Another cyclist dies in London

[yellowjack]

Ghibli said:

walm said:

No one cries victim when RLJers get hurt RLJing.
The problem is people running them over at other times.

Just because they RLJ doesn't give drivers carte blanche to run them over.

Just like you can't ram speeding drivers off the road.

It's not difficult.

Who said anything about drivers thinking they have the right to run cyclists over if they jump lights ?

As far as I can see its boils down to road rage and stupidity from drivers and cyclists.

Oh, FFS! I'll bite...

It's the tone of the whole piece. "You don't respect red lights, therefore you do not deserve my respect on the open road". Except I do respect (and consequently always stop at) red traffic lights. And all the other rules of the road too. But I'm still lumped into the "cyclist, therefore lawbreaking tt" category by a significant minority of Neanderthal drivers who cannot get a grip on basic cause and effect. The closer following drivers try to pass me, the F-U-R-T-H-E-R into the running lane I'll ride. Because getting squeezed toward the kerb means I need to make space for an exit strategy, and I do it for my own safety. If EVERY driver passed with plenty of space, and indicated before O-V-E-R-T-A-K-I-N-G me, so that following drivers were made aware of my presence, then I'd happily move closer to the nearside limit of the carriageway because it would be safe to do so. But unless/until drivers show ME the respect I know I DESERVE, I will ride, as advised by Government and RoSPA, in the safer 'primary' position, where drivers are FORCED to plan a proper overtake, rather than breezing blithely past on the nearside of the centre white line, concerned only with getting past as quickly as possible.

TL;DR? I'm not interested in the opinions of the terminally stupid. I've passed more driving tests than the vast majority of the driving population, if you want to play "Driving License Top Trumps", and that fact doesn't change when I swap my car/truck/bus/tank for a bicycle. I'm a road user, legally using the road. Deal with it, or stay at home, for everyone else's comfort and safety...

[Dave200]

This Red Light Jumping thing certainly seems to be a major bone of contention for drivers, and ends up resulting in these threads degenerating into slanging matches. I absolutely don't condone it in any shape or form, but it's certainly a common occurrence.

Is it not possible to move on from the circular discussion and hyperbole, and avoid the slightly puerile conversation?

[walm]

Ghibli said:

If cyclists get hurt while jumping reds, it's their own fault.

Ah, so you were just making a blindingly obvious comment no one disagrees with.
Got it.

[anonymous-user]

walm said:

Ghibli said:

If cyclists get hurt while jumping reds, it's their own fault.

Ah, so you were just making a blindingly obvious comment no one disagrees with.
Got it.

Yes

[Dave200]

Ghibli said:

walm said:

Ghibli said:

If cyclists get hurt while jumping reds, it's their own fault.

Ah, so you were just making a blindingly obvious comment no one disagrees with.
Got it.

Yes

Good - let's move on. None of the fatalities have been linked with RLJ, and we all agree that it's deplorable behaviour for cyclists or drivers.

[anonymous-user]

walm said:

No one cries victim when RLJers get hurt RLJing.
The problem is people running them over at other times.

Just because they RLJ doesn't give drivers carte blanche to run them over.

Just like you can't ram speeding drivers off the road.

It's not difficult.

No, it's not and why are we going on and on about one specific issue. How many cars exceed the speed limit, give no room, have drivers spending time on the phone, lighting a fag... the list is endless.

Reducing deaths means tougher penalties for running people over.

[Jagmanv12]

Ghibli said:

http://youtu.be/dUftM2SAIus

I wonder whos fault it will be when this gets knocked down or knocks someone down.

I

Who thinks there is nothing wrong with riding like this?

The question of RLJumping by a cyclist being dangerous to others is not the point as if he/she hits a vehicle then they will be worse off. The point is that by cyclists RLJumping their possible injuries/death could have an effect on the innocent driver.

Obviously if the cyclist hits a pedestrian while RLJumping then the cyclist should be dealt with severely, as would a driver.

[braddo]

Dave200 said:

Do the maths. The number of cyclists and the number of car owners in London are wildly different figures, with the latter less than half the former. Even if we assumed 100% dual ownership, which itself is entirely improbable, it still wouldn't leave us with a majority.

The reality is probably closer to 1/10-1/5, which isn't enough for good habits to permeate by osmosis.

Where on earth do you get those ownership figures from?! Not sure they have relevance to the people doing all the actual journeys in London.

Do you think the majority of people who commute by cycle in London do so because they can't afford or don't own a car?

[thelawnet1]

Dave200 said:

You're sort of arguing semantics here... but this is a worthwhile discussion, so I feel the need to correct you, if only for reference.

Most London cyclists do live in London. Unless you somehow believe that more than half of the bikes on the road at any given time are foldy Bromptons that just got off at Waterloo or London Bridge... Otherwise, how did they get there?

There are quite a lot of hire bikes in London you may have noticed them, bright blue things?

And I suspect your numbers are a load of BS in the first place, as you've failed to provide any sort of source. Perhaps start again with actual numbers and links to where you got them from?

Dave200 said:

Having a driving licence and being a car owner/user in London are two MASSIVELY different things. London is a hard place to drive, and requires a lot of different skills to town, rural or motorway driving. I know this, because I live here, right in the middle, and own a car - do you?

I regularly both drive and cycle in London. The standard of driving is very poor as it happens.

Funnily enough, having passed my driving test a number of years ago I wasn't required to take any further training to drive my car within the M25.

Dave200 said:

It's not to say that being a driver automatically makes you a better cyclist, nor that you are automatically more skilled because you're a London driver. However, having a cyclist dart out from your blind spot or magically appear alongside you while driving is certainly more likely to make drivers aware of the risk as a cyclist.

In my experience I'm far more worried about motorcyclists.

[Hackney]

thelawnet1 said:

Dave200 said:

Do the maths. The number of cyclists and the number of car owners in London are wildly different figures, with the latter less than half the former. Even if we assumed 100% dual ownership, which itself is entirely improbable, it still wouldn't leave us with a majority.

The reality is probably closer to 1/10-1/5, which isn't enough for good habits to permeate by osmosis.

What on earth are you talking about? Most 'London cyclists' probably don't even live in London.

You don't have to own a car to have a driving licence either.

And car drivers have terrible habits anyway.

Ok, what?
Just because you saw one bloke on the 7:15 from Reading on a Brompton doesn't mean "London cyclists" don't live in London.

I'm off to do some research into actual numbers on this.

[walm]

Hackney said:

Dave200 said:

Do the maths. The number of cyclists and the number of car owners in London are wildly different figures, with the latter less than half the former. Even if we assumed 100% dual ownership, which itself is entirely improbable, it still wouldn't leave us with a majority.

The reality is probably closer to 1/10-1/5, which isn't enough for good habits to permeate by osmosis.

I'm off to do some research into actual numbers on this.

I'll save you the bother - I can't be arsed to post the links but they are freely available on google.

2011 census of people living in London 17+ = c.6.0m.
Londoners with a driving licence - 2.4m (from a DVLA FOI request).
So 40% of Londoners have a licence. Dave-do-the-math-200 was off by 2-4x.

Obviously car ownership is utterly irrelevant.
The point is the TRAINING which apparently no cyclists have (despite cycling proficiency virtually universal in schools) and despite c.40% of them having a licence if a similar proportion of cyclists have licence as average Londoners.

[braddo]

Story today - record numbers of cyclists in London - 610,000 per day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-330027...

In a linked story, the big police campaign 18 months ago following the death of 6 cyclists in 2 weeks:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-256189...

Nearly 14,000 tickets issued, of which 4,000 issued to cyclists.

[Dave200]

walm said:

2011 census of people living in London 17+ = c.6.0m.
Londoners with a driving licence - 2.4m (from a DVLA FOI request).
So 40% of Londoners have a licence. Dave-do-the-math-200 was off by 2-4x.
... c.40% of them having a licence if a similar proportion of cyclists have licence as average Londoners.

So still not the majority, and making the massive assumption that cyclists are equally likely as the average GREATER Londoner (for which you have provided numbers) to have a car.

The reason that assumption is nonsense is that large numbers of cycle owners do so because they don't have a car, and it's their only alternative to public transport.

Given that the vast majority of cycle journeys in London are done inside the innermost three Zones, where car ownership per capita is also at its lowest across Greater London, I would say that my "math" (sic) probably holds water.

Adding to this that the cycling population of London is growing at >10%p.a., this is never going to become less true.

Can people please stop abusing data. Thanks.

Edited by Dave200 on Thursday 4th June 14:32

[braddo]

Dave200 said:

The reason that assumption is nonsense is that large numbers of cycle owners do so because they don't have a car, and it's their only alternative to public transport.

What do you base this assertion on?

[thelawnet1]

Dave200 said:

So still not the majority, and making the massive assumption that cyclists are equally likely as the average GREATER Londoner (for which you have provided numbers) to have a car.

The reason that assumption is nonsense is that large numbers of cycle owners do so because they don't have a car, and it's their only alternative to public transport.

You what mate? Cycling in central London is faster, cheaper and more convenient than driving a car. That's why people do it.

Public transport is generally objectively a *better* choice than driving in central London. That is manifestly not the case for most parts of the UK. Cycling is arguably better still.

Dave200 said:

Can people please stop abusing data. Thanks.

You are the only one that did that.

The fact is you came out with an assertion that you have no data to back up whatsoever. You still don't.

[Jagmanv12]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Q5ldUE-u8

This guy should buy a lottery ticket as he has to be the luckiest guy alive. If he still is that is because if he's still riding like this then he probably won't live long.

[dick_turpin]

Jagmanv12 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Q5ldUE-u8

This guy should buy a lottery ticket as he has to be the luckiest guy alive. If he still is that is because if he's still riding like this then he probably won't live long.

Comment on that video, allegedly from the cyclist: "Thought I'd just get the lights, hence the speed. Realised it wasn't happening, squeezed the front brake. Cable snapped. Not enough time to lose speed on back wheel in the wet."

Cables snapping is very rare, so I'm not entirely sure I believe him.
Still, as you say, a very lucky escape.

[Dave200]

thelawnet1 said:

Dave200 said:

So still not the majority, and making the massive assumption that cyclists are equally likely as the average GREATER Londoner (for which you have provided numbers) to have a car.

The reason that assumption is nonsense is that large numbers of cycle owners do so because they don't have a car, and it's their only alternative to public transport.

You what mate? Cycling in central London is faster, cheaper and more convenient than driving a car. That's why people do it.

Public transport is generally objectively a *better* choice than driving in central London. That is manifestly not the case for most parts of the UK. Cycling is arguably better still.

Dave200 said:

Can people please stop abusing data. Thanks.

You are the only one that did that.

The fact is you came out with an assertion that you have no data to back up whatsoever. You still don't.

PH at its finest. Let's argue minutiae and hyperbole, while entirely losing sight of the original point.

My original point was that the majority of London cyclists aren't also car owners/users, which influences their ability and awareness of risk. This has been confirmed by the data posted by the other chap (40% licence penetration). I offered mitigating factors to suggest that the 40% user figure he proffered was somewhat closer to my 1/5-1/10 estimate.

The average standard of cycling in London is poor, and would benefit enormously from properly-applied legislation and education. I say this as someone who has clocked-up many thousands of hours in the saddle across London over the last 8-10 years.

If you're looking for an argument, this is an emotive subject so I'm sure there are countless others who will rise to the bait.

[dick_turpin]

Dave200 said:

PH at its finest. Let's argue minutiae and hyperbole, while entirely losing sight of the original point.

My original point was that the majority of London cyclists aren't also car owners/users, which influences their ability and awareness of risk. This has been confirmed by the data posted by the other chap (40% licence penetration). I offered mitigating factors to suggest that the 40% user figure he proffered was somewhat closer to my 1/5-1/10 estimate.

The average standard of cycling in London is poor, and would benefit enormously from properly-applied legislation and education. I say this as someone who has clocked-up many thousands of hours in the saddle across London over the last 8-10 years.

If you're looking for an argument, this is an emotive subject so I'm sure there are countless others who will rise to the bait.

I don't think the average standard of cycling is particularly worse than the average standard of driving.

[anonymous-user]

dick_turpin said:

I don't think the average standard of cycling is particularly worse than the average standard of driving.

What would your solution to this problem be?

For both drivers and cyclists