BikesAlive - Occupy Kings Cross - 23 January

The cyclist, from Hackney, was standing next to another cyclist, in a giant bicycle cruiser machine.

Well I'm in if this guy's going to be there again

How many cyclist/motorist collisions are caused by excess speed?

i.e. is reducing that the most effective way of reducing said collisions?

I would contend that speeding is a bad thing. I would like it to become socially unacceptable, as what happened to driving without seatbelts during the 80s.

30 mph collisions with peds kill 80%, 20mph kill 20%. An advert told me.

How many cyclist/motorist collisions are caused by excess speed?

i.e. is reducing that the most effective way of reducing said collisions?

Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in injury accidents of:

— Total accidents -56 per cent
— Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent
— Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent
— All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent
— Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent.

It is estimated that at the end of 1999, 390 injury accidents had been prevented within the 20 mph zones which had been previously installed. 122 of these would have involved injuries to children.

In August 2000, we asked 3,700 residents of existing 20 mph zones what they thought of the scheme, 546 replied (15 per cent).
— Over 25 per cent of respondents said that they walked or cycled more since the scheme was introduced.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap80.htm

I don't care how they do it, speed bumps, chicanes, or average speed cameras (which I'd much prefer otherwise cars race you to bumps or pinch points) but getting traffic speeds down massively reduces accidents. Also, roads are a far more civilised experience, a proper shared space.

I would contend that speeding is a bad thing. I would like it to become socially unacceptable, as what happened to driving without seatbelts during the 80s.

30 mph collisions with peds kill 80%, 20mph kill 20%. An advert told me.

I'm not debating that- what I'm asking is what aspect of driving would, if changed/improved, have the biggest impact on ped and cyclist safety?

I would contend that all of the HGV's involved in collisions with cyclists were probably travelling significantly under the speed limit, for example.

If we focus on something that can be enforced via camera, then we risk succeeding- and if it's the wrong thing to have focused on, where does that leave us?

by sharing the street, removed the unnecessary muiltple lane, lowering the kerbs to line up with the road, removed railing that prevent people from crossing the road, and of course, 20mph.

I'm not debating that- what I'm asking is what aspect of driving would, if changed/improved, have the biggest impact on ped and cyclist safety?

I would contend that all of the HGV's involved in collisions with cyclists were probably travelling significantly under the speed limit, for example.

I see what you mean, yes, you're right, an awful lot of fatalities are HGVs at junctions where speeds would be minimal. What happened with Thames Materials suggests the industry need to ask who they're employing, 16-times banned Mr Putz had no trouble getting a job.

so many well meaning and written posts here.
when we get head of councils, m.ps and senior police vocally and publically saying it matters that cyclists are getting mugged off by drivers every day we will be getting somewhere

there were trial for that actually a while ago, but with speed cameras clocking each cars they capture, and working out how quickly they managed to get from A to B, that's on road like motorway thought rather than cities where such system would be diffcuilt.

I remember reading that 5 or so years ago, and hasn't a clue on how to begun searching for it.

They're in use in a lot of places now. But not urban areas. They tend to be used on main roads and motorways, where it's easy to operate - a point A and a point B. I'd rather it was distributed and thousands of cameras were placed all over London.

Average speed in London is what, 12 mph? You'd fine people travelling at the dead of night, but that would be about it.

Average speed in London is what, 12 mph? You'd fine people travelling at the dead of night, but that would be about it.

It's not about average speed over a whole journey. You'd never be able to speed because you wouldn't know where the next camera was. It's not possible to game a system like that by just slowing down for one camera. There'd be no point whizzing up Mitcham Road at 40mph because you'd never know that you wouldn't get photographed on a side street later and be found to have got there too fast. It's more of a constant, background deterrent rather than a speed camera, which only has an effect for 50 yards and quickly gets remembered by drivers.

I don't understand what you are saying, but anyway- I think you are focusing in on the wrong thing.

I don't understand what you are saying, but anyway- I think you are focusing in on the wrong thing.

I'm not focusing on anything. As I said, I was just mulling it over.

What I meant was that a speed camera is fixed in one spot and people learn where it is. So drivers slow down when they pass it, and that's it.

A distributed system is not like that. It works by preying on your mind and being too hard to trick. You could get photographed leaving home, miss all the cameras on the five miles to work, then get snapped as you pull into the car park. If you averaged 31mph, you'll get done. This is, perhaps, unlikely in London, where average speeds are lower. But you don't know you won't be caught. You can't be sure, so it works as a blanket deterrent.

See?

Ah, yeah I see- exactly what the ANPR system does in 50 limits on the motorway.

You'd catch a load of motorbikes, if you could convince them to put a plate on the front.

Exactly right, and ANPR could be re-jigged to do that. I spent the day with an ANPR unit once and you'd be amazed what they keep an eye out for - it certainly doesn't stop at motoring offences.

True, there has been an awful lot of mission creep in terms of what they now monitor the populace for.

You can stil defeat them by buying a car for cash in a pub carpark, however.

Or ride a motorbike, as mentioned.

Yes quite and in your big brother utopia you wouldn't even need to carry papers like those pesky nazis used to make everyone do, it could all be tracked by your numberplate.

I don't necessarily think it's all bad. Some of it was quite reassuring.

I totally agree. Average speed cameras make the roads a far better place to be, safer for all and as you say a proper shared space for all us road users.

No to speed bumps and chicanes as the cause more problems than they solve. No to 'Forceful yet non-violent' protests as they cause more problems than they solve.

Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in injury accidents of:

— Total accidents -56 per cent
— Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent
— Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent
— All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent
— Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent.

It is estimated that at the end of 1999, 390 injury accidents had been prevented within the 20 mph zones which had been previously installed. 122 of these would have involved injuries to children.

In August 2000, we asked 3,700 residents of existing 20 mph zones what they thought of the scheme, 546 replied (15 per cent).
— Over 25 per cent of respondents said that they walked or cycled more since the scheme was introduced.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap80.htm

I don't care how they do it, speed bumps, chicanes, or average speed cameras (which I'd much prefer otherwise cars race you to bumps or pinch points) but getting traffic speeds down massively reduces accidents. Also, roads are a far more civilised experience, a proper shared space.

24 hours to go, heres a little map

by sharing the street, removed the unnecessary muiltple lane, lowering the kerbs to line up with the road, removed railing that prevent people from crossing the road, and of course, 20mph.

There are good and very attractive aspects to the 'shared space' concept, but there are significant problems too. The concept relies heavily on all street users being 'equal' and able to negotiate with each other, but if not carried out carefully can severely compromise some user groups ability to navigate the street (blind and partially-sighted, children, un-assertive cyclists etc).

It is also presently accepted that we need 'fast' streets for which shared space is innappropriate. These also need to be useable by a wide range of cyclists and pedestrians.

/notanexpert