Blood on the streets

No.

Fewer motor vehicle journeys means fewer accidents and less pollution immediately, not in twenty year's time, you're confused.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/story/2013-12-03/mps-investigating-cycling-safety-dont-know-the-most-basic-facts/

It was a pathetic performance, like listening to a bunch of pig-ignorant, prejudiced saloon-bar bores.

It's nice that ITV have reported that, but it'd be nicer if they'd explain what the basic facts were that those idiots had got wrong.

Also, they've tagged those articles under "Cyclng" which does not inspire confidence in their web editing department :/

^^ Did you actually read his post?

But the costs of pollution and the costs of poor health are -

(1) Spread over many years.
and
(2) Not all borne by government.

I am only including the external costs of private motoring, whether borne by society as a whole or directly by taxpayers, for instance the estimated £1m every road fatality costs us, the massive costs of keeping the network maintained, injuries etc. A decline in motor vehicle miles would see an immediate reduction in these costs. The benefits would not take twenty years to accrue, they would be instant.

The imbalance in thinking about this issue is typified by the farce that took place in Parliament, the RHA are a powerful lobby group so their advocate could sit their and imply the recent dead cyclists had behaved badly, and nobody challenged him. The RHA have the construction industry and the oil lobbyists on their side, cyclists were barely represented apart from Gilligan, a man who's only in the job as a tribute from Boris.

This £1m that each fatality costs us. Can you please break that down for me?

1997 prices:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.4.1.pdf

The 1997 mid-point value of £1m for the prevention of a fatality includes losses
to society as well as losses that are borne by the victims themselves, their
friends and relatives. Losses to society arise because medical and ambulance
costs are largely met by the NHS, and because fatal injuries result in net
economic output being lost (the difference between the present value of lifetime
output and consumption).

You are saying that the very long term benefits to society as a whole (not just government) of reduced car use would outweigh the costs. I agree.

But long term benefits do not pay the bills this year

I've just explained that the benefits would accrue immediately.

Who cares? Just ride your bike.

The APPCG @allpartycycling has just tweeted:-
Commons Transport Comm chair Louise Ellman responds to Chris Boardman criticism by inviting him to give evidence to cycling safety inquiry

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029432.000-air-pollution-blights-london-life.html#.Up7zb3ftr6E

The article on air pollution in some London borough that's so bad people with any kind of health/lung condition suffer much more.

Reducing air pollution in London (even by electric cars) would save money instantly in health costs.

Spindrift - we are going round in circles.

Dead Or Alive - You Spin Me Round (Like a Record) - YouTube

more enlightened thoughts from Mr P Field:
Three things to remember in these crazy times.

[]People who travel by bike live longer.
[]People on bikes getting run down is not – primarily – a bicycle story. It’s a story about the dangers of motor-traffic in public space.
[*]The most pressing short-term needs are, explaining to people who use motor-vehicles on public roads why those on bicycles need to claim time and space, and encouraging bicycle users to take enough time and space to be safe.

http://www.madegood.org/bikes/magazine/we-are-normal-freedom/

from Idiot's posting of this article

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/22/london-cyclists-road-safety-boris-johnson

"Johnson may be the "cycling mayor" who's introduced a hire scheme, but the policies of his predecessor Ken Livingstone (who would have introduced one too) helped cyclists and pedestrians in ways Johnson has eschewed. Transport professor David Beggs has described Livingstone as a trailblazer who "believed in a roads hierarchy which prioritised pedestrians, cyclists and buses in that order", and "presided over a modal shift from car to public transport, walking and cycling which was unrivalled worldwide". Road-pricing – the congestion charge – was central to Livingstone's approach, as were "public realm" reforms such as the remodelling of Trafalgar Square.

Under Livingstone the car went down the pecking order, to the benefit of everyone else. Johnson, by contrast, has halved the congestion charge zone, dumped or declined to embrace pedestrianisation, produced no significant plans for expanding the bus service, dismantled the modal hierarchy and made a priority of "smoothing traffic flow" – code for helping cars get around the place faster. Rallying his troops before last year's mayoral election campaign he called his opponents "car-hating". For "good old Boris" motorist umbrage has been a source of votes. His recent "cycling vision" has excited some campaigners, not least for pledging to "go Dutch" with some segregated lanes. But it remains to be seen how much of the vision will live up to the PR."

I always wondered how much Boris Johnson actually had to do with the hire scheme and the superhighways and how much more could have been done with Ken Livingstone sat in the mayoral throne. And it still irks, that it feels like the majority of people who voted for Boris, were really voting against Livingstone, and whether you liked him or not, it felt like there was at least some thought and coherence behind Ken's policies. And the first paragraph above seems to make that evident.

Common mate! How many times have you been present when I've made exactly this point about BJ repealing many of Ken's plans to make things better?!

Here is a statistical analysis of the recent spate of deaths (picked up from BBC4's More or Less)
http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/magazine/5665231/Have-Londons-roads-become-more-dangerous-for-cyclists.html

Seems that driving rather than cycling is many more times riskier

linky no worky for me..

Try now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03pjfj3

On now
So far all about blood on the streets
Not a good start :(

Always going to be like that.

When I did an interview for See Hear about deafness and cycling, they immediately switch to ghost bikes afterward.

I suppose there is no story in a good news story like 'ride a bike because it is fun easy and great for you and everyone else'

"...but cycling is dangerous and should only be attempt if you don't wear headphone".

In the video that accompanies the report about the death of Akis in Homerton (see rider down thread the interviewer asked the standard victim blaming nonsense question about what cyclists can do themselves, and the driver wasn't even arrested. Its so depressing

In the rider down thread @howradmichello wondered:

wonderings:

1. was the Gordon HGV fitted with the latest safety equipment (in addition to the cameras) - that meets LCC guidelines?
   
   1. had the driver (as employed by Gordon) had urban driving training that meets the LCC guidelines?
      
      

@charlie_lcc

1. I am not sure about that particular lorry but I know that Gordons group have been very proactive in fitting their vehicles with the latest equipment following an earlier death involving a driver from that company

2. They had planned to get all their drivers trained this spring. I don't think that it has happened yet though. 3 of them including their boss had a session on bikes with Cycle Training UK

This is sad indeed as that company genuinely wished to do all they can to minimise the chance of this happening again. They promote road sharing and cycle/driver training on some of their lorries

Including some advice printed on their lorries:

encouraging,

as long as this equipment meets with the LCC standards ..

It's not LCCs standards that they need to conform to but the industry standard which LCC has supported as well as TfL. It'a programme called CLOCS http://www.clocs.org.uk/workstream-one/

All vehicle companies working for crossrail (Like Gordon's) should be part of this scheme

Top tips for cyclists: too long, do not read! Watch out for that lorry!

thx for posting @skydancer,

was yet to know about CLOCS (Construction Logistics and Cyclist Safety),

Between 2008 and 2013, 55 per cent of cyclist fatalities in London
involved a heavy goods vehicle. A disproportionate number of these
were construction vehicles. In 2012 Transport for London commissioned
an independent review of the construction sector’s transport
activities to understand the causes of these collisions and how they
might be prevented.

The resulting ‘Construction Logistics and Cyclist Safety' (CLOCS)
report was published in February 2013 by Transport Research
Laboratory. The report found that:

Blind spots on construction vehicles could be larger than general
haulage vehicles Road safety was not considered in same way as health
and safety on-site There was little understanding of the impact of
construction activity on road safety There was no common standard for
the industry to work to in order to manage work related road safety In
response, the construction logistics industry demonstrated its
commitment to change and identified actions under three work streams
to improve road safety. CLOCS brings together the construction
logistics industry to revolutionise the management of work related
road risk and embed a road safety culture across the industry as the
UK's population and economy grows.

@skydancer,

re. your post in the Rider Down thread,

This isn't the thread for those 'wonderings'

given that HGV driver training and HGV safety equipment is likely to reduce the chance of fatal collisions happening,

surely whenever there is a fatality involving an HGV, the same questions have to be asked each and every time (unless its clear from the reporting):

1. was the HGV fitted with the latest safety equipment? - that meets the appropriate (industry) standards approved of by our representative organisation, the LCC?
   
2. had the driver been trained for driving in urban areas consistent with standards approved of by our representative organisation, the LCC?
   
   

where the answers to this questions are contained within the thread, or linked-to from the thread, its clearer for anybody wondering the same questions as to what the answers are;