Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
JuniorD said:
Despite demonstrating their minimum level of competence in a one-off test pass, these other road users are still killing cyclists, particularly drivers with the additional HGV qualification. The minimum level of competence to ride a bike is being able to stay upright, which you normally can do by the age of 4. What else do you propose for cyclists?
I suppose that has to be broached at some point 
Ok if you're going to be emotive you have some cyclists in London being killed and others ending up killing themselves
Neither will have set out that day with the intention and the proportions have been listed before
There are a couple of drivers being taken before the courts at the moment to see if they have a case answer.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/two-lorry-dri...
Where it's the other way around there won't be a going to court
but still people living with the consequences
I thought what we were discussing here was how to minimise these, assuming there's scope for further reduction, while still allowing the roads to function.
JuniorD said:
Reardy Mister said:
The bare facts are that car drivers, motorcyclists, cabbies, bus drivers and truck drivers all need to be right on their game to safely negotiate central London roads. Looking and listening for and at everything whilst trying not to be left stranded in a clear zone, hold up traffic, miss time schedules or get hit by something themselves. I am sorry to say therefore that those without the knowledge or experience or confidence, who are by virtue of the fact they're on a bicycle, at the very bottom of the vulnerability food chain and have further reduced their awareness of their surroundings by putting music in their ears, have absolutely no place on those same roads. All other road users need to show a minimum level of competence in their ability and a minimum level of vehicle condition. Why not cyclists?
Despite demonstrating their minimum level of competence in a one-off test pass, these other road users are still killing cyclists, particularly drivers with the additional HGV qualification. The minimum level of competence to ride a bike is being able to stay upright, which you normally can do by the age of 4. What else do you propose for cyclists? There is irrefutable evidence to show that cyclists routinely put themselves in harm's way and you ask why they should be required to have any more ability than that of being able to balance a bicycle?
Anyone who puts themselves up the inside of a left turning vehicle of any size, lacks the required knowledge or experience to be on the road on any vehicle, let alone a bicycle. I wonder how many of the (particularly women, who are over represented in the figures for HGV related deaths) had drivers licenses? Would at least having 2 years driving experience have helped them realise some of the dangers? Being in the wrong spot when someone else makes a mistake is unfortunate and yes, you may well be in the right and them in the wrong. But you're still dead and right. Better to help people not be there in the first place.
Its very simple, don't be alongside a large vehicle near an intersection.
walm said:
Unfortunately you and most of PH seem to think that your own limited experience is somehow better evidence than actually looking at freely available research studies.
For adults on bikes the drivers are solely responsible in the majority of cases.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/1...
Research showed that >25% of all cyclist deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike.
How exactly should you train a cyclist to prevent drivers simply running them over?
I am sure the apologists on here will claim such BS excuses like - the cyclist probably appeared from nowhere or wobbled or distracted the driver with fetching lycra... BUT rear-ending someone is 100% your fault.
There is no excuse.
Yet somehow it's better to train cyclists...
For those who want to read the actual report instead of the Guardian article, here it is:For adults on bikes the drivers are solely responsible in the majority of cases.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/1...
Research showed that >25% of all cyclist deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike.
How exactly should you train a cyclist to prevent drivers simply running them over?
I am sure the apologists on here will claim such BS excuses like - the cyclist probably appeared from nowhere or wobbled or distracted the driver with fetching lycra... BUT rear-ending someone is 100% your fault.
There is no excuse.
Yet somehow it's better to train cyclists...
http://www.worthingrevolutions.org.uk/sites/worthi...
or the condensed version:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090417...
JuniorD said:
Reardy Mister said:
The bare facts are that car drivers, motorcyclists, cabbies, bus drivers and truck drivers all need to be right on their game to safely negotiate central London roads. Looking and listening for and at everything whilst trying not to be left stranded in a clear zone, hold up traffic, miss time schedules or get hit by something themselves. I am sorry to say therefore that those without the knowledge or experience or confidence, who are by virtue of the fact they're on a bicycle, at the very bottom of the vulnerability food chain and have further reduced their awareness of their surroundings by putting music in their ears, have absolutely no place on those same roads. All other road users need to show a minimum level of competence in their ability and a minimum level of vehicle condition. Why not cyclists?
Despite demonstrating their minimum level of competence in a one-off test pass, these other road users are still killing cyclists, particularly drivers with the additional HGV qualification. The minimum level of competence to ride a bike is being able to stay upright, which you normally can do by the age of 4. What else do you propose for cyclists? Pete317 said:
yellowjack said:
stuff
I spend a lot of time on 40 and 50mph roads where the traffic lights are several miles apart, and I frequently find myself at the back of a long line of traffic down to 15mph, trying to get past one or more cyclists.Then at the traffic lights, they push through to the front again, only to hold up the same line of traffic again for the next few miles.
So, as you consider yourself to be part of the traffic, start behaving as such. A bit of commonsense and some give and take can make the difference between being part of the problem and being part of the solution.
1. Presumably as there are traffic lights at all on the road, even a few miles apart, then your overall journey time won't be impacted by slowing to pass cyclists enroute?
2. As you refer to common sense and give, what 'give' do you make of your journey time to enable a cyclist not to be inconvenienced by you?
Digby said:
Killboy said:
If a cyclist prevents you from making any progress, you really should not be behind the wheel of any vehicle.
Care to expand?If you think so, I think a high stakes bet is in order. Here are my commuting times:
Motorbike: +- 40 minutes
Bicycle: +- 45 minutes
Car: 1h45ish (I was only dumb enough to do this once, because I had to go to the airport after work. That will never happen again).
How does a car, averaging half the speed of a bicycle, get held up by a bicycle?
Okay, lets leave out the "personal experience" part.
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/news/average-speed-of-a-c...
Research suggests London cars average 7mph, while cycles 12-15 mph
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/12/...
"There’s been no change – average traffic speeds in central London still hover around 9mph, and around 12mph for inner London."
TFL's research
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/analys...
TFL said:
Based upon this estimated average speed, a trip of 2km would take around 8 minutes, of 5km
around 20 minutes, and of 8km around half an hour. A more experienced or fitter cyclist would be
expected to achieve higher average speeds. In total, there are nearly 3.5 million trips made every
day in London which would take less than 20 minutes for most people to cycle. It is notable that
15km per hour is faster than average peak hour road speeds in central London and only a little
lower than peak speeds in inner London (around 18km per hour).
It gets a lot better, more info on page 14 there.around 20 minutes, and of 8km around half an hour. A more experienced or fitter cyclist would be
expected to achieve higher average speeds. In total, there are nearly 3.5 million trips made every
day in London which would take less than 20 minutes for most people to cycle. It is notable that
15km per hour is faster than average peak hour road speeds in central London and only a little
lower than peak speeds in inner London (around 18km per hour).
So I'll ask again, because it seems there are a lot of armchair "experienced" experts commenting on cyclists in London, where they getting their experience from? Where are these crazy lycra loons holding you up in London and adding precious minutes to your commute?
Lets use TFL's journey calculator:
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycling/
Conservative "Moderate" Journey time for a cyclist from Putney to Camden is around 49 minutes (close to my average of 45).
Using Google Maps, 8am commute by car, you looking at 1h20 this morning. (And I'd but my bicycle you wouldn't get that time). (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Putney,+London,+UK/London+Borough+of+Camden,+Greater+London,+UK/@51.5063718,-0.2615869,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m18!4m17!1m5!1m1!1s0x48760f0df0ae208f:0x260eae2ec8a61471!2m2!1d-0.2171801!2d51.4605741!1m5!1m1!1s0x48761aec186b9a3d:0x41185c626be66e0!2m2!1d-0.1588255!2d51.5517059!2m3!6e0!7e2!8j1435219200!3e0)
So really, the whole "being held up" thing doesn't fly. If anything, cars are simply holding bicycles up
Seeing as this reply has already gone on way more than it should, let me give my personal opinion:
I do not think legislation is a way to solve anything (you Brits seem hell bent on being taxed more than you already are). Netherlands is perfectly fine without number plates, "Road Tax", licenses insurance and "training" on bicycles. Its not because of legislation, but because its an accepted way of life. Stats like 70% of Hague's trips in the city are by bicycle. I cannot think of a single drawback to this.
The reason the dutch seem to be able to do what the English cant, is attitude. There is simply not this anti-cycle attitude, and that filters through to how they approach things. They design (and better) roads for cyclists. Road users respect them, and it helps that most road users are cyclists too. They do not do so under threat of prosecution, but common decency. In essence, they enable cycling by being positive about it. I used to date a girl living in the Hague, and it was so refreshing spending time there, and cycling around.
The approach to better cycling in London has been woeful. They have painted half of South London's roads blue, but that's made little difference (besides make it look terrible). Driver attitudes are hilarious, and for even funnier reasons.
I cycle, ride motorbikes, and love cars. Daily I see examples from all camps of epic levels of stupidity. Lane drifters, lack of indicators, crazy undertakes, etc. What blew my mind however, is that the Boris Bicycle basically gives access to the lowest common denominators of road users (inexperienced tourists, drunk pub goers etc), yet the first death on one was over 3 years after the program was introduced. So not as bad as I thought they would be.
Killboy said:
So really, the whole "being held up" thing doesn't fly. If anything, cars are simply holding bicycles up
Why the wink? I think most rational people would know that as fact. If all cars were banned for a day in Greater London then most cyclists' commutes would be reduced. Whereas if all bikes were banned for a day then drivers' commutes would certainly not improve. (in fact worsen if some cyclists too their cars to work instead).oyster said:
Why the wink? I think most rational people would know that as fact. If all cars were banned for a day in Greater London then most cyclists' commutes would be reduced. Whereas if all bikes were banned for a day then drivers' commutes would certainly not improve. (in fact worsen if some cyclists too their cars to work instead).
oyster said:
Why the wink? I think most rational people would know that as fact. If all cars were banned for a day in Greater London then most cyclists' commutes would be reduced. Whereas if all bikes were banned for a day then drivers' commutes would certainly not improve. (in fact worsen if some cyclists too their cars to work instead).
The full report that Killboy posted the stats from suggests that one of the reasons for increased levels of congestion for motorized transport is the removal of road network capacity to increase provision for cyclists. So whilst individual cyclists might not slow traffic down the extra provision made for cyclists has.Reardy Mister said:
JuniorD said:
Reardy Mister said:
The bare facts are that car drivers, motorcyclists, cabbies, bus drivers and truck drivers all need to be right on their game to safely negotiate central London roads. Looking and listening for and at everything whilst trying not to be left stranded in a clear zone, hold up traffic, miss time schedules or get hit by something themselves. I am sorry to say therefore that those without the knowledge or experience or confidence, who are by virtue of the fact they're on a bicycle, at the very bottom of the vulnerability food chain and have further reduced their awareness of their surroundings by putting music in their ears, have absolutely no place on those same roads. All other road users need to show a minimum level of competence in their ability and a minimum level of vehicle condition. Why not cyclists?
Despite demonstrating their minimum level of competence in a one-off test pass, these other road users are still killing cyclists, particularly drivers with the additional HGV qualification. The minimum level of competence to ride a bike is being able to stay upright, which you normally can do by the age of 4. What else do you propose for cyclists? There is irrefutable evidence to show that cyclists routinely put themselves in harm's way and you ask why they should be required to have any more ability than that of being able to balance a bicycle?
Anyone who puts themselves up the inside of a left turning vehicle of any size, lacks the required knowledge or experience to be on the road on any vehicle, let alone a bicycle. I wonder how many of the (particularly women, who are over represented in the figures for HGV related deaths) had drivers licenses? Would at least having 2 years driving experience have helped them realise some of the dangers? Being in the wrong spot when someone else makes a mistake is unfortunate and yes, you may well be in the right and them in the wrong. But you're still dead and right. Better to help people not be there in the first place.
Its very simple, don't be alongside a large vehicle near an intersection.
plasticpig said:
The full report that Killboy posted the stats from suggests that one of the reasons for increased levels of congestion for motorized transport is the removal of road network capacity to increase provision for cyclists. So whilst individual cyclists might not slow traffic down the extra provision made for cyclists has.
Sorry, mind pointing to where that is mentioned? (serious Question).Killboy said:
plasticpig said:
The full report that Killboy posted the stats from suggests that one of the reasons for increased levels of congestion for motorized transport is the removal of road network capacity to increase provision for cyclists. So whilst individual cyclists might not slow traffic down the extra provision made for cyclists has.
Sorry, mind pointing to where that is mentioned? (serious Question).TFL said:
In other words, falling traffic and improved network management may be masking
the effects of the continued removal of road network capacity to support other
MTS priorities for the road network. Given emerging priorities such as the Mayor’s
Vision for Cycling in London, this ‘capacity take’ from general traffic is only likely to
intensify.
the effects of the continued removal of road network capacity to support other
MTS priorities for the road network. Given emerging priorities such as the Mayor’s
Vision for Cycling in London, this ‘capacity take’ from general traffic is only likely to
intensify.
plasticpig said:
Killboy said:
plasticpig said:
The full report that Killboy posted the stats from suggests that one of the reasons for increased levels of congestion for motorized transport is the removal of road network capacity to increase provision for cyclists. So whilst individual cyclists might not slow traffic down the extra provision made for cyclists has.
Sorry, mind pointing to where that is mentioned? (serious Question).TFL said:
In other words, falling traffic and improved network management may be masking
the effects of the continued removal of road network capacity to support other
MTS priorities for the road network. Given emerging priorities such as the Mayor’s
Vision for Cycling in London, this ‘capacity take’ from general traffic is only likely to
intensify.
the effects of the continued removal of road network capacity to support other
MTS priorities for the road network. Given emerging priorities such as the Mayor’s
Vision for Cycling in London, this ‘capacity take’ from general traffic is only likely to
intensify.
Mr Gear said:
But if some people didn't drive like bell-ends, specific cycling infrastructure wouldn't be needed at all. As with everything on our road network, it's designed for the lowest common denominator.
To be fair and for balance that's 'if some people didnt drive or cycle like'and we could back to more of a mixed used system if it wasnt for funding what could be called useless space
Does it explain some of the issues leading to the thread title?
Mr Gear said:
But if some people didn't drive like bell-ends, specific cycling infrastructure wouldn't be needed at all. As with everything on our road network, it's designed for the lowest common denominator.
We should get rid of pavements as well, if people didn't drive like bell-ends specific pedestrian infrastructure wouldn't be needed at all.oyster said:
Pete317 said:
yellowjack said:
stuff
I spend a lot of time on 40 and 50mph roads where the traffic lights are several miles apart, and I frequently find myself at the back of a long line of traffic down to 15mph, trying to get past one or more cyclists.Then at the traffic lights, they push through to the front again, only to hold up the same line of traffic again for the next few miles.
So, as you consider yourself to be part of the traffic, start behaving as such. A bit of commonsense and some give and take can make the difference between being part of the problem and being part of the solution.
1. Presumably as there are traffic lights at all on the road, even a few miles apart, then your overall journey time won't be impacted by slowing to pass cyclists enroute?
2. As you refer to common sense and give, what 'give' do you make of your journey time to enable a cyclist not to be inconvenienced by you?
2) For starters, I don't position myself so as to impede anyone's progress - whether cyclists or not - if I can possibly help it, in fact I do what I can to facilitate their progress.
Edited by Pete317 on Saturday 27th June 14:57
dxg said:
what happened next?I was expecting while he looked away a bike moved into a zone he'd previously checked, he moved off and....
saaby93 said:
dxg said:
what happened next?I was expecting while he looked away a bike moved into a zone he'd previously checked, he moved off and....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff