You are reading a single comment by @chameleon and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@chameleon
I think arguing about small rises and falls in the rate of casualties is probably not productive. It enables TFL's strategy of making tiny safety improvements, and then pointing to tiny improvements in safety as evidence that it's doing its best.
Instead, we should be asking ourselves, what's an acceptable number? What should the target be? How should we define a safe and unsafe junction?
David Hembrow's post here:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2011/11/most-dangerous-junctions-in-london-and.html
might be a good guide.
In general, cyclist KSIs (per km) in the Netherlands are, I think, about a third of those in the UK. This seems an appropriate target. If we set this as a target - clearly it's only obtainable through very high quality infrastructure and traffic calming on something like the Dutch model. It's also obvious that the kind of interventions TFL usually considers will come no-where close to hitting the target.
There's also, perhaps, a more subjective safety target one could use. If it doesn't feel safe enough to cycle with a small child in a child seat, it's not yet safe enough...