# Bow Roundabout- second death



## Poacher (11 Nov 2011)

*[ADMIN EDIT: This topic split off from the RIP thread in commuting: **http://www.cyclechat.net/topic/96744-bow-flyover-collision-friday-111111/**]*

RIP

Not necessarily related to this particular case, but just when are some serious jail sentences going to be handed out for causing death by dangerous driving? It seems that most of the time the CPS go for lesser charges, presumably to improve their KPI figures. (Just a guess, but successful prosecutions are probably a Key Performance Indicator for them, and aiming higher is actively discouraged).

Was tonight an organised f**kwit event nationally, or was it just here in Dottigub? I was subjected to several insanely close overtakes in a 4 mile commute at well over the speed limit and well below 50cm clearance, including one where the overtaking vehicle forced an oncoming car into an emergency stop to avoid a head-on collision, only to turn left, no more than 10 metres ahead, into a small housing estate (where he couldn't drive further than 200 metres, unless he broke through on to the railway line). What is so important that he couldn't wait behind me for 2 seconds - I was doing 30 kph.

Sorry, shouldn't have hijacked this thread, but I needed to get that off my chest, and it didn't merit starting yet another thread.


----------



## dawesome (11 Nov 2011)

It's not massively OT Poacher, the Everton Smith verdict and the inquest decision in Eilidh Cairns' death have depressed the hell out of me. We are fair game, is the message I'm getting. Any one of us is fair game, if we get killed the cops will turn away witnesses, the debris will be swept up and at worst the driver will get a fine of £200. Something is badly wrong. Of course we don't know the circumstances of this tragedy, other than a family has been blown apart tonight.


----------



## Matthew_T (12 Nov 2011)

TBF 10 cycling deaths (2010) in the most congested city in the world is pretty good. Even though 7 of them involved HGV's the statistics are still pretty good. We will get to the stage however when there will be nothing more we can do to prevent any amount of deaths (apart from banning cycling). 
I think there are enough precautions, i.e. Cycling Superhighways, and statistics are coming down (13 deaths in 2009, 10 in 2010, 11 in 2011 so far).


----------



## gaz (12 Nov 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> TBF 10 cycling deaths (2010) in the most congested city in the world is pretty good. Even though 7 of them involved HGV's the statistics are still pretty good. We will get to the stage however when there will be nothing more we can do to prevent any amount of deaths (apart from banning cycling).
> I think there are enough precautions, i.e. Cycling Superhighways, and statistics are coming down (13 deaths in 2009, 10 in 2010, 11 in 2011 so far).



enough precautions? you do realise the superhighways are just a bit of blue paint, nothing super about them!
Perhaps you should read into the issues a little deeper before you comment, a good place to start is Cyclists in the City


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> TBF 10 cycling deaths (2010) in the most congested city in the world is pretty good.




London isn't the most congested city in the world. We tie ninth with New Delhi. Someone died fella, there's nothing good about this.


----------



## Red Light (12 Nov 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> TBF 10 cycling deaths (2010) in the most congested city in the world is pretty good. Even though 7 of them involved HGV's the statistics are still pretty good. We will get to the stage however when there will be nothing more we can do to prevent any amount of deaths (apart from banning cycling).
> I think there are enough precautions, i.e. Cycling Superhighways, and statistics are coming down (13 deaths in 2009, 10 in 2010, 11 in 2011 so far).



Statistically the total deaths may be low but the fact that 70% of them were by "HGV"* which represent less than 5% of the traffic on London's roads is far from good and points to a serious problem with HGV driving in the city which needs to be addressed. I regularly see cavalier and sometimes downright dangerous (through thoughtlessness) lorry driving in London that I do not see in anything like the same degree with other vehicles. If you dealt with that and brought cyclists death by lorry down to the 5% share they represent of road traffic then seven more people would be alive this year in London and seven fewer families torn apart with grief and loss. Its just not good enough and totally not excusable.

* most appear to be construction lorries rather than HGVs


----------



## Matthew_T (12 Nov 2011)

The bad thing is that cyclists are dying. Fit, healthy cyclists who enjoy riding around enjoying the countryside and scenery. It wouldnt be so bad if the fat, aggressive drivers were dying because they are strapped up in their little tin cans and dont care for anyone else on the road. 

It is utterly terrible that things like this happen but that is what might direct cyclists to have a bad overall attitude towards drivers.


----------



## gaz (12 Nov 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> The bad thing is that cyclists are dying. Fit, healthy cyclists who enjoy riding around enjoying the countryside and scenery. It wouldnt be so bad if the fat, aggressive drivers were dying because they are strapped up in their little tin cans and dont care for anyone else on the road.
> 
> It is utterly terrible that things like this happen but that is what might direct cyclists to have a bad overall attitude towards drivers.



A death is a death, it doesn't matter how 'fat' they where or what vehicle they drove.
What is a problem is when TFL say this "there is nothing that we can do to make the roundabout safer, without causing traffic jams."


----------



## Raa (12 Nov 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> The bad thing is that cyclists are dying. Fit, healthy cyclists who enjoy riding around enjoying the countryside and scenery. It wouldnt be so bad if the fat, aggressive drivers were dying because they are strapped up in their little tin cans and dont care for anyone else on the road.
> 
> It is utterly terrible that things like this happen but that is what might direct cyclists to have a bad overall attitude towards drivers.



What indeed?

Perhaps that fact that drivers:

Make our towns and cities into stressful unpleasant places to be.

Pump the air full of cancerous filth.

Are generally not sufficiently skilled to be in charge of such dangerous machinery.

Tend to have a worldview informed by far, far too many hours sat behind a steering wheel insulated from their surroundings by a safety cage.

Etc, etc, etc Bottom line is: driving in a city is basically an antisocial act.


----------



## albion (12 Nov 2011)

It was mentioned that there were 10 cycling deaths in the capital in the first 6 months of 2011.Has it doubled then?


----------



## albion (12 Nov 2011)

http://www.guardian....ng-road-layouts

http://www.uel-cyclists.co.uk/cycling-news/13-london-cycling-news.html 
http://lcc.org.uk/ar...le-superhighway

Boris effectively says 'it is personal choice, you don't have to go that way'.


----------



## Bicycle (12 Nov 2011)

It is awful when anyone is killed. RIP the victim in this collision. All my children cycle regularly on fairly snarly, busy roads and we are all one sneeze away from a ghastly phone call from the emergency services. 

Nonetheless, I still find London a good place to cycle. 

It may be contentious to say it, but I'm not sure what really can be done to improve things.

There are junctions and roads I avoid if i can, but I know that there is always a chance something bad will happen.

What is a realistic expectation in terms of road deaths in the TfL area? No deaths per year? I don't think so.

Five deaths a year? Twenty? 

Whether we like it or not there is a political sensitivity to slowing traffic flow. If there is concern that something won't play well on polling day, there will be caution about doing it. It has ever been so.

It is awful that people are maimed and die, but no legislation will prevent this completely. Despite having kittens when my children ride on busy roads, I think I'm pretty cool with the way things are.


----------



## Raa (12 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> It is awful when anyone is killed. RIP the victim in this collision. All my children cycle regularly on fairly snarly, busy roads and we are all one sneeze away from a ghastly phone call from the emergency services.
> 
> Nonetheless, I still find London a good place to cycle.
> 
> ...




That's a very narrow way to view the situation. 

What we have is the dirtiest, least efficient form of transport available being prioritised over the cleanest, most efficient form of transport available. That's pretty ****ed up by any measure even if you ignore the estimated 50,000 Londoners who are killed by air pollution each year.


----------



## Bicycle (12 Nov 2011)

I appreciate that you think my view is narrow. I'm not sure I gave a view; rather a pragmatic and sanguine resoponse to a ghastly situatuion.

Nonetheless, I think the great majority of Londoners, city-dwellers and motorists would be at odds with the views you gave earlier.



Raa said:


> What indeed?
> 
> Perhaps that fact that drivers:
> 
> ...



Sorry, I couldn't give a serious response to the last statement. Anyway, it is clear that it is I who have a narrow view. Yours seems truly enlightened and in keeping with that held by the great majority of your fellow Londoners.

I must learn to broaden my mind.


----------



## her_welshness (12 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I appreciate that you think my view is narrow. I'm not sure I gave a view; rather a pragmatic and sanguine resoponse to a ghastly situatuion.
> 
> Nonetheless, I think the great majority of Londoners, city-dwellers and motorists would be at odds with the views you gave earlier.
> 
> ...



I don't think you need to broaden your mind and I do not think that anyone is suggesting that. I think you need to be less timorous. I certainly believe that legislation can change things. We cannot just accept this situation. A lot of places in Europe have banned lorries and HGV's from driving at peak times and in rush hour. That might be a start. And how about this http://www.eilidhcairns.com/wd81/ which sets out to improve safety measures on these vehicles. There are things that we can do.


----------



## Bicycle (12 Nov 2011)

her_welshness said:


> I don't think you need to broaden your mind and I do not think that anyone is suggesting that. I think you need to be less timorous. I certainly believe that legislation can change things. We cannot just accept this situation. A lot of places in Europe have banned lorries and HGV's from driving at peak times and in rush hour. That might be a start. And how about this http://www.eilidhcairns.com/wd81/ which sets out to improve safety measures on these vehicles. There are things that we can do.



HW, that was a very measured response to my rantogram to an earlier one by Raa (which did suggest I took a very narrow view).

I absolutely accept that there are things that can be done - and I think that London (and other metropolitan areas) are headiding in roughly the right direction. Slowly, but things are changing. I cycled to school in SE1 in the mid-70s as a 12-year-old. things are way more focussed on bikes now than they were then. 

What I do not think, however, is that there is an appetite for change among the woider population.

I notice in this thread something that looks like anger at politicians over the tragic deaths of cyclists. I'm not sure that ire is well placed.

As to my need to be less timorous; I think if you saw me riding in London you'd withdraw the sentiment. I'm afraid my urban riding style and road positioning are based on my time many years ago as a motorcycle courier. 

Anyway, your response was nice to read and not at all finger-pointing like the earier one from Raa - for which (genuinely) thank you.


----------



## Raa (12 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I appreciate that you think my view is narrow. I'm not sure I gave a view; rather a pragmatic and sanguine resoponse to a ghastly situatuion.
> 
> Nonetheless, I think the great majority of Londoners, city-dwellers and motorists would be at odds with the views you gave earlier.
> 
> ...



Well, that told me didn't it!!

It is unlikely that we could find much agreement as it seems you:

1, Have no problem with UK towns and cities being full of vehicles.

2. Play down the effects of air pollution.

Is the concept of driving in a city being a fundamentally antisocial act really so mind boggling for you? 

Its really quite simple, every motorized journey has a degrading effect on the urban environment; everyone else has to suffer the effects.

I'm not saying drivers are consciously being antisocial, for most the sheer insanity of accelerating and braking between traffic lights and roundabouts, polluting their environment with noise, heat and fumes, all for the 'convenience' of an average speed of 12mph, does not even register. 

This is what I meant by the worldview from behind the steering wheel, but I reckon you knew that ;-)

Edit: Actually I've just learned that during rush hour car speeds drop to a truly pathetic 7mph; slower than a horse and cart!


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

After Catriona Patel was killed by a drunk lorry driver on a mobile phone Boris Johnson said that perhaps the most important thing to improve road safety was toeducate cyclists. Boris engaged in victim-blaming of the worst kind. I don't know if any of the recent deaths of cyclists in incidents involving lorries had any blame whatsoever attached to the cyclist.

Every day I see lorry drivers jump red lights, read paperwork at the wheel (like the lorry driver who killed Emma Foa), drive whilst on a mobile and pissed (like the lorry driver who killed Catriona Patel) or drive over the permitted number of hours (like the lorry driver who killed Tony Spink) , or drive with faulty eyesight (like the lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns), or not even notice the cyclist and smash into them from behind (like the lorry driver who killed Vera Chapel).


As far as I can see no amount of cycling training would have made a scrap of difference.

Now,Boris splashes some blue paint around and declares Cycling Super Highways "safe".

Diamond Geezer blog has written an excellent profile of this junction (at Bow) and just how dreadful it is for pedestrians and cyclists alike. And he hits the nail on the head when he says this:​​"TfL's overriding priority at the Bow Flyover roundabout is clearly vehicular traffic...This is a key London road junction, and the queues that could be caused by a succession of button-pressing pedestrians might have gridlock repercussions. I can fully understand why TfL are quite so reticent, because a significant number of travellers would be disadvantaged by a Bow Flyover slowdown.*But the priority surely ought to be safety, rather than piecemeal interventions that deliver merely partial solutions."*​​A few months ago, I showed how Transport for London is planning yet more of the same at Vauxhall and Victoria. The list of changes is fairly similar to what changed at Oval: A few tweaks of kerbs, a few moves of white lines and some blue paint. The Super Highway planned for Vauxhall is frankly scandalous. It replicates directly the sort of conditions that are killing people at Oval and Bow. 

When you drive, you have a relatively consistent road experience. When you cycle in London, though, what you get is partial solutions, piecemeal interventions, and you're supposed to be able to react immediately to completely inconsistent road conditions that veer between utterly terrifying and semi-sensible every 20 or 30 metres. It's completely insane.

Diamond Geezer is absolutely right: TfL is dealing with cycling through 'piecemeal interventions'. Those piecemeal interventions are wrong. Morally wrong, in my view.​​​http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/2011/10/cycle-deaths-on-boris-super-highways.html​​​Boris was warned and did nothing, TFL were warned and they did nothing. Cyclists outnumber drivers on many roads in London now, but this horrible death was predicted when experts told Boris that painting roads blue does not make them magically safe. Drivers are just as inattentive, reckless and stupid as before, and HGV drivers in particular have an appalling safety record. Boris, for all his guff about cycling, is the same old pro-car Tory, focussed on "smoothing traffic flow"- ie making things easier and faster for motorists and GUARANTEEING more deaths.​​​


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

*TfL 'sorry' after second Bow Roundabout cyclist death.*


TfL surface transport manager Leon Daniels said: "We are extremely sorry to learn of the tragic death of a female cyclist, following a collision with an HGV on the Bow Road roundabout on Friday evening.

"Our thoughts are with her family and friends. I have visited the scene and both TfL and the police have launched inquiries which will report as quickly as possible‬." 




Cycling blogger Danny Williams said: "I think the superhighways should be made proper superhighways.

"I think it's a good idea incredibly badly implemented and not very well thought through and the Mayor needs to take responsibility for that.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15706706


----------



## snorri (12 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> What I do not think, however, is that there is an appetite for change among the woider population.



No appetite for change or fear of change is the normal human reaction unless it's a change from something truly dire.

There is ample scope for lessons to be learned from other cities and changes made to the benefit of the population in general.


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

We could start by having more checks on lorries:

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). 

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/city-of-london-police-road-safety-forum 

We could start by having the cops take cycling deaths seriously and not turn away witnesses and make a complete cock-up of the investigation into Eilidh Cairns' death.

We could lobby the CPS so that drivers who kill vulnerable road users actually get prosecuted and dealt with properly.

Everything is weighted against cyclists, Boris hasn't a clue, the cops are useless and incompetent and the CPS are inept.


----------



## MacB (12 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> It may be contentious to say it, but I'm not sure what really can be done to improve things.






Bicycle said:


> What I do not think, however, is that there is an appetite for change among the woider population.



I just wanted to pick up on these two points, I find your overall view to be pretty realistic by the way, but would contend on these.

On the first I feel that the prevalence of large vehicles involved in KSI incidents with cyclist is a clear indication that a targetted approach could bring results for little overall change. We're not about to make every lorry driver super careful or every cyclist super aware. We can improve upon lorry design and also limit areas of access, frankly some roads just aren't suited to big vehicles.

On the second I think this ties into my first point, yes most people want to live in a low traffic area but don't see the contradiction when they believe they have the right to drive where they want. But equally most people also find large vehicles too much in an urban environment or on roads below a certain size. So I think it would be wrong to assume that there wouldn't be general support for actions to make the interaction between large vehicles and other road users safer. As others have pointed out in these sorts of discussions, H&S seems to apply to commercial/inustrial/building sites and extensive risk assessment is carried out. But once the machinery leaves those sites it's almost like a free for all.


----------



## Hip Priest (12 Nov 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> The bad thing is that cyclists are dying. Fit, healthy cyclists who enjoy riding around enjoying the countryside and scenery. It wouldnt be so bad if the fat, aggressive drivers were dying because they are strapped up in their little tin cans and dont care for anyone else on the road.



I'm a fat cyclist. Do I get to live or die in your brave new world?


----------



## Raa (12 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1610875"]
Could you possibly expand on the above post and explain how it would reduce deaths on Londons roads?
[/quote]

Does it really require explanation?


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1610875"]
Could you possibly expand on the above post and explain how it would reduce deaths on Londons roads?
[/quote]



Which part are you having difficulty understanding? 

Investigations into cyclists' deaths are not carried out properly if the police wave witnesses away, as they did in Eilidh's death.

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lorry-dr...st-in-2009-involved-in-second-fatal-collision

The CPS are not doing their job properly if they accept "I didn't see the cyclist" as an excuse and take no action whatsoever against a killer driver:

http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/node/373

TFL are not doing their job properly when they fail to carry out basic safety checks on the most dangerous vehicles on our roads, HGVs.

Boris isn't doing his job when he blames the cyclist for being run over by a drunk lorry driver chatting on a mobile:

http://www.stockwellnews.com/2011/03/boris-johnson-on-catriona-patels-death.html


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1610878"]
Did not say I had trouble understanding just wanted you to expand - anyways.

Your first link is fair enough.

Not quite sure what the second link is for

Your third, Boris raises a valid point, cyclists should take note of their position on the road. 

Failure to do so is riding with assumption that other people will check their mirrors, and this is an extremely dangerous mindset to have as a vulnerable road user.
[/quote]

The second link shows that drivers who kill can offer a pathetic excuse and get charged with...nothing at all.

How could Catriona, an experienced cyclist, have used road positioning to protect her from a previously banned drunk driver on a mobile? Why, when cyclists are rarely at fault in RTCs, does Boris say that perhaps it's most important to educate cyclists?


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1610881"]
Be aware of your surroundings. 

It's about being aware of your surroundings.
[/quote]

I repeat, how does being aware of your surroundings protect you from pissed-up drivers chatting on mobiles?

Are you saying Catriona was at at fault in some way? In none of the recent London fatalities was it demonstrated that the cyclist was at fault. Any London cyclist knows lorry drivers can draw level then left-hook. The cyclist has done nothing wrong. You can be as aware of your surroundings as you like, it won't protect you from the sub-class of sociopaths like scaffolding and tipper lorry drivers:

Cyclist at lights, HGV pulls up behind, lights change, lorry driver pulls away and runs over the cyclist knocking her over, she twists round and braces her legs against the front of the lorry and is scraped along the road as pedestrians scream at the driver to stop:

http://londonist.com/2011/10/amazing-escape-in-cyclistlorry-crash-in-london-bridge.php


----------



## albion (12 Nov 2011)

I'm more a plodder these days.However I will still go L for leather on dangerous roundabouts.Very aware and aggressive cycling means you can out sprint traffic and greatly reduce risk.It is probably why naturally more cautious females appear to be at far greater risk here.


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1610883"]
<sighs>

You'd do well not to defame a whole industry.

As in answer to your question:

Cyclist at lights, HGV pulls up behind, <cyclist checks behind, becomes aware of surroundings, assess position on the road wrt driver, try and encourage eye contact or move if potential conflict is a probability> lights change, <cyclist checks again, either pulls away with lorry behind, or let's lorry go if they are level in the first place> everyone's happy.
[/quote]

You dispute Inspector Aspinall's evidence of lorry drivers flouting the law? You disagree that driving a lorry in London whilst drunk is sociopathic?

How do you know the cyclist didn't behave exactly as you describe? Why are you desperate to blame cyclists for their own deaths, have you any actual evidence that the cyclists were at fault in the London deaths?


----------



## Bicycle (12 Nov 2011)

Raa said:


> Well, that told me didn't it!!
> 
> It is unlikely that we could find much agreement as it seems you:
> 
> ...


----------



## Bicycle (12 Nov 2011)

albion said:


> I'm more a plodder these days.However I will still go L for leather on dangerous roundabouts.Very aware and aggressive cycling means you can out sprint traffic and greatly reduce risk.It is probably why naturally more cautious females appear to be at far greater risk here.



I'm not sure I agree with the gender-related part of this argument... I see little evidence for it. My daughter displays no 'natural caution' on a bike. She's played torreador with taxis in Paris and won.

However, to date I have found that a 'sprinty' approach to junctions and an 'all knees and elbows' approach to getting through traffic does have safety benefits.

In the past I've called it the Schwantz or Simoncelli method of making space, but recent events have made that comparison invalid (and perhaps even draw into the question whether using it is in good taste).

So... I agree that speed and assertiveness 9rather than aggression) can help, but I don't buy the gender thing.


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

The numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about gender and fatal RTCs.


----------



## Matthew_T (12 Nov 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> I'm a fat cyclist. Do I get to live or die in your brave new world?




All cyclists are fit and healthy. The difference between people who have always cycled, and people who have just started to cycle is timing. You might be a bit large and chosen cycling to loose a few pounds but when you sit in the saddle, you become a menace to other road users (not saying you are). 
I am not saying that people should get to die just because they drive, as most cyclists who driver are very courteous towards everyone else. It is just the obnoxious drivers who dont have a care in the world who deserve to die. Then it will be an equal distribution between cyclists, good vehicle drivers, and accidental deaths which noone could have avoided.


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

Nobody "deserves" to die, good grief! We're veering between absurd extremes, Lee's dishonest victim-blaming and you wishing death on errant drivers, sheesh!

These deaths are avoidable, the best way to avoid them is to focus on the most common cause, bad driver behaviour.


----------



## Matthew_T (12 Nov 2011)

The majority of deaths are avoidable but dont you agree that with less people around (stop population growth) there would be less deaths on the roads?


----------



## vickster (12 Nov 2011)

OMG !!!


----------



## Hip Priest (12 Nov 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> The majority of deaths are avoidable but dont you agree that with less people around (stop population growth) there would be less deaths on the roads?



Fewer people, fewer deaths. Yes, that cannot be disputed.


----------



## Bicycle (12 Nov 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> The majority of deaths are avoidable but dont you agree that with less people around (stop population growth) there would be *less deaths on the roads*?



This sort of post will always attract a fairly strong response; rightly so.

Forum members simply do not want to read this sort of thing.

All will share my horror at your apparent confusion between countable and uncountable nouns.

I believe the phrase you were searching for is _'fewer deaths'_.


----------



## vickster (12 Nov 2011)

How do you propose to stop population growth? Enforced sterilisation?


----------



## subaqua (12 Nov 2011)

wow so scaffolders and tipper drivers are sociopaths . 


better tell my dad then , he drove tippers for 20 years and never killed anybody. he very nearly killed himself in a tipper to avoid killing another road user who did something stupid . broke his spine and nearly paralysed him . but that generalisation is OK I suppose. 

as for scaffolders , most I know and deal with are just like you and me. normal people don't generalise like that please it lowers the tonne and does nothing for your argument. 



i can also guarantee that 99% of cars on the road are aslo driven outside the law. albeit minor deviations . driving hours offences can be as simple as not pressing the right button on the tacho at the right time . doesn't mean the driver has not rested properly it means he didn't press the right button


----------



## Hip Priest (12 Nov 2011)

vickster said:


> How do you propose to stop population growth? Enforced sterilisation?



How do they do it in China?


----------



## Matthew_T (12 Nov 2011)

vickster said:


> How do you propose to stop population growth? Enforced sterilisation?




It worked for the Chinese.


----------



## Matthew_T (12 Nov 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> How do they do it in China?




They allow one child to every family and then charge a massive amount of money and ask for lots of technical reasons why you wish to have another child. 
They charge about £10,000.


----------



## Hip Priest (12 Nov 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> It worked for the Chinese.



There is no compulsory sterilisation in China.


----------



## vickster (12 Nov 2011)

They didn't sterilise anyone (just enforced the policy through fiancial penalties and I expect a little bit of terror chucked in too I expect). We don't live in a totalitarian state.

Maybe you want to go back to the early 1940s in Germany where they exterminated people who didn't fit the mould? The disabled including the 'educationally sub normal' Jews, homosexuals, Romany gypsies to name a few...

Maybe we should just encourage motorists to run over a few more cyclists while no one is watching? Bit of survival of the fittest, natural selection? Cripes


----------



## Matthew_T (12 Nov 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> There is no compulsory sterilisation in China.




I didnt really mean sterilisation but this: http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/Sidebar/ChinaPop.html


----------



## Hip Priest (12 Nov 2011)

One of the strangest thing about this otherwise excellent forum is the tendency towards extreme viewpoints. This tendency is perfectly illustrated here, with cyclists suggesting we halt population growth to prevent cyclist deaths.


----------



## vickster (12 Nov 2011)

That's a nice new article from 1997

The views are changing it seems http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14112066


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

More cyclists on the roads does not mean more deaths. Accident rates decrease as cycling levels rise, for example, a community that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle:​​http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm

I'm not generalising, I'm saying in my experience scaffolding and tipper lorries are often driven by sociopaths, that's my direct, personal experience backed up with evidence from the cops and enquiries into fatalities caused by lorry drivers.


----------



## dawesome (12 Nov 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15708426

"The mayor needs to take responsibility"


----------



## albion (12 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> <br />I'm not sure I agree with the gender-related part of this argument...  I see little evidence for it.  My daughter displays no 'natural caution' on a bike.  She's played torreador with taxis in Paris and won.<br /><br />However, to date I have found that a 'sprinty' approach to junctions and an 'all knees and elbows' approach to getting through traffic does have safety benefits.<br /><br />In the past I've called it the Schwantz or Simoncelli method of making space, but recent events have made that comparison invalid (and perhaps even draw into the question whether using it is in good taste).<br /><br />So...  I agree that speed and assertiveness 9rather than aggression) can help, but I don't buy the gender thing.<br />


<br /><br /><br />
I don't know the stats but gender stats do feel very disproportional. 

I'm can actually be very cautious in traffic treating each situation quite independently.


----------



## HLaB (12 Nov 2011)

I'm just reading about it on the bbc website, the 2nd cyclist in three weeks  one quote made me angry though


> "TfL have previously said that there is nothing that they can do to make the roundabout safer, without causing traffic jams.


Well make traffic jams then, surely lives are worth more


----------



## Bicycle (12 Nov 2011)

1610910 said:


> The arithmetic on that one should provoke a revolution.




But it won't.

The quote is slightly crass in its wording, but the reality of the stance will not make the wider London community bat an eyelid.


----------



## Shaun (12 Nov 2011)

I've split this thread away from the RIP thread as it didn't seem appropriate to have arguments there. This forum suits the wider disucssion of Big City cycling safety better and can now be expanded upon.

It also ties-in somewhat with this other Campaign thread:
http://www.cyclechat...-london-nov-12/ 

Shaun


----------



## Piemaster (12 Nov 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15706706

Heart warming that there are those who care and take the time to ride to raise awareness.


----------



## Richard Mann (14 Nov 2011)

Bow roundabout could perfectly well be designed to deal with the motorised traffic volume and be safe for cycling (not necessarily quite as quick for cycling, mind, but not that bad given it's the junction between two major highways).

Similarly most gyratories could be designed to cope with the motorised traffic volume, and make them a lot safer for cyclists (though slower for right-turning traffic). Compare Kings Cross to the junctions at the Angel, or at Eversholt St. Turning bans are much better than gyratories.

If you turn this into a cyclist-death vs traffic-congestion debate then you will lose.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Nov 2011)

subaqua said:


> wow so scaffolders and tipper drivers are sociopaths .
> 
> 
> better tell my dad then , he drove tippers for 20 years and never killed anybody. he very nearly killed himself in a tipper to avoid killing another road user who did something stupid . broke his spine and nearly paralysed him . but that generalisation is OK I suppose.
> ...


whether you like it or not, tippers cause a disproportionate number of deaths. Half of all cycling deaths are caused by construction related traffic. If a group of drivers cause a hugely disproportionate number of deaths, then you look at that group and see what can be done. And there's a lot that can be done............ 

1. Designers have a duty to assess andminimise risk, and yet they draw schemes that rely on huge quantities of‘muck-away’. They draw underground car parks and retaining without considering what happens to the spoil, and the risk involved in carrying it from a site in London to a gravel pit somewhere outside of London. In this respect they are derelict.There’s a great show of concern about the design of electrical cupboards, roofaccess, and ramps, but none of these are is anywhere near as dangerous as the removal and transport of spoil. Designers should account for their decisions and they should establish that underground works are vital to the project. If,in their wisdom, they decide that works resulting in muck-away are vital to theproject, then it is incumbent on them to insist that the Contractor reduce the risk.

2. Contractors have a duty to assess and minimise risk. Again, there is a great show of concern about helmets, goggles, gloves and safety shoes, and all kinds of precautions whenever a ladder is used, but their attitude to risks off site is that it’s somebody else’s problem. Why, you might ask, are haulage firms found to have hired drivers with prior convictions still in business? Why do Main Contractors not ask for a clean bill of health from haulage subcontracters?


----------



## subaqua (14 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> whether you like it or not, tippers cause a disproportionate number of deaths. Half of all cycling deaths are caused by construction related traffic. If a group of drivers cause a hugely disproportionate number of deaths, then you look at that group and see what can be done. And there's a lot that can be done............
> 
> 1. Designers have a duty to assess andminimise risk, and yet they draw schemes that rely on huge quantities of‘muck-away’. They draw underground car parks and retaining without considering what happens to the spoil, and the risk involved in carrying it from a site in London to a gravel pit somewhere outside of London. In this respect they are derelict.There’s a great show of concern about the design of electrical cupboards, roofaccess, and ramps, but none of these are is anywhere near as dangerous as the removal and transport of spoil. Designers should account for their decisions and they should establish that underground works are vital to the project. If,in their wisdom, they decide that works resulting in muck-away are vital to theproject, then it is incumbent on them to insist that the Contractor reduce the risk.
> 
> 2. Contractors have a duty to assess and minimise risk. Again, there is a great show of concern about helmets, goggles, gloves and safety shoes, and all kinds of precautions whenever a ladder is used, but their attitude to risks off site is that it’s somebody else’s problem. Why, you might ask, are haulage firms found to have hired drivers with prior convictions still in business? Why do Main Contractors not ask for a clean bill of health from haulage subcontracters?




CDM 2007 went a little more towards making designers ( and archirtects ) responsible for what they design . not far enough IMHO though. 

The company I work for do ask for a clean bill of health from haulage contractors. but we have had a solid safety policy for a long long time. 

unfortunately there are contractors who will try and cut corners and with the pressure on to make building happen cheaper then i fear the numbers will only rise.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Nov 2011)

it's not just contractors and designers. I've been through this with the HSE. It's 'not their problem'.


----------



## subaqua (14 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> it's not just contractors and designers. I've been through this with the HSE. It's 'not their problem'.




which is a strange response as the burden of proof is the opposite way round i.e. you are guilty until you can prove you have done everything "reasonably practicable " to prevent the problem. and its that lovely phrase reasonably practicable that causes the problems, but if it were not there then almost everything in the UK would stop overnight. 

rock and hard place


----------



## postman (14 Nov 2011)

We cyclists don't count.We are a nuisance to car and lorry drivers.It's the old argument 'you don't pay road tax' if they only could hear themselves.We are not surrounded by a metal cage so one clip and it's a good chance you are going to get really hurt.
There is no policy by anyone in Gov to promote cycling as a healthy lifestyle or a way to get too and from work.We are missunderstood.Just check out the clips in commuting and on YT.We might aswell be lepers.
I don't see it changing in my lifetime.But cycling changed my life.i meet so many people talk to so many people in cafes most older than me and they tell me they used to be cyclists.And a thread is how do you ride amongst all the traffic.
Well you do or you miss out on the greatest form of enjoyment.


----------



## The Horse's Mouth (15 Nov 2011)

I think we all have our own thoughts as to what kind of drivers/vehicles cause accidents. I also agree with the construction traffic thoughts above. Muck and mud on the road is a constant problem with me as I cycle pass a cement works every day and the muck on the road is terrible.

I am more concerned with the design of these so called Superhighways. to me putting a few blue squares on the road doesnt make a road safer. I use CS3 everyday this one makes a bit of sense with the vast majority of it being a totally seperate lane off the road. This does cause a few problems with a few pedestrians but i would rather have a collision with a person then a cement lorry. Until such time as a total redesign of roads in london is made I consider the superhighways a waste of time.


----------



## her_welshness (15 Nov 2011)

Folks, Tower Hamlet Wheeler have organised a vigil for this Friday:

http://www.towerhamletswheelers.org.uk/bow-roundabout-vigil

Hope to see you there!


----------



## benborp (16 Nov 2011)

aberal started another thread linking to an LCC story on the Bow roundabout.

Bow Roundabout (again)

The LCC story from that thread is here.


----------



## her_welshness (18 Nov 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15798634

A beautiful and fitting vigil tonight to the two cyclists that lost their lives in Bow. Around 200 cyclists including friends, family, local politicians gathered amidst candlelight.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Nov 2011)

I spent 12 years commuting from SW19 to the west end back in the late seventies and eighties. Returning reugularly on the bike up untill 10 years ago. Ive been back this year and the change has been remarkable. The numbers of cyclists and facilities are a credit to the city, compared to when i used to ride there. On my return this year I was surprised at the courtesy shown by the majority of car drivers, however this was not replicated by so called proffessional drivers. The lorries in particular were a menace. I had the misfortune one day of being hooked by my rucksack on the side of a low loader on the edgeware road resulting in some nasty injuries the driver wasn t even prosecuted.

Anyway to get to my point, I may be corrected on this, but looking as an outsider in as it were. It would seem to me there are many interested parties who would benefit from action to reduce the risk posed here. My question is, do you have a coherent campaign amongst these groups, if not why not ? 

For years rural Britain had groups fighting amongst themselves to acheive similar aims, untill the formation of the countryside alliance came into being. As we know this became a powerful voice recognised throughout the country.


It seems to me from the evidence , from here and other sources that the cycling fraternity is a little inward looking. Instead of the confrontional attitude of some (them and us syndrome) would it not be time to burn some bridges, and make, what some would see as an uncomfortable alliance (on this subject anyway) with the private motorist or organisations to bring pressure to bare. Im sure you have residents associations etc. who also have a vested interest, the question again is are you all speaking with one voice. Of course all groups would have their priorities and differences, but if the will amongst the capitals population is there, Im sure nothing is insumountable.

As I say just a thought from an ex londoner looking on.


----------

