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.
52 thoughts on “Die-in planned at Transport for London headquarters as ‘save our cyclists’ petition hits over 18,000 names”
In.
In.
Signed, and maybe in for the
Signed, and maybe in for the die-in too. Is fake blood and a t-shirt with ‘SMIDSY’ on it too much?
I think I’ll be coming down
I think I’ll be coming down from Nottingham for this!
A video view of CS2 for those
A video view of CS2 for those who haven’t cycled on it (yet).
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2013/nov/15/cyclist-london-cycle-superhighway-2-video?commentpage=1
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:A
Quite a good little video (I didn’t want to like it, especially the way he began by parking himself next to busy traffic). The thing that struck me was that he hits the nail on the head early on when he says ‘quite scary for a novice cyclist’. He navigates it perfectly well, but that is because of his experience.
The CS is a sham of blue paint. Though I’m not sure why the Bow roundabout is so troublesome except that there is lots of traffic queued up. The problem comes when as a novice you trust the CS markings and they lead you into parked cars and other scenarios which require experience and judgement.
Education is ultimately the key. But people should be dissuaded from using this CS stuff unless they know what they are doing.
Cycle lanes and segregated roads can’t make up for cycle education.
Colin Peyresourde
I’m no novice on London’s roads, I know what I’m doing and this changes nothing, CS2 is f****g dangerous and the close passes that just can’t be avoided are scary, take primary – they’ll still do it to punish you for taking primary.
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:A
I emailed Delphi Foods regarding the vehicle that passed within a couple of feet of the rider:
“We are currently taking this issue up with the Peter Walker at The Guardian, who published this misrepresentation of Delphi Foods.”
William Black wrote:
I
Farking hell.
Not the most reputable of companies by the look of it….
http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Regulation/Food-firm-faces-120k-fine-after-UK-Border-Agency-s-illegal-worker-raid
That video is really helpful
That video is really helpful for those of us living outside the UK. It gives all these reports a bit more context.
This wasn’t the cyclists
This wasn’t the cyclists fault! – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZCS3FLgYWM
CameronB wrote:This wasn’t
I’m not saying the driver isn’t without fault. The road layout does not help, but neither does the cyclist. She should really have looked over her shoulder and made some indication of taken the lane. By hugging the side of the road she shows no intention of where she is going.
The driver should have given her more space and should not overtake her. But in another respect, it is the left-hand turning lane and she is following the curb. So I can see what he is anticipating. Ultimately as a cyclist you have to take charge of that scenario and move early, safely and decisively, indicating what you are doing. You can have all the high viz, lights and helmets, but if you are not indicating your intentions and do not look before making your manuoeuvre then you will get into those situations. Even my cycling proficiency from 30 years ago taught me that.
There will always be bad drivers, but hardly any want to be killers.
Colin Peyresourde
The lane that the cyclist was in is marked as straight on and left turn. If the cyclist was going to turn left she would have been in the bus lane/cycle lane to the left of the island. How is a cyclist supposed to signal that they are going straight on? She could have been further out from the curb but heavy traffic can be very bullying and intimidating. This was entirely the lorry’s fault and the mini bus behind is just as bad, if not worse for tailgating and about to do the same to the bloke with the camera.
Andy G wrote:
The lane that
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. Sadly the majority of motorists are unaware of hand signals that should be used when indicators fail. You can also use this to let the police or traffic warden on points aware of your intentions to move ahead.
But to give no indication at
But to give no indication at all is not helpful. Cyclists in London are terrible at signalling. Drivers rely on it. That is why they have indicators. This is why cycle education is key!
Drivers complaining about
Drivers complaining about cyclists not indicating is a blatant case of pots calling kettles black.
I’ve come to two conclusions recently:
1. Indicators are now an optional extra, and in the times of austerity most drivers clearly couldn’t afford them (what with AC, electric everything and video players being essential!)
2. Indicating when changing lanes is the a terrible faux pas. Forget farting in a crowded lift, shouting into your mobile on the train, sitting down next to the fainting pregnant lady on the tube, or throwing up over your boss at the christmas party. All those you can get away with. Indicating before changing lanes on the motorway is now the only unforgivable sin in Britain.
giff77 wrote:Andy G
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. Sadly the majority of motorists are unaware of hand signals that should be used when indicators fail. You can also use this to let the police or traffic warden on points aware of your intentions to move ahead.— Andy G
In the USA that’s often used to mean a right turn: allows you to keep your right-hand on the the bars/brake. I had thought that an arm completely raised vertically was proposed for straight-ahead but never accepted?
Interesting the signal you mention is not shown here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highway-code–60
Ush wrote:In the USA that’s
You’re right about the signal, but it’s usually drivers using it when there’s no indicator on the vehicle or the bulb is gone.
In the UK, that signal would be done with the right arm out the window, for a left turn. I do wonder why it’s not shown, as it’s part of the Highway Code booklet I got this year (driven for 20 years, just wanted to properly look it over again).
US bikes are set up with front brake on the left-hand lever, so you’d usually want to keep your left hand on the bar. More so than the right.
giff77 wrote:
Using your left
This isn’t in the highway code and looking up hand signals for cyclists through Google suggests that this actually means a right turn :/
Andy G wrote:giff77
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.
Colin Peyresourde
While I agree that she was really too far in at that point, I also suspect looking at the video that the truck driver changed his mind at the last moment.
Colin Peyresourde
Watch the video again, the lane clearly indicates straight on with the option to turn left. Leave your poorly compiled comments at home.
alexwheeler0 wrote:
Watch the
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.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:take
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”.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:The
Blaming the victim much?
The courts, for once, decided that the driver was wholly at fault. You actually disagree about the proportion of blame?
I’m not saying the driver
Indeed not. The driver is entirely and solely at fault. He cleary sees the cyclist, overtaks with a minimum of space, and then turns immediately left into her path.
She could have taken the lane more – but look, she’s riding on the blue paint which is exactly where TfL is telling her to go. If she was taking the lane more, she’d probably get honked at by dozens of motorists for “not being in the cycle lane”.
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??
You must be reading the ’68 version of the highway code from when the entire DoT was on acid 😉
Come on. A blind man without a stick or guide dog can see she’s going straight ahead, and given her speed, the intention is pretty damn obvious.
And, hang on: Are you really
[/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…
It’s not clear what she is
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?
Colin Peyresourde wrote:It’s
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.
jacknorell wrote:
Why are you
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?
Colin Peyresourde wrote:It’s
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?
Sara_H wrote:
She’s in a lane
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
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.
Colin Peyresourde
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.
Joeinpoole wrote:Colin
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.— Sara_H
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.
Sara_H wrote:
She’s in a lane
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.
Umm, cyclist ahead and it is
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.
The case went to court and
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/
CameronB wrote:This wasn’t
I watched this until Gaz starts to shout (reminds me too much of myself; I always regret shouting at people, but I still do it because fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.) The lady is not *really* at fault but a better position might have help. But it is not really down to cyclists to be moving out to avoid left hooks, moving out here could have been just as bad.
The real question I have is, why does this divergent/diagonal junction even exist? Are there a lot of junctions like this in London? As it seem like trouble having this kind of corner which can be taken at speed. 90degree turns are good enough elsewhere. Perhaps London’s medieval layout needs to be reviewed to eliminate junctions like this.
Signed. Personally, I would
Signed. Personally, I would like to see accountability automatically revert to the powered vehicle as per mainland Europe (French anyway). I’m sure this would make drivers more aware and/or alert – at a minimum.
“…Signed. Personally, I
“…Signed. Personally, I would like to see accountability automatically revert to the powered vehicle as per mainland Europe (French anyway). I’m sure this would make drivers more aware and/or alert – at a minimum….”
Whilst being a lifelong cyclist: club rider, mountain biker, bike shop worker, tourer both home and abroad, commuter – including Central London and Bikeability instructor, I, like I’m sure the majority of cyclists on here, also drive. I enjoy driving and cover 20,000+ miles a year.
In an accident, I don’t want to be automatically blamed for the idiocy and lack of common sense exhibited by a sizeable minority of cyclists who don’t make any effort to make themselves visible or turn their heads to look over their shoulder before carrying out a maneuver or signal their intentions, fit lights, etc, etc.
Whilst the above will not guarantee safety in all circumstances or protect from dangerous, inconsiderate and inattentive driving, I’m sure it would go a long way to prevent a large proportion of accidents or at least lessen their extent.
I do understand that a driver can put forward mitigating evidence in defence but I’d rather not be assumed guilty and then have to prove my innocence.
I talk from experience as, in my mid teens, I was involved in 4 separate collisions that sent me sprawling across bonnets onto the road or into flower beds(!) – all of which, looking back, I shared a sizeable part of the blame for. If I knew then what I now know, I could probably have avoided all of them by amongst other things, wearing hi-vis clothing, fitting lights, making proper observations and better positioning. I’m just lucky to have the benefit of hindsight, others, as we have seen recently, aren’t.
Whilst signing petitions such as these we, as cyclists, need to make sure our own house is in order and that each one of us are doing as much as we can to ensure our own safety.
I would like to see compulsory training for all 16 year olds to act as a refresher for those that have done Bikeability in primary school and as a life skill for others before they go on to take driving lessons – hopefully giving the next generation of drivers better awareness of cyclists and giving the next generation of cyclists the tools that they need to keep safe.
SiWS wrote:
In an accident, I
That’s not how Strict Liability typically works. What it does is place the burden of proof on the operator of the heavier vehicle. HGV > Car > Bike > Ped. So if something bad happens, the onus is on the person bringing more kinetic energy to the table to prove they were in the right.
I think that’s fair enough. Yes, some cyclists are absolute bloody idiots. However, whenever we drive, we’re making an active choice to put enough mass and energy on the road that their idiocy may very well be fatal. As a society, we don’t generally regard the death penalty as a just punishment for stupidity, so as I see it that’s a reasonable balance.
It’s also nice to know, as a car driver & especially on motorways and trunk roads, that lorry drivers have an extra imperative to look out for those most likely to be hurt by their actions. (Though personally, I’d like to see more legal liability focused on the operating companies, rather than the individual drivers).
So if something bad happens,
[/quote] So if something bad happens, the onus is on the person bringing more kinetic energy to the table to prove they were in the right.[/quote]
Yes, I do understand that you will always have to prove you took reasonable care but it does seem like ‘guilty until proven innocent’.
[/quote] As a society, we don’t generally regard the death penalty as a just punishment for stupidity[/quote]
That is correct but I would regard punishment as a deliberate imposition of a penalty. Where a cyclist gets killed or injured in an accident through negligence or stupidity on their part, the motorist hasn’t set out to deliberately (assuming they have taken reasonable care) kill or injure the cyclist – indeed the motorist also becomes a victim of the cyclist’s negligence (having to live with the consequences).
SiWS wrote:victim blaming
And you didn’t feel the need to mention safe infrastructure once!
zam wrote:Signed. Personally,
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.
andy_schweiz wrote:zam
Looks for Swiss road death statistics.
In – TFL have alot to answer
In – TFL have alot to answer for
Signed. Could I also suggest
Signed. Could I also suggest signing the London Cycling Campaign petition – the more voices heard, the better.
http://www.lcc.org.uk
Transport planners,
Transport planners, unfortunately give “priority” to keeping the traffic flow moving and by that they mean motor vehicles. Safety of cyclists including sorting out junctions/roundabouts etc. with some sort of priority or separation is not high up the list. Think this is the essential problem, I think.
🙁
Another cyclist has been
Another cyclist has been killed in London today: http://news.radiojackie.com/2013/11/cyclist-killed-in-roehampton.html
With Death on the ROADS
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 !
[[[[ When cycling, and I find
[[[[ 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.
To indicate a right turn –
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.