic too.



I used to, massively, when I was younger. I value my life a bit more these days...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2013)

I also expect bikes to slow down on these streets as well as cars and no car should be going down a residential street faster than 20mph


----------



## han (Nov 24, 2013)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> You can't if their are parked cars unless it's a really wide road.
> Or you'd be mad to.



Just go in the middle of the road - what's the problem?


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 24, 2013)

My local council's recommended cycle route utility took me up several residential streets and made me cross two or three main roads instead of two to try to persuade me not to cycle through a park.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2013)

han said:


> Just go in the middle of the road - what's the problem?


I just think it's too fast on a side street. I would only go fast on a main road.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 24, 2013)

I personally find "20MPH" limits outrageous in many side streets.
I would say 10MPH in a car, perhaps 15MPH on a bike.


----------



## han (Nov 24, 2013)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I just think it's too fast on a side street. I would only go fast on a main road.



Well, people are different, aren't they. 
The thing is, you rarely hear of cyclists dying on these quiet sidestreets.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2013)

It's pedestrians who are more at risk here


----------



## han (Nov 24, 2013)

Yes, but if you're a considerate and observant cyclist, and anticipate potential situations before they happen, no-one will get hurt. 

I've been cycling in London for nearly 15 years, and with this attitude have had no accidents or hurt anyone.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2013)

So you would cycle down a quiet side street at 25-30mph?


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 24, 2013)

Here's a narrow street in Bristol I cycle down every day - it has challenging sight-lines - I admit the double door-zone incident was the first time I can remember it happening, but it was food for thought.



I actually rely on house windows to see around the corner.


----------



## han (Nov 24, 2013)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> So you would cycle down a quiet side street at 25-30mph?



No.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2013)

Good! I was talking about sprinting at those speeds.


----------



## golightly (Nov 24, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I much prefer the busier roads to the quiet streets and all the parked cars on either side of the road.
> I don't want to slow down - part of the enjoyment of riding is the sprinting on the long flats and you can't do that on quiet streets or cycle paths.
> I enjoy the thrill of being in heavy traffic too.


 

Same here.  The Aldwych is one of my favourite stretches of road because it's always busy and I have to concentrate on what I am doing.


----------



## Sue (Nov 24, 2013)

golightly said:


> I get a real sense that car drivers and pedestrians (who don't cycle) do not consider that cyclists have the right to the road; that they are in some way trivial.


 
I'm a pedestrian who doesn't cycle. Of course cyclists have 'the right to the road'. Of course they should have more cycle lanes, improved road design and whatever else will make cycling safer and easier. I'm a big fan of cyclists.

However, in the same way that other road users should show cyclists more respect, so cyclists must show more respect for pedestrians. That means not cycling on the pavement, not riding through red lights at top speed when people are trying to cross at the green man, not shouting at pedestrians they perceive as being in their way when they're crossing perfectly properly at zebra crossings/green men. I see these things every single day. Unfortunately, a lot of cyclists deny these things happen or play them down as being unimportant presumably because they're not that concerned about the pedestrians involved. I really don't think that helps anyone. If cyclists in general treated pedestrians with a bit more respect, I think pedestrians in general would have a bit more respect for cyclists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2013)

golightly said:


> I get a real sense that car drivers and pedestrians (who don't cycle) do not consider that cyclists have the right to the road; that they are in some way trivial.


 if car drivers took umbrage the way cyclists do when it is pointed out that some of their number are a positive menace there'd be umpteen threads on the issue here. as Sue says, a bit more consideration for pedestrians might see cyclists earn the respect they believe they deserve.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> I personally find "20MPH" limits outrageous in many side streets.
> I would say 10MPH in a car, perhaps 15MPH on a bike.


yeh because no one has ever used a side street as a rat run


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 24, 2013)

This is a thread about cyclists being killed by motor vehicles.
That some cyclists are c*nts to pedestrians is irrelevant to the thread.
Plenty of pedestrians are a great threat to cyclists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2013)

.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 24, 2013)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


>


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 24, 2013)

How is me saying 20MPH is too fast showing disrespect to pedestrians ?

I believe residential streets should be sufficiently safe for children to play in them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 24, 2013)

Sue said:


> I'm a pedestrian who doesn't cycle. Of course cyclists have 'the right to the road'. Of course they should have more cycle lanes, improved road design and whatever else will make cycling safer and easier. I'm a big fan of cyclists.
> 
> However, in the same way that other road users should show cyclists more respect, so cyclists must show more respect for pedestrians. That means not cycling on the pavement, not riding through red lights at top speed when people are trying to cross at the green man, not shouting at pedestrians they perceive as being in their way when they're crossing perfectly properly at zebra crossings/green men. I see these things every single day. Unfortunately, a lot of cyclists deny these things happen or play them down as being unimportant presumably because they're not that concerned about the pedestrians involved. I really don't think that helps anyone. If cyclists in general treated pedestrians with a bit more respect, I think pedestrians in general would have a bit more respect for cyclists.



Ok. But keep this in perspective. Between 1998 and 2007 in London, 0 people walking on the pavement were killed by cyclists. In that same time period, 54 people walking on the pavement were killed by cars/buses/lorries. 

To a pedestrian walking along the pavement, the real danger is of a car ploughing into to you, not a cyclist. Do you condemn all drivers for the five a year who kill people by ploughing into the pavement? If not, why not, how does your not condemning all drivers fit with your above post? 

tbh I think this society has become rather inured to the annual carnage caused by cars. It seems natural, inevitable, barely worth commenting on. But it isn't. And it is the real issue here.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 25, 2013)

There's a psychological element at work here, I think. When describing events on the road, we commonly describe vehicles controlled by people as cars, vans, lorries. "that car was going too fast" "that bus was holding up the traffic" "that van suddenly swerved in front of me". Even motorbikes get the same treatment. But because people riding bikes are exposed and obvious, they are "cyclists" not "bicycles". It's much easier to attach their behaviour to the person, rather then the vehicle. It makes the confrontations personal, not mechanical.

You make eye contact with cyclists, they're people and you hold them up to personal standards of morality. Cars are some sort of hybrid organism that have wills of their own. The machine takes some of the responsibility.

Maybe, I might be over thinking it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 25, 2013)

No, I think you're onto something. I just reread my post, and I did exactly that, without being conscious of it.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 25, 2013)

.


----------



## han (Nov 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> tbh I think this society has become rather inured to the annual carnage caused by cars. It seems natural, inevitable, barely worth commenting on. But it isn't. And it is the real issue here.



Yes. It's seen as 'collateral damage'. It's a non-issue, you're right.


----------



## pooka (Nov 25, 2013)

han said:


> Yes Waterloo Bridge, the view is glorious and different every time.
> 
> I love my cycle commute, it keeps me sane. I have discovered a route on Bike Hub, the mobile app that uses the Cyclestreets mapping system. It means I am going along quiet side streets pretty much all the way from Brixton Hill to Euston (except Waterloo Bridge).
> 
> ...


----------



## pooka (Nov 25, 2013)

han said:


> Yes Waterloo Bridge, the view is glorious and different every time.
> 
> I love my cycle commute, it keeps me sane. I have discovered a route on Bike Hub, the mobile app that uses the Cyclestreets mapping system. It means I am going along quiet side streets pretty much all the way from Brixton Hill to Euston (except Waterloo Bridge).
> 
> ...



Agree entirely. After cycling in London for 25 years, I've recently discovered cyclestreets (http://www.cyclestreets.net/). It has transformed my cycling experience. The advantages of side streets are - (1) Lower speeds, either by humps or just the topography, so if you do have a collision, the damage will be less, (2) fewer, if any, HGVs or buses (3) As Han says, you can cycle down the middle of the road, traffic permitting. You can see anyone coming ahead and (if you have a mirror) behind you, in good time. (4) Less busy streets means you have the chance to take in the sights and sound of what's around you (4) you get to  know all sorts of hidden bits of London.

You do have to take the trouble to learn a new route - a list of right and left turns clipped to your handlebars suffices. Cyclestreets gives you three optional routes - fast, quiet and intermediate - but there's generally only minutes difference between them on most London journies. The intermediate and quite routes are generally good at avoiding unnecessary hills too. You do need to be more wary of opening doors, pedestrians and vehicles coming out of junctions on side-streets, especially at night, but it's a small price to pay. 

Well worth a look


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok. But keep this in perspective. Between 1998 and 2007 in London, 0 people walking on the pavement were killed by cyclists. In that same time period, 54 people walking on the pavement were killed by cars/buses/lorries.
> 
> To a pedestrian walking along the pavement, the real danger is of a car ploughing into to you, not a cyclist. Do you condemn all drivers for the five a year who kill people by ploughing into the pavement? If not, why not, how does your not condemning all drivers fit with your above post?
> 
> tbh I think this society has become rather inured to the annual carnage caused by cars. It seems natural, inevitable, barely worth commenting on. But it isn't. And it is the real issue here.


but cycling on the pavement was only one issue raised by Sue. what about people crossing the road, like Streathamite, who are knocked down and seriously injured by cyclists going through red lights? you utterly ignore that point. secondly, while i'll take your figures on deaths, i wonder whether you've figures for injuries caused by cyclists.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 25, 2013)

That's an excellent site 
It's suggested an entirely different route for my commute, all through the back streets of Stockwell and Kennington, which I may well give a go.


----------



## han (Nov 25, 2013)

Yes, the Bike Hub app uses the Cyclestreets engine, as does the journey planner on www.lcc.org.uk. 

It's a great way to discover interesting bits of London you never knew existed - I use it for every journey, wherever I'm going, now. It makes every journey a pleasure. 

I haven't cycled down Brixton Hill in about a year (I always use parallel roads such as Lyham Rd and Leander Rd) . Anyway, I went down it this morning at rushhour in order to get to Brixton Cycles before they open. It reminded me why I never cycle down that road in rushhour. Total gridlock, soo slow. Never again. 

Sidestreets are way quicker for cyclists in rushhour.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 25, 2013)

han said:


> I haven't cycled down Brixton Hill in about a year (I always use parallel roads such as Lyham Rd and Leander Rd) . Anyway, I went down it this morning at rushhour in order to get to Brixton Cycles before they open. It reminded me why I never cycle down that road in rushhour. Total gridlock, soo slow. Never again.



Ditto. It's even worse going uphill.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 25, 2013)

The roundabout on the Lambeth side of Waterloo Bridge was packed full of coppers this morning, making sure no one broke the rules. Was very amusing to see all the cars stopping behind the ASL boxes, the bikes waiting for the lights to go green, the motorbikes doing 30mph over the bridge. All in all very nice change to see everyone obeying the rules for once.


----------



## han (Nov 25, 2013)

What I don't understand is, why don't they just fine drivers who jump red lights and who drive into in the cycle boxes? It'd soon stop it. Cctv picks up number plates of cars for the congestion charge after all. If they did that instead of cutting people's disability benefits, our country would be a much more civilised place. 

Oh, and by the way, as a driver and a cyclist, I'm totally in favour of cyclists being fined for jumping red lights too.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 25, 2013)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 25, 2013)

If all road laws were properly enforced the roads would be safer for everyone. ASL box laws have never been enforced before today, will be interested to see how many ASL fines and points get dolled out now...


----------



## golightly (Nov 25, 2013)

Sue said:


> I'm a pedestrian who doesn't cycle. Of course cyclists have 'the right to the road'. Of course they should have more cycle lanes, improved road design and whatever else will make cycling safer and easier. I'm a big fan of cyclists.
> 
> However, in the same way that other road users should show cyclists more respect, so cyclists must show more respect for pedestrians. That means not cycling on the pavement, not riding through red lights at top speed when people are trying to cross at the green man, not shouting at pedestrians they perceive as being in their way when they're crossing perfectly properly at zebra crossings/green men. I see these things every single day. Unfortunately, a lot of cyclists deny these things happen or play them down as being unimportant presumably because they're not that concerned about the pedestrians involved. I really don't think that helps anyone. If cyclists in general treated pedestrians with a bit more respect, I think pedestrians in general would have a bit more respect for cyclists.


 
I cycle about 15 to 20 miles a day through central London streets and I see all sorts of behaviour.  On my way home today I saw one cyclist dash through a red light causing a pedestrian to move out of the way, three pedestrians running across the road in front of traffic as it started to move, and I had a van cut across me at speed to dash across a red light.  All very shitty behaviour in my opinion.  It's just people being stupid. Doesn't matter what mode of transport they are using.

The thing is I have to be careful, watch what I am doing and watch what other people are doing because the amount of time I am on the road I will be in accident eventually if I don't.  I will continue to do this because it would be stupid not to.  I have no respect for people who make judgements about me and my attitude to road safety just because I happen to ride a bike.  I think that most cyclists like myself do treat pedestrians with due respect.  You say that you see cyclists behaving unsafely every day.  I am sure that is true, but I see motor vehicle drivers and pedestrians behaving unsafely every day as well.  In all cases it is a minority, but it's always the minority that stick in a person's mind because they attract attention to themeselves.  I gave three incidences of road users who behaved dangerously on my journey home, but I passed hundreds of vehicle drivers, pedestrians and cyclists who didn't.


----------



## Sue (Nov 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok. But keep this in perspective. Between 1998 and 2007 in London, 0 people walking on the pavement were killed by cyclists. In that same time period, 54 people walking on the pavement were killed by cars/buses/lorries.
> 
> To a pedestrian walking along the pavement, the real danger is of a car ploughing into to you, not a cyclist. Do you condemn all drivers for the five a year who kill people by ploughing into the pavement? If not, why not, how does your not condemning all drivers fit with your above post?
> 
> tbh I think this society has become rather inured to the annual carnage caused by cars. It seems natural, inevitable, barely worth commenting on. But it isn't. And it is the real issue here.


 
And how many accidents (rather than deaths) are there involving pedestrians where cyclists are on the pavement/when the cyclist's gone through a red light/at top speed across a zebra crossing when they shouldn't be?

And I'm not condemning all cyclists -- just pointing out that a significant minority do things they shouldn't and a lot of other cyclists downplay the potential dangers to pedestrians. And just because I'm pointing out the bad behaviour of cyclists doesn't mean I wouldn't/don't condemn drivers for doing the same things, though I do tend to encounter rather fewer on the pavement (and fewer other drivers who make excuses for such behaviour).


----------



## Sue (Nov 25, 2013)

golightly said:


> I cycle about 15 to 20 miles a day through central London streets and I see all sorts of behaviour.  On my way home today I saw one cyclist dash through a red light causing a pedestrian to move out of the way, three pedestrians running across the road in front of traffic as it started to move, and I had a van cut across me at speed to dash across a red light.  All very shitty behaviour in my opinion.  It's just people being stupid. Doesn't matter what mode of transport they are using.
> 
> The thing is I have to be careful, watch what I am doing and watch what other people are doing because the amount of time I am on the road I will be in accident eventually if I don't.  I will continue to do this because it would be stupid not to.  I have no respect for people who make judgements about me and my attitude to road safety just because I happen to ride a bike.  I think that most cyclists like myself do treat pedestrians with due respect.  You say that you see cyclists behaving unsafely every day.  I am sure that is true, but I see motor vehicle drivers and pedestrians behaving unsafely every day as well.  In all cases it is a minority, but it's always the minority that stick in a person's mind because they attract attention to themeselves.  I gave three incidences of road users who behaved dangerously on my journey home, but I passed hundreds of vehicle drivers, pedestrians and cyclists who didn't.


 
And you sound like a responsible cyclist. Unfortunately, a significant minority of cyclists are not as responsible as you are. As a cyclist, you have to pay attention on the roads because if you get hit by a car/lorry/bus, you're likely to come off worst. Likewise as a pedestrian. Except I really shouldn't have to be concerned about being hit by a bike/vehicle when walking along the pavement or crossing on a green man. (In the same way as I don't dash in front of vehicles/bikes or wander along in the middle of the road because that would be utterly stupid behaviour. And yes, there are stupid pedestrians too, in fact there are a lot of stupid people using all kinds of transport.)


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 25, 2013)

It's rather insensitive of you to be banging on about shit cyclists on this thread. It is not appreciated


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 25, 2013)

I blame Pickmans for starting it.


----------



## Winot (Nov 25, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> It's rather insensitive of you to be banging on about shit cyclists on this thread. It is not appreciated



Sometimes it feels like every cyclist in the UK has to be behaving perfectly before cyclists are allowed to complain about being put in danger.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 25, 2013)

'crackdown' in Edinburgh too

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/drivers-face-100-fines-for-invading-cyclist-space-1-3196431



> *DRIVERS who block advanced stop zones for cyclists at traffic lights face a £100 fine and three penalty points under a police crackdown in Edinburgh.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually a fairly balanced article.


----------



## golightly (Nov 26, 2013)

Sue said:


> I really shouldn't have to be concerned about being hit by a bike/vehicle when walking along the pavement or crossing on a green man.


 
No you shouldn't.

Tbh, I have had situations where people crossing the road have looked a little shocked when I stop and allow them to cross, which says something.


----------



## salem (Nov 26, 2013)

I was pleased to see the police put on their blue lights and chase a car that tried to turn across my path without seeing me the other day on the North side of Westminstr Bridge.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 26, 2013)

Sue said:


> And you sound like a responsible cyclist. Unfortunately, a significant minority of cyclists are not as responsible as you are. As a cyclist, you have to pay attention on the roads because if you get hit by a car/lorry/bus, you're likely to come off worst. Likewise as a pedestrian. Except I really shouldn't have to be concerned about being hit by a bike/vehicle when walking along the pavement or crossing on a green man. (In the same way as I don't dash in front of vehicles/bikes or wander along in the middle of the road because that would be utterly stupid behaviour. And yes, there are stupid pedestrians too, in fact there are a lot of stupid people using all kinds of transport.)


Again. Why is it that every time a cyclist dies people use it as an excuse to wheel out their unrelated beefs with cyclists? It's utterly bizarre. I mean, imagine if we did the same every time a pedestrian was killed by a car. (Of course, we don't, because it's so routine) 

"Did you see that guy got knocked down by a lorry the other day?
Yeah, pedestrians eh? You know, a lot of them cross roads drunk, without looking both ways, have their headphones in, or without paying attention. They really need more training or on-the-spot fines or something."


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 26, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> "Did you see that guy got knocked down by a lorry the other day?
> Yeah, pedestrians eh? You know, a lot of them cross roads drunk, without looking both ways, have their headphones in, or without paying attention. They really need more training or on-the-spot fines or something."


 
They should have some sort of number plate and insurance.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 26, 2013)

They fine pedestrians for jay-walking in the states, but their road death-rate per head of population is more than 3 times ours.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 26, 2013)

My biggest fear cycling in London is actually hitting a pedestrian. Anyone else feel like this ?


----------



## golightly (Nov 26, 2013)

<p>





&quot;DJWrongspeed said:


> My biggest fear cycling in London is actually hitting a pedestrian. Anyone else feel like this ?


</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

I certainly do when I go past Waterloo Station and people just run out behind buses in my path.  I make a point of cycling right down the middle of the road to give myself time to react if someone just appears in front of me.


----------



## salem (Nov 26, 2013)

golightly said:


> <p></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
> 
> I certainly do when I go past Waterloo Station and people just run out behind buses in my path.  I make a point of cycling right down the middle of the road to give myself time to react if someone just appears in front of me.


What is it about Waterloo Station? I cylced past there recently and 3 blokes standing in the bus lane and then one decides to step back into my path as I was passing. Fortunately based on the fact they were standing there paying attention to the old firestation building then the fact they were in the middle of a bus lane I had slowed down in anticipation of further stupid behaviour.

Coming back the other direction that evening some idiot opened a minicab door in front of the cyclist just behind me - luckily enough they managed to avoid injury and we're just very shocked.

The crossing seems to be one of the worst for people crossing on a red without actually checking nothing is coming.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 26, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> My biggest fear cycling in London is actually hitting a pedestrian. Anyone else feel like this ?


Can't say it's my biggest fear. I worry about absent-mindedly going through green lights and getting clocked by a bus turning right when the queue of stationary traffic stops either side of the hashed box


----------



## Winot (Nov 26, 2013)

Some 150 fixed penalty notices were issued by traffic police officers on Monday as part of measures to raise road safety awareness... The force said the fines issued were mainly for using a mobile phone while driving or passing through a red light.

No mention of the split between drivers/cyclists for the RLJs, but I'm guessing all the mobile phone penalties were for drivers.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 26, 2013)

From that report:



> Over the course of the scheme, officers will hand out advice to anyone seen putting themselves or other road users at risk, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and other motorists.



Perhaps the police should hand over advice to all cyclists and simply advise them to avoid particular stretches of these cycle superhighways.  This surely has to be the biggest way that a cyclist put themselves at risk.


----------



## Winot (Nov 26, 2013)

fredfelt said:


> From that report:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the police should hand over advice to all cyclists and simply advise them to avoid particular stretches of these cycle superhighways.  This surely has to be the biggest way that a cyclist put themselves at risk.



Another ride in seeing police officers badly positioned for protecting cyclists. I'd like to know how they decided where to stand, and whether they looked at http://map.itoworld.com/ when deciding.


----------



## laptop (Nov 26, 2013)

Winot said:


> Another ride in seeing police officers badly positioned for protecting cyclists. I'd like to know how they decided where to stand, and whether they looked at http://map.itoworld.com/ when deciding.



They were standing at traffic lights: mostly, I was guessing, because that was where it was convenient to wave people over - and to chat with cyclists in the box.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 26, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


>




It's extremely dangerous and arrogant by drivers.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 26, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> It's extremely dangerous and arrogant by drivers.


I routinely get cars nosing out into the bus lane on the way home - it's a yellow box junction  too - but then the bus lane frequently has cars illegally parked in it - thus redefining the edge of the road I suppose. 

I also routinely question such drivers loudly as to whether they understand the meaning of the yellow paint.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 26, 2013)

More "Operation Safeway" irony...


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 26, 2013)

And a bus driver who hasn't got the message :-


----------



## Winot (Nov 26, 2013)

laptop said:


> They were standing at traffic lights: mostly, I was guessing, because that was where it was convenient to wave people over - and to chat with cyclists in the box.



The obvious accident blackspot on my route is the top of Brixton Rd at the Oval, where drivers commonly left hook without indicating. No police there any time I've been past though.


----------



## laptop (Nov 26, 2013)

Winot said:


> The obvious accident blackspot on my route is the top of Brixton Rd at the Oval, where drivers commonly left hook without indicating. No police there any time I've been past though.



Yes: I was reporting from the Stratford-City route.

Which does rather suggest this is a Being Seen To Do Something exercise.


----------



## golightly (Nov 26, 2013)

salem said:


> What is it about Waterloo Station? I cylced past there recently and 3 blokes standing in the bus lane and then one decides to step back into my path as I was passing. Fortunately based on the fact they were standing there paying attention to the old firestation building then the fact they were in the middle of a bus lane I had slowed down in anticipation of further stupid behaviour.
> 
> Coming back the other direction that evening some idiot opened a minicab door in front of the cyclist just behind me - luckily enough they managed to avoid injury and we're just very shocked.
> 
> The crossing seems to be one of the worst for people crossing on a red without actually checking nothing is coming.


 
I often witness lemming-like behaviour on this stretch of road where one person crosses and others just follow without checking whether it's safe.  I reckon that people are just so concerned about catching the 18:45 to Basingstoke they forget about the traffic.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 28, 2013)

Mass 'Die In' on friday at the TFL headquarters.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 28, 2013)

Taxi driver's Youtube channel - several 1 hour videos of junctions purporting to prove how bad cyclists are :-

http://www.youtube.com/user/tygaman2007/videos

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ra-footage-8969043.html?origin=internalSearch

Edited video the ES used :-


----------



## Winot (Nov 28, 2013)

Quite a smart move from the taxi drivers.


----------



## salem (Nov 29, 2013)

Absolute cunt move from the LTDA and reinforces my view that the majority of black cab drivers are bigoted twats. Totally insensitive time to do it. I doubt it's a coincidence this has be given to the papers as cyclist safety is a big news story off the back of several deaths. How many of those deaths were down to red light infringements?

I'm fucking delighted that technology is finally breaking their monopoly. Biggest group of wankers going.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 29, 2013)

There are plenty of videos of red light jumping by black cabs.
Some of them going through as if they had a special dispensation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> There are plenty of videos of red light jumping by black cabs.
> Some of them going through as if they had a special dispensation.


how does this invalidate their evidence?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2013)

salem said:


> Absolute cunt move from the LTDA and reinforces my view that the majority of black cab drivers are bigoted twats. Totally insensitive time to do it. I doubt it's a coincidence this has be given to the papers as cyclist safety is a big news story off the back of several deaths. How many of those deaths were down to red light infringements?
> 
> I'm fucking delighted that technology is finally breaking their monopoly. Biggest group of wankers going.


this seems to me the sound of someone who is embarrassed at the evidence produced by the taxi drivers. but perhaps you could enlarge on the way in which this shows 'the majority of taxi drivers' to be 'bigoted twats'? what do you mean by bigoted in this context? seems to me this reinforces my view that there are many - i hesitate to say a majority of - cyclists who regularly act at the least anti-socially.

you're showing yourself to be something of a cycling 'bigot' in your post. you think taxi drivers are bigger wankers than e.g. cops, bankers, mps, the super rich, paedophiles, bailiffs, energy companies etc etc?


----------



## MrSki (Nov 29, 2013)

I nearly got taken out by a cyclist wearing a helmet cam jumping the lights. 

If I had time to react & saw him coming I would have happily twatted him one & told him to post that on YouTube. 

It is more annoying when someone who is obviously filming to catch others out can't be bothered to pay attention to the rules that apply to them.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 29, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Taxi driver's Youtube channel - several 1 hour videos of junctions purporting to prove how bad cyclists are :-
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/tygaman2007/videos
> 
> ...




Note they used a junction where it's safe for cyclists to go through the red light Essex Road going onto Upper Street.

I reckon we should start recording the racist rantings of these fucknuts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Note they used a junction where it's safe for cyclists to go through the red light Essex Road going onto Upper Street.
> 
> I reckon we should start recording the racist rantings of these fucknuts.


safe for who?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> safe for who?



Everyone.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 29, 2013)

MrSki said:


> I nearly got taken out by a cyclist wearing a helmet cam jumping the lights.


What a twat (I'm a cyclist myself)

Off to the Die In tonight, sounds like it might be big.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 29, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Taxi driver's Youtube channel - several 1 hour videos of junctions purporting to prove how bad cyclists are :-
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/tygaman2007/videos
> 
> ...



So many motorists are fond of claiming that _all_ cyclists jump reds but in the last few weeks, but I've frequently seen motorists jumping reds and/or trying to beat the light and failing to do so.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 29, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Taxi driver's Youtube channel - several 1 hour videos of junctions purporting to prove how bad cyclists are :-
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/tygaman2007/videos
> 
> ...



That van has encroached the ASB.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 29, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> It's extremely dangerous and arrogant by drivers.


Sense of entitlement, innit.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 29, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> So many motorists are fond of claiming that _all_ cyclists jump reds but in the last few weeks, but I've frequently seen motorists jumping reds and/or trying to beat the light and failing to do so.


The point is that no-one should jump red lights. It is not a competition. The lights are there for a reason. Because others jump them does not make it right that you do.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 29, 2013)

MrSki said:


> The point is that no-one should jump red lights. It is not a competition. The lights are there for a reason because others jump them does not make it right that you do.


I agree and if you think I'm defending cyclists who jump reds, you are very much mistaken.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 29, 2013)

Is there not an RLJing thread somewhere else on the boards? Could've sworn this one was about cyclists dying in RTAs.


----------



## salem (Nov 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> this seems to me the sound of someone who is embarrassed at the evidence produced by the taxi drivers. but perhaps you could enlarge on the way in which this shows 'the majority of taxi drivers' to be 'bigoted twats'? what do you mean by bigoted in this context? seems to me this reinforces my view that there are many - i hesitate to say a majority of - cyclists who regularly act at the least anti-socially.
> 
> you're showing yourself to be something of a cycling 'bigot' in your post. you think taxi drivers are bigger wankers than e.g. cops, bankers, mps, the super rich, paedophiles, bailiffs, energy companies etc etc?



Not embarrassed at all. I accept that just as pedestrians sometimes cross on a red, some cyclists sometimes run red lights. So long as it's done with care there doesn't have to be a problem. Even on their edited highlights embeded above I can see that most of the cyclists slowed down and were aware of their surroundings and were passing the signal when there were no pedestrians near the crossing or vehicles. It seems they've chosen traffic lights that cyclists are more likely to go through on a red to get a stat for their drivers to quote and whinge about.

Why do you think the LTDA have chosen to put this headline grabbing video up now?
According to police data what percentage of London cycling collisions are attributable to cyclists going through red lights?

And you're right the whole biggoted twats/biggest group of wankers stuff was just gut feeling rather then a properly worked out theory - happy to clarify it's just personal opinion rather then statement of fact.



Lo Siento. said:


> Is there not an RLJing thread somewhere else on the boards? Could've sworn this one was about cyclists dying in RTAs.


You might be referring to this one - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/cyclist-down.309692/ - which was about a serious accident and ended up as a bit of a bunfight of red light runners.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 29, 2013)

salem said:


> You might be referring to this one - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/cyclist-down.309692/ - which was about a serious accident and ended up as a bit of a bunfight of red light runners.



There's actually a few threads dedicating to discussing cyclists' behaviour. But ironic that the first one you see is another one like this one - where someone has died, and people pile in to cricitise cyclists.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 29, 2013)

Traffic lights are a bit of a pain for cyclists - painful on the legs if you don't dismount, twitchy drivers behind you - quite often on the phone .. and some of those junctions are pretty big for the average plodder to get through before the deluge behind them descends on them - even if the ASL didn't have a car in it.

I suspect I might not be so anal about traffic lights if I had to deal with more than one a day.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 29, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Traffic lights are a bit of a pain for cyclists - painful on the legs if you don't dismount, twitchy drivers behind you - quite often on the phone .. and some of those junctions are pretty big for the average plodder to get through before the deluge behind them descends on them - even if the ASL didn't have a car in it.
> 
> I suspect I might not be so anal about traffic lights if I had to deal with more than one a day.



And you could just as easily use the LDTA footage to show that the vast majority of cyclists either (a) stop at red lights or (b) go through them with care when there are no pedestrians. But that's not the point, is it? The point is that the video is designed to have us once again arguing over something that is almost totally irrelevant to casualties on our roads.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 29, 2013)

'die-in' outside TFL's offices this evening.







http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...-in-outside-transport-for-london-offices.html


----------



## RubyToogood (Nov 29, 2013)

I got stopped today on my motorbike sneaking into an ASL. There was a little posse of yellow jackets stationed at a busy junction.

It's one of those things... every motorcyclist knows it's illegal but it's just routinely ignored. And IMO as both a motorcyclist and a cyclist it works ok.

Anyway, it was just a quick word and a letoff, thankfully.


----------



## salem (Nov 29, 2013)

I've seen a lot of police doing this and it seems they are doing it the right way (education rather then fine). I don't think it's totally unreasonable for motorbikes to be in there too FWIW


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 29, 2013)

golightly said:


> I often witness lemming-like behaviour on this stretch of road where one person crosses and others just follow without checking whether it's safe.  I reckon that people are just so concerned about catching the 18:45 to Basingstoke they forget about the traffic.


18:50 platform 6


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 29, 2013)

Critical Mass was huge tonight maybe a thousand at the start. Very mixed crowd and varied music. A long route from Waterloo to Holborn to Picadilly Circus to Kensington to Victoria to Trafalgar Square to Embankment to St Pauls across the Millenium Bridge to the Tate Modern along the south bank and Tooley Street to Tower Bridge then up through the City to Goswell Road, Angel and when I left it at Kings Cross half an hour ago there were still 200 cyclists at 10.20pm.


----------



## laptop (Nov 29, 2013)

salem said:


> I don't think it's totally unreasonable for motorbikes to be in there too FWIW



Given the death rate for riders, not at all.

That said, I don't know how the rural carnage (failing to follow curves at a ton?) compares to the urban death toll; nor the die/kill ratio in either case.


----------



## RedDragon (Dec 2, 2013)

Higher-res version lifted from here


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 8, 2013)

Another ironic video featuring "Operation Safeway"


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Dec 12, 2013)

Just seen a bicycle fully under a car on the A3 kingston road. There was a police car and an ambulance by it but no sign of a person. I'm hoping that they are fine or being seen too...


----------

