The Times cycling campaign

[Derek Smith]

There was a thread on this forum regarding The Times pressuring the government about making London safer for cyclists. The comments were 'varied'.

In The Times today there is an article about the junction where a woman died recently. ThTimes investigative team have come up with this quote from a report in 2009 commissioned by Transport for London on the King’s Cross junction:

“Following TfL advice, cyclists and motorcyclists were not included in the model as their equivalent PCU [Passenger Car Unit] values are only a small proportion of the total traffic in the study area.”

This despite the report saying that between 2005 and 2007 “pedal cyclist casualties made up 20 per cent of the total casualties”, and that “there are still quite a lot of cyclists on the network”.

It also failed to note the death of Emma Foa who was killed by a lorry.

20% of casualties but let's ignore them.

So the TfL has given ammunition to the cyclist lobby. You can't blame cyclists for wanting more when their needs are not so much ignored as deliberately ruled out. There is a suggestion that there might be a prosecution for corporate manslaughter by TfL.

From a political point of view anyone who takes a stance against the campaign is putting their credibility on the line.

[turbobloke]

Agreed. Drivers are often cyclists and cyclists are often drivers so we should be acutely aware of our own vulnerability, so to speak.

Also as this is PH, something traditionally posted in a thread involving cyclists is this.

Click

[Eric Mc]

I'm sure Murdoch will offer to buy the cycle lanes from TFL and then charge cyclists a toll for using them. They will be called Sky Lanes. He will also install special "Upgraded" cycle lanes which will be on offer to Premium Subscribers only.

[Justayellowbadge]

It's the market Eric. Get over it.

[Eric Mc]

Yep - Markets Rule. That's the law.

[Saddle bum]

Apparently, TfL could find itself up on Corporate Manslaughter charges in relation the Kings Cross junction in Centrtal London. It relates to the death of a cyclist who was killed at that junction by an an HGV.

Any charge could also relate to the Bow Roundabout in East London where two cyclists died within three weeks.

Met Police source stated, "If accidents keep happening at a particular junction, you have to think like a juror, there must be some contributive fault".

[BlueMR2]

If circa 5% of accidents are from speeding yet circa 100% of motoring policy is to fleece motorists and ignore the other problems, then ignoring 20% at a crossing is quite mild for them.

[Mojocvh]

Saddle bum said:

Apparently, TfL could find itself up on Corporate Manslaughter charges in relation the Kings Cross junction in Centrtal London. It relates to the death of a cyclist who was killed at that junction by an an HGV.

Any charge could also relate to the Bow Roundabout in East London where two cyclists died within three weeks.

Met Police source stated, "If accidents keep happening at a particular junction, you have to think like a juror, there must be some contributive fault".

Yes, cyclists should be segregated from other traffic whilst still being allowed to travel freely and safely.

[Hackney]

In the event of a cycling death is there some assumption in law that a driver must be at fault?
Failing that must the next assumption be that the junction is badly designed?

[oyster]

Mojocvh said:

Saddle bum said:

Apparently, TfL could find itself up on Corporate Manslaughter charges in relation the Kings Cross junction in Centrtal London. It relates to the death of a cyclist who was killed at that junction by an an HGV.

Any charge could also relate to the Bow Roundabout in East London where two cyclists died within three weeks.

Met Police source stated, "If accidents keep happening at a particular junction, you have to think like a juror, there must be some contributive fault".

Yes, cyclists should be segregated from other traffic whilst still being allowed to travel freely and safely.

Why do they need to be segregated?
There just needs to be a bit more joined up thinking on some notorious junctions.

[Saddle bum]

Hackney said:

In the event of a cycling death is there some assumption in law that a driver must be at fault?

Not law as yet, but it is possible it could be in the future.

[Mojocvh]

oyster said:

Mojocvh said:

Saddle bum said:

Apparently, TfL could find itself up on Corporate Manslaughter charges in relation the Kings Cross junction in Centrtal London. It relates to the death of a cyclist who was killed at that junction by an an HGV.

Any charge could also relate to the Bow Roundabout in East London where two cyclists died within three weeks.

Met Police source stated, "If accidents keep happening at a particular junction, you have to think like a juror, there must be some contributive fault".

Yes, cyclists should be segregated from other traffic whilst still being allowed to travel freely and safely.

Why do they need to be segregated?

Because the current state of "joined up thinking" is IMO, leaving them far to vulnerable in the current roads situation.

[ewenm]

Hackney said:

In the event of a cycling death is there some assumption in law that a driver must be at fault?
Failing that must the next assumption be that the junction is badly designed?

No such first assumption, and the second assumption may be suggested by multiple accidents of the same type at the same junction.

[vonuber]

Cycle lanes should be completely separate from road traffic; you shouldn't mix the two. They certainly shouldn't have to compete for roads space with taxis and buses.

[oyster]

vonuber said:

Cycle lanes should be completely separate from road traffic; you shouldn't mix the two. They certainly shouldn't have to compete for roads space with taxis and buses.

On approx 440 cycle commutes into the City each year I have no issues mixing it up with buses and taxis. They see me every time. It's motorbikes and vans that have a problem with not seeing me (or not looking for me more likely).

Almost all bicycle fatalities can be attributed to one of two things:
1. Careless cyclists getting caught in blind spots (usually women cyclists for some reason)
2. Careless drivers who do not prepare for the existance of cyclists.

[pork911]

I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist and driver.

You can of course take every possible precaution and still get hit but i've noticed the articles in the times on this seem entirely devoid of any reference to personal resposibility of cyclists. Perhaps this is inevitable as its a campaign but to my mind that failing weakens any otherwise valid arguments that might be made.

Fault, blame and attempting to improve road safety is all well and good but accepting personal resposibility is crucial.

I'm in no way a nervous on the road but assume every other road user of whatever ilk is drunk, on their phone and hasn't seen me. Merely saying 'i did nothing wrong' is of little satisfaction when your in the hospital or worse.

Its entirely self interested and rightly so. Personally I properly learnt to drop many assumptions so evident in the uk having lived in various asian countries since they give believers in incarnation a driving licence, i've done their cursory driving tests, know the state of deemed roadworthy cars, am aware if i have an accident there's little or no emergency services and poor hospitals and with corrupt police forces I'll likely be held responsible whatever happens.

The various safety nets in the uk are of course preferable but at the same time education is imho plainly required to counteract the side effect of many not then taking any personal responsibility. Reducing risk seems to have made many risk blind. How that education or change is best done so it sticks i don't know.

[Derek Smith]

oyster said:

Almost all bicycle fatalities can be attributed to one of two things:
1. Careless cyclists getting caught in blind spots (usually women cyclists for some reason)
2. Careless drivers who do not prepare for the existance of cyclists.

I'm not sure that cyclists are to blame for getting caught in blind spots. It is almost impossible to tell where the blind spot for an artic is. Firstly you need to know which side the driver is. Then, and most importantly, whether he's going to look or not.

pork911 said:

I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist and driver.

You can of course take every possible precaution and still get hit but i've noticed the articles in the times on this seem entirely devoid of any reference to personal resposibility of cyclists. Perhaps this is inevitable as its a campaign but to my mind that failing weakens any otherwise valid arguments that might be made.

Fault, blame and attempting to improve road safety is all well and good but accepting personal resposibility is crucial.

The onus for safety rests with the drivers. They are the ones who injure and kill, not the cyclists. It's a bit like someone cleaning a gun. If it goes off because of casual handling, can one blame the person shot beacause it was their responsibility not to stand in front of the sharp end?

If by responsibility you mean that cyclists break traffic regulations then I'd agree. However, some of the regulations put cyclists at risk at certain junctions. If you are waiting at traffic lights and wait until they go green you are immediatly placed in a melee of cars accelerating, moving from side to side.

Women at are greater risk on a bicycle than males. This is because they sit to the side, waiting until it is all clear rather than, as many males do, enforcing their presence on the road. Women comform to the regs, stick to the law.

A file went through my department of a teenager who was knocked from his bike by a car into the path of a lorry and killed. It was patently the car driver's fault. She just drove into the back of the cycle and pushed the poor kid across the road.

We couldn't prosecture as CPS binned it. I spoke to the mother who said that they had told their kid to cycle in the road and not, as all the other kids did, on the footway.

I've turned up to and processed a number of accidents involveing cyclists where the driver was, quite clearly, at fault through lack of observation or . . . I'm a keen cyclist and have seen and been involved in a number of minor incidents where drivers have just blocked my route, once where I could not stop in time and sort of fell on the car, which then drove off.

I read a report about what was then a new bit of legislation in a continental country that made is the driver's fault if they hit a cyclist. One of the reasons behind this was to try and encourage drivers to look for cyclists. Like it or not - probably not I know - it would appear to be working. Now it is going to cost drivers money, they see the bikes.

The Time report is partial of course, that is a function of a campaign over an argument, but the stats speak for themselves. Further, Local authorities need to do more to look after cyclists. In Hove they used to put three PCs and a sergeant stopping cyclists using the promenade around 8 am which took them off a very dangerous road. You can guess how many parents and childen, with buckets and spades were around that time of the morning yet the LA told the police to stop it. It is about time that attitudes changed in this country.

[turbobloke]

vonuber said:

Cycle lanes should be completely separate from road traffic; you shouldn't mix the two. They certainly shouldn't have to compete for roads space with taxis and buses.

That makes sense but goes against the current genius mode of road safety thinking, shared space, where children can wander across unmarked junctions and play tag in the roads while juggernauts keep a watchful eye out not to squish them after bouncing off a cyclist. Apparently it's all about reconciliation via negotiation of unmarked shared areas at appropriate speeds, at least that's what experts with flipchart paper say, so cyclists should refrain from speeding and learn to haggle with bus drivers. A decent bit of haggling would no doubt have saved the bones of that bloke in Bristol. There is probably data somewhere saying it works, just as there is data somewhere saying that speed cameras work. As with GATSOs we'll have to wait for the real data when this latest fad has been and gone.

[zcacogp]

turbobloke said:

vonuber said:

Cycle lanes should be completely separate from road traffic; you shouldn't mix the two. They certainly shouldn't have to compete for roads space with taxis and buses.

That makes sense but goes against the current genius mode of road safety thinking, shared space, where children can wander across unmarked junctions and play tag in the roads while juggernauts keep a watchful eye out not to squish them after bouncing off a cyclist. Apparently it's all about reconciliation via negotiation of unmarked shared areas at appropriate speeds, at least that's what experts with flipchart paper say, so cyclists should refrain from speeding and learn to haggle with bus drivers. A decent bit of haggling would no doubt have saved the bones of that bloke in Bristol. There is probably data somewhere saying it works, just as there is data somewhere saying that speed cameras work. As with GATSOs we'll have to wait for the real data when this latest fad has been and gone.

Two good points. The idea of 'negotiation in shared space' is all well and good when there is a near-equal balance on both sides of the negotiation; there is no near-equal balance in a negotiation between a car and a bike, and hence any negotiation is only going to go one way. Throw in the low standards of driving in this country and you have a recipe for messy disaster.

Cycle paths on the continent are usually totally segregated from the roads, because they are planned in properly and there is a good budget to build and maintain their transport network. In the UK the road network is chronically under-funded and badly designed, and cycle 'lanes' (not paths) are simply painted on the road as an afterthought. The various CS lanes in London are a poor attempt at a cycle network, and it shows. A shame on many levels - if they were done properly it would encourage more people to cycle.

Saddle bum said:

Apparently, TfL could find itself up on Corporate Manslaughter charges in relation the Kings Cross junction in Centrtal London. It relates to the death of a cyclist who was killed at that junction by an an HGV.

Any charge could also relate to the Bow Roundabout in East London where two cyclists died within three weeks.

Met Police source stated, "If accidents keep happening at a particular junction, you have to think like a juror, there must be some contributive fault".

That is a shockingly badly designed roundabout and hard enough in a car. Throw in the frankly abysmal driving standard from the local 'innits' and the death statistics are no surprise. I'll confess to using the pedestrian crossings and pavements whenever I cycle 'round it.


Oli.

[DJRC]

In Naziland it is enforced that footfall has right of way first, then road users, cyclists first, motorists last.