Evening Standard Article on Cycling

anyone stopped to think james of london might be the standard trying to wind people up so they leave comments?

the article itself is fairly neutral.

I just thought that!

anyone stopped to think james of london might be the standard trying to wind people up so they leave comments?

the article itself is fairly neutral.

Dunno about that, i've seen a few comments on other stories that are so out of order they end up removing the whole comment section and the ability to post comment. But maybe i'm being a little naive

"There should be NO cycle lanes at all on bus routes.
Cyclists should largely ensure their own safety by NOT cycling on busy roads, especially those used often by trucks etc. Basic common sense. Of course, if they want to have their freedom to cycle wherever they like, then they must accept the consequential dangers."

I was angry, now I'm just hugely depressed that there are people who hold these views. What about the driver who repeatedly tried to ram me off the road because I wasn't cycling in the cycle lane, is that a 'consequential danger' I must accept as a cyclist, someone trying to kill me because got in his way.

OK, back to the original article--nothing is put in context. Wait until we have an intelligent interpretation of this data, as far as it goes.

It could well show a strong increase in cycling nationwide. I read a paper the other day which put the increase in Liverpool at 37%.

What matters for statistical interpretation isn't so much the absolute number of casualties, but the casualty rate.

Well he is right in a way.

Some cyclists I have seen are real muppets, but bring back cycling proficiency, will that cure all?

But does this mean that drivers will get more training too? We have all met muppet bus drivers and taxi drivers and drivers in general, so did they not have training?

In cycle training, we have something much better now than cycling proficiency ever was. And yes, it is applicable and gives skills to all road users.

it is true there are some real muppets on the road, i witnessed a cyclist RLJing at oxford circus's new xrossing, with ped's crossing everywhere. what is the fucking point?!

and mr shick - how much are these cycling training courses and when/where are they? i guess you're talking about the LCC advertised ones?

and mr shick - how much are these cycling training courses and when/where are they? i guess you're talking about the LCC advertised ones?

You can ring up CTUK on 020 7231 6005 (cycletraining.co.uk) and they can point you in the right direction.

There are a number of options for getting a free or subsidised course where you live, work, or study.

I should add that CTUK don't deliver all the local authority programmes. Some are delivered by other training providers (e.g., Cyclinginstructor.com in Southwark) and some are delivered by Councils in-house. You can always go to your local authority web-site and search for 'cycle training'.

anyone stopped to think james of london might be the standard trying to wind people up so they leave comments?

almost certainly is.

I got this far.......

"There should be NO cycle lanes at all on bus routes.
Cyclists should largely ensure their own safety by NOT cycling on busy roads, especially those used often by trucks etc. Basic common sense. Of course, if they want to have their freedom to cycle wherever they like, then they must accept the consequential dangers.

- Ralph, London"

TWAT!

it is true there are some real muppets on the road, i witnessed a cyclist RLJing at oxford circus's new xrossing, with ped's crossing everywhere. what is the fucking point?!

and mr shick - how much are these cycling training courses and when/where are they? i guess you're talking about the LCC advertised ones?

the tower hamlets council website says they are free to its residents.

oliver is right about casualties per cycle miles travelled.

ctc have recently published research which puts the case that overall casualty rates are declining as more cycle miles are done.

i think it is a good document and a good read.

i am not quite clear why the journalist turns to dept of transport and the aa for comment and not lcc or ctc. lazy journalism ?

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/CTC_Safety_in_Numbers.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-prosser-lazy-motorists-endangering-cyclists-1815452.html

While I don't agree with compulsory licensing insurance e.t.c an extension of freely available training for both adult and children would only improve the situation for everyone. The inconstancy across London of the cycle training blow a hole in Boris's cycling city campaign IMO. If good quality bike training was part of the national curricula it would be wonderful, even if many of the children did not go on to cycle, the ingrained empathy at a young age would stay with them for life.

This from The Mail:

**In September Government advisers at Cycling England caused outrage when they said motorists should be made legally responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, even if they are not at fault.
**

Read more: Number of cyclists killed on the roads soars as credit crunch transport gains popularity | Mail Online

Is a bare-faced lie.

So a dishonest article tells lies about cyclists in a transparent attempt to demonise them, and mixes in half-baked theories about lady cyclists and the weather.

Depressing, dishonest reporting designed to inflame angry and intolerant people. Job done, judging from the comments.

The Standard

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23765003-cycle-deaths-and-serious-injuries-rise-20-per-cent.do

also carries a picture of Rebecca Goosen, above an article blaming cyclists, and claims she turned left in the incident in which she lost her life. That's not true either, she was going straight on to her office. They're lying about a dead cyclist, which is tasteless in the extreme.