Sixth London cycling death this month as man in his 60s is hit by lorry in Camberwell

Gizmo_ wrote:

I didn't even get a vote, as I live outside the 'London' boroughs. But I'd have voted for Boris - bear in mind that the alternatives were Red Ken and, er...

The fact is, whoever is in charge has a wide range of conflicting priorities. For what it's worth I think Boris would quite happily close large numbers of roads to be used as cycle-only routes

You seriously believe that? Boris does whatever the hell Boris thinks will make him most popular - a few soundbites here and there to get people to shut up until the storm has blown over and that's exactly what we're seeing here although I really think he's underestimated the strength of feeling here and that it *may* not work this time.

He's an absolute arse of a man - even by politicians standards

Neil Smith 48 wrote:

Like tonight on Birdcage Walk, people cycling in the dark, in dark clothes, with no lights... .

I must admit, this has been irritating me in recent days. I was on holiday when the clocks went back, and I’ve come back to it being dark by rush hour. The amount of cyclists I see in dark clothes, no lights, etc simply makes me despair. I’ve mentioned it to a couple I’ve passed, but it just seems to go straight over their heads.

In this recent spate of sad cases, I haven’t seen anything to suggest this was a factor (or not yet anyway) but we really do have to help ourselves out there. We know that so many motorists see us as an inconvenience, so it’s even more important to at least be an ‘inconvenience’ that can be seen.

If there was a decent segregated path to cycle on, then all these become fairly irrelevant.

The point is that on the roads people will make mistakes. If you have sht roads then these mistakes kill people. If you have decent roads then they don't.

Gemianini wrote:

It's shocking and sad, but there must be some data to help figure what can/should be done. For these (and indeed any injury or death) is there information on;
- was the cyclist not following the Highway Code?
- was the vehicle driver not following the Highway Code?
- what time of day was the incident?
- did the cyclist have full front and rear lights and rear reflector?
- was the cyclist dressed to be seen?
- was the driver on the 'phone (or some other version of not paying attention)?
- are there particular characteristics of the road or the junction where it happened?
- was the driver breaking the speed limit?
- was the cyclist using a pedestrian crossing or feature etc. to ride on?

There will be more I'm sure, but data behind all of these terrible incidents must drive the debate, otherwise it becomes a mindless 'lycra lout' vs 'idiot driver' shouting match.

If there was a decent segregated path to cycle on, then all these become fairly irrelevant.
The point is that on the roads people will make mistakes. If you have sht roads then these mistakes kill people. If you have decent roads then they don't.

VeloPeo wrote:

Gizmo_ wrote:

I didn't even get a vote, as I live outside the 'London' boroughs. But I'd have voted for Boris - bear in mind that the alternatives were Red Ken and, er...

The fact is, whoever is in charge has a wide range of conflicting priorities. For what it's worth I think Boris would quite happily close large numbers of roads to be used as cycle-only routes

You seriously believe that? Boris does whatever the hell Boris thinks will make him most popular - a few soundbites here and there to get people to shut up until the storm has blown over and that's exactly what we're seeing here although I really think he's underestimated the strength of feeling here and that it *may* not work this time.

He's an absolute arse of a man - even by politicians standards

You have to forgive Gizmo's naivety. They obviously havent really examined Johnsons history beyond his carefully crafty media personality.

Prior to his re-election, he was scornful of anyone who spoke about bringing Dutch style solutions to Londons (and the UK's) infrastructure. Through campaigns such as Londoners On Bikes, he signed up to the "Love London, Go Dutch" ethos yet has continuously used every dirty trick with putting off actually doing anything outside of what they (TfL backed by him) were doing before.

What needs to happen is that people now start protesting on a regular basis, shutting down lethal junctions, quit thinking that the LCC is going to get anything done with its passive, non-disruptive methods or with signing petitions (Sorry but Johnson will ignore the fuck out of them while paying lip service to make you think he cares), and start causing as much disruption as possible.

The time for "peaceful" protest is over: people (pedestrians and cyclists) are being killed on our streets on an all too frequent basis and nothing is going to change until there is a paradigm shift in how our transport systems are organised and being "peaceful" and "nice" just doesnt cut it anymore.

ribena wrote:

Quote:

But most motorcyclists learned long ago that 'smidsy' should always be assumed and that, if you are a vulnerable road user, you don't put yourself into high-risk positions. Too often, I see cyclists putting themselves in crazy places. Like tonight on Birdcage Walk, people cycling in the dark, in dark clothes, with no lights... Do enough cyclists understand the risks? Would you like expensive compulsory training and a staged license..?

I'm not sure the training, like motorcyclists have, would necessarily help, since despite all the training and licensing and lights etc.. using a motorbike in London is twice as dangerous as cycling

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/safe-streets-for-london...

Motorcycles accounted for one per cent of daily journeys, but 21 per cent of KSI casualties in London in 2011

• Pedal cycles accounted for two per cent of daily journeys, but 20 per cent of KSI casualties in London in 2011

Ribena, I agree that motorcycling is more dangerous than cycling, but my point is that motorcycling casualties have fallen with better compulsory training. Could we see bureaucrats deciding that cyclists too should have compulsory training? The KSI rate may be half that of motorcycling, but it's still pretty appalling.

As an advanced (IAM) motorcyclist, I am safer. I know what the high-risk situations are and I avoid them (half of London's cycling deaths in recent years are from being on the inside of a lorry). I have better anticipation & better positioning. Crucially, compared to a cyclist, I can accelerate out of trouble & keep up with fast moving traffic.

How many cyclists - vulnerable road users with a high casualty rate - have EVER had any training?

Neil Smith 48 wrote:

How many cyclists - vulnerable road users with a high casualty rate - have EVER had any training?

The AA, the Metropolitan Police, Westmister Council and the University of Monash (Oz) have looked at fault in bike/car accidents. They all found that around 75% to 80% are the fault of the driver. If training is the answer, then it is drivers who need more of it.
So, without training, cyclists perform better.
As a cyclist I would guess you know why this is. Anyone who is remotely in touch with reality feels vulnerable on a bike in traffic. Whereas a driver feels much more secure with his airbag, seat belt, steel cage. In a marginal situation on the road who has most incentive to avoid a collision?

I think you are missing the point. If half the deaths in London are from being on the inside of lorries, then it seems obvious to me that position is dangerous, regardless of fault. So don't do it.

I do think training for cyclists has an important role to play. As for drivers, yes if course they can be at fault, but what's better - being in the right but injured, or having learnt, through training, that riding smarter will reduce the risk of an accident?

I'm not going to wait for others to improve their driving, I'm going to improve my cycling safety and enjoyment.

Neil Smith 48 wrote:

I think you are missing the point. If half the deaths in London are from being on the inside of lorries, then it seems obvious to me that position is dangerous, regardless of fault. So don't do it.

I do think training for cyclists has an important role to play. As for drivers, yes if course they can be at fault, but what's better - being in the right but injured, or having learnt, through training, that riding smarter will reduce the risk of an accident?

I'm not going to wait for others to improve their driving, I'm going to improve my cycling safety and enjoyment.

When cyclists get caught alongside a left turning vehicle it is not always the cyclist's fault. I have twice had overtaking vehicles turn left across me before getting clear ahead. One was a bus which began turning as the driver drew level with me! Luckily I was not squeezed into railings in either case.
I repeat. If threequarters of the fault lies with the driver, it makes most sense to start with more training for the driver. If training could remove say 50% of accidents then training the driver would cut cycling casualties by half of 75%, which is 37.5%. Training the cyclist would remove half of 25% of accidents, that is 12.5%. These figures are obviously very rough, but I'm sure you can grasp the logic. If training is effective, it will be much more effective if given to drivers.
I have not waited for better driving to happen before riding as defensively as I can, The figures on blame in accidents show that most cyclists have not waited either.
We all make mistakes, but the figures show that drivers, for some reason, make a lot more than riders. This is in spite of drivers having to train to pass a test.

Neil Smith 48 wrote:

Yes, I recognise that situation and it's scary. I would say it's helped by better positioning ie don't wait by the kerb to turn left but stay out far enough to make the vehicle stay behind you.

You are right. I move out a little at junctions when there is a vehicle behind, and when a vehicle which should give way to me on the major road is approaching. This too has saved me from a knockdown. Moving out has become second nature. Is it taught in Bikeability?

Neil Smith 48 wrote:

I'm sure that even with better training and behaviour for all involved and better traffic management, cycling will still be more dangerous than driving a car. We are not inside a large protective metal box for starters.

I think that in order to be as safe as a car occupant you have to be a much better cyclist than most motorists are drivers. Fotunately this is not too difficult. The figures I keep going on about show that most cyclists ARE better.