6th death in London today...

rick_chasey

Veronese68 wrote:

So BoJo is interviewed and the solution appears to be banning headphones. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24999302
Is this just one bit the BBC picked up on out of what was otherwise a load of constructive comments? Is he trying to deflect attention away from banning HGVs in rush hour? More victim blaming? Did anyone hear the interview?

Bojo is being purely political here. He has pinned his colours to cycling but he presumably doesn't have the funds available to do anything more than he has done already. Took a fair wedge from Barclays just to get the lanes in the first place.

Therefore he needs to deflect attention away from that and unfortunately using badly behaved cyclist stereotypes is an effective way to do so.

bigmat

vermin wrote:

I can't help thinking that, actually, in respect of the vast majority of cycling accidents/incidents in the city, the police/BoJo are in a position of far better knowledge as to their causation and as to how they might have been avoided than the average ranting cyclist.

I believe that the advice given by the police/BoJo (occassionally) is sensible and might go some way towards mitigating the damage that will continue until change can be made.

The problem is, without them sharing that knowledge, we don't know whether it is just victim blaming for political reasons. Given Boris' track record, I think there's a fair chance of that. We really need some more details on exactly what happened in each of these accidents (for understandable reasons we won't get that for the foreseeable future though) in order to understand who might be to blame and what can be done to prevent further deaths. Until that process has been completed, I do think Boris' comments are pretty crass.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

JZed wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

They can have all the cameras and mirrors in the world but if the driver doesn't look there's no point.

True - but that video shows 15 cyclists down the side of the lorry. The driver can look all he wants, short of getting out of his seat and hanging out his passenger window - he won't see them. A simple camera, which is cheap would enable him to see them if he looked.

Make them compulsory, if a driver doesn't use them, its negligent, at the moment the driver can just say, "how was I meant to see".

But if you look carefully, the cab of the lorry is angled relative to the trailer, as if it has just started to turn. Once the cab angles, the nearside mirror gives a view of the side of the trailer rather than what's alongside the trailer. Straighten up the cab and I'd imagine that the view in the mirror should be better.

The point of that video is not to demostrate an exact real World scenario. It's to demostrate the drivers perspective from the inside of a Lorry. The point is that large vehicles have limited visibility down each side so don't ride up them.

You can't say never but if you choose to, understand the risks:

The assumption is that the driver cannot see you.

If it turns left and the driver hasn't seen you (Sun might be in the mirrors even if they are angled properly - like this morning for me), then understand that large vehicles cut corners when turning and its likely to be the rear end of the vehicle that takes you out.

My understanding of the Croydon collision is that the cyclist cut infront of the bus, but I'm not sure how.

I'm also not clear about the problem with Bow's roundabout - if it is the one where there is a flyover.

We do need transparancy about the manner in which these collisions happened so that collectively we can become more aware and improve our own individual safety. I'd also like to see demographic details of the drivers to find out if their are any trends there.

RIP to the 6 that have died.

veronese68

I have no doubt Boris is fully aware of what he is saying and why. I also agree with Vermin that we have to do everything we can to look after ourselves. I intend to read that other article on the BBC but haven't had a chance, pesky customers bothering me.
Having looked at a picture of the Camberwell Road incident and a picture of the junction on Streetview it looks like it was the normal left turning lorry scenario. There is an ASL at that junction with no cycle lane leading to it, but broken lines indicating you should enter it on the left. So the geography of that junction, and many others, encourages cyclists to put themselves in the most dangerous position. I doubt headphones would make much difference in many such accidents, it's deflecting attention.

vermin

Veronese68 wrote:

I have no doubt Boris is fully aware of what he is saying and why. I also agree with Vermin that we have to do everything we can to look after ourselves. I intend to read that other article on the BBC but haven't had a chance, pesky customers bothering me.
Having looked at a picture of the Camberwell Road incident and a picture of the junction on Streetview it looks like it was the normal left turning lorry scenario. There is an ASL at that junction with no cycle lane leading to it, but broken lines indicating you should enter it on the left. So the geography of that junction, and many others, encourages cyclists to put themselves in the most dangerous position. I doubt headphones would make much difference in many such accidents, it's deflecting attention.

Your summation makes sense, but "I intend to read that other article on the BBC but haven't had a chance", "it looks like it was", "I doubt", etc are no match for the physical and witness evidence available to the authorities.

Unless they're really big, headphones are unlikely to help if a lorry runs over you, but equally have you not encountered the headphoned cyclist who can't hear you shouting to them? Surely restoring one of the primary senses is a good safety measure.

ETA: I sometimes ride with a bluetooth earpiece in one ear. It might make me look like a cock, but still a cock that can hear the traffic around me.

cookeeemonster

vermin wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

I have no doubt Boris is fully aware of what he is saying and why. I also agree with Vermin that we have to do everything we can to look after ourselves. I intend to read that other article on the BBC but haven't had a chance, pesky customers bothering me.
Having looked at a picture of the Camberwell Road incident and a picture of the junction on Streetview it looks like it was the normal left turning lorry scenario. There is an ASL at that junction with no cycle lane leading to it, but broken lines indicating you should enter it on the left. So the geography of that junction, and many others, encourages cyclists to put themselves in the most dangerous position. I doubt headphones would make much difference in many such accidents, it's deflecting attention.

Your summation makes sense, but "I intend to read that other article on the BBC but haven't had a chance", "it looks like it was", "I doubt", etc are no match for the physical and witness evidence available to the authorities.

Unless they're really big, headphones are unlikely to help if a lorry runs over you, but equally have you not encountered the headphoned cyclist who can't hear you shouting to them? Surely restoring one of the primary senses is a good safety measure.

ETA: I sometimes ride with a bluetooth earpiece in one ear. It might make me look like a fool, but still a fool that can hear the traffic around me.

how do you know all the cyclists you see wearing headphones dont have bluetooth? (ok, some obviously aren't)

Of all the cyclist deaths I've heard about over the last couple of years I dont remember a single one that was proved to be wearing headphones...this is just a distraction tactic for whatever reason you want to choose..boris is a first rate politician...and thats not a compliment.

veronese68

I'm certainly not in possession of all of the facts about these incidents, or many other things. But the way I see it the focus is wrong. The exercise of stopping cyclists that were not wearing helmets or hi viz, were wearing headphones is all very well up to a point. It may educate some of those stopped, the publicity should raise awareness of safety. But the number of lorries stopped* and the number of faults found seems far more significant to me. An unsafe lorry with a driver that is over his hours is a far greater danger to other people than a headphone wearing ninja cyclist. The ninja is rather more of a danger to himself than to others.

* I realise the lorries were being stopped as part of the same exercise.

rjsterry

As usual, some informed common sense from Mr Boardman:

open letter to Boris.

For all the banging on about Dutch cycling infrastructure, I can't help agreeing that Paris is a more appropriate model for London to emulate. Not least because they have taken the (blindingly obvious) step of restricting HGVs to off peak hours.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

As usual, some informed common sense from Mr Boardman:

open letter to Boris.

For all the banging on about Dutch cycling infrastructure, I can't help agreeing that Paris is a more appropriate model for London to emulate. Not least because they have taken the (blindingly obvious) step of restricting HGVs to off peak hours.

Whilst I think that's a good idea, I'm not sure how much difference it would have made over the last few weeks. The Camberwell chap was run over at midday, and a few (not sure how many) of the others were the victims of buses, which we're never going to get rid of.

There is something to said for simply accepting that there is an irreducible core risk to having motorised traffic and bikes and pedestrians in proximity to each other. The frequency of the recent incidents is shocking, but should we really be surprised that they happen in the first place?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Veronese68 wrote:

But the number of lorries stopped* and the number of faults found seems far more significant to me. An unsafe lorry with a driver that is over his hours is a far greater danger to other people than a headphone wearing ninja cyclist. The ninja is rather more of a danger to himself than to others.

* I realise the lorries were being stopped as part of the same exercise.

Agree with that. I suspect that lorries, like buses, have a semi-protected status though, on the basis that buildings can't be built without them and shops can't be stocked without them. And those two activities produce a considerable limitation on any time restrictions that can practically be imposed on lorry traffic.

daviesee

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

But the number of lorries stopped* and the number of faults found seems far more significant to me. An unsafe lorry with a driver that is over his hours is a far greater danger to other people than a headphone wearing ninja cyclist. The ninja is rather more of a danger to himself than to others.

* I realise the lorries were being stopped as part of the same exercise.

Agree with that. I suspect that lorries, like buses, have a semi-protected status though, on the basis that buildings can't be built without them and shops can't be stocked without them. And those two activities produce a considerable limitation on any time restrictions that can practically be imposed on lorry traffic.

The downside of centralisation.

veronese68

Yes, lorries couldn't be stopped altogether. I think it just needs to get to the point that allowing lorries at night is more acceptable than allowing them during rush hour. So instead of the current overnight restrictions say no lorries from 7.30 to 9.30am and 5 to 7pm.
I also agree with your point that there is a certain inevitability that there will be a number of accidents. I tend to think enough of them seem to involve large vehicles turning left over cyclists so that is where the focus needs to be. I think current road design encourages people to cycle up the left of the traffic approaching a junction with the entry point to ASLs, this should also be looked at.

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

As usual, some informed common sense from Mr Boardman:

open letter to Boris.

For all the banging on about Dutch cycling infrastructure, I can't help agreeing that Paris is a more appropriate model for London to emulate. Not least because they have taken the (blindingly obvious) step of restricting HGVs to off peak hours.

Whilst I think that's a good idea, I'm not sure how much difference it would have made over the last few weeks. The Camberwell chap was run over at midday, and a few (not sure how many) of the others were the victims of buses, which we're never going to get rid of.

There is something to said for simply accepting that there is an irreducible core risk to having motorised traffic and bikes and pedestrians in proximity to each other. The frequency of the recent incidents is shocking, but should we really be surprised that they happen in the first place?

The Canberwell Rd incident was off-peak, but I think the Paris scheme restricts larger HGVs to nightime only (no good for the likes of you or me). Only the Croydon incident involved a bus. I'd agree with your second point as well - there is always going to be some risk, but if Paris managed zero cycling fatalities in a year, we have sone considerable room for improvement.

Origamist

Rick Chasey wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

So BoJo is interviewed and the solution appears to be banning headphones. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24999302
Is this just one bit the BBC picked up on out of what was otherwise a load of constructive comments? Is he trying to deflect attention away from banning HGVs in rush hour? More victim blaming? Did anyone hear the interview?

Bojo is being purely political here. He has pinned his colours to cycling but he presumably doesn't have the funds available to do anything more than he has done already. Took a fair wedge from Barclays just to get the lanes in the first place.

Therefore he needs to deflect attention away from that and unfortunately using badly behaved cyclist stereotypes is an effective way to do so.

Boris has form in this area. In 2012 he said:

"I've seen a figure, I think, of 62%, which is the high proportion of cycling KSIs that are associated with some infraction by the cyclists themselves of the rules of the road."

When asked for corroboration of this figure, none was forthcoming from TFL, TRL, City Hall, or The Met.

It's also worth remembering that Bojo "used" to be an inveterate RLJer and would squeeze along the inside of buses. I would take everything he says regarding cyclist safety with a large pinch of salt...

vermin

Origamist wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

So BoJo is interviewed and the solution appears to be banning headphones. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24999302
Is this just one bit the BBC picked up on out of what was otherwise a load of constructive comments? Is he trying to deflect attention away from banning HGVs in rush hour? More victim blaming? Did anyone hear the interview?

Bojo is being purely political here. He has pinned his colours to cycling but he presumably doesn't have the funds available to do anything more than he has done already. Took a fair wedge from Barclays just to get the lanes in the first place.

Therefore he needs to deflect attention away from that and unfortunately using badly behaved cyclist stereotypes is an effective way to do so.

Boris has form in this area. In 2012 he said:

"I've seen a figure, I think, of 62%, which is the high proportion of cycling KSIs that are associated with some infraction by the cyclists themselves of the rules of the road."

When asked for corroboration of this figure, none was forthcoming from TFL, TRL, City Hall, or The Met.

It's also worth remembering that Bojo "used" to be an inveterate RLJer and would squeeze along the inside of buses. I would take everything he says regarding cyclist safety with a large pinch of salt...

Ah, that'll be the old "wearing a helmet and high-vis and not wearing headphones is mutually exclusive with improving road infrastructure and HGV safety" argument I keep hearing then...

cookeeemonster

Origamist wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

So BoJo is interviewed and the solution appears to be banning headphones. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24999302
Is this just one bit the BBC picked up on out of what was otherwise a load of constructive comments? Is he trying to deflect attention away from banning HGVs in rush hour? More victim blaming? Did anyone hear the interview?

Bojo is being purely political here. He has pinned his colours to cycling but he presumably doesn't have the funds available to do anything more than he has done already. Took a fair wedge from Barclays just to get the lanes in the first place.

Therefore he needs to deflect attention away from that and unfortunately using badly behaved cyclist stereotypes is an effective way to do so.

Boris has form in this area. In 2012 he said:

"I've seen a figure, I think, of 62%, which is the high proportion of cycling KSIs that are associated with some infraction by the cyclists themselves of the rules of the road."

When asked for corroboration of this figure, none was forthcoming from TFL, TRL, City Hall, or The Met.

It's also worth remembering that Bojo "used" to be an inveterate RLJer and would squeeze along the inside of buses. I would take everything he says regarding cyclist safety with a large pinch of salt...

there was a report from a few months back which put driver blame at something like 69%, cyclist blame at around 10% and the rest were a combination of the two or were dont know.

Origamist

vermin wrote:

Ah, that'll be the old "wearing a helmet and high-vis and not wearing headphones is mutually exclusive with improving road infrastructure and HGV safety" argument I keep hearing then...

Boris had/has a poor grasp of how to ride safely in traffic and has evinced a limited understanding of causal collision factors involving cyclists in the past. If you think that combo provides a decent grounding to help ameliorate the conditions for cyclists in London, that's your prerogative. I'm inclined to be a little more circumspect, particularly given his recent victim blaming pronouncements.

vermin

Origamist wrote:

vermin wrote:

Ah, that'll be the old "wearing a helmet and high-vis and not wearing headphones is mutually exclusive with improving road infrastructure and HGV safety" argument I keep hearing then...

Boris had/has a poor grasp of how to ride safely in traffic and has evinced a limited understanding of causal collision factors involving cyclists in the past. If you think that combo provides a decent grounding to help ameliorate the conditions for cyclists in London, that's your prerogative. I'm inclined to be a little more circumspect, particularly given his recent victim blaming pronouncements.

Yes, I've seen pictures of BoJo on a phone on his bike and heard of him RLJing. I'm also aware of him suggesting that certain behavious exhibited by cyclists can put them at greater risk. I haven't heard the victim blaming though.

the BBC wrote:

Mr Johnson said he thought headphones were an "absolute scourge" and that he would consider banning cyclists from wearing them.

"Call me illiberal, but it makes me absolutely terrified to see them bowling along unable to hear the traffic.

"You've got to be able to hear that car behind you or about to come out of the road in front of you," he said.

Mark Ames, editor of cycling blog ibikelondon, accused the mayor of taking attention away from his "inaction".

He wrote on Twitter that the mayor was "a clever man" who had "deflected all attention on his inaction and HGV ban and made a debate about Londoners wearing headphones".

Mark Ames appears to be the one deflecting attention, not BoJo. Unless, of course, our brains have room to contemplate only one issue at a time. I happen to agree with the headphone sentiment, even if it is playing for time whilst other, greater, issues are considered. To suggest that this, in any way, pushes the greater issues into the background, is a bit pathetic, really.

Origamist

vermin wrote:

Origamist wrote:

vermin wrote:

Ah, that'll be the old "wearing a helmet and high-vis and not wearing headphones is mutually exclusive with improving road infrastructure and HGV safety" argument I keep hearing then...

Boris had/has a poor grasp of how to ride safely in traffic and has evinced a limited understanding of causal collision factors involving cyclists in the past. If you think that combo provides a decent grounding to help ameliorate the conditions for cyclists in London, that's your prerogative. I'm inclined to be a little more circumspect, particularly given his recent victim blaming pronouncements.

Yes, I've seen pictures of BoJo on a phone on his bike and heard of him RLJing. I'm also aware of him suggesting that certain behavious exhibited by cyclists can put them at greater risk. I haven't heard the victim blaming though.

Have you not seen the pic of Boris riding up the left of a TK Maxx HGV, with a few feet of clearance, in the face of a green traffic signal? As I said, I'm not comfortable listening to safety advice from this man where HGVs and cyclist safety are concerned. For the record, he has also repeatedley turned down cycle training.

Boris has already blamed cyclists en masse for "infractions" when involved in KSIs that do not stand up to proper statisitical scrutiny.

Clever Pun

I'm pretty sure you don't need to hear the car in the junction in front of you

16mm

Imagine if someone invented a bike, with a massive blind spot on the left & behind, and a likelihood of killing any car drivers who were unfortunate enough to drive alongside it when it turned.
As mentioned above, have it driven by cycle couriers who are paid by the job, and just for laughs make the couriers just a bit misogynistic, and likely to want to teach female car drivers a lesson.

Banned within a week.

bendertherobot

supersonic

Banning HGVs from certain hours would reduce accidents and deaths. Banning cyclists would also reduce accidents and deaths. I don't think either is the solution to the problem. We need a multi faceted approach that involves education about the road environment for all users (including pedestrians), improved safety of the vehicles on the road and an overhaul of road markings to avoid confusion.

Yes I realise that sounds simplistic and idealistic, but I do truly believe that we need to educate people early on about road safety. As for the other points - where to start?

EKE_38BPM

supersonic wrote:

Banning HGVs from certain hours would reduce accidents and deaths. Banning cyclists would also reduce accidents and deaths. I don't think either is the solution to the problem. We need a multi faceted approach that involves education about the road environment for all users (including pedestrians), improved safety of the vehicles on the road and an overhaul of road markings to avoid confusion.

Yes I realise that sounds simplistic and idealistic, but I do truly believe that we need to educate people early on about road safety. As for the other points - where to start?

Banning HGVs at certain times, good.
Banning cyclists, bad.
Revamping road signs and furniture, good.
Designing safer HGVs, good.
Educating road users how to interact safely, best.

spasypaddy

survey by the council
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly ... cle-survey

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Banning HGVs from certain hours would reduce accidents and deaths. Banning cyclists would also reduce accidents and deaths. I don't think either is the solution to the problem. We need a multi faceted approach that involves education about the road environment for all users (including pedestrians), improved safety of the vehicles on the road and an overhaul of road markings to avoid confusion.

Yes I realise that sounds simplistic and idealistic, but I do truly believe that we need to educate people early on about road safety. As for the other points - where to start?

Banning HGVs at certain times, good.
Banning cyclists, bad.
Revamping road signs and furniture, good.
Designing safer HGVs, good.
Educating road users how to interact safely, best.

Agree.

slowbike

In the marine world there is the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) - it is their job to investigate accidents and near accidents in the marine world in a neutral manner. They are not there to issue blame, they are there to help everyone understand what went wrong, why it went wrong and how we can all learn from it.

On the road, in the cases of physical injury or death I can understand the requirement for the Police to check if any law has been broken, but perhaps we should have a similar system to the MAIB that can report back to the general public in a non-judgemental fashion on how an accident happened and what we can ALL do to avoid something similar in the future.

cookeeemonster

whenever people talk about 'educating' people for the roads they forget the months and months of training and studying for the driving test - education which is thouroughly ignored the millisecond they have their license.

Education plus enforcement plus reengineering of our roads will, over time, be the best option.

And by the way, hgv's make up just 5% of the traffic but are involved in a far bigger percentage of fatal accidents (and accidents in general) for all types of road user - cars/pedestrian and cyclists alike.

Something wrong there...:(

TheStone

spasypaddy wrote:

survey by the council
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly ... cle-survey

One of my comments was to stop letting the idiot mayor comment on cycling.

supersonic

Has there ever been a TV ad campaign involving riding up the inside of large vehicles?