- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Ghost bike for Brian Dorling at Bow Roundabout (©John Stevenson:road.cc)Die-in planned at Transport for London headquarters as ‘save our cyclists’ petition hits over 18,000 names
After a horrific run of crashes in which five cyclists died on London’s roads in nine days, London cyclists are taking action both on line and in real life. A ‘Save Our Cyclists’ petition calling on London mayor Boris Johnson to take urgent action is rapidly approaching 20,000 signatures after just 24 hours, and a ‘die-in’ protest and vigil has been organised for November 29 at Transport for London headquarters.
The die-in protest will start at 5pm on Friday November 29 with a vigil for the cyclists who have died on London’s roads outside Transport for London HQ at 197 Blackfriars Road. That will be followed at 5.30 by the die-in and rally, before the event ends at 6.30.
“Transport for London needs our peaceful protest to be brought right to their door - the HQ of those who have failed to make our streets safe for our children or our pensioners to cycle on, never mind fit adults,” say event organisers.
“Cycling safety needs to be top of TfL's priorities, as should befit a 21st century city looking for ways to tackle congestion and pollution. If Crossrail was predicted to kill 120 workers during its construction, work would be halted immediately. Cyclists are just as important.”
The full details are on the event’s Facebook page.
Save our Cyclists
Addressed to Boris Johnson and his cycling commissioner Andrew Gilligan, the Save our Cyclists petition on 38degrees asks: “Where is your sense of urgency?”
Petition creator Rhiannon Redpath wrote: “We call on Boris Johnson and Andrew Gilligan to vastly accelerate their plan for expenditure of the £913 million cycling fund, by releasing an accurate, costed and time-bound plan for how the fund will address cycle safety over the next 12 months, from the end of December 2013.
“TFL and the Mayor for London do have the right idea. But, as plans are drawn up, consultations are carried out, and meetings are had, London’s roads continue to be unsafe, and cyclists are losing their lives.
“We are calling for urgent action from Boris Johnson and the Cycling Commissioner Andrew Gilligan to accelerate their plans, and to be clear about their intentions for cycle safety in London.”
Launched yesterday, the petition hit 10,000 signatures within hours and is now racing toward 20,000.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- KDee 5 min 52 sec ago
No thanks...you can keep your mini cars off my bike lanes. I want the scooters (petrol and electric) off as well.
- carlosdsanchez 11 min 5 sec ago
Nice easy way to get to the beach for a walk - just have to make sure she doesn't see any squirrels.
- Losd 30 min 57 sec ago
Yep: "Are REVOLOOP bicycle tubes suitable for rim brakes?...
- Dnnnnnn 42 min 3 sec ago
I'm all for a much more socialist approach to the sorts of things you mention, where there are clear market failures and a need for decent...
- David9694 42 min 23 sec ago
Zorbing balls - if it saves just one life
- 11waterloo 48 min 47 sec ago
12 corners in just over 2km is a terrifying prospect if it rains!
- chrisonabike 1 hour 15 min ago
I think it's:...
- NeilBedwin 1 hour 34 min ago
As it's often said -'the way to justify the building of a bridge is not too count the number of people swimming the crocodile infested river!'
- OldRidgeback 1 hour 43 min ago
I used to go that way to work. It's nasty and congested. I doubt any changes will make the congestion worse.
- Jamie Williams 2 hours 11 min ago
Both bikes are both 1x
Add new comment
52 comments
This isn't in the highway code and looking up hand signals for cyclists through Google suggests that this actually means a right turn
The case went to court and the driver was found guilty of careless driving
Gaz who took the video has written it up here:
http://www.croydoncyclist.co.uk/rx11axp-result/
[/quote]And, hang on: Are you really suggesting that we can blame the cyclist for not checking over her shoulder for some idiot cutting in in front of her WHEN SHE'S CONTINUING IN A STRAIGHT LINE IN HER LANE??[/quote]
She may then have had the satisfaction of claiming that she was 'in the right' - all the way to her grave...
With Death on the ROADS becoming a DAILY Occurence in London , it is no wonder that some , when hearing of YET Another Casualty , assume it is a Cyclist !
http://news.radiojackie.com/2013/11/cyclist-killed-in-roehampton.html
Time that David Cameron set an example ! Carrying a helmet dangling from the Handlebars , sends the WRONG Message ! Better left at home , than being seen as an " IF I MUST "! Boris in recent times appears to consider wearing a helmet in " Photo Ops " as deriguer . When he does more than arrange with Media , WHEN he can be " photoed " ,then he should ride ALONE & Unaccompanied the " BLUE Paint " that he THINKS , saves Cyclist from the Traffic ! When he sees Police People Carriers using " Blue Paint " as part of their lane wandering regime , will he conclude that " Mr Motorist is doing a " DO AS I DO , not as the LAW REQUIRES ?
STRICT LIABILITY and 1 1/2M Safe Passing Laws , TODAY , not when the Death Toll is COSTING VOTES !
Honestly, that's a really bad idea. Here in Switzerland pedestrians and cyclists cross the road and pull out without a second thought. They walk/ride across zebra crossings without looking, stopping or even breaking step. Because they have right of way they don't consider that motorised vehicles have to see them and have to stop from 50/60 km/h. You see the young kids (5/6) being taught by the Police to Stop, Look and Listen and not start crossing until the vehicles have stopped but as soon as they reach 10/11 they're dashing across the road with no regard for other road users. All road users from pedestrians to biggest HGVs should take responsibility for their actions and take care for one another. Shifting the automatic blame is not the answer.
It's in the Highway Code. Primarily for indicating to wardens/police on points what your intentions are. Left arm horizontal - left turn. Right arm horizontal - right turn. Left arm at 90 degrees- straight ahead. Older versions of the Highway Code have the same for when you are moving and they are signals you should use on a vehicle without indicators (vintage). I've started using the ahead one at questionable junctions while moving and when stopped to stop my being cut up. Meanwhile in the USA it means turn right.
It's not clear what she is doing. If it were I doubt the driver would have pulled the manuoeuvre. He no more wants to kill her as she wants to be killed. You forget that in your little diatribe.
If she looks over her shoulder and takes responsibility for her action she would be safer. I'm not forgiving the driver, but as a motorist we all have choices about how we drive and most people take precautions and drive in a manner which gives clear indication to other road users what they are up to. A lot of cyclists do nothing. They never look over their shoulder, they never indicate and expect everyone to accept that and look out for them. How is that a good thing?
I never said it didn't. As I said in my poorly compiled comment the infrastructure is partly to blame. That is the only lane for turning left (do I also have to say 'and straight on' for you?). So if you are over on the left-hand side and you want to go straight on you will compete with idiots turning left....take the lane and keep them behind you, do it early and safely when you can get the space.
Sorry that my opinions don't match yours. You should open your mind.
And you didn't feel the need to mention safe infrastructure once!
Why are you even commenting here? As a driver, if there's doubt, you slow down and stay safe for your own and everyone else's sake.
Yes, I drive. Used to do 50k miles a year for a long time, though thankfully only about a 10th of that now...
Stop blaming the victim. Atrocious driving and if you think even one iota of it is OK, then you should return your license to the DVLA and take public transport everywhere.
She's in a lane marked straight on / left. She's not indicating left, which signals her intention to go straight on. How is that not clear?
She's not a victim. Or did I miss the bit where she was actually hit. I'm saying that she could've have taken action which would have helped her. But apparently you think I'm not allowed to say that. People like you make me sick. You care more about brow beating others than you do about listening.
I already said that the driver is not blameless but the way she rides means that she puts herself in trouble on busy roads. You can no more ride a cycle path with your eyes closed as cycle down a road without looking over your shoulder. They teach you that in cycling proficiency.
Hand in your own license if you have a problem with that. Why are you commenting in here?
She is pulled so far over to the side of the road that it is not explicit. As I said previously you don't see too many cyclists use arm signals to indicate wherever they are. The driver has a 50-50 as to which way she is going. Just to make it explicit for Jacknorrel, the driver makes a mistake in his judgement, and is not driving well, but she at no point provides an indication to anyone what she is doing.
As I said the infrastructure is partly to blame here. I agree in principle what you say, but I think there are a number of confusing elements for cyclists and motorists. If she takes the lane and puts herself in a prominent position, or even pulling into the next lane it is 100% explicit where she wants to go.
Motorists will always try to get past slow moving vehicles as quickly as possible and by taking position she would prevent that from happening, because by moving out from the curb there is no doubt she is carrying straight on. If she indicates her intent to other motorists she is much safer. Motorists don't want to kill cyclists, and if they know what you are doing they usually respond well.
Just watched the clip in question. I've got to agree with other comments; these 'Superhighways' are a waste of paint and I think probably lead inexperienced cyclists into a false sense of security - especially at a divergent junction such as the one in the clip.
An arm signal isn't required when going straight ahead and indeed there doesn't appear to be a recognised one in the Highway Code anyway (except for when driving, to indicate your intention to a person controlling traffic).
I've got to agree though; a poorly designed junction (given that it's on a Superhighway) and poor driving (driver totally at fault).
Whilst the rider was perfectly within her rights to ride as she did, in the position she was in without making any observations, this leaves absolutely no room for poor driving or even a genuine mistake by the driver.
I work as an air traffic controller. Our standard vertical separation between aircraft is 1000 feet and we are perfectly within our rights to descend or climb aircraft that are opposite direction, crossing or converging with one another to either 1000 feet above or 1000 feet below other conflicting aircraft. We can do this without informing either aircraft of their conflicting traffic - however we don't! We always build in a safety margin if we think that there would be a definite risk of a collision or near miss if one or other of the pilots involved makes a mistake. We may use 2000 feet in certain circumstances or more generally we would inform both aircraft of the conflicting traffic and reiterate the climb or descent clearance. We don't have to, but we always err on the side of caution, just in case someone is having a bad day and makes a mistake.
I adopt this principle when I'm riding, after all, it's in my best interests!
A wee look over the shoulder, catch the eye of the van driver and signal to move out to take the lane for a few seconds would have saved the day here - not required, but prudent.
[[[[ When cycling, and I find myself in that ambiguous situation, I always raise my RIGHT arm and stick it out sideways, which surely tells all drivers behind me that I AM NOT TURNING LEFT, and that I must be GOING STRAIGHT AHEAD, or possibly even veering to the right. And if a driver behind me thinks I'm about to veer to the right, that's ok by me. Once in a while, some clod will ignore my right arm, but very rarely.
And remember the poor lorry-driver. He has to watch out for cyclists, send texts on his mobile, eat a bowl of ready-brek, peer at his satnav, ogle passing women drivers, and roll a ciggy----all at the same time! Give the geezer a break, eh?
P.R.
Umm, cyclist ahead and it is quote "not clear what she is doing" then couldn't the truck driver just slow down, and wait to see what she is doing instead of clearly putting her life at risk? Do you really think not being sure what someone is doing is a good enough reason to kill someone??? In that situation I wouldn't dream of overtaking and turning left because of the clear risk to the cyclists life.
Are you utterly mad or completely blind? Watch the video again. Then appreciate why the courts convicted the driver.
Why do you keep supporting your bizarre hypothesis that lorry drivers should be allowed to kill cyclists if they happen to be in their way?
It really, really worries me that you are allowed to drive an HGV. Only now am I starting to understand why HGV drivers kill so many cyclists.
To indicate a right turn - "Using your left arm as if indicating a left turn but raise your forearm so it is at a right angle to your upper arm and parallel to your body. "
Only Americans seem to believe in these unintuitive car-centric hand signals. Using your LEFT arm to show you're going RIGHT makes no sense, unless you're in a car and can't just stick out the appropriate arm.
Looks for Swiss road death statistics.
That's surely more the message here than anything else? Sticking in the road-position suggested by the bicycle lane is dangerous.
However, if the rider in the picture did take my advice then she'd get a lot of stick from other people for being an "aggressive vehicular cyclist".
Watching her position right beside the curb, actually with a slight deviation towards the left as the approaches the intersection I would definitely have predicted that she was going left.
The driver is at fault for an unsafe turn, but the cyclist definitely did not help matters with her position on the road.
I'm not sure why I am responding. You clearly are the mad one. The cyclist in the video was not killed. There is nothing in the video I can see that says the driver was convicted. I can see no reason for a conviction given that the van driver did not hit the girl - there was no accident, just an incident which could have ended more seriously. Points and a warning maybe, so I think it is you who is mad and mistaken.
Never have I said that the van driver is in the right. Never have I said anyone should be allowed to be killed. You are mad mad mad. I would suggest you go away and rethink your life if you think writing your drivel has any purpose.
People like you 'pop up' on these forums just to abuse other people with your own prejudices and fears and don't care to properly engage add to the discussion.
Pages