Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Dave200 said:
My original point was that the majority of London cyclists aren't also car owners/users.
Pure supposition.You're assuming that the people cycling in London are an even representation of the population as a whole. See the hordes of white, male professionals on their expensive bikes commuting into central London every day. Cycling to work is done disproportionately by middle class males who choose not to use public transport and have left their car parked outside their home.
Ghibli said:
What would your solution to this problem be?
For both drivers and cyclists
Segregation, Dutch style, though in certain parts of the city it might be time to start not allowing cars and hgvs at all, and have largely pedestrian and cyclist zones, with deliveries done by vans in the morning only. Imo. For both drivers and cyclists
heebeegeetee said:
Segregation, Dutch style, though in certain parts of the city it might be time to start not allowing cars and hgvs at all, and have largely pedestrian and cyclist zones, with deliveries done by vans in the morning only. Imo.
Good suggestion, I don't see why cyclists can't run along side in a compulsory cycling lane. If you allow cars/delivers etc in the mornings, you will still have the same problem with cyclists and cars, possibly more Hgvs in one place at the same time.Obviously only my opinion.
Ghibli said:
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
Better cycle awareness as part of the driving test.
Public awareness and education campaigns aimed at all road users.
National standards for road and junction design, which local authorities are obliged to follow, especially in the area of cycling infrastructure, which is often a crap dangerous joke.
heebeegeetee said:
In which case, given the casualty rate for motorcyclists there's be thrice-weekly threads about them and not for a road user that has the same accident rate as pedestrians.
ZX10R NIN, the accident rate for you guys is horrific, so why on earth are babbling on about cyclists for?
I think the attitude against cycling is mostly always an English-language-nation thing - UK, US, Aus (possibly the three most obese nations on the planet). It doesn't exist elsewhere.
I think there is a class issue going on, even if so subconsciously. Virtually nothing that is being said against cyclists bears even a moments scrutiny.
Or just plain numptyism. One or the other.
I'm not against cyclists at all I'm saying in order to reduce the number of accidents in LONDON, then you need to have some form of training for those commuting into London.ZX10R NIN, the accident rate for you guys is horrific, so why on earth are babbling on about cyclists for?
I think the attitude against cycling is mostly always an English-language-nation thing - UK, US, Aus (possibly the three most obese nations on the planet). It doesn't exist elsewhere.
I think there is a class issue going on, even if so subconsciously. Virtually nothing that is being said against cyclists bears even a moments scrutiny.
Or just plain numptyism. One or the other.
Just to throw a cat among the pigeons.
I think the previous data I linked to must be wrong (well, my interpretation of it).
Possibly a central vs. greater London issue.
The govt estimate that 74% of the population aged 17+ holds a full driving license. (Note also 81% for men, 68% for the ladies.)
This was from a sample: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The estimated number was 31.9m full licence holders.
But the FOI number from the DVLA was 2.4m in “London” and 34.2m non-London so 36.6m total or 91% of the total population.
Now, the DVLA data admits that they may have included some dead people. (No one bothers to tell them when they die so licenses just expire when not renewed).
So I think the real answer for the whole of England must be somewhere between 74-91%.
It just seems astonishingly unlikely that London would be such an outlier at 40%.
Of course it will be far below the average owing to the frankly excellent public transport compared to the sticks but not that far!!!
And anecdotally I simply don’t know anyone without a licence.
Perhaps that one guy who immigrated from Israel because his home licence isn’t valid.
So, I apologise for jumping to the 40% figure - I was just keen to prove Dave200 wrong on the 10-20% figure he came up with.
In fairness, he has really been focusing on car OWNERS.
However, it seems to me that is irrelevant – you don’t need to be an owner to know how the rules of the road should work.
I think the previous data I linked to must be wrong (well, my interpretation of it).
Possibly a central vs. greater London issue.
The govt estimate that 74% of the population aged 17+ holds a full driving license. (Note also 81% for men, 68% for the ladies.)
This was from a sample: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The estimated number was 31.9m full licence holders.
But the FOI number from the DVLA was 2.4m in “London” and 34.2m non-London so 36.6m total or 91% of the total population.
Now, the DVLA data admits that they may have included some dead people. (No one bothers to tell them when they die so licenses just expire when not renewed).
So I think the real answer for the whole of England must be somewhere between 74-91%.
It just seems astonishingly unlikely that London would be such an outlier at 40%.
Of course it will be far below the average owing to the frankly excellent public transport compared to the sticks but not that far!!!
And anecdotally I simply don’t know anyone without a licence.
Perhaps that one guy who immigrated from Israel because his home licence isn’t valid.
So, I apologise for jumping to the 40% figure - I was just keen to prove Dave200 wrong on the 10-20% figure he came up with.
In fairness, he has really been focusing on car OWNERS.
However, it seems to me that is irrelevant – you don’t need to be an owner to know how the rules of the road should work.
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.
Minutiae?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.
There were 2.4 million people with a driving licence in London as of 2009.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/20563/respo...
And only 155,000 people cycling to work.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-a...
It's quite likely that those who cycle to work are disproportionately car drivers. In my experience people buy a car BEFORE they get a bike.
Your assertion that people are only cycling in central London because they don't have a car is ridiculous.
ZX10R NIN said:
I'm not against cyclists at all I'm saying in order to reduce the number of accidents in LONDON, then you need to have some form of training for those commuting into London.
Or protection for the weakest group.....which currently has very little. As I said, what is the downside, the dangerous drivers get held to account, cycling in London increases, congestion reduces, etc, etc.yonex said:
ZX10R NIN said:
Yes it does but as stated earlier I'm talking about people who are commuting into London being made to take some form of proper training made to wear Helmets & have some form of Insurance. Accidents happen I've been knocked off of my motorbike by a cyclist jumping a red light, I've seen cyclists ride into cars Vans etc also it means as a cyclist you have legal cover if you're injured & can pursue a claim with no hassle.
Haulage Companies Bus Companies have been made to spend 1000's on extra training & equipment for their Vehicles so now I think the time has come for cyclists to put themselves out & accept some regulation.
Most people can ride a push bike but riding one competently in the city is a completely different thing.
Haulage Companies Bus Companies have been made to spend 1000's on extra training & equipment for their Vehicles so now I think the time has come for cyclists to put themselves out & accept some regulation.
Most people can ride a push bike but riding one competently in the city is a completely different thing.
the internet said:
According to the latest research, motorcyclist’s in the UK are between 38 and 40 times more likely to die in an accident on the road than standard car drivers; this is shocking news when you consider that motorcyclists only comprise of 1% of the overall road traffic,
Perhaps we should focus on the most dangerous forms of transport in respect to training....
There are the numbers. Motorcycles, huge risk, time for bikers to accept it plus pay more insurance and take on routine training every year. I'm sure you agree?
Also I thought you only wanted to talk about London as in the Title? The figures for those commuting in was 12 Cyclist & 22 Motorcyclist fatalities for the year.
So does that mean that you agree that rather than cyclists getting their own lanes they should in fact make them Motorcycle Lanes instead?
I can look forward to you now championing this cause now can I? 
As a Motorcyclist we pay higher premiums which I have no problem with, does this mean you now agree cyclists commuting should have Insurance?
One of the big problems motorcycling had were what we called born again bikers who were in their late 30's & had ridden before then came back to biking after a long break (marriage family etc) then getting on a bike & not being competent enough to ride in today's road conditions (DESPITE HOLDING A DRIVERS LICENCE) the problem seems to have lessened with the Bike Shops & Police offering extra training which by and large has been taken up.
dick_turpin said:
Ghibli said:
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
Better cycle awareness as part of the driving test.
Public awareness and education campaigns aimed at all road users.
National standards for road and junction design, which local authorities are obliged to follow, especially in the area of cycling infrastructure, which is often a crap dangerous joke.
However, as the cities are so developed, we can't expand the roads much more. In the existing space we often have to fit specific width roads, footways etc, and there isn't much extra room to expand in to for cycle facilities, so responsible sharing is the way to go. I've got 4 cycle schemes on the go at the moment, which involves widening footways to allow shared use, which often reduces the actual carriageway width available. This has a knock on effect of increasing congestion for cars, and if cyclists refuse to use the new foot/cycleways - including using them sensibly, at a reduced pace to allow for the fact peds are there - then it makes a bad situation worse. But when you've got property boundaries on each side, and (say) 12m of width between them, then it's impossible to provide enough space for all to ride and drive and walk as freely as all would like. 2 bikes passing each other need 3m. 2 wheelchairs or pushchairs passing need 2.5m. A standard vehicle lane is 3m to 3.65m. Add in a bus stop or a refuge island at crossings and you run out of space very quickly. Yes there are some wider spaces available, but not always. That's where pinchpoints happen and we have to drop a cycle lane and we get criticised for not being able to fit a pint in a half pint pot.
Edited by OpulentBob on Thursday 4th June 18:23
yonex said:
Or protection for the weakest group.....which currently has very little. As I said, what is the downside, the dangerous drivers get held to account, cycling in London increases, congestion reduces, etc, etc.
How are you the weakest group surely by your own figures you have to say Motorcyclists are the weakest group?Remind me again which road user group needs legislation and education most?
They issued 13,818 fines. Take away the 4,085 fines issued to cyclists, and it leaves you with what? 9,733 fines given to other road users, that's what! So more than twice as many motor vehicle drivers were punished for failing to adhere to the law, as cyclists were. And cyclists are said to be the problem here? The figures don't seem to back that up, to be fair.
BBC news article said:
Since the beginning of Operation Safeway on 25 November, a total of 13,818 fines have been issued, with 4,085 given to cyclists.
The Met Police decided to focus on safety and road user discipline at 166 key junctions across London, following a spate of cyclist deaths.They issued 13,818 fines. Take away the 4,085 fines issued to cyclists, and it leaves you with what? 9,733 fines given to other road users, that's what! So more than twice as many motor vehicle drivers were punished for failing to adhere to the law, as cyclists were. And cyclists are said to be the problem here? The figures don't seem to back that up, to be fair.
yellowjack said:
The Met Police decided to focus on safety and road user discipline at 166 key junctions across London, following a spate of cyclist deaths.
They issued 13,818 fines. Take away the 4,085 fines issued to cyclists, and it leaves you with what? 9,733 fines given to other road users, that's what! So more than twice as many motor vehicle drivers were punished for failing to adhere to the law, as cyclists were. And cyclists are said to be the problem here? The figures don't seem to back that up, to be fair.
Without defending the driver or cyclist it does say the followingThey issued 13,818 fines. Take away the 4,085 fines issued to cyclists, and it leaves you with what? 9,733 fines given to other road users, that's what! So more than twice as many motor vehicle drivers were punished for failing to adhere to the law, as cyclists were. And cyclists are said to be the problem here? The figures don't seem to back that up, to be fair.
Police said cyclists were fined for jumping red lights, cycling on footpaths and having incorrect lights.
Motorists were given fines for offences including driving without insurance and driving without wearing a seatbelt.
In addition 209 people were arrested during the operation for offences including assault, dangerous driving, driving while disqualified and drink driving.
Cyclists won't be fined for no seat belt, insurance, drink driving etc. I would like to think drivers were not driving on the footpath.
yonex said:
Or protection for the weakest group.....which currently has very little. As I said, what is the downside, the dangerous drivers get held to account, cycling in London increases, congestion reduces, etc, etc.
What you're forgetting is that for those commuting into London from further afield such as Zone 6 for example then cycling isn't a option but using a Motorcycle is, They also reduce congestion, but here's where our views differ, in that I don't see why you should only prosecute car drivers if a cyclist is riding badly they to should be prosecuted.If you're not wearing a helmet you should be fined, if your commuting in you should have insurance (as stated earlier I've seen cyclists hit cars pedestrians & each other) accidents will happen as a Biker I accept that.
I see bad riding/driving from cyclists motorcyclist truck & car drivers as all are using the roads all should be able to be held to account end of. Of those listed there's only one group that isn't & I believe they should be.
I was knocked off of my Motorbike by a cyclist jumping a red light while I ended up with some minor scratches my bike sustained over £2000 worth of damage, should I not be able to claim for that? Rather than having to go through the hassle of having to take him to court.
Now I've been hit by a car driver no major injuries but my insurance company took care of everything as I had someone to claim against.
I've said from the start integration & better road planning are the two big things, as well as compulsory training for those commuting
Ghibli said:
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
heebeegeetee said:
Digby said:
I don't care.If they want to put themselves under a back axle, annoy other drivers, other sensible cyclists & the police and punt the odd unaware pedestrian a few feet up the road during their 20+ mph red light ignoring sessions, it's really up to them.I'm in the fortunate position that I will never, ever come off worse.
I don't care that much either. I've little doubt that because of the near-total lack of infrastructure afforded to cyclists, and our piss-poor abilities as drivers, we are getting the cyclists we deserve.I see many, many cyclists who are fantastic riders.Their observational skills, forward planning and respect for other road users etc are straight out of the very best H&S video, but others are utterly shocking and quite frankly take the piss time and time again.Those riders (and there are more than you could imagine) don't care about infrastructure.They don't seem to care about anything to be honest.It gets better, too given that some are happy to offer you an appreciative w
ker sign moments after you saved them from serious injury.I see lots of shocking driving (but not as much as you would imagine), but the majority involving cyclists appears quite innocent and based on the fact they didn't see them coming.It's a simple fact that it can be hard to keep track of so many as they dart around and even alone, they are easy to miss amidst the hustle and bustle of a busy street; but why do so many cyclists seem to put themselves in situations which are so obviously dangerous when they can see perfectly well what is likely to happen? You surely can't fly from the saddle and suggest "I'm so sorry, I didn't see your double decker" or "I didn't realise your 40 foot long, 15 foot high truck with all those flashing lights was actually turning"
I'm far from being anti-cyclist.I am happy to stay behind them for as long as it takes before an overtake and more often than not, I get an appreciative wave as a result and I will subsequently flash my indicators in return.I even let them out at difficult junctions etc if safe to do so, but I can only talk about what I see so regularly and what I see regularly makes me go cold.
dick_turpin said:
Better cycle awareness as part of the driving test.
It's part of the five yearly CPC for HGV drivers.Yes, even after all the expense and tests etc required to be allowed to drive an HGV, you still have to have ongoing training by law to be allowed to continue to do so.Some drivers were even taken out on bikes for part of this module!!It does rather get on ones boobs when you have spent a lot of money to drive one, more money to be allowed to carry on driving one, are restricted up the ar$e on where you can go and at what times (height, weight, width, hours etc) often have to drive them around with surgical precision on tight roads, pay a fortune in road tax and fuel tax, pay yet more for cameras, audible warnings, mirrors and signage to warn cyclists of the dangers, are forced to ride a bike in case you don't understand a cyclist's perspective and along comes either a lycra-clad loon or a Boris bumbler and they suggest YOU can't drive because you narrowly avoid crushing them.
Digby said:
You believe that a lack of infrastructure and dodgy drivers are responsible for cyclists ignoring red lights regardless of how long they have been red? The same goes for those happy to sandwich themselves between HGV's and buses etc? How about the ones who regularly ignore the bellowing warnings from side mounted speakers warning that a vehicle is turning left?
I see many, many cyclists who are fantastic riders.Their observational skills, forward planning and respect for other road users etc are straight out of the very best H&S video, but others are utterly shocking and quite frankly take the piss time and time again.Those riders (and there are more than you could imagine) don't care about infrastructure.They don't seem to care about anything to be honest.It gets better, too given that some are happy to offer you an appreciative wker sign moments after you saved them from serious injury.
I see lots of shocking driving (but not as much as you would imagine), but the majority involving cyclists appears quite innocent and based on the fact they didn't see them coming.It's a simple fact that it can be hard to keep track of so many as they dart around and even alone, they are easy to miss amidst the hustle and bustle of a busy street; but why do so many cyclists seem to put themselves in situations which are so obviously dangerous when they can see perfectly well what is likely to happen? You surely can't fly from the saddle and suggest "I'm so sorry, I didn't see your double decker" or "I didn't realise your 40 foot long, 15 foot high truck with all those flashing lights was actually turning"
I'm far from being anti-cyclist.I am happy to stay behind them for as long as it takes before an overtake and more often than not, I get an appreciative wave as a result and I will subsequently flash my indicators in return.I even let them out at difficult junctions etc if safe to do so, but I can only talk about what I see so regularly and what I see regularly makes me go cold.
With better infrastructure they wouldn't have to go anywhere near large vehicles. I was an hgv driver for a long time, and car drivers do exactly the same as cyclists. I see many, many cyclists who are fantastic riders.Their observational skills, forward planning and respect for other road users etc are straight out of the very best H&S video, but others are utterly shocking and quite frankly take the piss time and time again.Those riders (and there are more than you could imagine) don't care about infrastructure.They don't seem to care about anything to be honest.It gets better, too given that some are happy to offer you an appreciative w
ker sign moments after you saved them from serious injury.I see lots of shocking driving (but not as much as you would imagine), but the majority involving cyclists appears quite innocent and based on the fact they didn't see them coming.It's a simple fact that it can be hard to keep track of so many as they dart around and even alone, they are easy to miss amidst the hustle and bustle of a busy street; but why do so many cyclists seem to put themselves in situations which are so obviously dangerous when they can see perfectly well what is likely to happen? You surely can't fly from the saddle and suggest "I'm so sorry, I didn't see your double decker" or "I didn't realise your 40 foot long, 15 foot high truck with all those flashing lights was actually turning"
I'm far from being anti-cyclist.I am happy to stay behind them for as long as it takes before an overtake and more often than not, I get an appreciative wave as a result and I will subsequently flash my indicators in return.I even let them out at difficult junctions etc if safe to do so, but I can only talk about what I see so regularly and what I see regularly makes me go cold.
Two big problems building up for society though, which are going to cost us a *fortune*. Obesity and air quality. Cycling addresses those in one go, in a way that little else will. I've no doubt though that London will continue it's own path, and continue to build those problems up for decades to come, whereas every other European city will do a much better job at combating health, pollution, congestion etc.
heebeegeetee said:
With better infrastructure they wouldn't have to go anywhere near large vehicles. I was an hgv driver for a long time, and car drivers do exactly the same as cyclists.
Two big problems building up for society though, which are going to cost us a *fortune*. Obesity and air quality. Cycling addresses those in one go, in a way that little else will. I've no doubt though that London will continue it's own path, and continue to build those problems up for decades to come, whereas every other European city will do a much better job at combating health, pollution, congestion etc.
Air quality is just down to cycling it's down to getting traffic flowing & separation doesn't help this. Two big problems building up for society though, which are going to cost us a *fortune*. Obesity and air quality. Cycling addresses those in one go, in a way that little else will. I've no doubt though that London will continue it's own path, and continue to build those problems up for decades to come, whereas every other European city will do a much better job at combating health, pollution, congestion etc.
heebeegeetee said:
With better infrastructure they wouldn't have to go anywhere near large vehicles. I was an hgv driver for a long time, and car drivers do exactly the same as cyclists.
Two big problems building up for society though, which are going to cost us a *fortune*. Obesity and air quality. Cycling addresses those in one go, in a way that little else will. I've no doubt though that London will continue it's own path, and continue to build those problems up for decades to come, whereas every other European city will do a much better job at combating health, pollution, congestion etc.
Two big problems building up for society though, which are going to cost us a *fortune*. Obesity and air quality. Cycling addresses those in one go, in a way that little else will. I've no doubt though that London will continue it's own path, and continue to build those problems up for decades to come, whereas every other European city will do a much better job at combating health, pollution, congestion etc.
How do you reconcile your comments about London ignoring these problems with it having congestion charging, low emissions zones, ultra LEZ on its way, significant investment in cycling infrastructure and other public transport like hybrid buses, hybrid taxis on their way, as well as record numbers of people cycling?
London looks like a leader to me, not a laggard.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff