Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Digby said:
Is it safer to wear high visibility clothing when on a bike?
It would certainly help with the cyclists who don't believe in having lights whilst dressed in black & they would then have a place for a visible registration number too!!And what of the Helmet?
Don't really have a view myself, I wear one when I go out with my daughter as I think it would be hypocritical to say she must wear one if I don't & I think I've used my bike twice without her being there, still wore it though.
I'm also of the age where I remember wearing seatbelts being made a legal requirement.
Everyone seemed to know someone who would have died in an accident if they had been wearing one before it was made compulsory.
I can still hear the mechanic who looked after my Dads car telling us how he threw himself across the passenger seat to save himself during. Head on collision!!
The Dangerous Elk said:
Try to answer please
Some peds do use High Vis.
Kids often do/school outings, Road Race runners do (Park Run even do), Army traing runs do, Walking groups often do. Cyclist traning groups do, etc etc.
Drivers do when engaged in high risk activities.
A did answer. I said "all", so that includes cyclists as well.Some peds do use High Vis.
Kids often do/school outings, Road Race runners do (Park Run even do), Army traing runs do, Walking groups often do. Cyclist traning groups do, etc etc.
Drivers do when engaged in high risk activities.
Cycling isn't a dangerous activity. As repeatedly stated, the benefits outweigh the risks, and on average cyclists live longer than non-cyclists.
You're probably at no less risk as a pedestrian - do you wear hi-vis? The highway code says you should wear reflective items - do you?
heebeegeetee said:
A did answer. I said "all", so that includes cyclists as well.
Cycling isn't a dangerous activity. As repeatedly stated, the benefits outweigh the risks, and on average cyclists live longer than non-cyclists.
You're probably at no less risk as a pedestrian - do you wear hi-vis? The highway code says you should wear reflective items - do you?
When out road walking, yes I do. (not in town/shopping)Cycling isn't a dangerous activity. As repeatedly stated, the benefits outweigh the risks, and on average cyclists live longer than non-cyclists.
You're probably at no less risk as a pedestrian - do you wear hi-vis? The highway code says you should wear reflective items - do you?
If broken down, yes I do.
Out on the Horse, yes I do
heebeegeetee said:
The govt created all of the problems, a long time ago, by deciding that the car shall be king and everyone else shall get short shrift. That’s lead to crushing congestion, to the point where nothing moves, huge pollution said to be killing tens of thousands annually, and we’re the most obese country in
Cyclists contributed to the problems, too. They didn't want cycle lanes and they wanted bigger, faster roads for cars. They got their wish. "I'm afraid that in 1934 the CTC was dead against cycle tracks of all kinds, even this one (the newly opened A40 cycle safety track). We were still very much of the mind that we should try and recapture the roads from the motorists (who were in the minority), so the construction of cycle tracks was seen as defeat. Indeed, the CTC suggested an alternative, "motorways" – built only for cars – leaving the rest of the road network for cyclists to continue to use. The CTC eventually got its wish: the motorways were built and led to a flood of more cars onto the old roads, making them even more hostile for cyclists"
I bet you hate reading that. You will probably have to mention obesity
Apparently, they had a good moan because they couldn't get what they wanted and when they got what they wanted, they had a good moan..
"It could be said that CTC's campaign in the 1930s to retain cyclists' rights to the road network was too successful. Cyclists were never restricted from the non-motorway road network and in part because of this local authorities never built adequate facilities for them when those roads became bigger and bigger and the volume of motor traffic soared.
At the time CTC was also still fighting to prevent regulations that would, eventually, force cyclists to use rear red lights. CTC believed that cars should at night be obliged to travel at a speed which would enable them to stop should they encounter another user in the road – it should be their responsibility to notice the unlit road user, not the responsibility of the cyclist or pedestrian to carry a light."
- singing* It's all just a little bit of history repeating...
Edited by Digby on Friday 24th November 18:07
Digby said:
Cyclists contributed to the problems, too. They didn't want cycle lanes and they wanted bigger, faster roads for cars. They got their wish.
"I'm afraid that in 1934 the CTC was dead against cycle tracks of all kinds, even this one (the newly opened A40 cycle safety track). We were still very much of the mind that we should try and recapture the roads from the motorists (who were in the minority), so the construction of cycle tracks was seen as defeat. Indeed, the CTC suggested an alternative, "motorways" – built only for cars – leaving the rest of the road network for cyclists to continue to use. The CTC eventually got its wish: the motorways were built and led to a flood of more cars onto the old roads, making them even more hostile for cyclists"
I bet you hate reading that.
Not really, more than I am just utterly perplexed at what relevance this could have either for the thread, the topic, or anything to do with today. leaving aside the fact that 280 miles of cycle lanes were built in the 1930s, and that I now realise that we had a good length of it not far from where I live. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/..."I'm afraid that in 1934 the CTC was dead against cycle tracks of all kinds, even this one (the newly opened A40 cycle safety track). We were still very much of the mind that we should try and recapture the roads from the motorists (who were in the minority), so the construction of cycle tracks was seen as defeat. Indeed, the CTC suggested an alternative, "motorways" – built only for cars – leaving the rest of the road network for cyclists to continue to use. The CTC eventually got its wish: the motorways were built and led to a flood of more cars onto the old roads, making them even more hostile for cyclists"
I bet you hate reading that.
We've spoke about this before of course, you're just looping around again so I'll post the same picture as I did last time, of Mr G. H. Stancer Esq., head of the CTC back then
>>But the interests of the Club and those millions who at the time were merely riding bicycles for transport, rather than touring, were not well-aligned.
The membership of the Club had collapsed between 1899 and 1918 as their traditional members – the upper and middle classes – increasingly abandoned bicycles for motor vehicles as a mode of ‘touring’. This was, paradoxically, at a time when bicycle use was sharply increasing in the general population, but these people who were using bicycles as a mode of transport – the lower classes in particular – saw no need to join a touring club, as Oakley writes in Winged Wheel –
The urge to travel over the hills and far away, day after day, had not yet come to them; even if it had, they could not have responded to it.
There was, therefore, no real representation of those people who rode bikes for transport. The only alternative to the Cyclists’ Touring Club was the National Cyclists’ Union, which was a sporting organisation.<<
To follow your line of thinking though, we should remind ourselves that motorists were strongly against the introduction of the breathalyser, were strongly against the introduction of the seatbelts, and motorists were *vehemently* against making motor racing more safe back in the '60s and 70s.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Sunday 26th November 11:06
heebeegeetee said:
Not really, more than I am just utterly perplexed at what relevance this could have either for the thread, the topic, or anything to do with today.
"Not really", as in, yes they did you mean. How utterly dumb did they have to be to not want lights? (I can feel the "As dumb as motorists who....." reply building already!) 99 % of almost everything you have posted has nothing, not a single thing, to do with those on bikes in London who YOU agree place themselves in stupid positions and YOU are as surprised at as I that they continue do so.
You keep trying to suggest you 'used' to think that way, but the fact is, it happened to you and it happens to me. It now happens to lots more people than it ever did in your day. Solving the problem is a major concern. That's why I am here. Why are you here?
And as I keep saying, It will keep happening. It will happen no matter what the truck designs are like. The recent CPC cycle course we attended spent a great deal of time explaining how useless certain cyclists were and which types you will come across in terms of their uselessness. The main complaints from all London drivers? (Not all HGV drivers btw - some only had to drive to work in tiny vans or their own car) Have a guess...
Fortunately, the death toll is quite low when you happen across such riders, but only thanks to the actions of many drivers.
They only surprised you in the past, though, right? So now, you can focus on your love of bikes, based on your hatred of cars, due to those cars stopping you enjoying your car. Do you realise how utterly ridiculous that is?
That's why I will continue to post things such as this...
Just because I know you won't like it and want to see how many times you can roll out the same, tired, completely unrelated excuses such as obesity and air quality etc, etc, etc, Copenhagen has apparently hit 'peak bike'. It's main routes are now jamming up and cycling figures are down for such routes often because people do not like the attitudes of the riders and how crowded things have become.
Oh and just because I know you won't like it, have a look at the history of the mini-Netherlands created in Stevenage. Absolutely perfect for riders. Always cleaned and cleared. Any damage was to be repaired as soon as possible. It ticked just about every single box......and hardly any riders used it. They all stayed in their cars.
Not everyone wants to ride a bike and many who do have no real clue how to safely and, as YOU agree, that's simply not fair on other road users.
Now, off you go....."obesity.....clean air.....cars that crash....."
Oh and don't forget to insult a few people and blame stuff on forgetting what you have said and the pub
Digby said:
1. 99 % of almost everything you have posted has nothing, not a single thing, to do with those on bikes in London who YOU agree place themselves in stupid positions and YOU are as surprised at as I that they continue do so.
2. You keep trying to suggest you 'used' to think that way, but the fact is, it happened to you and it happens to me. It now happens to lots more people than it ever did in your day. Solving the problem is a major concern. That's why I am here. Why are you here?
3. And as I keep saying, It will keep happening. It will happen no matter what the truck designs are like. The recent CPC cycle course we attended spent a great deal of time explaining how useless certain cyclists were and which types you will come across in terms of their uselessness. The main complaints from all London drivers? (Not all HGV drivers btw - some only had to drive to work in tiny vans or their own car) Have a guess...
4. Fortunately, the death toll is quite low when you happen across such riders, but only thanks to the actions of many drivers.
5. They only surprised you in the past, though, right? So now, you can focus on your love of bikes, based on your hatred of cars, due to those cars stopping you enjoying your car. Do you realise how utterly ridiculous that is?
That's why I will continue to post things such as this...
6. Just because I know you won't like it and want to see how many times you can roll out the same, tired, completely unrelated excuses such as obesity and air quality etc, etc, etc, Copenhagen has apparently hit 'peak bike'. It's main routes are now jamming up and cycling figures are down for such routes often because people do not like the attitudes of the riders and how crowded things have become.
7. Oh and just because I know you won't like it, have a look at the history of the mini-Netherlands created in Stevenage. Absolutely perfect for riders. Always cleaned and cleared. Any damage was to be repaired as soon as possible. It ticked just about every single box......and hardly any riders used it. They all stayed in their cars.
1. The same applies to you. You started off on this thread with red lights, which has been shown to play very little part in cyclist fatalities, and went on to some old duffers in the 1930s. You've avoided the core of the subject, i.e hgvs being disproportionately involved in accidents. You've done all you can to keep the topic away from this.2. You keep trying to suggest you 'used' to think that way, but the fact is, it happened to you and it happens to me. It now happens to lots more people than it ever did in your day. Solving the problem is a major concern. That's why I am here. Why are you here?
3. And as I keep saying, It will keep happening. It will happen no matter what the truck designs are like. The recent CPC cycle course we attended spent a great deal of time explaining how useless certain cyclists were and which types you will come across in terms of their uselessness. The main complaints from all London drivers? (Not all HGV drivers btw - some only had to drive to work in tiny vans or their own car) Have a guess...
4. Fortunately, the death toll is quite low when you happen across such riders, but only thanks to the actions of many drivers.
5. They only surprised you in the past, though, right? So now, you can focus on your love of bikes, based on your hatred of cars, due to those cars stopping you enjoying your car. Do you realise how utterly ridiculous that is?
That's why I will continue to post things such as this...
6. Just because I know you won't like it and want to see how many times you can roll out the same, tired, completely unrelated excuses such as obesity and air quality etc, etc, etc, Copenhagen has apparently hit 'peak bike'. It's main routes are now jamming up and cycling figures are down for such routes often because people do not like the attitudes of the riders and how crowded things have become.
7. Oh and just because I know you won't like it, have a look at the history of the mini-Netherlands created in Stevenage. Absolutely perfect for riders. Always cleaned and cleared. Any damage was to be repaired as soon as possible. It ticked just about every single box......and hardly any riders used it. They all stayed in their cars.
2. " It now happens to lots more people than it ever did in your day.". What on earth does that mean? My day is today, same as you. And what is "It"?
I possibly started driving before you and was possibly driving in London before you, and yes there may be more cyclists on the roads today but the roads are manifestly more safe today than they were in the 1980s. I've no idea what you mean by "It" but you surely cannot be seriously suggesting that the roads were safer in the 1980s than now? Doesn't the slight inconvenience of all data disproving that trouble you?
3. "no matter what the truck designs are like". So you are saying that if vehicle design was improved, and the issue of blind spots reduced significantly, there'd be no measurable reduction in blind spot accidents or improvement in hgv accident figures?
Care to provide any evidence for that?
4. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashes-involvi...
>>The City of Westminster Council found that drivers were to blame for 68 per cent of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles in the borough in the past 12 months. It found that cyclists were at fault for only 20 per cent.<<
So you're wrong, as you often are.
5. "based on your hatred of cars". As I've repeatedly said, in fact I have a love of cars (or possibly more accurately, a love of motoring). I work on cars for a living. I have driven for a living, a lot. My hobbies are all based on cars or motoring. I compete in cars. Almost all of our friends have come through the motoring world.
Again, you'd struggle to be more wrong when you say I have a hatred of cars. We've said all this before, god knows why you keep repeating this nonsense.
6. We have similar issues, but ours involve cars, so our problems are of several orders of magnitude worse than Denmark's. When you say "people do not like the attitudes of the riders " practically the whole population are riders themselves, so how does that work?
7. So are London's cyclists wrong then - Because Stevenage?
heebeegeetee said:
1. The same applies to you. You started off on this thread with red lights, which has been shown to play very little part in cyclist fatalities, and went on to some old duffers in the 1930s. You've avoided the core of the subject, i.e hgvs being disproportionately involved in accidents. You've done all you can to keep the topic away from this.
2. " It now happens to lots more people than it ever did in your day.". What on earth does that mean? My day is today, same as you. And what is "It"?
1) Oh look, yet again, you are completely wrong and simply making things up to suit...2. " It now happens to lots more people than it ever did in your day.". What on earth does that mean? My day is today, same as you. And what is "It"?
My first post:
Digby said:
Our trucks now have bike warning stickers, mirrors to spot bikes, voices shouting from speakers when turning to warn bikes and lots of lights to show intended direction changes - almost all are an absolute waste of time in London when you come across those cyclists 'on a mission' or the Boris brain-dead.
You can't keep track of all the cyclists and many spend all day rubbing against the side of the truck as they squeeze through gaps and are happy to cut around / in front of vehicles as they turn. I just don't get the levels of utter, utter stupidity I see. Not that it's any form of excuse, but at least if a car hits a bike and they declare "I didn't see you!!", they often didn't see them. They are small, narrow, nimble and easy to miss. How and why would you get anywhere near a moving 38 foot long, 32+ ton truck which is the size of a house, I have no idea.
Perhaps we should start mentioning the lives saved and injuries avoided to cyclists due to drivers actions? Impossible to prove, of course, but it would undoubtedly be hundreds and possibly thousands.
Oddly enough, one of your first posts mentions this...You can't keep track of all the cyclists and many spend all day rubbing against the side of the truck as they squeeze through gaps and are happy to cut around / in front of vehicles as they turn. I just don't get the levels of utter, utter stupidity I see. Not that it's any form of excuse, but at least if a car hits a bike and they declare "I didn't see you!!", they often didn't see them. They are small, narrow, nimble and easy to miss. How and why would you get anywhere near a moving 38 foot long, 32+ ton truck which is the size of a house, I have no idea.
Perhaps we should start mentioning the lives saved and injuries avoided to cyclists due to drivers actions? Impossible to prove, of course, but it would undoubtedly be hundreds and possibly thousands.
heebeegeetee said:
I missed it, but when did PH turn into such an apologist site for s
t driving?
Something you now do about st driving? t riding.You then accused someone of something which wasn't true, but it suited your agenda to do so and had them accuse you of...
said:
"You have selectively quoted me and taken my comments out of context, and then twisted those comments around.
I suggest that you stop and take a deep breath, then review all of my comments on this thread. Remember too that I also hold a vocational licence and then see if you can remember ANY post that I have made on that topic that you disagree with.
For the avoidance of doubt, and in an effort to prevent other stupid misquotes (and as I have stated with great clarity on several occasions): the van driver was an idiot and I am happy to see him prosecuted, but this isn't uncommon behaviour and cyclists need to be aware of their surroundings, the hazards that they are approaching and dangerous situations that are developing. This road sense can make the difference between life and death.
For a few years now, you have been doing the same thing. Do you not even see this?I suggest that you stop and take a deep breath, then review all of my comments on this thread. Remember too that I also hold a vocational licence and then see if you can remember ANY post that I have made on that topic that you disagree with.
For the avoidance of doubt, and in an effort to prevent other stupid misquotes (and as I have stated with great clarity on several occasions): the van driver was an idiot and I am happy to see him prosecuted, but this isn't uncommon behaviour and cyclists need to be aware of their surroundings, the hazards that they are approaching and dangerous situations that are developing. This road sense can make the difference between life and death.
Accusations, declarations of people being liars...all untrue, all in your head. This isn't point scoring etc, they are in your head mate.
Stop doing it. Start focusing on s
t riding / driving and how we can stop it.heebeegeetee said:
3. "no matter what the truck designs are like". So you are saying that if vehicle design was improved, and the issue of blind spots reduced significantly, there'd be no measurable reduction in blind spot accidents or improvement in hgv accident figures?
Of course, There has been. What has that to do with idiots on bikes?But then they may have drivers like you. You have still failed to tell me of your "countless" blind spot incidents. Try again now. What kept happening?
heebeegeetee said:
Doesn't the slight inconvenience of all data disproving that trouble you?
It proves drivers save idiot riders lives. I said the exact same thing in my very first post. They spent a fortune making sure we could, because they know how many ride like total idiots. All that has changed is that there are now many more idiots than when you drove. So no, the data just means we avoid them more. And as YOU said, it's not fair that they should keep scaring the crap out of other drivers.heebeegeetee said:
Again, you'd struggle to be more wrong when you say I have a hatred of cars. We've said all this before, god knows why you keep repeating this nonsense.
Right, so leave them alone, then. What's the problem?Edited by Digby on Sunday 26th November 22:12
cb1965 said:
Yes of course it isn't, carry on with your nonsense about how wonderful cyclists are and how anyone who says different is an idiot if it helps your fragile ego cope ....
That's probably the 10th time in this thread that you have judged others by your own binary standards - except you also now use a classic straw man argument, which gives you even less credibility.So, again, I have to state the obvious : in London, some cyclists are morons, some drivers are morons, and in probably the same proportion. Morons exist irrespective of their vehicle of choice. Do you disagree ?
Digby said:
1. Impossible to prove, of course, but it would undoubtedly be hundreds and possibly thousands.
2. Right, so leave them alone, then. What's the problem?
1. 2. Right, so leave them alone, then. What's the problem?
No st! Impossible to prove, but you've no doubt. Without any evidence at all.2. Leave who alone? And what is "It"?
Digby said:
But then they may have drivers like you. You have still failed to tell me of your "countless" blind spot incidents. Try again now. What kept happening?
You're the one on here bleating and crying how much harder it is now that road casualties are at their lowest levels, and how much easier "it" was in my day... Why don't you tell us what keeps happening to you?Digby said:
Oh and why are you here?
To address numpties like you with your anti-cycling bingo. Y'know, red lights, road tax, not proper road users, they don't obey the rules, cycle lanes, you can't do x,y & z on a bike, cyclists always to blame, can't do this, can't do that, can't have any change, compulsory training, blah blah blah. Why are you here, apart from spreading a load of crap that goes directly against all evidence?
heebeegeetee said:
Why are you here, apart from spreading a load of crap that goes directly against all evidence?
Like you had to, I have to put up with bad riders trying to put themselves underneath my vehicle quite often.Like you, I am amazed they still try to do this.
Like you, I would never put myself in such a position on a bike.
From now on, every time you are wrong or contradict yourself etc, I will just ask over and over again until I get an answer. It's clear you have no interest in the topic and have no clue what you have said.
So, number 1...
You were wrong about my first post, wasn't you? It's there, in black and white. Everyone can go back and look. Do you admit you were wrong?
In the meantime, let's have another reminder of why I am here....
AnotherLondonCyclist said:
This isn't going to be a popular opinion among some, but a major contributing factor is the skill/ability of the average London cyclist.
Before I go any further, hear me out. I'm a cyclist, and a keen one at that - I often commute across Z1 by bike, I was once a Critical Mass regular, and have done the Surrey/London 100 and London-Brighton on my fixie for charity.
However, I also live in Central London, and thus get exposed to some of the worst of London cycling. Within 200yds of my flat, on a fairly major/arterial North-South cycle route (supported by a bus lane), there are two spots where cyclists' behaviour beggars belief.
1) An area of congestion approaching traffic lights. When lanes are blocked, it's common practice for cyclists to mount the kerb and cycle 200yds along the pavement, through a crowded bus-stop. After 200yds, I find great 'amusement' in watching these same cyclists rejoining the carriageway in front of moving traffic - most without so much as a look over their shoulder, and some with a wobbling/last-minute stop after almost riding under a bus/truck.
2) A busy, traffic-light controlled crossroads. It is entirely normal practice for cyclist to zip along the left-turn lane (rather than their dedicated lane), and merge into moving traffic (buses, lorries) at the last minute, at a pinch-point. More often than not, requiring drivers to brake/avoid with little notice.
You might think I'm exaggerating, or that this is confined to a small number of cyclists. I'm really not.
It's not just the lycra warriors, the fixie hipsters, the suits on Boris Bikes or the nervous girlies - it's everyone, and that's the problem.
Cyclists of all types are persistently, wilfully neglecting their own safety.
Before I go any further, hear me out. I'm a cyclist, and a keen one at that - I often commute across Z1 by bike, I was once a Critical Mass regular, and have done the Surrey/London 100 and London-Brighton on my fixie for charity.
However, I also live in Central London, and thus get exposed to some of the worst of London cycling. Within 200yds of my flat, on a fairly major/arterial North-South cycle route (supported by a bus lane), there are two spots where cyclists' behaviour beggars belief.
1) An area of congestion approaching traffic lights. When lanes are blocked, it's common practice for cyclists to mount the kerb and cycle 200yds along the pavement, through a crowded bus-stop. After 200yds, I find great 'amusement' in watching these same cyclists rejoining the carriageway in front of moving traffic - most without so much as a look over their shoulder, and some with a wobbling/last-minute stop after almost riding under a bus/truck.
2) A busy, traffic-light controlled crossroads. It is entirely normal practice for cyclist to zip along the left-turn lane (rather than their dedicated lane), and merge into moving traffic (buses, lorries) at the last minute, at a pinch-point. More often than not, requiring drivers to brake/avoid with little notice.
You might think I'm exaggerating, or that this is confined to a small number of cyclists. I'm really not.
It's not just the lycra warriors, the fixie hipsters, the suits on Boris Bikes or the nervous girlies - it's everyone, and that's the problem.
Cyclists of all types are persistently, wilfully neglecting their own safety.
Digby said:
Like you had to, I have to put up with bad riders trying to put themselves underneath my vehicle quite often.
Like you, I am amazed they still try to do this.
Like you, I would never put myself in such a position on a bike.
From now on, every time you are wrong or contradict yourself etc, I will just ask over and over again until I get an answer. It's clear you have no interest in the topic and have no clue what you have said.
So, number 1...
You were wrong about my first post, wasn't you? It's there, in black and white. Everyone can go back and look. Do you admit you were wrong?
You've not posted a link to your first post.Like you, I am amazed they still try to do this.
Like you, I would never put myself in such a position on a bike.
From now on, every time you are wrong or contradict yourself etc, I will just ask over and over again until I get an answer. It's clear you have no interest in the topic and have no clue what you have said.
So, number 1...
You were wrong about my first post, wasn't you? It's there, in black and white. Everyone can go back and look. Do you admit you were wrong?
You say you'll ask, but you won't answer. before you posted your supposed first post (sheesh :rolleyes) I had already asked you:
1. 2. " It now happens to lots more people than it ever did in your day.". What on earth does that mean? My day is today, same as you. And what is "It"?
2. So you are saying that if vehicle design was improved, and the issue of blind spots reduced significantly, there'd be no measurable reduction in blind spot accidents or improvement in hgv accident figures?
Care to provide any evidence for that?
3. I said: 4. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashes-involvi...
>>The City of Westminster Council found that drivers were to blame for 68 per cent of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles in the borough in the past 12 months. It found that cyclists were at fault for only 20 per cent.<<
Do you think they're wrong?
4. When you say "people do not like the attitudes of the riders " practically the whole population are riders themselves, so how does that work?
So why not answer the questions I put to you first?
Digby said:
In the meantime, let's have another reminder of why I am here....
And in the meantime, 13 people will have been injured in London by hit-and -runs, as they are on average every single day.AnotherLondonCyclist said:
This isn't going to be a popular opinion among some, but a major contributing factor is the skill/ability of the average London cyclist.
Before I go any further, hear me out. I'm a cyclist, and a keen one at that - I often commute across Z1 by bike, I was once a Critical Mass regular, and have done the Surrey/London 100 and London-Brighton on my fixie for charity.
However, I also live in Central London, and thus get exposed to some of the worst of London cycling. Within 200yds of my flat, on a fairly major/arterial North-South cycle route (supported by a bus lane), there are two spots where cyclists' behaviour beggars belief.
1) An area of congestion approaching traffic lights. When lanes are blocked, it's common practice for cyclists to mount the kerb and cycle 200yds along the pavement, through a crowded bus-stop. After 200yds, I find great 'amusement' in watching these same cyclists rejoining the carriageway in front of moving traffic - most without so much as a look over their shoulder, and some with a wobbling/last-minute stop after almost riding under a bus/truck.
2) A busy, traffic-light controlled crossroads. It is entirely normal practice for cyclist to zip along the left-turn lane (rather than their dedicated lane), and merge into moving traffic (buses, lorries) at the last minute, at a pinch-point. More often than not, requiring drivers to brake/avoid with little notice.
You might think I'm exaggerating, or that this is confined to a small number of cyclists. I'm really not.
It's not just the lycra warriors, the fixie hipsters, the suits on Boris Bikes or the nervous girlies - it's everyone, and that's the problem.
Cyclists of all types are persistently, wilfully neglecting their own safety.
Before I go any further, hear me out. I'm a cyclist, and a keen one at that - I often commute across Z1 by bike, I was once a Critical Mass regular, and have done the Surrey/London 100 and London-Brighton on my fixie for charity.
However, I also live in Central London, and thus get exposed to some of the worst of London cycling. Within 200yds of my flat, on a fairly major/arterial North-South cycle route (supported by a bus lane), there are two spots where cyclists' behaviour beggars belief.
1) An area of congestion approaching traffic lights. When lanes are blocked, it's common practice for cyclists to mount the kerb and cycle 200yds along the pavement, through a crowded bus-stop. After 200yds, I find great 'amusement' in watching these same cyclists rejoining the carriageway in front of moving traffic - most without so much as a look over their shoulder, and some with a wobbling/last-minute stop after almost riding under a bus/truck.
2) A busy, traffic-light controlled crossroads. It is entirely normal practice for cyclist to zip along the left-turn lane (rather than their dedicated lane), and merge into moving traffic (buses, lorries) at the last minute, at a pinch-point. More often than not, requiring drivers to brake/avoid with little notice.
You might think I'm exaggerating, or that this is confined to a small number of cyclists. I'm really not.
It's not just the lycra warriors, the fixie hipsters, the suits on Boris Bikes or the nervous girlies - it's everyone, and that's the problem.
Cyclists of all types are persistently, wilfully neglecting their own safety.
So Digby, you go on about the "Cyclists of all types are persistently, wilfully neglecting their own safety" and I'll go on about the people who hurt others. Because I think I know which is worse.
Digby said:
Joking, or pub?
Troll.
I may as well start reporting you for messing up the thread and let the mods sort it out.
Apologies, it was your second post.Troll.
I may as well start reporting you for messing up the thread and let the mods sort it out.
Digby Tuesday 2nd June 2015 said:
On the very rare occasion I see a car jump a light (I can't remember that last time I did), it's often a fraction of a second after the light has changed.It could possibly be a mad dash due to them knowing the sequence takes an age etc.The majority of cyclists I see do it (lost count) have no interest in how long its been red.To them, it simply does not exist.They just do their best not to hit anyone and carry on.
You've always reckoned its safer for cars to charge through an amber stop or a red light when the junction is still busy, with possibly cars trying to turn right and having the amber/red gamblers missing them by inches, as opposed to going through after the worst of the traffic has cleared.
And you've been off topic pretty much throughout since.
I notice your post above is on the same page as this:
Digby Tuesday 2nd June 2015 said:
There are those who quickly dive through a fresh red and then there are those who don't care that their is a red.How long it has been red means nothing to them.
I'll take a nanosecond after the red cheeky jump over weaving through crossing pedestrians, trying to find a suitable gap whilst making them stop dead in their tracks any day.
So just to be clear, is that you confessing to crossing reds yourself, or just excusing those who do (and thus delaying/risking those trying to turn right)?I'll take a nanosecond after the red cheeky jump over weaving through crossing pedestrians, trying to find a suitable gap whilst making them stop dead in their tracks any day.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Monday 27th November 00:26
heebeegeetee said:
So Digby, you go on about the "Cyclists of all types are persistently, wilfully neglecting their own safety" and I'll go on about the people who hurt others. Because I think I know which is worse.
Tell the Government. They are sticking loads of drivers on courses all based around idiots on bikes. They can't target idiots on bikes how they would like, because they don't want to stop people riding. Dropping in the odd stat about other ways people are idiots doesn't stop these riders being idiots.
Again, I agree 100% with YOU that people have no right to put themselves in harms way like this.
I agree 100% with YOU in that I am amazed people still ride this way.
I agree 100% with YOU that there is no way I would be killed by an HGV when on a bike.
Unlike you, I am quite capable of calling a plonker in a car a plonker and a plonker on a bike a plonker.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff