Boris makes London's roads more lethal.
Comments
-
feltkuota wrote:Number9, JonG, Lost in thought and Old skool.
Racing is fun, fun is playing and you play on a playground hence the use of the word playground. I guess having an opinion contrary to the SCR thread might not be the in thing but I do. I just do not see how we, as cyclists, can get the safety we crave when we rely on a lot of drivers watching out for our every move. Only on Tuesday there was a post on the SCR thread where they were three abreast coming down embakment. Not safe and not riding like a fool. However I'm leaving it there as I've said my bit, more then once and you're as fed up hearing it as I am saying it.
Ride safe, have fun..
If anything, I have always thought that SCR and this forum in general has always promoted responsible cycling and looking out for one's own safety, through promotion of Cyclecraft and cycle training. And if only every commuter in London (or anywhere for that matter) followed the SCR rule book the roads would be a lot safer for cycling.0 -
The roads are everybodies playground, aren't they?
Is this idea that the roads are not a "playground" why it's so damn hard to close a road for a fun activity in this country?0 -
Rules of commuting:
1. Roads are for getting from place A to place B. Do not have fun on the way.
2. Complain about how long it takes because of all the people who have the cheek to want to go somewhere at the same time as you.
3. Remember to be miserable. This is why 'drive time' radio shows are so lame.
Cyclists make a mockery of these rules by doing something they like and not listening to sh*te radio stations
0 -
got back to this late, so it looks like the forum has moved on.
Anyway number9 here are my questions for your original posting.number9 wrote:There is only one police unit in London qualified to carry out HGV checks.
citation please, all road traffic police can and do make stops. Just because HGV is in the title doesn't mean there aren't other options
really, how many accidents to they have when compared to the number of journeys or other types of traffic? Just because you post the statement doesn't make it truenumber9 wrote:HGVs in London have a dreadful safety record.
What is the HSE role and remit?number9 wrote:Because the HSE refuse
to get involved in road deaths as opposed to deaths onsitenumber9 wrote:The most dangerous vehilces, the ones that pose the greatest danger
and the ones that are involved in a disproportionate number of deaths,
Again, need a citation on this one. Whilst the number of cyclists killed gets media attention there are thousands of trucks and thousands of journeys and nothing bad happens.number9 wrote:City of London [Police] spot checks on HGVs [were] carried out on 30
September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid2,
well this isn't a Met check then and they still managed to do it without this specialist unit.number9 wrote:a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of
HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included
overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver
hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases),
driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).[/b]
You same to have taken a tiny sample of lorries outside one of Europe's biggest building sites to multiple up into the whole city. You've taken a type of truck in a type of industry and multiplied it to every journey.
My original post wasn't indended to have a go at what you are trying to do, but if you are going to raise awareness then it pays to have a tight case with some research behind it. Eau Rouge pointed out that you mixed up statements with hype and it undermines your case.0 -
You same to have taken a tiny sample of lorries outside one of Europe's biggest building sites to multiple up into the whole city. You've taken a type of truck in a type of industry and multiplied it to every journey.
If I had said "every lorry in London is illegally on the roads" then you'd be right.
I didn't.
I even pointed out the survey was small. Read it again.
This year, so far, 8 cyclists have been killed b y lorries, you can check this and what the HSE do on Google, I'm not wasting time searching for you if you can't even be bothered to read what said properly.0 -
Your post was still full of hype and a very clear and unfair bias which will always have the effect of making the not-already-a-convert reader equally skeptical about how accuratly what you say reflects reality, which can't possibly be your intention.
It's a fine writing style for the nations newspapers, who do sell to the already-converted, it's a rubbish technique otherwise.
I'm still at a loss as to what this has to do with cycling anyway? None of the checks or rules in the first couple of posts are actually going to stop a lorry and a cycllist hitting each other are they, and that's the only real concern cyclists can have here. Other vehicles are not the enemy in some transport struggle where we need to do all we can to make life harder for them at every chance.0 -
Excuse me, where was the bias please?0
-
Ah I understand now. You were the one that posted unsupported claims and didn't bother with citations, I ask for evidence and now you want me to do the research for you.
Perhaps all the other campaign groups will take this lead, they are obvious all wasting time on facts.
I'm just some bloke on the internet so you can dismiss my posts. I'm not trying to be mean and grumpy, but I am saying that if you think that this issue is serious and you want to actually change the situtation at City Hall then you need to talk to them.
My point is that at the moment your points don't stand up to even two minutes of scrutiny.0 -
You were the one that posted unsupported claims
Excuse me, which unsupported claims please?0 -
number9 wrote:You were the one that posted unsupported claims
Excuse me, which unsupported claims please?
You're excused. Off you go.0 -
right, I'll try and helpThe most dangerous vehilces, the ones that pose the greatest danger
and the ones that are involved in a disproportionate number of deaths
questions that any researcher at City Hall would ask:
- are they really the most dangerous vehicles, who says so, where can I find the numbers?
- are 8 deaths a big amount compared to 6 million people? How many people in London die on tube platforms, fishing or whatever.
- has there been a change in this number and solid reasoning behind this change?
- how many were there before this unit formed and how many now?
- what are the proportions of accidents, who recorded them, where are the stats?
As E.R pointed out you are writing in a tabloid style and throwing in emotive words. You quote a very flawed survey and then try to use a disclaimer on it as if that let's you off quoting it as a core part of your argument.
E.R is also pointing at that you this forum is the natural home of sympathy on this issue, and if such obvious flaws give us doubts then what do they do to non-bike nuts?
Chuck deductive reasoning into Google for more.0 -
are 8 deaths a big amount compared to 6 million people? How many people in London die on tube platforms, fishing or whatever.
And how many cyclists are killed on tube platforms or fishing??!!!?
You quote a very flawed survey
How was the survey flawed please? The first time you made this claim it was because you hadn't read my post properly and you thought I had applied the test outcomes to the whole of london.
You ARE reading what I'm posting?
Try to follow this:
1/
Lorries pose a disproportionate risk to vulnerable road users. If you doubt this you can look it up on many of the threads here and elsewhere, backed by research.
2/
Safety funding has been cut.
Now, without making up stuff I haven't said, tell me what you disagree with.0 -
This is the first two posts. The bias is the bits I've put in bold, comments in italics
There is only one police unit in London qualified to carry out HGV checks.
Boris plans to scrap it.
Questions going to the Mayor tomorrow include:
Will the cuts to the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Unit make London’s
roads less safe for cyclists? less safe for everybody no?
HGVs in London have a dreadful safety record. completely unsupported speculation
Because the HSE refuse to get involved in road deaths as opposed to deaths onsite, It's not their role, no more than road traffic deaths are the responsibility of murder police
cyclists deaths are ignored on London’s roads and penalties to killer drivers
are laughable. no more than for the deaths of any other road users, indeed, I've actually seen press and police attention directed at the cause of the number of female cyclists killed in the capital. I've never seen anything about ay of the other (far more numerous) deaths on London's roads.
The most dangerous vehilces, the ones that pose the greatest danger you just said that
and the ones that are involved in a disproportionate number of deaths, speculation, I'd have to go with boy-racer-mobiles myself
are given even greater leeway simply "allowed" would do to lumber drive around a medievel irrelevant road layout
unimpeded not doing spot checks does not exempt HGV's from traffic, lights, junctions etc, they are still as impeded as any other vehicle .
City of London [Police] spot checks on HGVs [were] carried out on 30
September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid2, which is
intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in
relation to lorries.
On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five
of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012
Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least
one way
Repeat: no need, this isn't a radio show, we can read it again if we need to
a 100 per cent criminality rate if I need to explain why this is biased, there is no hope
among small random sample of
HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included
overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver
hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases),
driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).
Boris is such a fool it’s untrue. The worst vehicles on the roads speculation, it's far from obvious, taxi's, White Transit Vans, Korean imports etc are being given carte blanche to drive illegally no more than every other vehicle, cyclists included, in unsafe unsafe? not all the trucks stopped were unsafe by your own example vehicles.
Turning to the issues of lorries, Inspector Aspinall told the meeting
about a day of City of London spot checks on HGVs, carried out on 30
September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid, which is
intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in
relation to lorries.
On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police.
Five of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the
2012 Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at
least one way.
Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of
HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included
overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver
hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases),
driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case). Thats 4 times you've used this one tiny sample. Once is an example, 4 times is bias
In some cases the drivers were given a warning and in other cases
there was a more formal police follow up. No information was given on
convictions following this operation.
Inspector Aspinall said that the London construction vehicle market
(skips, cement mixers, construction materials haulage) was very tight
and competitive. Shady operators with dubious standards and legality
exerted a downward pressure on market prices and that was forcing even
the more responsible companies to cut corners in order to win tenders
. Some companies were even factoring into their costs the
inevitability of a certain number of fines for breaches of the law.
I found this revelation shocking. it's hardly a revelation, and certainly not shocking. Prudent, sensible, savy would better describe it when most people seem to struggle to make it a mile down the road without breaking at least one law. At least the HGV operators expect to be caught0 -
Mate, this is a cycling forum.
It isn't "bias" to concentrate on the dangers posed TO CYCLISTS on a cycling forum!
All you've done is repeat the same mistake you made before, you claimed I was making sweeping statements about HGVs because you hadn't read what I'd written properly.
I SAID IT WAS A SMALL SURVEY!
It is not "bias" to highlight what is:
1/
True
2/
Relevant to cyclists.0 -
most people seem to struggle to make it a mile down the road without breaking at least one law.
What laws yo you find you inevitably break every mile you travel on the roads.
Do you drive a lorry?0 -
You weren't the author of the Iraq dossier were you? 0
-
More than half of cyclist deaths in London are caused by accidents with goods vehicles.
Goods vehicles do not constitute more than half of all London traffic.
What explains the disparity, and until we know the answer to that, is it wise to scrap safety funding?0 -
number9 wrote:Mate, this is a cycling forum.
It isn't "bias" to concentrate on the dangers posed TO CYCLISTS on a cycling forum!
Which was a point I raised further up.
What is the danger here to cyclists specifically? How does a police unit that carries out (very few by the looks of it) spot checks on HGV's have anything to do with why HGV's are involved in accidents with cyclists?
I know there seems to be an issue with HGV's and female cyclists, but that is not something a police unit carrying out spot checks has anything to do with.0 -
How does a police unit that carries out (very few by the looks of it)
Sigh:
The Commercial Vehicle Education Unit (CVEU), part of the Traffic OCU Partnership Team, is sponsored by TfL.
As well as enforcement activity the CVEU undertakes freight operator company visits to educate and encourage compliance with road traffic laws and health and safety legislation (road related).
This is a unique aspect of the CVEU as it is able to use both police powers and delegated Health & Safety Executive Inspector powers.
In 2008 the CVEU stopped 2479 vehicles, and conducted 213 company visits.
MPA: Committees: Strategic and Operational Policing Committee agendas - 09-Jul-09 (06)0 -
OK, one more go as I'm trying to put off doing any work.
All we want you to do is to state where the figures come from. Give us links to reputable sources.
Quoting Metro or some bloke who knows a guy who wrote something on a forum isn't a sound source. To fight the Mayor you need actual evidence and not anecdotal tales (e.g this forum) and folklore.
The stats also need to show some kind of significance. For example 8 death by lorries sounds high, but when compared to 16 cycling deaths caused by London scooters then reason might say that it isn't.0 -
Can I just say if you don't cycle down the left of massive truck you'll have a much higher chance of getting to where you're going...
that's what needs to be addressed first, putting yourself out of harms wayPurveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
A report on the BBC news web-site high-lights a Transport for London campaign to get signs on the backs of lorries, this time 2000 on new HGVs made by Ford.
It also quotes yet another statistic “…of the 17 cyclists killed in the year to June 2006, nine were in collision with goods vehicles.” This suggests that, whilst the overall number of cyclists killed in London is going down, from an average of 22 per year 2000 – 2003 (a 4 year total of 84 quoted by the London Road Safety Unit in correspondence with the LBMA), the number of London cyclists killed by HGVs is going up. 29 London cyclists were killed by HGVs in 2000/3, or just over 7 a year, and 9 were killed by HGVs in the year ending June 2006.
The number of London cyclists killed by HGVs is also going up when expressed as a percentage of the total, from 39% in 2000/3, to over 50% in the year to June 2006. So six years of action by the LRSU in this area has achieved no reduction in the numbers of London cyclists killed by HGVs.
http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article ... more-stats
More recently:
In a week when two more cyclists were involved in collisions with lorries (one tragically killed in Whitechapel), LCC has reiterated its demands for improved lorry safety.
LCC is appalled at the high proportion (more than two-thirds) of cyclist deaths in London in 2009 that involve lorries, demanding urgent action be taken to reduce the dangers.
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1514
Did you seriously not know about this davmaggs? Do you live in London?
Also, to say that all the deaths and injuries could have been avoided by the cyclists is just plain ignorant. There were, apparently, no witnesses to Eilidh's death. She was killed when she was on the right, in the outside lane. There are a number of possible scenarios in which Eilidh could only avoided the collision by not using that road at all. Effri was hit by a truck entering his lane across a double white line, ie Effri had right of way, and was hit by a truck turning right out of side road. Conrad Dutoit was killed in the Pancras Way bike lane by a right turning lorry. The lorry driver who killed him, Mr Ibrahim, was found guilty of ‘Driving Without Due Care And Attention’ (ie he didn’t look before turning) and ‘Driving Other Than In Accordance With A Licence’ (ie he wasn’t licensed to drive the category of lorry that he crushed Conrad to death with), fined £500, plus £250 costs and disqualified for 56 days.
http://www.londonfgss.com/thread29719-7.html0 -
nice one,
The web pages you quoted have links in them that show 9 cyclist deaths in 2008 and 15 in 2007. So already we've achieved a 60% reducation in HGV deaths.
Interesting when you pick your year and then change to a percentage isn't it?0 -
Putting that in the first post would have been a good idea, instead of the "HGV's are evil" bias you put in instead.number9 wrote:In 2008 the CVEU stopped 2479 vehicles, and conducted 213 company visits.number9 wrote:29 London cyclists were killed by HGVs in 2000/3, or just over 7 a year, and 9 were killed by HGVs in the year ending June 2006.
Is it you or the BBC that is crap at maths here?
An *average* of 7 per year over 4 years followed by 9 in a *single* year 3 years later is not at all evidence of any increase in the number of cyclists killed by HGV's.
Quoting numbers as percentages doesn't change the underlying fact that the quoted statistics simply do not support the statement that the number of cyclists are going up or that 6 years of action has achieved nothing. How have the numbers and distances of cyclists changed in that time, for example?
And again, we are all WELL AWARE of an issue with HGV's and cyclists in London, arguably female cyclists if you look at the figures in a certain way, but we're still left with this gap between that and this police unit and what it does. Where is the relationship between the two?0 -
Putting that in the first post would have been a good idea, instead of the "HGV's are evil" bias you put in instead.
How would it have changed the premise?
You claimed, with no evidence, that not many checks were carried out.
When you were corrected you claim it's mt fault you were wrong because I didn't tell you sooner!0 -
Is it you or the BBC that is crap at maths here?
An *average* of 7 per year over 4 years followed by 9 in a *single* year 3 years later is not at all evidence of any increase in the number of cyclists killed by HGV's.
I didn't say it was, as you know full well.
I said that since a disproportionate danger is posed by HGVs, it makes no sense to scrap a million quid off the safety budget.
Not for the first time, I'd politely ask you to argue with what I've said and stop making up silly lies that nobody has mentioned.
Those links were posted to show that cyclists are dying in incidents involving HGVs, your hostility and aggression is unpleasant.
Why won't you ever answer the questions? Do you live in London? Drive an HGV? Were you seriously unaware of the HGV campaigns running in the capital?0 -
So already we've achieved a 60% reducation in HGV deaths.
No. Please don't be flippant.
More than two thirds of cyclist deaths this year involve HGVs. It is not clear why this is happening with sickening regularity, nor why women are involved in more incidents.
There is evidence in a number of the deaths that the impact was from BEHIND, not the usual side swipe any London cyclist has experienced.
A disproportionate danger is posed by a certain road user, this same road user is enjoying a slackening of routine inspections, a situation that is anomalous.
nice one,
Given the subject matter, that's pretty tasteless.0 -
I resent the fact that my online name was used in vain.
Just because I write about my encouters with cyclists in a creative way it does not mean that I am an unsafe cyclist or in any way dangerous to other road users.feltkuota wrote:Is cycling in London safe? No it isn't. Can it be made safer? probably but at what cost and at which other road user's expense.
Having read many a post on this forum it seems to me that Cyclists seem to think that the roads are their playgound and should be continually made safer for their enjoyment. I'm not saying that safer is a bad thing but I am saying that making it "safer" for cyclists will probably encourage more cyclists onto the roads. By default this will add to more problems and even more ridiculous SCR threads, silly or not it's pathetic.
I'm calling this a 'bullsh*t assumption'.
Edit: none of my posts actually suggest that I'm endangering my road safety by breaching the highway code or any other such road safety guidelines.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
This could have been a really interesting debate if it wasn't for the tabloid style sensationalism of the OP getting peoples backs up.
I’m particularly interested because I:
• Commute into Central London by car every day
• Cycle between sites in Central/West/East London regularly during the working day
• Occasionally drive a construction vehicle on London roads
• Am at least partly responsible for some of the LGV’s delivering construction materials to a major project in London
I would be interested to know how many of the cyclist deaths at the wheels of LGV’s had these defects as a factor.'12 CAAD 8 Tiagra0 -
Roadpeace:
11. Commercial Vehicle Education Unit. The CVEU has done much good work publicising the risk of HGVs to cyclists and should be continued. Collision investigation reports should include copies of their visit reports to any company whose driver was involved in a fatal crash.
I would be interested to know how many of the cyclist deaths at the wheels of LGV’s had these defects as a factor.
I would rather get vehicles with defects off the roads, before they kill someone.0
