5 Cyclists dead in 1 week in London
- Thread starter Utopia
- Start date
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Yeah. They've taken a pre-existing route and improved it wherever it was cheap and unobtrusive to do so. Major road junctions are still overwhelmingly in favour of motor vehicles. But this is just CS7 - Merton to City. The one with all the deaths is CS2 Bow to Aldgate.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
This is a bollocks of an argument. "If cyclists shouldn't listen to music neither should drivers, ner ner ner ner ner!" Straight out of the playground.
The fact is that people listening to music are less aware of what's going on around them than those that are using all their senses, regardless of their mode of transport. But if a driver fails to hear the car behind him while turning, chances are there'll be a few dented panels, whereas the cyclist gets wiped-out.
I don't agree with legislating to ban earphones, but cyclists should take responsibility for their own safety as well. Listening to music in London rush hour traffic, thus depriving themselves of a potentially life-saving sense, is fucking moronic.
Last edited:
Brixton Hatter
Home is south London mate
In a tiny number of places!
I'd say about 5% of the superhighways are good infrastructure. There are a few good segragated bits, like the two-way contraflow cycle track along Cable Street. But most of it is just blue paint on busy main roads…which disappears at bus stops and forces cyclists out into the middle of the road and into conflict with fast-moving traffic. In fact, the bus lanes themselves are generally more useful than the blue lanes - at least they keep most of the traffic away from you.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You have missed my point. The driver is the one in charge of a dangerous machine. There is therefore more onus on the driver not to do things that distract them than the cyclist. And it isn't about not hearing others, it's about the distraction the radio/ipod provides.
I don't agree necessarily with legislating either for cyclists or drivers wrt listening to music, but there is almost certainly a stronger case for banning radios from cars than there is for banning cyclists from wearing headphones.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Not sure about this. The cyclist doesn't have carte blanche for unlimited stupidity purely by way of being more vulnerable.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Yes cars are mostly tootling along tramlines with the same car in front and the same behind for long stretches of stop-start etc - cycling is much more dynamic, the situation is always changing. Personally I'd never use headphones on a busy urban cycle, I think they're dangerous. And motorbikers shouldn't have to worry about what's behind them, they're basically just overtaking...it's eyes front really unless you are really lane-chopping.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I didn't say they should. But cyclists are an almost zero danger to others, as the stats show. Drivers are not. And that changes the balance of responsibility.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
No, you're missing mine.
Cyclists are far more vulnerable than drivers. Therefore they should give themselves every possible advantage when cycling in heavy traffic. One such advantage is the ability to react to audible danger.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Cyclists remain a danger to themselves, and cost a lot of money to clean up, so that has to figure into things.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And because they are so vulnerable, cyclists are on average far more vigilant than drivers, as the accident stats show. I wouldn't cycle with headphones on personally, but in terms of the problem this is wrt accidents, I'd like to see evidence showing what difference it makes.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Quite the reverse in fact.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Why not?
8ball
Decolonise colons!
How do you come to this conclusion?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Intuitively, I think that's fair. But that's not really the point is it?
There can be little doubt that sticking buds into ones ears and playing music through them reduces the ability to hear other things. Like vehicles.
Cycling in heavy traffic is dangerous and requires skill and attention. Reducing the amount of attention that one can give to potentially fatal situations is really, really stupid.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Combination of two things: personal experience cycling and the need to look out for drivers and assume they haven't seen you; and by looking at the accident stats and seeing who is more commonly at fault.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Same reason I don't wear them when walking. I like to be as aware as possible of my surroundings. I don't doubt that listening to music/the radio when cycling or driving, or walking for that matter, is a distraction that causes you to pay less attention to your surroundings.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
No, not guesswork at all. Read the accident stats Brixton Hatter linked to on the last page.Guesswork, then.
"As the accident stats show..."
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Well there you go then.
I frequently used to give Mrs Spy bollockings for not taking out her earphones when crossing roads as a ped. It's not about the relative dangers of car drivers and cyclists listening to music. It's about taking a little more responsibility for ones own safety and giving oneself every opportunity not to get hurt.
This attitude that some cyclists have that they should be able to do stuff "because car drivers do it", or that cycling is less dangerous to others than driving, is all very well, but would sound pretty fucking hollow spoken from a bed in intensive care.
Last edited:
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Try again. Then consider the relationship between your observations and your conclusions, as well as alternative interpretations, and confounding variables. I expect better from you when it comes to this sort of thing.
edit: I'm just joshing, but I'm certainly not sure I was more vigilant when I cycled more than drove, though even then I wouldn't have been brave/foolhardy enough to take on London rush hour traffic
Last edited:
hash tag
Books, not bombs
The cycle superhighways are worse than useless and could have been a factor in at least one of the deaths. I gather, and there is no way to confirm this, that one of the cyclists cycled like he had priority when he didn't. Those blue lines cost ten of millions and yet have no legislation covering them. Cars, buses, lorries, taxi's can all use them, therefore what's the point of them? At least with bus lanes, cars and lorries tend to keep out of them because they know they will be fined if they eneter them, thats why they are much safer for cyclists, though I never liked the idea of motorbikes being able to use the bus lane.
DJWrongspeed
radio eros
We wouldn't be having these arguments without the CS plan. It's a stepping stone to better cycle infrastructure. It a rough way of leading to a safer future. That's why TFL did it, not because it was ideal but it was fairly easy to do and didn't cost too much. It moved things forward and now look how mobilised people are !
Last edited:
8ball
Decolonise colons!
If they can squish 20 or so more cyclists, think how mobilised people will be!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Attention is a very particular thing. We can only pay attention to one thing at a time. Everything else trundles along on autopilot until something appears that grabs our attention over to it.
But if it were to be found that cycling with headphones is so dangerous that it should be banned, it would not unreasonable to point out that the same evidence also shows that drivers shouldn't listen to the radio.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I think it's reasonable to say that for some drivers at least it is better not to have the radio on to avoid distraction.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Some drivers (and cyclists) shouldn't be trusted with pointy scissors.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
They never let us ride the tricycle in nursery school while holding scissors.
What I mean is that some people are more likely to be distracted by a radio than others - it does not map in a simple way to how good a driver/cyclist they are otherwise.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I disagree. Drivers are (or should be) constantly scanning the environment in front and behind for potential hazards, of which there are many. Cyclists should be too. "Autopilot" is what causes accidents.
No. The danger is to themselves, not necessarily others. The results of a 'collision due to music' in heavy traffic are far more catastrophic to cyclists than to drivers, so it does not follow that both situations should be treated equally at all. If I thought there was a reasonable chance that listen to music in the car could get me killed or seriously injured I'd have the stereo removed. Yet some cyclists are quite happy to bonk around in heavy traffic with buds in.
As I say, I don't agree with banning headphones. I just think people who wear them in city traffic are utter dullards.
Last edited:
Brixton Hatter
Home is south London mate
Interesting point that the CSs are a stepping stone to better infra. That may well be the case (certainly in the eyes of TfL) but there were warnings from the police and cycling organisations that the original CSs were inadequate and would lead to accidents, but TfL went ahead anyway, and look at the result. They should have been built properly in the first place - there's good practice from all over the world they could have copied, but they didn't.
I do think the simple act of waymarking routes with blue paint has encouraged more people to cycle (as has the cycle hire scheme) but cycling was on the increase anyway. From my experience, cycling was been increasily significantly in the early 2000s before any interventions. There was a particular boost after the congestion charge came in in 2003. But I don't think you can say the CS have mobilised people into action - there's been a huge cycling lobby for years (London Cycling Campaign, CTC, Sustrans, thousands of bloggers etc) and years of hard work from cycling activists is now beginning to bear fruit and get the issue heard more widely.
Similar threads
