5 Cyclists dead in 1 week in London

[Lo Siento.]

what's your point, caller?

I've already made it.
The bit you've written after the comma states the Holborn junction is dangerous regardless of the direction it is approached from. Francis Golding approached it from a legal direction and was killed. Both of those points actually undermine your original point that cycle training was the key to cycle safety.

 

[8ball]

tell you what, read the bit after the fucking comma.

This is not likely to be an effective way of correcting the behaviour of anyone who stops reading when they come to a comma.

 

[Pickman's model]

I've already made it.
The bit you've written after the comma states the Holborn junction is dangerous regardless of the direction it is approached from. Francis Golding approached it from a legal direction and was killed. Both of those points actually undermine your original point that cycle training was the key to cycle safety.

you're lying again

 

[Lo Siento.]

you're lying again

it's long been a dangerous junction whether approached from the east along the (well signposted) bus-only bus lane or any other direction.

 

[Pickman's model]

Lo Siento. read my op again then apologise for misreprsenting me

 

[TotallyGreatGuy]

In what way are they not "super"?

 

[agricola]

Boris Johnson and Darren Johnson just about seem to sum up the different points of view of this thread.

Both of the extreme views are equally wrong though - there is a simple way of dealing with HGVs (especially), and it would have a positive effect on reducing the number of cyclists killed on the roads. (edit) Instead, TFL actively work to promote the use of HGVs during the times when cyclists are much more likely to be on the road.

 

[Pickman's model]

In what way are they not "super"?

a strip of blue along a road is not super

 

[Pickman's model]

Lo Siento. let's take this in easy stages as you've shown you're far from being the sharpest tool in the box. i have seen someone injured at a dangerous junction where they shouldn't have been. two obvious issues here are 1) the general design of the junction, which as i have said is dangerous (for pedestrians as well as cyclists and drivers), and 2) a general point about understanding and obeying road signs. you've shown a flaccid grasp of road signs on this very thread, so it's not as though it is peculiar to only cycling novices. shall we continue this or are you getting tired of appearing a bit, er, thick?

 

[Lo Siento.]

i've said it before and i suppose i'll say it again but the number of accidents could be lowered by, among other measures, a mite more cyclist training. for example, every day i see cyclists heading down a street clearly and repeatedly marked

i have seen a cyclist go under a bus on that street. there is a reason it is marked 'no cycles'. perhaps a quick read of the highway code might be a good starting point for cyclists.

I'll quote your OP for you, if that's any help.

On what planet is the post you accuse of "lying" a misrepresentation of this?

I've already made it.
The bit you've written after the comma states the Holborn junction is dangerous regardless of the direction it is approached from. Francis Golding approached it from a legal direction and was killed. Both of those points actually undermine your original point that cycle training was the key to cycle safety.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'll quote your OP for you, if that's any help.

On what planet is the post you accuse of "lying" a misrepresentation of this?

you say i claim training is "the" key to cycle safety. i don't.

next.

 

[TotallyGreatGuy]

I guess they would be more super if they went further south than Balham...

 

[Lo Siento.]

you say i claim training is THE key to cycle safety. i don't. next.

It is the only thing you mention in your first response on a thread about cycling fatalities. It's obviously pretty bloody key.

 

[Yelkcub]

I've been out in one of my own HGV's this afternoon. A number of cyclists, who with a modicum of common sense would have stayed behind me at lights, snuck into a tiny gap on my inside. Absolute craziness.

 

[Pickman's model]

It is the only thing you mention in your first response on a thread about cycling fatalities. It's obviously pretty bloody key.

and training is important, when you think that cyclists are going into a dangerous environment. but as i said in my op, there are other measures, such as road design and awareness training for motor drivers.

e2a: it's getting rather dull exchanging posts with a witling. either post up something interesting or piss off, it's not like you've added anything to this thread anyway.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Lo Siento. let's take this in easy stages as you've shown you're far from being the sharpest tool in the box. i have seen someone injured at a dangerous junction where they shouldn't have been. two obvious issues here are 1) the general design of the junction, which as i have said is dangerous (for pedestrians as well as cyclists and drivers), and 2) a general point about understanding and obeying road signs. you've shown a flaccid grasp of road signs on this very thread, so it's not as though it is peculiar to only cycling novices. shall we continue this or are you getting tired of appearing a bit, er, thick?

It's so very cutting to accuse people who disagree with you of being thick, I'm sure.

Let me break something else down for you.
What I'm talking about are your priorities, and your evident anxious need to criticise cyclists. Your first post, where you bring up information that is totally irrelevant to the actual incidents in the OP, simply because you are anxious to criticise cyclists, is the evidence of this. Your later post, where you acknowledge that the junction in question is dangerous regardless of whether cyclists behave correctly or not actually reinforces the ridiculousness of your priorities in your first post. Do you get me?

 

[Lo Siento.]

and training is important, when you think that cyclists are going into a dangerous environment. but as i said in my op, there are other measures, such as road design and awareness training for motor drivers.

e2a: it's getting rather dull exchanging posts with a witling. either post up something interesting or piss off, it's not like you've added anything to this thread anyway.

Other measures that your OP does not mention. And that your 2nd post explicitly says cyclists shouldn't concentrate on. In fact, you make no suggestions on this thread that are not implicit criticisms of cyclists.

 

[Lo Siento.]

i've said it before and i suppose i'll say it again but the number of accidents could be lowered by, among other measures, a mite more cyclist training

a quick read of the highway code might be a good starting point for cyclists.

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

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.

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.

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.

That's just the first 2 pages. Post after post criticising cyclists. On a thread about 5 people who were killed doing perfectly legal things on bicycles.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's so very cutting to accuse people who disagree with you of being thick, I'm sure.

Let me break something else down for you.
What I'm talking about are your priorities, and your evident anxious need to criticise cyclists. Your first post, where you bring up information that is totally irrelevant to the actual incidents in the OP, simply because you are anxious to criticise cyclists, is the evidence of this. Your later post, where you acknowledge that the junction in question is dangerous regardless of whether cyclists behave correctly or not actually reinforces the ridiculousness of your priorities in your first post. Do you get me?

if cyclists behave correctly then there is no danger to them along the bus lane i have referred to as they will not be in it. that should be a simple point: act according to the rule of the road at that point and there is no danger as you will not be there. i was introducing something i was aware of myself, something i had seen. and it seems to me that there is a great deal of similar behaviour by cyclists which puts them in danger: see, for example, Yelkcub's post above. now, it's recognised that junction is dangerous. while cyclists may well approach it legally, whether they do so sensibly is something more open to question. i will be interested to read the report of the inquest into francis golding.

but you say i'm anxious to criticise cyclists. it should go without saying that cyclists behaving in an anti-social way, ignoring the rule of the road, should be fair game for criticism. but criticism is not simply putting the boot in but also suggesting remedies. i have made positive proposals on this thread. you haven't. you've blustered and lied and lied and blustered in the hope that you'll be able to land a few hits on me. however, imo the score's quite the reverse as you started off by putting the ball in the back of your own neck. either post something interesting and worth replying to or stick me on ignore. carrying on in the same vein just makes you look weak and vindictive rather than someone with a reasoned argument.

 

[Pickman's model]

Other measures that your OP does not mention. And that your 2nd post explicitly says cyclists shouldn't concentrate on. In fact, you make no suggestions on this thread that are not implicit criticisms of cyclists.

i think you'll find my second post says nothing of the sort. you're very mendacious today.

 

[hash tag]

We need a protest!! Does anyone know if there is one planned???

Well, I would hope that Critical Mass is well attended this month. If any are not aware, it is a friendly gathering of bike riders meeting on
the last Friday of every month at about 18:00 at South Bank, who just go for a friendly ride around town which may finish with a drink or two.
It is not organised and neither is it endorsed by the likes of LCC, CTA etc. Though many members of the two groups usually turn up.

As for solutions, one of them may be to bring back some sort of cycle training/road awarness sort of thing for everyone at school.

 

[Lo Siento.]

if cyclists behave correctly then there is no danger to them along the bus lane i have referred to as they will not be in it. that should be a simple point: act according to the rule of the road at that point and there is no danger as you will not be there. i was introducing something i was aware of myself, something i had seen. and it seems to me that there is a great deal of similar behaviour by cyclists which puts them in danger: see, for example, Yelkcub's post above. now, it's recognised that junction is dangerous. while cyclists may well approach it legally, whether they do so sensibly is something more open to question. i will be interested to read the report of the inquest into francis golding.

but you say i'm anxious to criticise cyclists. it should go without saying that cyclists behaving in an anti-social way, ignoring the rule of the road, should be fair game for criticism. but criticism is not simply putting the boot in but also suggesting remedies. i have made positive proposals on this thread. you haven't. you've blustered and lied and lied and blustered in the hope that you'll be able to land a few hits on me. however, imo the score's quite the reverse as you started off by putting the ball in the back of your own neck. either post something interesting and worth replying to or stick me on ignore. carrying on in the same vein just makes you look weak and vindictive rather than someone with a reasoned argument.

You're in your own little world.

 

[equationgirl]

I've been out in one of my own HGV's this afternoon. A number of cyclists, who with a modicum of common sense would have stayed behind me at lights, snuck into a tiny gap on my inside. Absolute craziness.

Have you ever seen 'Silly Cyclists' on youtube? Some of them are really lucky not to be killed or injured.

I am not having a go at ALL cyclists, by the way, just pointing out the ones who are idiotic enough to endanger themselves or others on the roads.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's just the first 2 pages. Post after post criticising cyclists. On a thread about 5 people who were killed doing perfectly legal things on bicycles.

while i don't dispute what they were doing was legal, i am not so sure that all of them were doing it sensibly. i note that there have not been five drivers charged and before drawing any conclusion on their behaviour i would prefer to wait for the inquests to report. you may believe you know all you need to about the incidents. i don't agree. but it's my opinion that to minimise the number of cyclist dead some action should be taken by cyclists to help them avoid getting into the same position. i'm aware action needs to be taken in other areas too: and i have mentioned some of them on this thread. now pls either put me on ignore or post up something which moves things forwards because you're becoming rather tiresome.

 

[Pickman's model]

You're in your own little world.

have you read my second post (#13) yet?

 

[Lo Siento.]

while i don't dispute what they were doing was legal, i am not so sure that all of them were doing it sensibly. i note that there have not been five drivers charged and before drawing any conclusion on their behaviour i would prefer to wait for the inquests to report. you may believe you know all you need to about the incidents. i don't agree. but it's my opinion that to minimise the number of cyclist dead some action should be taken by cyclists to help them avoid getting into the same position. i'm aware action needs to be taken in other areas too: and i have mentioned some of them on this thread. now pls either put me on ignore or post up something which moves things forwards because you're becoming rather tiresome.

I really don't give a shit what you think of my contribution to this thread, and I'm not putting you on ignore. Your assumptions and prejudices in this post, and all your others, are pretty clear.

 

[Lo Siento.]

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?

Other measures that your OP does not mention. And that your 2nd post explicitly says cyclists shouldn't concentrate on. In fact, you make no suggestions on this thread that are not implicit criticisms of cyclists.

I'm pretty clearly paraphrasing you. If you think that's "lying", you're fucked in the head.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

'Silly Cyclists' on youtube?

Is there a Partridge award for prematurely middle-aged presenters?

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm pretty clearly paraphrasing you. If you think that's "lying", you're fucked in the head.

that's not my second post. counting's not your strong suit, is it.

 

[Pickman's model]

I really don't give a shit what you think of my contribution to this thread, and I'm not putting you on ignore. Your assumptions and prejudices in this post, and all your others, are pretty clear.

your assumption is you know what you're talking about, which is obviously only rarely the case.