Times 20mph London Campaign

[saaby93]

Anyone know more about this AA campaign
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/a...
Is the answer 20mph or are the accidents low speed anyway?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/

The Times said:

The Times has launched a public campaign and 8-point manifesto calling for cities to be made fit for cyclists:

-Lorries entering a city centre should be required by law to fit sensors, audible turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.

-The 500 most dangerous road junctions must be identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and Trixi mirrors that allow lorry drivers to see cyclists on their near-side.

-A national audit of cycling to find out how many people cycle in Britain and how cyclists are killed or injured should be held to underpin effective cycle safety.

-Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes, providing £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.

-The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.

-20mph should become the default speed limit in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes.

-Businesses should be invited to sponsor cycleways and cycling super-highways, mirroring the Barclays-backed bicycle hire scheme in London.

-Every city, even those without an elected mayor, should appoint a cycling commissioner to push home reforms.

Have they mixed up ideas for places of danger with those that arent?

Edited by saaby93 on Monday 6th February 23:51

[twister]

saaby93 said:

Is the answer 20mph or are the accidents low speed anyway?

All of the accidents I recall hearing/reading about in recent months have been just that, and a blanket 20MPH limit wouldn't have made the slightest difference in their outcome. Not to say that higher-speed accidents don't occur, just that as far as urban cycling goes the majority (or at least the majority that get mentioned anywhere) seem to be SMIDSY-type accidents at junctions where the speeds involved are considerably below 20MPH.

IMO what would make a huge difference is education, education, education, for both sides. As a former cyclist I like to think I'm a bit more aware of other cyclists (and other two-wheeled users, let's not forget that bikers and moped riders are also at risk here) when I'm behind the wheel, yet there have been times when I've been caught out by some of their (apparently) more extreme moves - I don't know if this is just because having not cycled for since the late 90's I've simply forgotten some of the basics, or whether it's because cyclists these days are more assertive, or something else - so I can well imagine that someone who's never been on two wheels (or at least, not since they were knee high to a grasshopper) might not have the first clue of what to look out for when they're driving.

And yes, the two-wheeled fraternity absolutely MUST take their fair share of responsibility in keeping themselves safe. Other than a few laps of the local park or school playground, my life as a cyclist didn't really start until I'd taken a cycling proficiency course whilst I was in the cubs. Not sure if it's the lessons I learned then, or my heightened sense of self-preservation, that are responsible for making me cringe every time I see a two-wheeler pull some idiotic move, but I really do believe that no matter how much time and effort is spent in educating motorists, redesigning junctions, installing safety equipment etc. etc, we'll never reduce accidents to an acceptable level unless the bikers also step up their game. There may well be a majority of silent cyclists who do play by the rules and keep themselves safe, but when public perception is of them all being a bunch of red-light running lane swerving must maintain progress at all costs lycra clad louts, then maybe half of the battle is in getting the greater cycling community and road safety authorities to take a visible stand against the minority who give them a bad name. We've had "Think Bike", where's the "Bikers, Think"?

We all share the roads, let's all share the responsibility...

[RegMolehusband]

It's disturbing that the media hold so much power when most journalists are actually idiots.

[williamp]

to me its more disturbing that the AA- whose remit should be everything to help the motorist, are not lobbying on our behalf for better rosds, better driver training but instesd selling us car insurance and giving credence to somehting which slows traffic down.

All of this is worthy for cyclists, but where is the same effort for motorisst? We have nobody lobbying for us. We are the largest manginalised group in the UK- aabout half the population...

[streaky]

Observations in London, occasionally looking down on traffic along Millbank and over Lambeth Bridge and more often through a bus window, strongly suggests that more than a few cyclists have a determination to end their lives or be horribly maimed. Dark clothes, no lights, no helmets, riding alongside long wheelbase, rigid and articulated vehicles at bends, ignoring indicators, ignoring traffic signals, ignoring pedestrian crossings, riding the wrong way along one-way streets, riding on the pavement, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding across pedestrian crossings, straight-lining roundabouts, stopping in lorry-drivers' blind-spots - the forward stop areas are particularly bad for this, 'riding furiously' in 20mph areas (e.g. across London Bridge and along Upper Bridge Street); etc., etc., etc. I've seen instances of most of these in the past two weeks, but sometimes not all together ( ).

Before bhing, they MUST take responsibility for their actions.

This is not to excuse motorists, they too must take responsibility and especial care in urban driving, but I strongly suspect that a great many motor vehicle/cyclist interactions are a case of "six of one, and half a dozen of the other".

I rather imagine that 20mph speed limits in 'inner-city' streets will not mitigate accidents, and might even increase their number. Any reduction in severity could be cancelled out by such an increase.

Waits for cyclist flamers.

Streaky

PS - I have a pedal cycle - S

[voicey]

streaky said:

Observations in London, occasionally looking down on traffic along Millbank and over Lambeth Bridge and more often through a bus window, strongly suggests that more than a few cyclists have a determination to end their lives or be horribly maimed. Dark clothes, no lights, no helmets, riding alongside long wheelbase, rigid and articulated vehicles at bends, ignoring indicators, ignoring traffic signals, ignoring pedestrian crossings, riding the wrong way along one-way streets, riding on the pavement, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding across pedestrian crossings, straight-lining roundabouts, stopping in lorry-drivers' blind-spots - the forward stop areas are particularly bad for this, 'riding furiously' in 20mph areas (e.g. across London Bridge and along Upper Bridge Street); etc., etc., etc. I've seen instances of most of these in the past two weeks, but sometimes not all together ( ).

Before bhing, they MUST take responsibility for their actions.

This is not to excuse motorists, they too must take responsibility and especial care in urban driving, but I strongly suspect that a great many motor vehicle/cyclist interactions are a case of "six of one, and half a dozen of the other".

I rather imagine that 20mph speed limits in 'inner-city' streets will not mitigate accidents, and might even increase their number. Any reduction in severity could be cancelled out by such an increase.

Waits for cyclist flamers.

Streaky

PS - I have a pedal cycle - S

I pretty mcuh agree with all of this - I cycle 8 miles each way to/from my office in the City every day and you wouldn't believe the stupidity I see from other cyclists.

[jazzyjeff]

twister said:

what would make a huge difference is education, education, education, for both sides.

This x 10 (of course they won't do that, it'll be considered too expensive).

Plus drilling into the feckless millions (after years of indoctrination in selfishness by the Tories followed by the obsessive nannying of Nu Labia) about taking responsibility for their own actions and safety, give each other room to manoevre, and don't make rash decisions.

I wouldn't want to sit in the blindspot of a heavy in a car, let alone on a pushbike.

[will_]

streaky said:

Observations in London, occasionally looking down on traffic along Millbank and over Lambeth Bridge and more often through a bus window, strongly suggests that more than a few cyclists have a determination to end their lives or be horribly maimed. Dark clothes, no lights, no helmets, riding alongside long wheelbase, rigid and articulated vehicles at bends, ignoring indicators, ignoring traffic signals, ignoring pedestrian crossings, riding the wrong way along one-way streets, riding on the pavement, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding across pedestrian crossings, straight-lining roundabouts, stopping in lorry-drivers' blind-spots - the forward stop areas are particularly bad for this, 'riding furiously' in 20mph areas (e.g. across London Bridge and along Upper Bridge Street); etc., etc., etc. I've seen instances of most of these in the past two weeks, but sometimes not all together ( ).

Of course on the flipside, I see motorists speeding, running red lights, talking on their phones, encroaching cycle lanes and ASLs, making illegal turns, failing to check their mirrors before turning, failing to give way, failing to stop for pedestrians, passing dangerously close, turning without indicating, cutting accross lanes of traffic, diving through gaps without checking etc etc every day too. Of course the motorist doing something stupid or dangerous is far more likely to kill someone (particularly someone else) than the cyclist doing the same.

streaky said:

Before bhing, they MUST take responsibility for their actions.

I'm not sure anyone is "bhing", but to argue against a campaign to decrease cycling deaths on the basis that some cyclists ride poorly is misplaced, in my view. Do bad cyclists "deserve" to get killed? Do "good" cyclists not deserve better facilities which increase their safety because some of their number (a minority) do stupid and illegal things?

streaky said:

This is not to excuse motorists, they too must take responsibility and especial care in urban driving, but I strongly suspect that a great many motor vehicle/cyclist interactions are a case of "six of one, and half a dozen of the other".

Overall, that isn't the case. In adult cyclists, the driver is responsible for 75% of the accidents involving cars and cyclists. Certainly (on an anecdotal basis) the significant majority of accidents and incidents I have seen have been down to poor driving.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15...

streaky said:

I rather imagine that 20mph speed limits in 'inner-city' streets will not mitigate accidents, and might even increase their number. Any reduction in severity could be cancelled out by such an increase.

I agree, it's not the solution.

streaky said:

Waits for cyclist flamers.

I hope that wasn't a flaming.

What really bugs me about this "campaign" is that the "solution" which is proposed appears to be to segregate cyclists from other traffic, which sounds great in theory, but is generally poorly considered in practice. What acually needs to happen is to provide consideration for cyclists in road-planning and infrastructure which is actually well considered and useful; doesn't encourage cyclists into danger zones; and is joined up.

In my view, encouraging cycling in urban environments is good for everyone, and should be encouraged where practical.

I await return flaming.

[jazzyjeff]

will_ said:

streaky said:

Observations in London, occasionally looking down on traffic along Millbank and over Lambeth Bridge and more often through a bus window, strongly suggests that more than a few cyclists have a determination to end their lives or be horribly maimed. Dark clothes, no lights, no helmets, riding alongside long wheelbase, rigid and articulated vehicles at bends, ignoring indicators, ignoring traffic signals, ignoring pedestrian crossings, riding the wrong way along one-way streets, riding on the pavement, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding across pedestrian crossings, straight-lining roundabouts, stopping in lorry-drivers' blind-spots - the forward stop areas are particularly bad for this, 'riding furiously' in 20mph areas (e.g. across London Bridge and along Upper Bridge Street); etc., etc., etc. I've seen instances of most of these in the past two weeks, but sometimes not all together ( ).

Of course on the flipside, I see motorists speeding, running red lights, talking on their phones, encroaching cycle lanes and ASLs, making illegal turns, failing to check their mirrors before turning, failing to give way, failing to stop for pedestrians, passing dangerously close, turning without indicating, cutting accross lanes of traffic, diving through gaps without checking etc etc every day too. Of course the motorist doing something stupid or dangerous is far more likely to kill someone (particularly someone else) than the cyclist doing the same.

streaky said:

Before bhing, they MUST take responsibility for their actions.

I'm not sure anyone is "bhing", but to argue against a campaign to decrease cycling deaths on the basis that some cyclists ride poorly is misplaced, in my view. Do bad cyclists "deserve" to get killed? Do "good" cyclists not deserve better facilities which increase their safety because some of their number (a minority) do stupid and illegal things?

streaky said:

This is not to excuse motorists, they too must take responsibility and especial care in urban driving, but I strongly suspect that a great many motor vehicle/cyclist interactions are a case of "six of one, and half a dozen of the other".

Overall, that isn't the case. In adult cyclists, the driver is responsible for 75% of the accidents involving cars and cyclists. Certainly (on an anecdotal basis) the significant majority of accidents and incidents I have seen have been down to poor driving.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15...

streaky said:

I rather imagine that 20mph speed limits in 'inner-city' streets will not mitigate accidents, and might even increase their number. Any reduction in severity could be cancelled out by such an increase.

I agree, it's not the solution.

streaky said:

Waits for cyclist flamers.

I hope that wasn't a flaming.

What really bugs me about this "campaign" is that the "solution" which is proposed appears to be to segregate cyclists from other traffic, which sounds great in theory, but is generally poorly considered in practice. What acually needs to happen is to provide consideration for cyclists in road-planning and infrastructure which is actually well considered and useful; doesn't encourage cyclists into danger zones; and is joined up.

In my view, encouraging cycling in urban environments is good for everyone, and should be encouraged where practical.

I await return flaming.

I wondered how long it would take for you to turn up

[AndyACB]

streaky said:

Observations in London, occasionally looking down on traffic along Millbank and over Lambeth Bridge and more often through a bus window, strongly suggests that more than a few cyclists have a determination to end their lives or be horribly maimed. Dark clothes, no lights, no helmets, riding alongside long wheelbase, rigid and articulated vehicles at bends, ignoring indicators, ignoring traffic signals, ignoring pedestrian crossings, riding the wrong way along one-way streets, riding on the pavement, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding across pedestrian crossings, straight-lining roundabouts, stopping in lorry-drivers' blind-spots - the forward stop areas are particularly bad for this, 'riding furiously' in 20mph areas (e.g. across London Bridge and along Upper Bridge Street); etc., etc., etc. I've seen instances of most of these in the past two weeks, but sometimes not all together ( ).

Before bhing, they MUST take responsibility for their actions.

This is not to excuse motorists, they too must take responsibility and especial care in urban driving, but I strongly suspect that a great many motor vehicle/cyclist interactions are a case of "six of one, and half a dozen of the other".

I rather imagine that 20mph speed limits in 'inner-city' streets will not mitigate accidents, and might even increase their number. Any reduction in severity could be cancelled out by such an increase.

Waits for cyclist flamers.

Streaky

PS - I have a pedal cycle - S

I cycle to work occasionally and can only agree that the above is so true.
I've seen people one foot pedaling up the inside of buses and lorries at junctions and they look at you like you're the idiot when you point out they are likely to get flattened.

It's not always the cyclists fault but many do put themselves in so much unnecessary danger that it's no wonder that a couple a month get turned into roadkill.

[AndyACB]

[redacted]

[ClaphamGT3]

voicey said:

streaky said:

Observations in London, occasionally looking down on traffic along Millbank and over Lambeth Bridge and more often through a bus window, strongly suggests that more than a few cyclists have a determination to end their lives or be horribly maimed. Dark clothes, no lights, no helmets, riding alongside long wheelbase, rigid and articulated vehicles at bends, ignoring indicators, ignoring traffic signals, ignoring pedestrian crossings, riding the wrong way along one-way streets, riding on the pavement, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding across pedestrian crossings, straight-lining roundabouts, stopping in lorry-drivers' blind-spots - the forward stop areas are particularly bad for this, 'riding furiously' in 20mph areas (e.g. across London Bridge and along Upper Bridge Street); etc., etc., etc. I've seen instances of most of these in the past two weeks, but sometimes not all together ( ).

Before bhing, they MUST take responsibility for their actions.

This is not to excuse motorists, they too must take responsibility and especial care in urban driving, but I strongly suspect that a great many motor vehicle/cyclist interactions are a case of "six of one, and half a dozen of the other".

I rather imagine that 20mph speed limits in 'inner-city' streets will not mitigate accidents, and might even increase their number. Any reduction in severity could be cancelled out by such an increase.

Waits for cyclist flamers.

Streaky

PS - I have a pedal cycle - S

I pretty mcuh agree with all of this - I cycle 8 miles each way to/from my office in the City every day and you wouldn't believe the stupidity I see from other cyclists.

Couldn't agree more with the two posts above. I'm a 20-year cyclist and car commuter and the lunacy from many cyclists beggars belief. Education on both sides and TAKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is key.

The Times campaign is well meaning but wholly mis-guided; the measures it advocates will perpetuate the problem not solve it at source.

[simoid]

Switched off after audible turning devices for HGVs.

Let's just fit them with indicators and not fking undertake them at junctions.

[gforceg]

jazzyjeff said:

I wondered how long it would take for you to turn up

About two hours longer than it took Streaky.

[chrisjackson184]

As a keen cyclist and petrol head I have no desire to see the limit reduced to 20mph. There are good and bad drivers and cyclists out there doing all manner of illegal and dangerous things. A lower limit will change none of this. Of all the problems I have had whilst on a bike very few relate to speed of traffic and those that did were not in built up areas. In almost all the instances that come to mind of issues (and there are not that many major ones) space was the issue not speed.

Cycle campaigners shoudl focus on sensible measures to improve safety where needed, eg segregation on the busiest roads that doesn't mean a cycle lane that stops at every single side road (anyone who has tried to use the Shirley cycle lane on the Stratford road will understand).

Also, when will some cyclists realise you need to be seen to be safe, lights, bright reflective clothing and keeping out of people's blind spots are all part of it. Red lights are for stopping at (cars and bikes) and everybody needs to give everyone else enough space.

[simoid]

Unfortunately, lowering the limit looks like something is being done, and to many is a good idea, and good PR.

Why do something expensive and effective when you can put some new signs up?

[jmorgan]

Didn't know you get that high in the big smoke.

[Jagmanv12]

jazzyjeff said:

twister said:

what would make a huge difference is education, education, education, for both sides.

This x 10 (of course they won't do that, it'll be considered too expensive).

Plus drilling into the feckless millions (after years of indoctrination in selfishness by the Tories followed by the obsessive nannying of Nu Labia) about taking responsibility for their own actions and safety, give each other room to manoevre, and don't make rash decisions.

I wouldn't want to sit in the blindspot of a heavy in a car, let alone on a pushbike.

+1

[7mike]

williamp said:

to me its more disturbing that the AA- whose remit should be everything to help the motorist, are not lobbying on our behalf for better rosds, better driver training but instesd selling us car insurance and giving credence to somehting which slows traffic down.

I think maybe there's a bit of "Journalistic licence" at play in that title. Have a read of the quote and imagine it this way;

"Edmund, what are your thoughts on this?"

“We accept that if we had more twenties it would help. If it is a residential street or a road outside a school, absolutely,” Mr King said. “Our view is that we support 20mph zones where they work but there are still some roads in urban areas that are roads for movement. A blanket 20mph may stop people getting around.”

[jazzyjeff]

7mike said:

A blanket 20mph may stop people getting around.”

There are parts of London where the opportunity to travel as fast as 20mph is welcomed with open arms. They should introduce a 20mph MINIMUM