2008-07-14 - Rider Down/Fatality, Grays Inn Road

are we gonna lobby someone or something or what?

sad as this is, there are cyclist advocacy groups that are much better equipped to lobby about cyclist safety/awareness etc than this forum will ever be. i think any efforts in this direction should probably be focused through those groups.

i just don't know what they are (haven't been in the UK long).

It is tragic that we see this sort of thing time and time again.

However if you ride like and idiot (and i am not by any means suggesting the poor bastard was), dont be too shocked if you end up resembling a pancake. The main benefit of riding a bike around London is the freedom it gives you when choosing a route, and the ability to hop onto a pavement, use a park for a shortcut, go through a light etc when the other road users have to sit and stew in traffic.

I think a lot of us (including me) are so used to taking these liberties with the highway code, that they have become entrenched into our riding habits and we forget the danger we are sometimes placing ourselves and others in.

Bicyclists are the only road users who are allowed to take to the highway without any formal training or licensing - perhaps a days training similar to a Motorcycle CBT would be of benefit to us all.

Bicycles are hard enough for other road users to see, but somtimes the way we ride does us no favors at all.

Sure I take liberties to maintain my momentum but in point of fact most of the liberties that I take are taken to place the maximum amount of distance between me and percieved dangers

from another point of view how many times some vehicles pushed me to a side, that I had to break like a madman, jump on the pavement or slam into a vehicle. today, for example, some prick driving a white van with lithuanian number plates (left hand drive) pushed me to a side with a metal fence. i was inches away. some other riders are new to this and their reaction would be the same.

sad as this is, there are cyclist advocacy groups that are much better equipped to lobby about cyclist safety/awareness etc than this forum will ever be. i think any efforts in this direction should probably be focused through those groups.

i just don't know what they are (haven't been in the UK long).

Wrong.

Civil advocacy only works if it is supported by strong grass roots action. There is considerable value in writing letters. Start with your MP, and copy the Secretary of State for Transport. And the Mayor of London, and why not include your MLA too? By all means, join the CTC or donate to Roadpeace, but their lobbying will only work if the politicos think that their concerns are shared by a significant minority of the public.

I could draft a letter on the subject easily, having written several already.

Bicyclists are the only road users who are allowed to take to the highway without any formal training or licensing - perhaps a days training similar to a Motorcycle CBT would be of benefit to us all.

Bicycles are hard enough for other road users to see, but somtimes the way we ride does us no favors at all.

Ignoring the victim blaming here, you are plain wrong about cyclists being the only road users that are not formally trained.

Pedestrians have similar rights to cyclists, that is they have an absolute right to use the public highway EXCEPT motorways, similarly horse-riders.

Is it just me, or is this forum becoming more and more like the old C+ forum every day?

You missed my point entirely, Bill.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't get involved in grassroots action, far from it! My point is that other organisations are better equipped than this forum for directing grassroots action in ways that are actually useful, rather than just a scattergun approach.

You missed my point entirely, Bill.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't get involved in grassroots action, far from it! My point is that other organisations are better equipped than this forum for directing grassroots action in ways that are actually useful, rather than just a scattergun approach.

Well, writing a letter on a specific issue is hardly scatter-gun, is it?

depends who it's addressed to.

Ignoring the victim blaming here, you are plain wrong about cyclists being the only road users that are not formally trained.

Pedestrians have similar rights to cyclists, that is they have an absolute right to use the public highway EXCEPT motorways, similarly horse-riders.

Is it just me, or is this forum becoming more and more like the old C+ forum every day?

Did i blame the victim - no i exprssely said i wasn't blaming the victim

I don't usually go off on one but you really are a stupid cunt if you don't think that proper rider training would have a beneficial effect on the state of play . . . understanding the dynamics of other road users is one of the safest ways to advance your riding awareness. The simple fact is no matter how cycle aware other road users are, the majority of time a cyclist will not be visible to them due to blind spots and speed of movement (this is one of the first things you are taught when learning how to ride a motorbike) - do you not think that if more cyclists knew they were in a Lorry's blind spot then they wouldn't take the risk of riding there

And you are a pedantic fuckwit for saying pedestrians are also road users, no shit sherlock. And i think you'll find that horse riders undergo many hours of training including specific highway awareness sessions that teach you how other road users behave and how you should expect HGV's etc to use the road space available so that you can anticipate any dangers, i should know as i ride regularly.

I don't advocate forcing anyone to do anything, but cycling has for too long had a blame the others attitude to road safety, when perhaps the biggest advances could be made by some introspective thinking on the matter.

Did i blame the victim - no i exprssely said i wasn't blaming the victim

I don't usually go off on one but you really are a stupid cunt if you don't think that proper rider training would have a beneficial effect on the state of play . . . understanding the dynamics of other road users is one of the safest ways to advance your riding awareness. The simple fact is no matter how cycle aware other road users are, the majority of time a cyclist will not be visible to them due to blind spots and speed of movement (this is one of the first things you are taught when learning how to ride a motorbike) - do you not think that if more cyclists knew they were in a Lorry's blind spot then they wouldn't take the risk of riding there

And you are a pedantic fuckwit for saying pedestrians are also road users, no shit sherlock. And i think you'll find that horse riders undergo many hours of training including specific highway awareness sessions that teach you how other road users behave and how you should expect HGV's etc to use the road space available so that you can anticipate any dangers, i should know as i ride regularly.

I don't advocate forcing anyone to do anything, but cycling has for too long had a blame the others attitude to road safety, when perhaps the biggest advances could be made by some introspective thinking on the matter.

Aside from the pathetic ad hominem, I think it might important for you to consider the following:

1) even if every cyclist were trained and licensed, would you guarantee that drivers (of whatever) would start to respect the highway code to the letter and give cyclists their due space?

2) in the overwhelming majority of cases, a cyclist making an error of judgment is likely to cause limited damages to property and people, while drivers can damn well kill a cyclist because of a mistake... this alone puts a grater onus on them than to cyclists

Well, writing a letter on a specific issue is hardly scatter-gun, is it?

i'm not being funny or flippant, but i wanted to elaborate on my point. i know you have much more experience in this area than i do, but hear me out.

say i've decided that something must be done, so i'm going to write a letter. What am I going to put in this letter?

• what specifically am i asking the receiver of the letter to do? there's no point simply wringing my hands and begging the reader to "Do something, stop the carnage!", i need a solid message. what is it?
  
• what is an achievable aim (or aims) that my letter is intended to support? specifically, am i asking for cyclist training, better/safer bike lanes (where, which streets/intersections etc), driver awareness training, what?
  
• what are other local cyclist advocate groups aiming for, and do i want to risk jeopardising their hard work by diluting the message?
  
• what statistics or information can i provide to support my proposition?
  etc etc.
  
  

The writing of the letter, in order to be beneficial, is no trivial matter for a lone person.

Now, who do i send it to? Is there any point sending it to a lowly MP who receives only the odd letter about cycling, along with letters from elderly constituents concerned about rubbish collection, parking permits and noisy lorries driving down their street? he/she will probably just bin it.
Surely it's far more effective to target the people who actually set policy in this area - members of transport committees, road safety committees, the people who actually allocate funding and put forward policy recommendations. Now, I personally have no idea who these people are. Which is why it would be better for me to ask an organisation that exists to lobby these people, and find out who they're targeting with their campaigns. Then send an on-message letter to the people who actually have the ability to do something about it.

In other words, writing a letter is all well and good, but it's a waste of time and paper if:
a) i don't know what to write in it.
b) i don't know who to send it to.

There are groups who have expertise in this area. I don't know which ones. Probably you do... but grassroots action needs to be directed if it is to be effective.

Did i blame the victim - no i exprssely said i wasn't blaming the victim

I don't usually go off on one but you really are a stupid cunt if you don't think that proper rider training would have a beneficial effect on the state of play . . . understanding the dynamics of other road users is one of the safest ways to advance your riding awareness. The simple fact is no matter how cycle aware other road users are, the majority of time a cyclist will not be visible to them due to blind spots and speed of movement (this is one of the first things you are taught when learning how to ride a motorbike) - do you not think that if more cyclists knew they were in a Lorry's blind spot then they wouldn't take the risk of riding there

And you are a pedantic fuckwit for saying pedestrians are also road users, no shit sherlock. And i think you'll find that horse riders undergo many hours of training including specific highway awareness sessions that teach you how other road users behave and how you should expect HGV's etc to use the road space available so that you can anticipate any dangers, i should know as i ride regularly.

I don't advocate forcing anyone to do anything, but cycling has for too long had a blame the others attitude to road safety, when perhaps the biggest advances could be made by some introspective thinking on the matter.

I was going to respond to this line by line but you clearly aren't in the mood to debate - you just want to post ill-informed rants abusing people that have pointed out your fundamental errors relating to the laws of the road, and the respective rights of users thereof.

In the most patronising and condescending way that I can, I suggest that you go away and read the Highway Code. Calling me a pedantic fuck-wit merely exposes your lack of understanding of it. Introspective thinking? In this particular matter, ie fatalities resulting from collisions between cyclists and HGVs, mine is a matter of public record.

Now either do some reading (try this for a start) or fuck off.

i'm not being funny or flippant, but i wanted to elaborate on my point. i know you have much more experience in this area than i do, but hear me out.

say i've decided that something must be done, so i'm going to write a letter. What am I going to put in this letter?

• what specifically am i asking the receiver of the letter to do? there's no point simply wringing my hands and begging the reader to "Do something, stop the carnage!", i need a solid message. what is it?
  
• what is an achievable aim (or aims) that my letter is intended to support? specifically, am i asking for cyclist training, better/safer bike lanes (where, which streets/intersections etc), driver awareness training, what?
  
• what are other local cyclist advocate groups aiming for, and do i want to risk jeopardising their hard work by diluting the message?
  
• what statistics or information can i provide to support my proposition?
  etc etc.
  
  

The writing of the letter, in order to be beneficial, is no trivial matter for a lone person.

Now, who do i send it to? Is there any point sending it to a lowly MP who receives only the odd letter about cycling, along with letters from elderly constituents concerned about rubbish collection, parking permits and noisy lorries driving down their street? he/she will probably just bin it.
Surely it's far more effective to target the people who actually set policy in this area - members of transport committees, road safety committees, the people who actually allocate funding and put forward policy recommendations. Now, I personally have no idea who these people are. Which is why it would be better for me to ask an organisation that exists to lobby these people, and find out who they're targeting with their campaigns. Then send an on-message letter to the people who actually have the ability to do something about it.

In other words, writing a letter is all well and good, but it's a waste of time and paper if:
a) i don't know what to write in it.
b) i don't know who to send it to.

There are groups who have expertise in this area. I don't know which ones. Probably you do... but grassroots action needs to be directed if it is to be effective.

Something like this (although you would probably want to change the names, up-date it etc:

Ken Livingstone
Mayor of London
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk

London SE1 2AA

Dear Mr Livingstone,

My greetings to you on the weekend that the Tour de France, the world’s biggest bicycle race starts from London. My congratulations on bringing Le Tour to London. Thanks also for encouraging more Londoners to get on their bikes.

However, I write to you today with more grave matters on my mind. As you may know, more than half of all cyclists killed in London in the 12 months to June 2006 were killed by collisions with Heavy Goods Vehicles/Large Goods Vehicles (lorries) (9 of a total of 17). In the 7 year period Jan 1999 – November 2005, 60 London cyclists were killed by HGVs/lorries. Although cyclist fatalities in London are falling (from around 22 a year to less than 20), the numbers killed by lorries is going up.

Despite some success in stimulating activity in this area from Transport for London, I remain very concerned that not enough is being done to encourage the operators of HGV/LGV/lorries to equip and train their drivers to avoid these tragic and, in most cases, wholly avoidable collisions. I would be grateful if you could indicate what measures are planned for the future to reduce the threat to London’s cyclists from lorries, especially in view of the likely huge increase of construction traffic associated with the 2012 Olympics project.

yours sincerely

I would then copy it to your local MP, the Sec State for Transport, your Member of the London Assembly etc. You can find out who these people are with 2 or 3 clicks of your mouse.

To update it I would include the latest stats:

15 London cyclists killed in 2007, 7 by HGVs more here

I am NOT saying that you shouldn't be looking to see what CTC and Roadpeace are up to, and trying to support that. But one of the most effective campaigns in this area was by Cynthia Barlow, whose daughter was run over a concrete lorry. She bought shares in the company and used a shareholders meeting to shame RMC into to taking action. RMC (now Cemex) are now the most cycle-friendly of any haulier, as a direct result of her one-person campaign. (And she is now chair of Roadpeace).

If you wanted to address one specific issue, I would pick government oversight of the new regulations relating to the new 'blind-spot' mirrors. More here

Did i blame the victim - no i exprssely said i wasn't blaming the victim

I don't usually go off on one but you really are a stupid cunt if you don't think that proper rider training would have a beneficial effect on the state of play . . . understanding the dynamics of other road users is one of the safest ways to advance your riding awareness. The simple fact is no matter how cycle aware other road users are, the majority of time a cyclist will not be visible to them due to blind spots and speed of movement (this is one of the first things you are taught when learning how to ride a motorbike) - do you not think that if more cyclists knew they were in a Lorry's blind spot then they wouldn't take the risk of riding there

And you are a pedantic fuckwit for saying pedestrians are also road users, no shit sherlock. And i think you'll find that horse riders undergo many hours of training including specific highway awareness sessions that teach you how other road users behave and how you should expect HGV's etc to use the road space available so that you can anticipate any dangers, i should know as i ride regularly.

I don't advocate forcing anyone to do anything, but cycling has for too long had a blame the others attitude to road safety, when perhaps the biggest advances could be made by some introspective thinking on the matter.

VV, advise you to show a lil' respect for your elders / betters. Bill is incredibly well respected here and on moving target, not only for his opinions but for his organisation and involvement in many positive activites that further the best interests of both professional and amauter cyclists on the roads of London.

I was going to respond to this line by line but you clearly aren't in the mood to debate - you just want to post ill-informed rants abusing people that have pointed out your fundamental errors relating to the laws of the road, and the respective rights of users thereof.

In the most patronising and condescending way that I can, I suggest that you go away and read the Highway Code. Calling me a pedantic fuck-wit merely exposes your lack of understanding of it.

You right i'm not in the mood to debate, because it is clearly something you are not open to. To use Fedsters big expression, i did reply to you ad hominem as you decided to reply to dismiss my original post based on what you thought i was saying rather than listening to what i was actually saying.

I am fully aware of the highway code - my point is that training would be of benefit, something you seem to entertain as being an insult to your pride as a cyclist, and no amount of fundamentaling and thereofing on your part can dissuade me that it wouldnt be a good idea fo more training to be offered, and the free police training that is available to be better publicised.

Calling you a pedantic fuckwit was actually me expressing my thoughs on your argument, and me now calling you a pedantic fuckwit is just my way of confirming that upon reflection i still feel the same.

BBill: unfair! you had that one prepared earlier! which goes to my point - far easier for the average person to take the lead from experienced advocacy groups.

yeah Bill your a right cunt for giving a shit and waving the sad fetid pile of grim statistics under the holders of powers noses. anyone would think you didn't have a day job and just did it for free t-shirts and fridge magnets from lobbying groups whilst spending your humongous trust fund at starbucks and condor cycles.

*I think an inductive proximity sensor with the nominal range set appropriately on the side of the truck might be more effective, you could have a warning light and alert noise in the drivers cab to show him if some idiot has just trundled up to a stop at his side.

Easy to make stuff, readily available technology, easy to apply and cheap too.*

How you you stop it being set off by railings?

A proximity sensor senses a change in the return field (ie: an inductive sensor is not a metal detector). So it would work something like this, the sensor kicks in a couple seconds after the lorry comes to a stop (numerous cheap and easy ways to implement this).

Then if the return field is disturbed by a change a warning light and noise signals in the drivers cab that something has just sidled up the side of his lorry within the appropriately set nominal range.

I am fully aware of the highway code - my point is that training would be of benefit, something you seem to entertain as being an insult to your pride as a cyclist,

Yeah, that's right - that's why I said this:

'If one of the main obstacles to getting more bums on bikes is lack of confidence, then surely it would be better to spend the money on training so that potential cyclists will know how to handle their bikes and to recognise and negotiate hazards.'

here

BBill: unfair! you had that one prepared earlier! which goes to my point - far easier for the average person to take the lead from experienced advocacy groups.

I wrote that all by myself - and I am not an experienced advocacy group - just a pedantic fuckwit!

an experienced pedantic fuckwit, though.

VV, advise you to show a lil' respect for your elders / betters. Bill is incredibly well respected here and on moving target, not only for his opinions but for his organisation and involvement in many positive activites that further the best interests of both professional and amauter cyclists on the roads of London.

You can advise more all that you want, but he is not my elder, and when he is my better is a matter of opinion that neither concerns or is relevant to me.

Anyone doing anything to make people more aware of road safety is cool by me, but my opinions on cycle safety are as valid as the next mans, and too my mind many cycle safety campaigns have become zealot like in their nature, whereby they started off wanting to improve the world, but have now become so blinkered hat everything that doesnt fit in with their idea of how road safety shoul be is deemed to be discardable and attackable, resulting in alienating cyclists further from other road users and doing more harm than good.

I respect BB for his achievements, but his standing is no reason for him to dismiss my opinions and views i a holier than thow manner, and my experience in everything i have ever done is that educating rather than lecturing people is the way forward.

You're right, vinylvillian.

I respect BB for his achievements, but his standing is no reason for him to dismiss my opinions and views i a holier than thow manner, and my experience in everything i have ever done is that educating rather than lecturing people is the way forward.

Sorry mate, there's no point respecting whatever my achievements might be, if you think that pulling you up on the fundamentals of the laws of the road is fuck-witted pedantry. I apologise for maybe misrepresenting you as a 'victim-blamer', but to be honest, any discussion of road danger has to start from making pedestrians the kings of the road. For a better understanding, read Bob Davis.