and there is the rub. because the authorities need to be seen to be doing something about cyclists getting killed by lorry drivers they have created these love ins. ffs again.
Phil, I actually think that these initiatives can be very useful to educate cyclists. You have to consider that most people will know much less about what's going on than you. Events like these can point them towards cycle training, for instance. Naturally, parallel education needs to take place for drivers. Not surprisingly, this is picking up more slowly, but there are very promising initiatives by the London Borough of Lambeth which we are confident will be adopted elsewhere, as well as some good work being done by the Institute of Advanced Motorists.
imo the irony is that it is those that rlj that are staying alive and those that stop at reds that are getting killed.
I understand your frustration, of course, but what is your evidence for saying that it's 'those that stop at reds that are getting killed'?
A large percentage of crashes involving left hooks by lorries have happened when the flow concerned was at green.
Also, it is not those who stop at red who are getting killed, but those who for one reason or another find themselves in the wrong position relative to a turning lorry (or other vehicle). Whether or not they stopped at a light often doesn't come into it.
That you are safer RLJing is nothing but an urban myth that was created a few years ago. It is a completely unproven assertion. Of course it is generally possible to quite safely jump the lights at smaller junctions, but it is likewise also generally quite safe to wait at the lights. The reason why it's a successful urban myth is because it corresponds to what people feel when they get further away from cars (less of a feeling of being 'crowded in on' by cars, more breathing space).
i wish boris et al were cleverer and braver or both. then they would take on the real issue. that our public realm is dangerous and those creating the danger should be addressed / regulated.
I completely agree with your call for more to be done, but while we clearly need to reduce collisions, I still don't think that our public realm is 'dangerous'. The perception of danger is generally thought to greatly outstrip actual danger.
Personally, I don't have to motivate myself for campaigning by thinking that things are 'dangerous'--I don't think that they are. That things are far from good enough is more than enough motivation.
Curiously, saying that things are 'dangerous' doesn't seem to motivate people--they just seem to resign and withdraw.
stop all these silly initiatives. we just want 20 mph please on every road not just the car parks.
I really wouldn't advocate stopping multi-layered initiatives--there is no one silver bullet to improve things, not even 20mph (which is a very important agenda and is advancing). Different areas have to be tackled. There is of course a question of priorities, especially in view of shrinking funding. 20mph is as good a priority as any, and it can only be hoped that more cities will take a lead from Hull and Portsmouth, for example.
Phil, I actually think that these initiatives can be very useful to educate cyclists. You have to consider that most people will know much less about what's going on than you. Events like these can point them towards cycle training, for instance. Naturally, parallel education needs to take place for drivers. Not surprisingly, this is picking up more slowly, but there are very promising initiatives by the London Borough of Lambeth which we are confident will be adopted elsewhere, as well as some good work being done by the Institute of Advanced Motorists.
A large percentage of crashes involving left hooks by lorries have happened when the flow concerned was at green.
Also, it is not those who stop at red who are getting killed, but those who for one reason or another find themselves in the wrong position relative to a turning lorry (or other vehicle). Whether or not they stopped at a light often doesn't come into it.
That you are safer RLJing is nothing but an urban myth that was created a few years ago. It is a completely unproven assertion. Of course it is generally possible to quite safely jump the lights at smaller junctions, but it is likewise also generally quite safe to wait at the lights. The reason why it's a successful urban myth is because it corresponds to what people feel when they get further away from cars (less of a feeling of being 'crowded in on' by cars, more breathing space).
Personally, I don't have to motivate myself for campaigning by thinking that things are 'dangerous'--I don't think that they are. That things are far from good enough is more than enough motivation.
Curiously, saying that things are 'dangerous' doesn't seem to motivate people--they just seem to resign and withdraw.