5 Cyclists dead in 1 week in London

[andysays]

If we kept the HGVs and got rid of the cyclists that would also work.

Only for a fairly restricted meaning of "work", but it makes as much sense as the idea that we can ban all motor vehicles bigger than a car

 

[8ball]

Only for a fairly restricted meaning of "work", but it makes as much sense as the idea that we can ban all motor vehicles bigger than a car

"Work" being less squished cyclists. Or no squished cyclists if you do it properly. Assuming we are not getting rid of them by squishing them wherever possible.

 

[andysays]

Coach numbers could be kept down by ensuring that they stick to one or two routes (the bottom of the A5 - Park Lane - Victoria - Vauxhall Bridge Road, and an East-West one from the A4 - along the Embankment - Lower Thames St - Tower Hill)...

That's not keeping numbers down, it's keeping them off most roads, which I think is a good idea. It would also be a good idea to encourage cyclists to use roads other than those which are used by coaches, by (at least) not designating them as cycle super highways...

...Buses I specifically didnt mention because they arent anywhere near as much of a problem as trucks and coaches are.

I'm not sure exactly where you're drawing the distinction between a bus and a coach, but I'm pretty sure I hear about more fatal accidents between cyclists and buses than cyclists and coaches. The story linked to in the OP mentions cyclists killed in collisions with a double-decker bus and a lorry (no mention of coaches).

Both of them were on designated cycle super highways

 

[littlebabyjesus]

i see MANY cyclists doing the things i mention every day. perhaps not MOST, but certainly a reasonable proportion. and if i'm seeing dozens of cyclists doing this on my journey into work you can be assured there are a lot of other cyclists elsewhere in london who are doing exactly the same. the cyclists who jump on the south pavement at the junction you mention would easily number a hundred in an hour when i see at least four or five doing it during one traffic light cycle. that is MANY.

I would conservatively estimate that fewer than 10 per cent of cyclists behave in the way you describe, and I'd think it is probably fewer than 5 per cent. To me, that doesn't fall under the definition 'many'.

 

[andysays]

I would conservatively estimate that fewer than 10 per cent of cyclists behave in the way you describe, and I'd think it is probably fewer than 5 per cent. To me, that doesn't fall under the definition 'many'.

So by the same definition, "not many" cyclists are killed on the road. I can't see what all the fuss is about

 

[Pickman's model]

I would conservatively estimate that fewer than 10 per cent of cyclists behave in the way you describe, and I'd think it is probably fewer than 5 per cent. To me, that doesn't fall under the definition 'many'.

so 5 cyclists in a week's not too many then

 

[8ball]

I would conservatively estimate that fewer than 10 per cent of cyclists behave in the way you describe, and I'd think it is probably fewer than 5 per cent. To me, that doesn't fall under the definition 'many'.

I guess your definition of 'many' needs to be consistent if considering 5 deaths in a week as 'too many'.

edit: beaten to it by andysays...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How many of the cyclists killed are doing these things? I think it is a mischaracterisation of the problem to point at the behaviour of a minority of cyclists unless that minority forms a majority of those killed.

 

[8ball]

How many of the cyclists killed are doing these things? I think it is a mischaracterisation of the problem to point at the behaviour of a minority of cyclists unless that minority forms a majority of those killed.

You speak as if you know the answer to that one.

 

[TotallyGreatGuy]

I never understand the beef that people have with cyclists... Cycling is a fast and easy mode of transport and driving in London is foolish at best. I can understand if you have a disability and driving is the only way you can get around, but people commuting by car have no reason whatsoever to get angry at cyclists.

 

[8ball]

I never understand the beef that people have with cyclists...

"People" don't understand the beef that cyclists have with absolutely everyone else.

 

[TotallyGreatGuy]

"People" don't understand the beef that cyclists have with absolutely everyone else.

All road users have a requirement to be aware of what is going on around them. It appears that some cyclists do have a degree of superiority due to alleviating pressure on public transport, congestion, the environment and also increasing the suppleness and muscle definition f their lean and sculpted bodies. But many drivers have more of a sense of entitlement, and due to feeling much safer in a car, are less aware of their surroundings.

 

[andysays]

I would conservatively estimate that fewer than 10 per cent of cyclists behave in the way you describe, and I'd think it is probably fewer than 5 per cent. To me, that doesn't fall under the definition 'many'.

Taking this point further, if this notional 5% behave like this at this particular set of traffic lights, do you think it's likely that they regularly do so in other places and in other ways as well, or is their behaviour only confined to this one set of traffic lights?

And if, as seems likely to me, they get into the habit of behaving recklessly, with a reduced level of regard for the safety of themselves and other road users, are they not therefore statistically more likely to be involved in accidents than the other 95% who do follow the rules of the road, and more likely to end up the subject of one of these stories?

The point of this is not to prove that all cyclists are arseholes, but to suggest that the behaviour of this irresponsible few is of some significance to the problem of cycle accidents leading to injury and death.

 

[8ball]

It appears that some cyclists do have a degree of superiority due to alleviating pressure on public transport, congestion, the environment and also increasing the suppleness and muscle definition f their lean and sculpted bodies.

Sums up a certain type of cyclist nicely <shudders>.

 

[TotallyGreatGuy]

Sums up a certain type of cyclist nicely <shudders>.

:B

 

[Pickman's model]

How many of the cyclists killed are doing these things? I think it is a mischaracterisation of the problem to point at the behaviour of a minority of cyclists unless that minority forms a majority of those killed.

if people are going to cycle in an anti-social manner which takes no concern of the interests or safety of others, then it is likely they will be less safe themselves. this need not end in death to end in tears - ending up studying the undercarriage of a bus and being taken to hospital is more likely than ending up with your innards on an hgv's outer tube.

 

[agricola]

I'm not sure exactly where you're drawing the distinction between a bus and a coach, but I'm pretty sure I hear about more fatal accidents between cyclists and buses than cyclists and coaches. The story linked to in the OP mentions cyclists killed in collisions with a double-decker bus and a lorry (no mention of coaches).

Both of them were on designated cycle super highways

The distinction comes because buses will usually be driven by someone who is familiar with London traffic, and more importantly because they are going to be using a set route that the cyclist is much more likely to be aware of. That doesnt remove risk, but it does reduce it. Also the story in the OP does mention that one of the deaths - Francis Golding's - was cyclist vs coach.

 

[8ball]

I always think the logical thing to do is to completely separate large vehicles and cyclists - logistically not easy in a big old place like London.

How do these designated cycle superhighways work - why the hell would you have a coach or HGV on such a lane?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

if people are going to cycle in an anti-social manner which takes no concern of the interests or safety of others, then it is likely they will be less safe themselves. .

That's not necessarily true. A cyclist on the pavement is safe from cars. A cyclist crossing when there is a four-way red light for pedestrians may be safer doing that than waiting for the green light. Both of these are antisocial because if every cyclist did them, it would cause chaos, but anti-social, selfish cycling of the kind that couriers often engage in, for instance, isn't necessarily more dangerous to the cyclist.

 

[fredfelt]

seems to me that many cyclists place issues of speed above other road users (ducking onto pavements, going down one way streets the wrong way, cycling along roads they're prohibited from using, going through red lights) and in so doing undermine their own safety. cyclists imo frequently privilege their own use of the roads (and all too often pavements) above other road users and pedestrians on the foundation - which has some basis in fact - that the infrastructure's not right, ignoring that the infrastructure in cities often isn't really right for hgvs or for pedestrians. it's not as though cyclists are the only people not fully catered for by the existing infrastructure. perhaps learning to live within what there is now while agitating for a better situation would be more useful at the moment than a constant refrain of 'better infrastructure'. for years now people have been warned against undertaking hgvs and the like, yet people continue to do it, all too often ending in the employment of an undertaker. yes, there need to be changes. but there are measures which could be taken now, by cyclists, by drivers, by town planners, which would at least alleviate the problem. why not concentrate of achieving the more easily possible than an utter change to the cityscape which isn't going to happen for anyone for some time to come?

You have identified that people have been warned against dangerous behaviour, yet they continue to do it. Behaviour is, obviously, both taught and a product of the environment. To quote you 'for years now people have been warned against undertaking hgvs and the like, yet people continue to do it'. There is no amount of training that can protect people against what is essentially a dangerous environment.

Cyclists and pedestrians in many ways have to attempt to privilege their own use of our streets over other vehicles. This is because privilege for motorised vehicles is a fundamental design principle of the British built environment. This assumed privilege is not universal. What has a through grounding in fact (and not just 'some basis in fact') is that in countries which have a design hierarchy of their streets based on vulnerability are by far the safest streets for the most vulnerable. They are also far more pleasant places for people to be.

Making roads safer for cyclists is mutually agreeable with making them safer for pedestrians. I don't think that cyclists should be placed above pedestrians. Any design should should take into account the priories of the most vulnerable first.

The cheap, short term solutions you seemingly suggest are not mutually exclusive with proper planning. Why not have longer term goals? Perhaps special training is required now because in many cases our roads, particularly in cities, are not fit for purpose. But hy not take both short term and longer term measures?

We can and should continue with short term patches to attempt to reduce the carnage on our roads. However the experience of other countries clearly show that this, in conjunction, with long term planning is required to make our streets safer for the most vulnerable.

To me it seems that there are plenty of initiatives, generally executed by PR groups, currently aimed at telling people how to be safe. Yet in the last week 5 cyclists have been killed.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's not necessarily true. A cyclist on the pavement is safe from cars. A cyclist crossing when there is a four-way red light for pedestrians may be safer doing that than waiting for the green light. Both of these are antisocial because if every cyclist did them, it would cause chaos, but anti-social, selfish cycling of the kind that couriers often engage in, for instance, isn't necessarily more dangerous to the cyclist.

you're highlighting cycling on pavements. i was thinking of cyclists going the wrong way down one-way streets, cycling down roads where they're prohibited, or going through red lights. these sorts of risk-taking behaviours are unlikely to be found in careful cyclists as they expose the cyclist to additional risk.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

you're highlighting cycling on pavements. i was thinking of cyclists going the wrong way down one-way streets, cycling down roads where they're prohibited, or going through red lights. these sorts of risk-taking behaviours are unlikely to be found in careful cyclists as they expose the cyclist to additional risk.

I gave two examples, the other of which was going through a red light. It may in certain instances be safer to the cyclist to jump a red light. Obeying all the rules isn't always the safest thing to do.

 

[Pickman's model]

There is no amount of training that can protect people against what is essentially a dangerous environment

bollocks. yes, it is a dangerous environment, but people are trained to work safely in all manner of dangerous environments.

 

[Pickman's model]

I gave two examples, the other of which was going through a red light. It may in certain instances be safer to the cyclist to jump a red light. Obeying all the rules isn't always the safest thing to do.

and cycling through stations?

 

[8ball]

bollocks. yes, it is a dangerous environment, but people are trained to work safely in all manner of dangerous environments.

Agree with this, but also agree with these bits of what fredfelt says:

Cyclists and pedestrians in many ways have to attempt to privilege their own use of our streets over other vehicles. This is because privilege for motorised vehicles is a fundamental design principle of the British built environment.
...
Making roads safer for cyclists is mutually agreeable with making them safer for pedestrians. I don't think that cyclists should be placed above pedestrians. Any design should should take into account the priories of the most vulnerable first.

 

[fredfelt]

i see MANY cyclists doing the things i mention every day. perhaps not MOST, but certainly a reasonable proportion. and if i'm seeing dozens of cyclists doing this on my journey into work you can be assured there are a lot of other cyclists elsewhere in london who are doing exactly the same. the cyclists who jump on the south pavement at the junction you mention would easily number a hundred in an hour when i see at least four or five doing it during one traffic light cycle. that is MANY.

Do you think that training would solve this problem?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

and cycling through stations?

There are lots of ways to break the rules and put yourself in increased danger, clearly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do you think that training would solve this problem?

It is often the most skillful and experienced cyclists who break the rules most often. I know a few couriers. They will all do a variety of the things Pickman's has highlighted where they think they can. And they are the most skillful cyclists on the roads.

 

[fredfelt]

you're highlighting cycling on pavements. i was thinking of cyclists going the wrong way down one-way streets, cycling down roads where they're prohibited, or going through red lights. these sorts of risk-taking behaviours are unlikely to be found in careful cyclists as they expose the cyclist to additional risk.

At least for one of there problems a new solution is available.

These signs have only recently become legal to install - http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cycles-e...cycling-campaign-welcomes-unrestricted-access

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And lest we forget, until recently, you could be done for waiting in front of cars at a traffic light. I was pulled over once for doing this in the days before the cyclist-only zones. I was given a patronising lecture by a totally clueless copper about my dangerous behaviour. It is now officially recognised that this is the right thing to do.

Personally, I would formalise this even further and say that cars must wait for all cyclists to cross before they can move. Something along those lines is still needed.