Pedestrian killed outside Lambeth Town Hall, helicopter in attendance

[Brixton Hatter]

Not sure there's space for that sort of thing on Brixton high street

And that's pretty much the argument transport planners will use all over London.

Perhaps not on Brixton High Street, but most main roads in London are two-way and two-laned with a decent pavement - all you need is a meter in width for the cycle lane. And all new/redesigned junctions should have some sort of cycle lane/filter lane to keep cyclists safe.

Yeah it's difficult and expensive, but I guess it just depends on how much we value people's lives versus enabling people to get to work 2 mins quicker in their cars.

 

[Pickman's model]

And that's pretty much the argument transport planners will use all over London.

Perhaps not on Brixton High Street, but most main roads in London are two-way and two-laned with a decent pavement - all you need is a meter in width for the cycle lane. And all new/redesigned junctions should have some sort of cycle lane/filter lane to keep cyclists safe.

Yeah it's difficult and expensive, but I guess it just depends on how much we value people's lives versus enabling people to get to work 2 mins quicker in their cars.

or indeed on their cycles. the cyclists on the lt poster are all presumably hoping for some momentary advantage from undertaking the lorry.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Better signposting and waymarking of back-street cycle routes is also a good option - and a much cheaper one. (To be fair, Ken made quite a lot of progress with that, whereas Boris has just painted blue lines on busy main roads to help promote his cycle scheme.)

 

[Crispy]

be better than blocking the bloody thing off while someone's body's scraped off the road.

Not sure if you're serious, given your previous form on cycling threads. But really, where would you put a segregated cycle lane on the high street? The kerb is almost non-stop bus stops. The regular lanes would have to be reduced to one in each direction to fit cycle lanes in, and even then they'd be sandwiched between the buses and the cars.

Greater cycling safety comes from better education of drivers and cyclists, but ultimately from greater numbers of cyclists on the roads. Fewer cars, more space for bikes, and more people who know how to ride or know how to drive around cyclists.

 

[Crispy]

Better signposting and waymarking of back-street cycle routes is also a good option - and a much cheaper one. (To be fair, Ken made quite a lot of progress with that, whereas Boris has just painted blue lines on busy main roads to help promote his cycle scheme.)

I agree, although the layout of londons roads doesn't half work against this. There's no backstreet route from camberwell to elephant, for example. Its walworth road or a winding indirect route that takes twice as long.

The cycle hire scheme and the "superhighways" are quite separate in intent. Cycle hire covers the central city, the highways are for long distance commuting. The cycle hire is a fantastic success. The highways are awful.

 

[Struwwelpeter]

There is a school of thought that says that segregated cycle lanes are not the answer. They reduce drivers' awareness of cyclists, so when the cycle lane ends, you are in a more dangerous situation than if there were no lane. Unless you are proposing every single road should have a cycle lane.

Much simpler and cheaper would be to change the burden of proof against the more damaging road user. i.e. HGV > car > motorcycle > bicycle > pedestrian. Drivers might take more notice of vulnerable road users if the prosecution rates went up and cyclists might not jump red lights or ride on the pavements as often.

Terrible news for the victims friends and families, so I hope I'm not causing a row on this thread.

 

[Crispy]

True, best leave this thread for the specifics

 

[Gramsci]

According to the update in the following story, it was a cyclist who was killed:

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/...after_getting_trapped_under_lorry_in_Brixton/

I saw the motorcycle paramedic going through Kennington/ Oval junction at high speed. Lorries are dangerous as u can get caught under the wheels. Unlike cars which if u hit u bounce off the bodywork.

 

[ajdown]

Most accidents involving cyclists wouldn't happen if the cyclists didn't weave in and out of traffic and squeeze through gaps sideways between vehicles that they really shouldn't.

As you say, lorries are inherently "more dangerous" to cyclists - so doesn't it make sense for cyclists to be more cautious around them?

I still find it strange that anyone driving a motorbike, car, lorry, van, bus has to spend hours of training, hundreds if not thousands of pounds on lessons to get qualified, then annual insurance and are heavily taxed for the privilege of using them through road tax and fuel tax - yet anyone can walk into a bike shop, hand over cash and leave with a bike having had no training whatsoever, let loose on the road.

I wonder what the statistics are of drivers who also learnt to ride a bike, v cyclists who have never had a lesson, and/or have never read the Highway Code?

 

[fredfelt]

Most accidents involving cyclists wouldn't happen if the cyclists didn't weave in and out of traffic and squeeze through gaps sideways between vehicles that they really shouldn't.

As you say, lorries are inherently "more dangerous" to cyclists - so doesn't it make sense for cyclists to be more cautious around them?

I still find it strange that anyone driving a motorbike, car, lorry, van, bus has to spend hours of training, hundreds if not thousands of pounds on lessons to get qualified, then annual insurance and are heavily taxed for the privilege of using them through road tax and fuel tax - yet anyone can walk into a bike shop, hand over cash and leave with a bike having had no training whatsoever, let loose on the road.

I wonder what the statistics are of drivers who also learnt to ride a bike, v cyclists who have never had a lesson, and/or have never read the Highway Code?

How often do you regularly cycle and share the road with HGV's?

Very little I presume. If you did I guarantee that no matter how carefully you cycled you would at some point been on the receiving end of bad judgement, even aggressive driving from the occasional HGV / bus driver.

There is a little good news in regard to making HGV's more suitable for our cities streets http://road.cc/node/32179

 

[ajdown]

I wouldn't cycle in London - why do I need to when I have a car and a travelcard?

As a driver I've been on the receiving end of bad driving from road users of vehicles anywhere between 2 and 16 wheels (no trouble with unicycles yet) so I'm not saying it's always the cyclists fault in these things; but then again it's not always the drivers fault either.

My though about cyclists not requiring any training or knowledge of the Highway Code still stands though.

 

[DJWrongspeed]

(no trouble with unicycles yet)

funnily enough last night i saw a unicycle whizzing down the pavement on effra road last night

The story is a familar one, junctions-cyclists-lorries. I wish the accident reports could be made public somehow so people could learn how these things happen i.e. who made the wrong move.

 

[nick h.]

Most accidents involving cyclists wouldn't happen if the cyclists didn't weave in and out of traffic and squeeze through gaps sideways between vehicles that they really shouldn't.

Complete rubbish. Go away and learn something.

 

[snowy_again]

This is AJ, he's never one to shy away from criticising cyclists on a thread about a death, with ill informed speculation.

 

[co-op]

What an odious little creep ajdown is. I remember him gloating over cyclists being killed on another thread.

 

[co-op]

i'd have hoped that by now lorries' blind spots would be better known to cyclists and they wouldn't so frequently seek them out.

but the london transport posters suggest not.

Oh well quite. Why should any lorry driver have adequate mirrors or use them?

The poster you refer to is an utter disgrace and gives lorry drivers carte blanche to kill cyclists. But you're just another tosser who'll lap up any old shit that allows the strong to kill the weak.

 

[Rushy]

The poster you refer to ... gives lorry drivers carte blanche to kill cyclists.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

AJ pulls his anti-cyclist rant at every chance he gets. It's boring and predictable now. Ignore him.

 

[fredfelt]

AJ pulls his anti-cyclist rant at every chance he gets. It's boring and predictable now. Ignore him.

I think he's just jealous that he does not allow himself the freedoms that a bike gives you.

 

[nick h.]

Having stumbled across his Facebook page I reckon he's just jealous of anyone who's not too fat to get on a bicycle without risking a snapped frame, exploding tyres and a deep groove in the road surface.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

I think he's just jealous that he does not allow himself the freedoms that a bike gives you.

I don't think he has the depth of character to be jealous. He's like a monolith of ignorance in the middle of nowhere.

Like the one The Who pissed over on the cover of Who's Next.

 

[Badgers]

Some blame the lorry's
Some blame the cycles
Some might say that the roads are just too full
Some might say it could be down to the population
Only AJ can give us the truth, just like the truths that the bible teaches.

Gospel ^

 

[Laughing Toad]

I wouldn't cycle in London - why do I need to when I have a car and a travelcard?

1. Because cycling is better for the environment
2. Because cycling is better for your physical health
3. Because cycling is better for your mental health
4. Because cycling is better for local shops and businesses (ie not big supermarkets with big car parks)
5. Because cycling saves money
6. Because cycling helps you to stay in touch with your local community
7. Because motorists cause busses to require £0.5bn annual subsidy
8. Because if everyone cycled, traffic speeds would increase
9. Because cycling is much less likely to kill anyone
10. Because cycling is better fun
11. Because cycling is quieter
12. Because cycling causes less damage to the roads
13. Because Norman Tebbit advocated it.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

...and because you can put playing cards on your wheels so they click click click click as they go round.

 

[ajdown]

...and because you can put playing cards on your wheels so they click click click click as they go round.

So tempting... I remember that. Unfortunately the cards would probably just get nicked now.

 

[Gixxer1000]

We urgently need more kerbed-in cycle lanes and off-road cycle lanes in London and other busy cities - like this:

Not only is it safer, but it benefits motorised traffic by getting bikes out of the way - which is especially useful for buses, the drivers of which often get frustrated by cyclists sharing the bus lanes and delaying them. Sadly, I don't expect anyone to be investing much soon. How many more cyclists have to die needlessly?

Camden are removing a lot of these segregated lanes as accidents actually increase where they start and end!

 

[ChrisSouth]

Most accidents involving cyclists wouldn't happen if the cyclists didn't weave in and out of traffic and squeeze through gaps sideways between vehicles that they really shouldn't.

QUOTE]

Who says they shouldn't?

 

[Crispy]

Yeah, they're only any good if they're continuous.

 

[Crispy]

Who says they shouldn't?

Common sense. I see plenty of this every day - people jinking swerving and squeezing through gaps in moving traffic. Reckless.

 

[Badgers]

I also saw a car run a red light today