Another cyclist dies in London

[heebeegeetee]

Digby, I'm pretty certain that the only person on here who has said you don't drive is you. No doubt you're gagging to prove me wrong, but I don't recall saying it and I don't recall anyone other than you saying it.

I have said that I don't think you drive an hgv, because you don't talk like any hgv driver i ever knew and i knew a good few. Just a few days ago you asked me about my driving experience re London and hgvs and I gave as clear and straight an answer as I could. I asked you to reciprocate and you said:

Digby said:

I told you, given how many times when you don't like what you read you insult people by calling them liars, fantasists and trolls, I will just let you tell me what I am and what I think. You did that too, remember? Told me what I think. In fact you said you know how everyone thinks and then avoided questions related to this.

I bet you are dying to quote the part where I post I am not a driver in relation to the above.

Also, when I recently asked if you were an hgv driver you said you weren't.

So who knows what you are? All I know is that I'm pretty certain you're the only person who has said you don't drive.

Regarding your very lengthy post above, boy, I feel I've been stalked! You've reminded me that I've been here since 2003, 14 years! I dare say there's a fair few opinions there that I no longer subscribe to, and no doubt a fair few that were made on return from the pub.

Don't worry, I will not be reciprocating! My life isn't that exciting, but boy it hasn't got that boring yet either.

[Digby]

Yes, as I mentioned only a few pages ago, you accused me of not being an HGV driver, just as you have accused others of lying.

So, nice try deflecting...

These "countless" blind spot incidents.....you hit them all, or knew they were there and avoided them?

heebeegeetee said:

I dare say there's a fair few opinions there that I no longer subscribe to, and no doubt a fair few that were made on return from the pub.

So you change your mind to suit? At least you admit it.

Were you on your bike on the way back from the pub? Not that drunk riding matters.

Edited by Digby on Tuesday 24th October 20:46

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

2. Fully agree, and they are idiots too. The difference though, is that when a driver acts silly around a HGV, the chances are it ends in a dent or a visit to the hospital. Do the same on a bike and the risk is it ends in a visit to the hospital or a rest in the graveyard.

3. If people didn't act like idiots around HGVs, there would be no need for dozens of mirrors creating more blind spots. I think it's unacceptable that people act like idiots on the roads, no matter how many wheels you command over.


Now that we are getting somewhere in the discussion, what do you think we should do to stop people, especially on bicycles, acting silly around big vehicles? Tearing down cities and banning heavy equipment is not a viable option.

2. And still it will never change. Pedestrians are equally bad ime, and more pedestrians die each and every year, in London and nationally. Car drivers have safer rates, but there is a distinct unwillingness on this thread to acknowledge that nevertheless, the vast majority of the thousands of people killed and seriously injured each year in the UK are vehicle occupants.

3. So what are you going to do about the idiots on the road then? Pedestrians and cyclists have an absolute right to the road in the UK, and there is no political desire to place any restrictions on them whatsoever. Furthermore, they tend to do little harm to others.

If we want to address those that do the greatest harm to others we have to (and will be ) restricting us, the driver. A further restriction has been placed in London today, and it now costs up to £21.50 a day to use a car that doesn't meet Euro 4 emissions.

I had a google earlier today about road safety in Sweden, and their Vision Zero policy. ""We simply do not accept any deaths or injuries on our roads," says Hans Berg of the national transport agency."

"Planning has played the biggest part in reducing accidents. Roads in Sweden are built to prioritise safety over speed or convenience. Low urban speed limits, pedestrian zones and barriers that separate cars from bicycles and oncoming traffic have helped."

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains...

I mean, that sounds like pretty much everything like yourself, Digby, cb and others have been arguing against, particularly " barriers that separate cars from bicycles".

I've also found an article which backs up what you've been saying about cycling in Sweden, in that such has been the clamp down on cars that the safety of others has been neglected. The article also says "Some 3,000 cyclists are hurt so badly each year that they are permanently injured or need to be taken to hospital, yet this is not due to crashing into cars.

The main cause for a fall is loose gravel, road slipperiness in winter, and poorly maintained cycle paths, problems which cause some 70 percent of the biking accidents wrote the paper." https://www.thelocal.se/20120504/40634

I don't recall you telling us about the loose gravel etc however. This article is 5 years old, so what's the situation now?

How do I feel about a 'Vision Zero' policy? I don't know, obviously it's laudable on one hand, on the other hand I can't help but fondly recall the tremendous freedoms I've had in the past, and how current and future generations of drivers are not going to get the same - all due largely imo to the idiots on the road. I'm thinking more of the idiots who kill and seriously injure thousands per year, and not thinking so much of the cyclists who don't.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

heebeegeetee said:

Well, as I say, the predominant issue, and I'd argue the only issue, is of hgvs turning left over cyclists, yet the Digbys want to talk about red lights (Digby note - I didn't start it) and the rest of it, whilst excusing motorists who also jump red lights (Digby note - I have never said this), but which from the start of the thread had never shown to be particularly relevant to the title of the thread.

Pub, or changed your mind?

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

2. Fully agree, and they are idiots too. The difference though, is that when a driver acts silly around a HGV, the chances are it ends in a dent or a visit to the hospital. Do the same on a bike and the risk is it ends in a visit to the hospital or a rest in the graveyard.

3. If people didn't act like idiots around HGVs, there would be no need for dozens of mirrors creating more blind spots. I think it's unacceptable that people act like idiots on the roads, no matter how many wheels you command over.


Now that we are getting somewhere in the discussion, what do you think we should do to stop people, especially on bicycles, acting silly around big vehicles? Tearing down cities and banning heavy equipment is not a viable option.

2. And still it will never change. Pedestrians are equally bad ime, and more pedestrians die each and every year, in London and nationally. Car drivers have safer rates, but there is a distinct unwillingness on this thread to acknowledge that nevertheless, the vast majority of the thousands of people killed and seriously injured each year in the UK are vehicle occupants.

3. So what are you going to do about the idiots on the road then? Pedestrians and cyclists have an absolute right to the road in the UK, and there is no political desire to place any restrictions on them whatsoever. Furthermore, they tend to do little harm to others.

If we want to address those that do the greatest harm to others we have to (and will be ) restricting us, the driver. A further restriction has been placed in London today, and it now costs up to £21.50 a day to use a car that doesn't meet Euro 4 emissions.

I had a google earlier today about road safety in Sweden, and their Vision Zero policy. ""We simply do not accept any deaths or injuries on our roads," says Hans Berg of the national transport agency."

"Planning has played the biggest part in reducing accidents. Roads in Sweden are built to prioritise safety over speed or convenience. Low urban speed limits, pedestrian zones and barriers that separate cars from bicycles and oncoming traffic have helped."

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains...

I mean, that sounds like pretty much everything like yourself, Digby, cb and others have been arguing against, particularly " barriers that separate cars from bicycles".

I've also found an article which backs up what you've been saying about cycling in Sweden, in that such has been the clamp down on cars that the safety of others has been neglected. The article also says "Some 3,000 cyclists are hurt so badly each year that they are permanently injured or need to be taken to hospital, yet this is not due to crashing into cars.

The main cause for a fall is loose gravel, road slipperiness in winter, and poorly maintained cycle paths, problems which cause some 70 percent of the biking accidents wrote the paper." https://www.thelocal.se/20120504/40634

I don't recall you telling us about the loose gravel etc however. This article is 5 years old, so what's the situation now?

How do I feel about a 'Vision Zero' policy? I don't know, obviously it's laudable on one hand, on the other hand I can't help but fondly recall the tremendous freedoms I've had in the past, and how current and future generations of drivers are not going to get the same - all due largely imo to the idiots on the road. I'm thinking more of the idiots who kill and seriously injure thousands per year, and not thinking so much of the cyclists who don't.

2. Education.

3. More education, not only for one or a few groups of road users, but all.


As for cycling injuries in Sweden, if the road is slippery or otherwise badly maintained, as most roads are in Sweden, you must drive/cycle accordingly, it's not difficult to grasp really.

Vision Zero will never happen, neither will the "nobody will die in a new Volvo by year whatever".



ETA, when/where have I been against separating cyclists from cars? I am all for that, and there are plenty of separate cycling lanes all around Sweden, many cyclists just don't use them though.

Edited by Finlandia on Tuesday 24th October 21:31

[Digby]

Finlandia said:

ETA, when/where have I been against separating cyclists from cars? I am all for that, and there are plenty of separate cycling lanes all around Sweden, many cyclists just don't use them though.

Same here. It may be based on several people asking how you do such a thing in London without knocking down buildings etc.

Like most things on here, it is easily adapted to be used as something you never said.

I remember Heebee even admitting we are unlikely to ever see a mini Copenhagen in central London. It took a while to get there and took many attempts to explain why this couldn't happen. Instead, he suggested the suburbs instead iirc.

So much waffle to then simply admit what so many tried to say for so long.

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

1. Yes, as I mentioned only a few pages ago, you accused me of not being an HGV driver, just as you have accused others of lying.

2. These "countless" blind spot incidents.....you hit them all, or knew they were there and avoided them?

3. So you change your mind to suit? At least you admit it.

4. Were you on your bike on the way back from the pub? Not that drunk riding matters.

1. I don't think I've ever accused you of not being an hgv driver, pretty certain I've always said I don't think you are an hgv driver. Not the same thing at all.

2. The issue of blind spots is a major, major issue imo, and a major pita imo. Trying to keep an eye on them can be a major issue, can be a major distraction to the rest of the activity of driving. As the video I posted shows, adding ever more and bigger mirrors simply adds further blind spots.

If you don't drive hgvs then you won't have a single clue of what I'm talking about. If you do or ever have driven hgvs, then let me say that in my 30 years of taking to hgv drivers, both face to face or on the forums, no-one has ever posed the two questions that you just have, or spoken or posted in that manner about blindspots.

I think you have completely lost the plot and are arguing every single word with me, and I am not going to waste any time or bandwidth over this. You either know the issue of blindspots or you don't, and if you do know then you know there's no arguing over them.

3. I think everybody does, though no doubt you'll argue that.

4. Good god no, it's miles away. In a car every single time.

But let me just reiterate my point: I think that in the UK the access and share of road space is completely unfair, and I think pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists get a really raw deal.

And that's it. That's my beef.

Now you can continue to argue this as much as you like, but since January 2015 you've not turned me around on this by one jot, not one iota. Probably not helped by being the most dishonest and disingenuous poster I know of on the site.

You may think I haven't changed your mind in any way either, and that's fine. Fact is though, there's still been a further restriction placed on motoring in London today, there will be more in the future, there will be more nationwide in the future, and there currently is no desire or political will to impose any restrictions on cycling whatsoever. The UK policy of car-is-king has done few of us any favours imo, and in fact, the political will is slowly realising that we have to have more people walking and cycling and there WILL be more cyclists in the future.

And if you want to argue that one with me we can have a bet on it.

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

2. Education.

3. More education, not only for one or a few groups of road users, but all.

Well we've been educating motorists for some 120 years or so now, and cyclists for longer because they were on the roads before the car. How much longer do you say we should give it?

[Stickyfinger]

heebeegeetee said:

Well we've been educating motorists for some 120 years or so now, and cyclists for longer because they were on the roads before the car. How much longer do you say we should give it?

Really..............that is it ?

And you expect to be taken seriously ?

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

2. Education.

3. More education, not only for one or a few groups of road users, but all.

Well we've been educating motorists for some 120 years or so now, and cyclists for longer because they were on the roads before the car. How much longer do you say we should give it?

If education fails, then we need to start punishing those who are doing things wrong. What education is there for cyclists today, and a opt out course isn't really it.

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

ETA, when/where have I been against separating cyclists from cars? I am all for that, and there are plenty of separate cycling lanes all around Sweden, many cyclists just don't use them though.

Sorry, missed this - you seem to have been against this in London, judging by your posts throughout the thread. Regarding your latter point, I had a thought about this before but wasn't able to post - I see cycle lanes as "the proof of the pudding being in the eating". In an earlier post you seemed to be suggesting that puddings in Sweden were really tasty and cheap, but nobody was eating them. And I was like "Yeah, right".

Maybe not the very best analogy perhaps - on my route home there is a rather lengthy shared use path that I think is really quite good - but it doesn't connect to anywhere. One end dumps you in a sink estate, other end dumps you into a *st* load of traffic. Consequently it's not used much.

Very rare though. Every other cycle lane that I think I've ever seen has just been a complete joke, *vastly* inferior to what I see on the other side of the channel.

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

If education fails, then we need to start punishing those who are doing things wrong. What education is there for cyclists today, and a opt out course isn't really it.

Cyclists are subject to the same amount of formal training as motorists, in the UK

Now, no doubt you'll continue to argue this, but seriously, it's all been argued before, there really is no point in looping round and round, repeating the same stuff.

If you want to reduce road casualties in the UK, you would almost certainly be completely wasting your money by focusing it on anyone other than motorists, because they make up something like 98% of the traffic.

I would seek greater punishments, especially for those who kill and seriously injure. Many of the penalties for hurting people here are just derisory, especially if the person you've hurt wasn't using car. You can kill somebody here and not even be charged.

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

If education fails, then we need to start punishing those who are doing things wrong. What education is there for cyclists today, and a opt out course isn't really it.

Cyclists are subject to the same amount of formal training as motorists, in the UK

And what education is there for cyclists? Not training, but education.

If we want to reduce the cyclists deaths in London, then we need to, in one way or another, also include cyclist education/making cyclists aware of the dangers.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

1. I don't think I've ever accused you of not being an hgv driver, pretty certain I've always said I don't think you are an hgv driver. Not the same thing at all.

Oh, it's the play on the word "think" joker being used again. Is it the fantasist liar joker, next, or the blame it on the pub one?

Can you see how desperate you are becoming when backed in to a corner?

And you now don't want to waste any more bandwidth? How convenient. The ultimate white flag.

You said you had "countless" blind spot incidents. Describe them to me. That's all I am asking.

I know perfectly well what a blind spot is, in 30 years of driving, I have had one incident with a car.

All the other times someone has wanted to sit in a blind spot, I have known they were there.

So, once again, explain your "countless" blind spot experiences.

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

Oh, it's the play on the word "think" joker being used again. Is it the fantasist liar joker, next, or the blame it on the pub one?

Can you see how desperate you are becoming when backed in to a corner?

And you now don't want to waste any more bandwidth? How convenient. The ultimate white flag.

You said you had "countless" blind spot incidents. Describe them to me. That's all I am asking.

I know perfectly well what a blind spot is, in 30 years of driving, I have had one incident with a car.

All the other times someone has wanted to sit in a blind spot, I have known they were there.

So, once again, explain your "countless" blind spot experiences.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

Now you can continue to argue this as much as you like, but since January 2015 you've not turned me around on this by one jot, not one iota. Probably not helped by being the most dishonest and disingenuous poster I know of on the site.

Yes, you are keen to call me a liar. Someone else recently did the same. I'll ask you what I asked them.

Show me my lies and I will address them.

Don't pick the sarcastic ones posted as a reaction to your waffle, you know exactly what I mean.

Just one. Go on. Show me a single lie. Redeem yourself just a little.

And when you are done, I will show you all of yours.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

Digby said:

Oh, it's the play on the word "think" joker being used again. Is it the fantasist liar joker, next, or the blame it on the pub one?

Can you see how desperate you are becoming when backed in to a corner?

And you now don't want to waste any more bandwidth? How convenient. The ultimate white flag.

You said you had "countless" blind spot incidents. Describe them to me. That's all I am asking.

I know perfectly well what a blind spot is, in 30 years of driving, I have had one incident with a car.

All the other times someone has wanted to sit in a blind spot, I have known they were there.

So, once again, explain your "countless" blind spot experiences.

So no, you are not going to explain?

[popeyewhite]

heebeegeetee said:

1. I don't think I've ever accused you of not being an hgv driver, pretty certain I've always said I don't think you are an hgv driver. Not the same thing at all.

This thread is car crash internet. The mind flicks between contempt for both sides at the sheer pettiness of all concerned, and yet there's a certain Godawful fascination with the doggedness and resilience of some posters. Hey ho. If every single page was crushed down and consolidated into one single sentence of worthless bullst that encapsulated the thread in it's entirety it would be the one I've quoted.

[Digby]

popeyewhite said:

heebeegeetee said:

1. I don't think I've ever accused you of not being an hgv driver, pretty certain I've always said I don't think you are an hgv driver. Not the same thing at all.

This thread is car crash internet. The mind flicks between contempt for both sides at the sheer pettiness of all concerned, and yet there's a certain Godawful fascination with the doggedness and resilience of some posters. Hey ho. If every single page was crushed down and consolidated into one single sentence of worthless bullst that encapsulated the thread in it's entirety it would be the one I've quoted.

heebeegeetee said:

1. Total bks! Utter bullst. You ain't a lorry driver at all mate. Time for pics methinks, 'cos I think you're a complete fantasist.


You're a liar mate, and not a well traveled one at that. You've been dishonest through the past 2.5 years.

He'll be along any moment to either not waste the bandwidth, or blame the pub, or say sorry.

And when I say sorry, I mean talk about how bad cars are.

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

And what education is there for cyclists? Not training, but education.

If we want to reduce the cyclists deaths in London, then we need to, in one way or another, also include cyclist education/making cyclists aware of the dangers.

Well either way, trust me, there is no and will be no restrictions of cyclists freedoms to take to the roads.

There is some information here https://cycling-intelligence.com/fatal-cycling-acc...

And a spreadsheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oBZ-aQWBdr...

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/w...

https://cycling-intelligence.com/2011/03/16/cyclin...
Unfortunately this is quite old now, but confirms that cyclists are (or were) in the lowest group of fatalities. More pedestrians, motor cyclists and drivers were killed each year.

As far as I know there are still more pedestrians and motor cyclists killed, not sure if there are still more drivers.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2...

I'm just not seeing evidence that cycling is particularly dangerous, and as I keep saying, there isn't an ounce of sense or logic behind the thrice weekly anti-cycling threads. If there was genuine concern over casualty figures, we'd be anti-motorcycling, and we'd also be asking what we as pedestrians are going to do about the figures?