TfL considering modifying cycle lane on Blackfriars Bridge

I disagree, Oliver, if a poor street design increases the likelihood of a incident, there will be an inevitability of the accumulative effect of incidents which will - as luck would have it - lead to a fatality. There are no "accidents" after all.

Roads/streets don't kill people. Have you ever been attacked by one? People's actions kill people, either themselves or others. A road might rise up during an earthquake, but it would be the earthquake killing people, not the road. If there are serious potholes, it's not the potholes that kill a cyclist who crashes into them and breaks his neck, as they are passive. At best, it's the actions of the person who had the responsibility for maintaining the road and didn't do it. There is no 'inevitability' about the effects of poor street design, just a higher likelihood of an incident. They are contributing factors, but not primary (active) causes. My point was really just about the fact that it's straightforwardly false that 'roads kill people' or that there are 'dangerous roads', as all that deflects people's responsibility away from them. It's just shrill and inaccurate.

There are indeed no 'accidents' in the sense that everything is fully caused. However, there are plenty of 'accidents' in the sense that we sometimes lose control and things happen that we didn't intend, with adverse consequences. If I drop the anvil I'm carrying on my foot, then that's an accident. Don't confuse this with the very important concern not to assume automatically that a road traffic collision is an 'accident'. Some are, the majority aren't, so that we shouldn't automatically assume that they are. If a lorry's brakes fail catastrophically and it plunges down a ravine, killing the driver, that's an accident. Its brakes might have been verified just the week before, but it would be an accidental outcome over which the driver would have had no control. Obviously, again there would be a chain of responsibility via the person who should have checked the brakes, etc.

You say that the post by Cyclists in the City doesn't help anyone, but I'd disagree - it's helping people to find a voice on a subject about which they rightly feel angry, and that anger is finding ways to manifest itself and push for change. If that's not a good thing I don't know what is.
I mainly objected to the headline and can't remember the rest of the post. I think Danny has very good journalistic skills. One curious thing that you'll find with a little more experience about campaigning for change is that anger doesn't actually achieve a great deal of lasting change. It's mostly hard work and good communication that achieves change. By all means, use your anger to get into something, but what makes a real difference in the end is that which can be sustained, i.e. a reasonable cause. Anger very rarely can be (one issue this week, another issue the next, as after all we have to sell papers), and if it is, then that is a cause for worry.