Bow Roundabout- second death

[Bicycle]

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

[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]

[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]

[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]

[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]

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]

[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]

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.

I'm not always 100% happy about it, but it's not a major issue for me. I'm a Londoner by birth who moved to a more rural location when my children were young. However, I still love cycling when I'm back in the Smoke.

2. Play down the effects of air pollution.

I think I just see air pollution in a different way to you. I have friends who see things as you do, but I don't agree with them. this may not mean that I 'play down' pollution, just that I see things differently.

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

It's not a mind-boggling concept for me. I just don't see it as fundamentally anti-social. I'm an enthusiastic cyclist and have passed my enthusiasm on to all three of my children. I also drive a lot and see plenty of advantages (personal and social) in doing so.

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

I think I can just about get my head round that... but there is a compromise. We would allow motor ambulances of course, and motorised fire tenders... and trucks to deliver bicycles to retailers... There is a line to be drawn and I suspect that you and I would draw it in different places.

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.

12 mph is not so bad. It is often much lower in London. On my commute from Mile End to Ilford by car in the late 80s it was 8mph. I dare say in many parts of London it is lower. I wouldn't do it now, but I do not have an issue with people who choose to.

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!

Aaah... that ties in with my point above. It often goes lower than 7mph... But some people just don't have a problem with that. I love to ride in London, but it isn't always practical. if I have to get from WC2 to SE9 with three colleagues, all of us in suits, a taxi makes more sense than tube, bus or bicycle. Bike would be my favourite, but it's the real world.

I think we just disagree. Some drivers may cause some cyclists a lot of frustration or inconvenience, but driving in cities is not inherently bad, evil, selfish, thoughtless or pathetic. It's just a different way of skinning the same tiger.