Incident this am 24/09 Southampton Row / Theobalds Rd

woodford2barbican

snooks wrote:

May be getting some sort of sponsorship for a leaflet and getting them out there through cycle shops? Evans, Bikehut must have a pot of cash...how much would 100,000 flyers cost? Naff all

OR (brain has finally started working today) get onto the Freewheel peeps and see if they can use their mailing list to spread the word as well as wiggle, chain reactions et al....No cost to produce or distribute

So what should this leaflet say??....actually I'm going to start a new thread.....

Howabout: http://www.rha.net?

the_hundredth_idiot

To be clear from the start, I largely disagree with MatHammond - if the rules of the road (e.g. not riding on pavements, stopping at red lights, ...) apply to cyclists as well as cars, then cyclists should obey them. If nothing else, obeying the rules makes the cyclists actions more predictable and therefore easier for drivers to anticipate.

But there is a sensible suggestion in his post. Bikes are clearly different from cars (etc) and also different from pedestrians - arguably filling a gap in between the two. Are the rules of the road at present appropriately applied to cyclists in the same way as other road users?

To an extent, they already aren't - on my route to work I do actually ride on the pavement at one point (around Bricklayers Arms roundabout) as the blue signs showing both pedestrians and cyclists allow me to. It feels a heck of a lot safer than trying to negotiate the actual roundabout and I (so far) haven't managed to find a commute route without having to negotiate that roundabout. Cyclists also have special cycle paths which, in theory at least, other road users are supposed to stay out of.

Similarly, pedestrians don't have rules applied to them in the same way as other road users. If you think cyclists RLJ, negotiating Tooley Street in rush hour really is a test of keeping your eyes open for pedestrians randomly stepping out into the road rather than waiting for the little green man to flash and beep - I've seen several pedestrians down in the road with a disconcerted cyclist stood nearby.

So, to my point. If certain actions (turning left at red lights) are felt to be appropriately safe for cyclists then why not change the rules to allow cyclists to do so? (And, to be clear, I don't claim to have the knowledge of whether turning left at reds is feasibly a safe option.)

snooks

woodford2barbican wrote:

snooks wrote:

May be getting some sort of sponsorship for a leaflet and getting them out there through cycle shops? Evans, Bikehut must have a pot of cash...how much would 100,000 flyers cost? Naff all

OR (brain has finally started working today) get onto the Freewheel peeps and see if they can use their mailing list to spread the word as well as wiggle, chain reactions et al....No cost to produce or distribute

So what should this leaflet say??....actually I'm going to start a new thread.....

Howabout: http://www.rha.net?

OK two leaftlets now

moonio

Quote Cjcp"This question may already have been asked, but does anyone have any friends at the Standard who would be willing to write a feature on road safety?"


Nope but I'm in close contact with the people who make London's TV news..
Have sent them an email.

moonio

Just had email back saying they are cobvering it today!!!!

whoot!!

homercles

moonio wrote:

Just had email back saying they are cobvering it today!!!!

whoot!!

Channel?

moonio

ITV

always_tyred

Coriander wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

Without wanting to be wilfully controversial, any classes to genuinely promote cycling safely in London would have to encourage red light jumping where appropriate and therefore aren't likely to be proposed by the government in a hurry. I feel far more exposed when I wait patiently in line behind buses / HGV's, than when I (safely) make my way to the front of the queue, and set off when it is safe to proceed (and not when the traffic lights tell me) which often allows me to beat the traffic and negotiate junctions in relative peace. Likewise mounting pavements, whilst not something I would ever do if it got in the way of pedestrians, is a valuable means of getting out of the way of larger road users.

I do think a lot of the comments on these forums are a bit on the sanctimonious side when it comes to strict compliance with the road traffic laws - they don't really support safe cycling in my opinion, and any attempt to indoctrinate cyclists with a set of rules designed for cars is a bad idea. Roadcraft specifically for cyclists should be encouraged, but I honestly think a bit of bending of the law is essential in London traffic.

You are just wrong.

But no one has set out exactly why. So many cyclists adopt this rationale, it can't be THAT obvious.

So, Mat, here's the point: You are completely correct that in many instances being stuck in the actual traffic as it pinches you on the opposite side of a junction. So you have a few options.

(1) get into the primary position and then move over once you are the other side of the junction. Drivers may not like this but if you are a positive cyclist going at a reasonable pace, it will be over before they see an annoying space build up in front of you. No driver will drive through you.

(2) you explain how you normally get to the front of a queue. If there's no advance stop, I don't think there's many cyclists who would criticise being a bike length in front of traffic (and therefore the stop line) anyway. In that event, what is stopping you from again adopting the primary position? You are in an advantageous position to observe lights changing in other directions and to be quicker off the mark than motorists. Again, no motorist will drive right through you and even across large juntions, the entire event should be over in a matter of seconds, you can move to the normal road position and traffic will then be able to pass you.

(3) jumping a red light is the only behaviour that will possibly result in traffic a having a run on you. It is therefore most likely, out of any of the options, to result in a dangerous speed differential at a dangerous pinch point. It is also likely to make motorists less sympathetic of you when they do pass. Even discounting the chance of you getting it wrong and encountering opposing traffic, there is no benefit to running the red light.

Although I think we do have to bend the rules (such as getting ahead of the stop line) I disagree with the extent to which you want to do it (such as running the red light).

I'm actually less critical of the pavement antics. I entuirely sympathise with fear of HGV's. Providing common sense is applied when there are people about, its probably best that you are safe rather than paniced into a gutter. But it does enrage motorists and pedestrians. Cycling on the pavement in a confident manner as though you are really heading somewhere, with a plan to use the pavement the whole way, is a bad idea. At least make the effort to look as though you are about to stop and walk across a junction, or post a letter or something. Bunny hopping on and off like you had it all planned even annoys me as a cyclist. To my mind, you should only have to use a pavement for a short distance anyway, so its a small compromise.

Littigator

woodford2barbican wrote:

snooks wrote:

May be getting some sort of sponsorship for a leaflet and getting them out there through cycle shops? Evans, Bikehut must have a pot of cash...how much would 100,000 flyers cost? Naff all

OR (brain has finally started working today) get onto the Freewheel peeps and see if they can use their mailing list to spread the word as well as wiggle, chain reactions et al....No cost to produce or distribute

So what should this leaflet say??....actually I'm going to start a new thread.....

Howabout: http://www.rha.net?

There was a recent article in one of the main haulage magazines about cyclists and cycling safety in conjuntion with police cyclists and Team Plowman Craven so it is at least on their radar.

charlie_lcc

Hi,
The Evening Standard did an article on lorry vs cycle crashes last week
http://tinyurl.com/44mnlv

They also published my letter on the subject yesterday. We have been aware that over half of cyclists deaths in London result from crashes with HGVs, this has been true for decades, this year seems to be worse than most.

Cycle training is definitely part of the answer. The new 'National Standards' training is excellent, you can get subsidised training through many London boroughs or by the the training organisations. For more details see:
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=175
and
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/9065.aspx
Note that not all the boroughs offer training to National Standards, if they don't do that then don't bother with them.

All cyclists should be aware that the real danger comes from a lorry that is a long way out from the side of the road, even in the outside lane. These are the ones that cut across very quickly. Often there appears to be loads of space, squeezing up a narrow gap is not as risky as ignoring the lorry that leaves a wider gap.

As far as we can tell from the limited research into how these crashes happen, about half the deaths happen when the lorry overtakes a cyclist, then slows and turns left across the cyclist who is continuing at a steady rate. It seems that very experienced cyclists are just as much at risk as are the new riders.

As a result of the recent fatalities and the ongoing high level of risk to cyclists from HGVs the London Cycling Campaign is calling for urgent action from the Mayor and Transport for London.

1. An emergency safety awareness campaign is required to ensure every HGV driver takes the utmost care to protect the rapidly increasing number of cyclists on our roads.

2. The Met Police's campaign to educate cyclists about HGV danger should be greatly increased.

3. Every lorry in London should have a full set of the latest safety mirrors, every lorry should have a warning sign saying 'cyclists - beware of passing this vehicle on the inside', so both drivers and cyclists are encouraged to take extra care.

4. All lorry operators tendering for public sector contracts should be signed up to the Freight Operators Recognition Scheme


- Charlie
London Cycling Campaign

damianmc

ITV London news report

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AfSW7W-dMEw

Littigator

Thanks for the info Charlie

biondino

The Standard are foul tory ****s with an anti-cyclist agenda, so good luck...

el_presidente

damianmc wrote:

ITV London news report

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AfSW7W-dMEw

they seem to be far more concerned with the road closures than a man's death

homercles

And the top cyclist related story on the BBC London website...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7632910.stm

Grr.

_Brun_

I know the junciton on Holloway Road where Lisa Pontecorvo died, and reading about the accident at the time couldn't work out the details of how it happened. Having now seen the the Evening Standard article, I'm somewhat confused as to why it was reported as a cycling accident, when it appears to me that it wasn't.

Littigator

Obviously, because that affects all those poor drivers who are now stuck in traffic.

I must admit, I sometimes wonder why so many people drive in central London. Vans and lorries ok, for deliveries and services. Cabs and buses obviously, but private cars....WHY?

charlie_lcc

From the ITV news report you can see that the artic must have started its left turn from the 2nd or 3rd lane out. It is most likely that the cyclist was hit by the front of the lorry as it began to turn.

It is unusual for artics to be involved in these crashes, mostly it is the large rigid lorries, tippers and cement mixers that hit cyclists.

Coriander

_Brun_ wrote:

I know the junciton on Holloway Road where Lisa Pontecorvo died, and reading about the accident at the time couldn't work out the details of how it happened. Having now seen the the Evening Standard article, I'm somewhat confused as to why it was reported as a cycling accident, when it appears to me that it wasn't.

I saw the photos and also thought that it muddies the water to call it a cycling accident. The premature and violent death of anyone is always a tragedy, but this was a pedestrian accident, albeit a pedestrian who was wheeling her bicycle.

il_principe

Charlie - good to see the LCC raising their head on this forum.

How well do the GLA/TFL/Mayor actually engage with your organisation?
And (tough question maybe) what %age of London cyclists are members of your organisation? It often strikes me that many cycle commuters have never heard of you fellas when really they should all be signed up - if only just for the insurance!

_Brun_

In hindsight, I suppose it was reported as a cycling accident because it involved a woman and a bike but no further details were available at the time.

biondino

Devil's advocate time - the ITV news report has a duty to inform people that a chunk of London's roads is closed - it's not like they don't say why.

And the Jenny Seagrove article is a perfectly reasonable one per se. Cyclists do have to watch out for dogs in parks.

lost_in_thought

biondino wrote:

And the Jenny Seagrove article is a perfectly reasonable one per se. Cyclists do have to watch out for dogs in parks.

That article annoyed me, I have to say. I used to cycle through the middle of Kensington Gardens every day, on the path that runs south of Round Pond.

Now, up in Essex we have 5 large dogs, so I can hardly be categorised as a dog-hater, but I do think that if you are going to have them loose in a public place then they must be kept under control, and if you lose control of your dog to the extent where it strays into the path of an oncoming vehicle, cyclist or whatever, that's your problem. It's great if the cyclist does manage to avoid your dog, but your dog is your responsibility. The Royal Parks comment sums it up really.

I note that they don't mention the amount of cyclists who have sustained injuries as a result of similar dog-cyclist altercations where the dogs have escaped scot-free, I've seen that happen many a time on that path.

homercles

biondino wrote:

And the Jenny Seagrove article is a perfectly reasonable one per se. Cyclists do have to watch out for dogs in parks.

I'm not arguing the toss about the content of the article, just saying that it's a sad state of affairs that the cyclist is ever the villain in the media. And surely a man's death on a main road (even if we don't know where fault/ blame lies) is a bigger story than Jenny Seagrove's dog?

biondino

Yes, of course it is. I'm just wary of people making comparisons that are really red herrings (the best example being the anti-helmet brigade's "so why don't pedestrians wear helmets" like that has any bearing at all on the argument. God that annoys me). I'm sure the cyclist's accident will take precedence when a fully informed article can be compiled.*

*actually, I'm not sure of this at all, but I can't imagine anyone, least of all at the BBC, would judge the Seagrove piece as more important.

Coriander

biondino wrote:

I can't imagine anyone, least of all at the BBC, would judge the Seagrove piece as more important.

But it's a celbri'i, innit?

giltkid

I think the phrase ' it could have been a child' shows how little merit there is in this Seagrove piece. Read as "It wasn't a child and there's no suggestion that children have been injured by cyclists but to bolster this ridiculous non story lets use some emotive language abouts bikes killing babies". This when cyclists are regularly being killed or injured by drivers. Personally I hate dogs stil but wouldn't want to waste a good wheel running one over.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/0 ... 68x325.jpg

womble88

Agree homercles - condolences again to the man's family.

Re: dogs, whenever I ride on Wimbledon Common, sticking to the cycle-permitted routes, dogs off the leash are a constant menace. I've always slowed down, stopped or avoided the dogs, even falling off to avoid running them over, and to be fair the owners are always apologetic...but I'm sure if I didn't manage to avoid a dog the response wouldn't be so kind. Can't dog owners just keep dogs on leads near cycle paths? Of course, cyclists need to stick to marked paths in parks especially.

I agree that all this highlight the need for cycling bodies to be a bit more proactive, creative and maybe even aggressive with PR, to stop cyclists being seen as the villains. With the recent terrible spate of accidents, some good can come out of this if awareness is truly raised among all road users about the need to respect each other and take care on the roads. I'd love to see the LCC or whoever on the TV and all over Metro etc in the next few days...

Finally a question....having started to commute regularly this year, and having read many posts in these forums, I'm certainly even more cautious than I was before about undertaking (not that I ever really did it anyway). But I still get unsure when I'm on a cycle lane that is marked and clear, but running along stationary traffic - the (New) King's Road being a prime example. My instinct is to overtake the stationary traffic, but the traffic there tends to stay totally out of the cycle lane and towards the centre of the road, making it impossible to pass on the outside and easy to pass on the inside, which all fellow cyclists do. There aren't any major left turns on the stretch this happens on (near Lots Road), so it seems to me to be safest to use the cycle lane (carefully) rather than overtake and face oncoming traffic. Any thoughts from people familiar with that stretch would be appreciated.

snooks

womble88 wrote:

But I still get unsure when I'm on a cycle lane that is marked and clear, but running along stationary traffic - the (New) King's Road being a prime example. My instinct is to overtake the stationary traffic, but the traffic there tends to stay totally out of the cycle lane and towards the centre of the road, making it impossible to pass on the outside and easy to pass on the inside, which all fellow cyclists do. There aren't any major left turns on the stretch this happens on (near Lots Road), so it seems to me to be safest to use the cycle lane (carefully) rather than overtake and face oncoming traffic. Any thoughts from people familiar with that stretch would be appreciated.

I usually leave the outside to the motorbikes on this stretch...they seem to like playing chicken with each other in between the the rows of cars, so I don't get in the way

However if someone has moved over for a motorbike (or just cos they don't know where either side of their car is) then I'd take the route of most room and least resistance

Just take it as you find it and prepare to be flexible...Oh and watch out for the ped crossings on that bit, if you're going down the outside, or coming up the inside and a Van is near the crossing...I'm sure you do anyway, but a chap the othernight didn't and almost clipped a ped legally crossing

biondino

I am happy to undertake on the left, slowly, carefully and stopping/slowing at any sign of danger. I always expect cars to turn left and I always watch which way the car is pointing if it's stationary or moving so I am never surprised by cars pulling into the kerb.

If you go balls out in the gutter then you'll have accidents and it doesn't really matter whose fault it technically is - if you'd been riding safely according to road conditions you wouldn't be crashing.