Blood on the streets

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/541221/london-cycling-in-crisis-now-is-the-time-for-change.html

"This is not a war on the motorist, this is a war against the dehumanisation of our city"

That is a good piece by Laura Laker and that whole paragraph is worth quoting:

This is not a war on the motorist, this is a war against the dehumanisation of our city. The vehicle that poisons our air makes it dangerous for our children to play in the streets while condemning its owners to ever-rising fuel costs and misery in traffic jams, subsidised by all of us.

She also points out that anger at these deaths have reached beyond the cycling community with many londoners attending the vigil last night. Once other people than cyclists get outraged the focus may move from what do we do about those vulnerable rljing cyclists to what shall we do about those dangerous drivers.

Perhaps we need to report "person down' on here and keep a log of all London road deaths. I don't know if there is such a log kept by road peace or living streets.

there is a paragraph in this story that suggests the cyclist in last night's collision

TfL believes the cyclist had come from Leman Street and rode across rather than along Cycle Superhighway 2 when he collided with the westbound bus.

anyone familiar with the area know of this is even possible?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/fifth-cyclist-killed-in-london-in-nine-days-as-boris-johnson-warns-riders-against-risky-decisions-8938505.html

there is a paragraph in this story that suggests the cyclist in last night's collision

anyone familiar with the area know of this is even possible?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/fifth-cyclist-killed-in-london-in-nine-days-as-boris-johnson-warns-riders-against-risky-decisions-8938505.html

[...]

Anything is possible, but as ever, let's not speculate about the possible cause of a crash, which we have no way of establishing. You're lucky if it comes out clearly at the inquest and guessing at it from piecemeal information is a bad idea and can be distressing to family, who might find this thread and read it (and people have often found LFGSS threads in the past).

I do think pointing at cyclists flouting the rules of the road is a massive smokescreen and it's shameful that Boris uses it to excuse the accidents.

At the end of the day humans flout rules. The most thing that constantly happens to cyclists is we get homogenised as a group, one large collective that unlike every other road user commits every anti-social act collectively. Apparently we are the Borg, a mother flippin' hive mind that corrupts and motorists are the Federation.

Here's a clue, Boris. Cars jump red lights. Cars when presented with a green light changing to amber accelerate rather than slow down, and go over the line when the light is red. Everyday, everywhere. Cars break the speed limit, everyday, everywhere. When a cyclist ignores the rules of the road he mainly endangers himself, when a motorist does so he endangers everyone on the road.

Humans ignore rules, everyday, everywhere. It's in our nature. But each human does so individually, and probably each situation when they do so is unique: a decision made in a milli-second based on the milieu they are in. Do I break rules? Sometimes. It doesn't mean I'm fair game for a tipper truck, you fucking prick.

Anything is possible, but as ever, let's not speculate about the possible cause of a crash, which we have no way of establishing. You're lucky if it comes out clearly at the inquest and guessing at it from piecemeal information is a bad idea and can be distressing to family, who might find this thread and read it (and people have often found LFGSS threads in the past).

You're right, I'll edit accordingly

It'd be against a one way, wouldn't it? Not that it's impossible of course

You get loads of cyclists riding up Leman St, against the traffic (normally on the pavement) because the one way system round there is a nightmare and they've failed to negotiate it successfully (which is easy to do) when coming from the south.

This doesn't explain why the collision would have happened though.

at the end of the day i think it's fair cop to go into self-preservation mode and do whatever to avoid large murderous vehicles. you couldn't kill anybody on your bike, unless it's some fat bike with 1" metal studded snow tyres or something.
but this apparent "rule breaking" means lots of motorists just don't give a shit about you, i saw some bloke on a bike indicate & look back to shift lines, quite politely, and the cunt behind him fucking revved up and undertook him. wish i had gotten the license plate. that kind of behaviour from cars makes me just think "fuck it, if i need to break some traffic law to not die, then i will, and fuck cars"
just like real life, you can never tell who is a genuine psychopath.

Have to agree with Jimmy_Fingers. I was actually a little bit gobsmacked when I heard Boris' views on this, but then I remembered it was Boris.

It's too easy an excuse, and it's horrible. If I was one of the relatives of the riders killed in London this year and I heard that from anyone they'd be lucky to retain any teeth.

there is a paragraph in this story that suggests the cyclist in last night's collision

anyone familiar with the area know of this is even possible?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/fifth-cyclist-killed-in-london-in-nine-days-as-boris-johnson-warns-riders-against-risky-decisions-8938505.html

OMFG, dont even read the comments.

Twice recently I have moved to the middle of the road, indicating with my arm I am turning right into the road I live and twice a car accelerated behind me and overtook me, coming around me and right in the opposite lane, once while other cars were appraoching.

I was about to turn right on to another road and out of their way and they still opted to speed up and over take me.

The issue isn't the decisions people make and the rules they break, the issue is providing a physical space that all sets of road users can use with a modicum of safety, and pedestrians and cyclists, as the most vulnerable road users should be given priority. Singling out any one group as serial rule breakers (when they all are) and passing responsibility for their safety to them alone and not to other road users is disgusting.

That is the biggest danger for cyclists on the roads, that responsibility for their safety is shifted away from drivers and on to us. You make them all guilty of the sins of the few, the police and courts back this up by issuing paltry sentences for injury and death caused by motorists to cyclists and the problem just drags on and on.

Here's a clue, Boris. Cars jump red lights. Cars when presented with a green light changing to amber accelerate rather than slow down, and go over the line when the light is red. Everyday, everywhere. Cars break the speed limit, everyday, everywhere..

Humans ignore .

Cars aren't humans. Do you mean 'drivers'?

Pardon?

https://twitter.com/hannahmearns/status/401008789073059840

Needs to be re-tweeted.

Just that you refer to cars jumping lights, cars speeding...
Why not talk about the humans? The drivers. Sloppy language dehumanises this topic

And semantic argument detracts from the core issue. If you read the whole of my two posts I frequently refer to motorists and drivers. And I'm venting because I'm angry, picking up on a semantic point is annoying.

https://twitter.com/hannahmearns/status/401008789073059840

Needs to be re-tweeted.

Done

Jimmy, it's an extremely important point which cannot be made often enough. Many people's (obviously not yours) understanding of these issues is betrayed by their use of language: 'The car didn't look ...' etc. We of all people have to get this right and spread awareness of the dehumanising effect of separating people out into individual carriages. I can understand that it's annoying to be picked up on it, and you're undoubtedly not the most deserving target, but trying to get yourself to observe the distinction between people and cars painstakingly and at all times is a valuable discipline.

No one is going around saying "the bike jumped a red light" because it sound stupid, but for some reason it become second nature to said* "the car jumped a red light"*.

Firstly I did refer to motorists and drivers as well as cars.

Secondly cars and trucks and buses don't look very human to a cyclists, just large machines that whizz past and intimidate.

Thirdly what I wrote was in the heat of the moment and doesn't need correcting on a semantic point which now becomes the centre of the debate rather than the core issue I was trying to drive at (no pun intended), the irresponsible way Boris is shifting responsibility for cyclist's safety on to cyclists and away from motorists. Apparently me referring to cars not drivers is more important though.

And fourthly in a time where it helps if cyclists come together, picking up a semantic point has instead created divisions. Brilliant work all round.

the same can be said for the pernicious word 'accident', which presumes there is no blame to be apportioned, when there quite obviously .

Jimmy, it's an extremely important point which cannot be made often enough. Many people's (obviously not yours) understanding of these issues is betrayed by their use of language: 'The car didn't look ...' etc. We of all people have to get this right and spread awareness of the dehumanising effect of separating people out into individual carriages. I can understand that it's annoying to be picked up on it, and you're undoubtedly not the most deserving target, but trying to get yourself to observe the distinction between people and cars painstakingly and at all times is a valuable discipline.

This is a joke right ?

it's an important distinction jimmy_fingers, ever notice how collision reports on the radio or in the papers describe them as 'a cyclist has hit a bus/hgv/car' and never 'the driver of a bus/hgv/car has collided with a cyclist' - this language, as it is, subtly but unequivocally puts the blame at the feet of the victim, as well as serving to assuage the vehicle operator of any culpability by inferring that the vehicle acted autonomously.

it sounds absurd but i do feel that this sort of journalism does little to deter some of the appalling attitudes that many london drivers have towards vulnerable road users.

https://twitter.com/hannahmearns/status/401008789073059840

Needs to be re-tweeted.

I've lost count of the number of times I have seen Boris Johnson break the law on his bike. I've never seen him not jump a red. What a twat.

it's an important distinction jimmy_fingers, ever notice how collision reports on the radio or in the papers describe them as 'a cyclist has hit a bus/hgv/car' and never 'the driver of a bus/hgv/car has collided with a cyclist' - this language, as it is, subtly but unequivocally puts the blame at the feet of the victim, as well as serving to assuage the vehicle operator of any culpability by inferring that the vehicle acted autonomously.

it sounds absurd but i do feel that this sort of journalism does little to deter some of the appalling attitudes that many london drivers have towards vulnerable road users.

The BBC always did this, they were challenged but carried on. Now they say "there was a collision".