Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Mave said:
Well, I've also talked previously about needing more public safety campaigns, so your assertion that I am avoiding discussing cyclists is equally laughable.
Public safety campaigns are one area that needs to be looked at as I have already suggested. Simply calling for more is not a solution though if like their recent predecessors they place most if not all of the emphasis on motorists.There needs to be more public safety campaigns that target cyclists and pedestrians. Campaigns that make is absolutely clear that they have responsibilities and in many cases have a lot of control over their own safety on the roads.
You know what would be a good one - a campaign highlighting that cyclists and pedestrians are required to follow the highway code (how many who don't drive don't actually know this - I bet many think it's only something you do when you have to do when you take a driving test). Also - it would be good to highlight the fact that the HC is available to view free online.
I had a discussion with my uncle a few weeks back about the highway code - and he thought you still had to go into WH Smith and buy a hard copy. Making people aware that it's free to read and where it can be found might prompt a few more people to read it for the first time (or in the case of motorists - re-read it as for many older drivers, the rules may have changed).
The highway code contains many should and must rules - that would appear to be ignored.
Knowing what is behind you.
Indicating your intentions via had signal before changing direction.
Avoid swerving into the path of other traffic.
Looking ahead for obstructions in the road (and then applying the first three).
In big bold MUST letters, it says to never cross a Red light. (We all know where that argument goes **)
^^All things that are taught in cycling proficiency tests to kids^^.
So, I am not convinced of the arguments put by anyone who insists that cyclists follow the rules, OR even worse, the people who wish to justify that evasion by claiming that 'they' do it (** so why shouldn't we), etc.
Knowing what is behind you.
Indicating your intentions via had signal before changing direction.
Avoid swerving into the path of other traffic.
Looking ahead for obstructions in the road (and then applying the first three).
In big bold MUST letters, it says to never cross a Red light. (We all know where that argument goes **)
^^All things that are taught in cycling proficiency tests to kids^^.
So, I am not convinced of the arguments put by anyone who insists that cyclists follow the rules, OR even worse, the people who wish to justify that evasion by claiming that 'they' do it (** so why shouldn't we), etc.
Hol said:
The highway code contains many should and must rules - that would appear to be ignored.
Knowing what is behind you.
Indicating your intentions via had signal before changing direction.
Avoid swerving into the path of other traffic.
Looking ahead for obstructions in the road (and then applying the first three).
In big bold MUST letters, it says to never cross a Red light. (We all know where that argument goes **)
^^All things that are taught in cycling proficiency tests to kids^^.
So, I am not convinced of the arguments put by anyone who insists that cyclists follow the rules, OR even worse, the people who wish to justify that evasion by claiming that 'they' do it (** so why shouldn't we), etc.
No-one is saying cyclists follow all the rules, and no-one is justifying cyclists breaking rules on the basis that "they" do it. They are saying we should be discussing what EVERYONE should be doing differently.Knowing what is behind you.
Indicating your intentions via had signal before changing direction.
Avoid swerving into the path of other traffic.
Looking ahead for obstructions in the road (and then applying the first three).
In big bold MUST letters, it says to never cross a Red light. (We all know where that argument goes **)
^^All things that are taught in cycling proficiency tests to kids^^.
So, I am not convinced of the arguments put by anyone who insists that cyclists follow the rules, OR even worse, the people who wish to justify that evasion by claiming that 'they' do it (** so why shouldn't we), etc.
Hol said:
^^All things that are taught in cycling proficiency tests to kids^^.
Yep - the problem is, cycling proficiency is optional.I did it at primary school (only in the playground as I recall) - but out of a class of 30-40 kids, only about half a dozen parents opted for their kids to take it.
I still have my certificate - plus looking through the folder I also found another certificate for road safety at infants school.
I think much greater emphasis was placed on things like the green cross code, road safety and cycling proficiency back in the late 1970s and 1980s......but then again, at that time, the death rate on the road was over 3x what it is today.
Perhaps society as a whole has become complacent and i'd say there is definitely a more pervasive blame/victim culture in which people are quicker to finger point than to take responsibility (and not just in terms of road safety)
skyrover said:
The only solution is separation.
Bicycles are incompatible with normal road going vehicles.
Until complete separation occurs, deaths will be disproportionate to other traffic
Bikes are normal road going traffic. The incompatibility is stupidity, ignorance, carelessness, recklessness, intolerance...Bicycles are incompatible with normal road going vehicles.
Until complete separation occurs, deaths will be disproportionate to other traffic
Mave said:
No-one is saying cyclists follow all the rules, and no-one is justifying cyclists breaking rules on the basis that "they" do it. They are saying we should be discussing what EVERYONE should be doing differently.
EVERYONE should be pushing for Cyclists to follow the rules, EVERYONE should be pushing for them to be sanctioned when they do not and EVERYONE should be pushing for them to be educated about the dangers they so often put themselves in.(As happens with other road users)
Mave said:
skyrover said:
The only solution is separation.
Bicycles are incompatible with normal road going vehicles.
Until complete separation occurs, deaths will be disproportionate to other traffic
Bikes are normal road going traffic. The incompatibility is stupidity, ignorance, carelessness, recklessness, intolerance...Bicycles are incompatible with normal road going vehicles.
Until complete separation occurs, deaths will be disproportionate to other traffic
Stickyfinger said:
Mave said:
No-one is saying cyclists follow all the rules, and no-one is justifying cyclists breaking rules on the basis that "they" do it. They are saying we should be discussing what EVERYONE should be doing differently.
EVERYONE should be pushing for Cyclists to follow the rules, EVERYONE should be pushing for them to be sanctioned when they do not and EVERYONE should be pushing for them to be educated about the dangers they so often put themselves in.(As happens with other road users)
I do think that cyclists behaving in this way should be treated the same as drivers as they are equally likely to cause an accident.
pim said:
Would anybody let a child on his own cycle in London? Not on your Nellie.
Comments about no separation or normal road going traffic will suit the politicians.Nothing will change and things stay as they are oh joy.
This is part of the problem, people want segregation etc. to encourage kids/un-confident cyclists. Other people complain about the reduced capacity of the roads. Comments about no separation or normal road going traffic will suit the politicians.Nothing will change and things stay as they are oh joy.
It's a hard balancing act but the fact remains we need to discourage private individual driving in the majority of cases if we want our cities to move for the stuff that is vital.
pim said:
Comments about no separation or normal road going traffic will suit the politicians.Nothing will change and things stay as they are oh joy.
Is separation of traffic and cyclists even possible in a medieval city like London? Some of the roads are barely wide enough to fit the vehicular traffic - let alone fitting in a completely separate lane for cyclists. Also - as has already been suggested in this thread - many cyclists will chose to ignore such cycle paths anyway if they are unhappy with their condition, or if they simply don't wish to stop at the inevitable give-way junctions that would result.Also - even if it was feasible - would the cost (£millions/billions) and effort required to make it happen be worth it in the context of the number of deaths we are talking about (9 in 2016).
Even in cities with excellent cycling infrastructure like Amsterdam - deaths still occur (~6 per year according to the link below).
http://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/2008/10/16/bicycle-...
That same money/effort spent in a different way or in a different area would likely have the potential to save many more lives.
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
Bikes are normal road going traffic. The incompatibility is stupidity, ignorance, carelessness, recklessness, intolerance...
Yes and some drivers aren't much better!
Stickyfinger said:
Mave said:
No-one is saying cyclists follow all the rules, and no-one is justifying cyclists breaking rules on the basis that "they" do it. They are saying we should be discussing what EVERYONE should be doing differently.
EVERYONE should be pushing for Cyclists to follow the rules, EVERYONE should be pushing for them to be sanctioned when they do not and EVERYONE should be pushing for them to be educated about the dangers they so often put themselves in.(As happens with other road users)
Not sure why stickers on lorries advising the stupid not to cycle up the inside of them engender such a negative reaction amongst certain cyclist groups, but not sure why they are needed as frankly if you're too stupid to not realise it's a bad idea then the planet could probably do without you!
Mave said:
I don't see EVERYONE pushing for motorists to follow the rules, for sanctions when they don't - so no, it doesn't "happen with other road users".
Are you for real? Every year more and more laws and increased penalties are introduced for motorists at the behest of these stupid militant road safety groups while the country's infrastructure is made less and less motorised vehicle friendly. When was the last time the government passed any specific legislation for cyclists? Ever? Anyone can climb on a bike and ride anywhere they like with no fear of any reprisals should they choose to break the law over and over. It's absolutely stupid!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff