Blood on the streets

"You pleb"?

@spindrift I was wondering about the phonecall from the The Shaft's press office: perhaps they had your number cos they're actually one of your mates?

"You pleb"?

No, just that on its own works wonders to shut up a patronising dullard.

I suppose another valid response is 'hycct'?

@spindrift I was wondering about the phonecall from the The Shaft's press office: perhaps they had your number cos they're actually one of your mates?

Don't think so, I don't know anyone there. My email address has a shortened version of my name, he used my full name. He could have guessed that I suppose but I genuinely have no idea how they got my number. It's not listed anywhere.

God the kerning on that flyer, and font choice for that matter, is really diverting us from the issues here.

/attempt at subtle humour

As noted in the Bow flyover thread this morning, I was fuming for the majority of my commute because a police officer decided to park his minivan directly in the CS2, just beyond the westbound exit of Bow roundabout (where the CS2 is partially on the pavement), essentially forcing all riders into the single lane of traffic, which due to the timing of the lights, was full of buses and HGV's.

Considering recent events this is as dumb a move as you can make. In hindsight i wished i'd returned to said officer and had a proper word. I dont think an exasperated 'CMON MATE' had the desired effect, although his head did turn...

Even Southwark Cyclists backed the Die-in as well.

forcing all riders into the single lane of traffic, which due to the timing of the lights, was full of buses and HGV's.

..

And where they are more likely to be seen by the lorry and bus drivers.
If drivers park all along the cs2 and cyclists are forced into the lane they may be less at risk
a. because they'll be visible and
b. drivers will be less attempted to punish the riders who aren't in the cycle lane
win-win

Can we protest against the die-in by showing up and remaining standing?

This morning I got stopped by the police on Vauxhall Bridge.

-Hi, we’re stopping all cyclists in light of the recent cyclist fatalities, to make sure that you’re making yourselves as safe as possible. Obviously it’s great that you have lights on and are wearing a helmet, but have you considered wearing a hi-viz jacket?
-No, I’ve got really bright lights, reflective material on my coat and my bike, and I position myself in the road so that I can be seen.
-I just think that if a driver wasn’t wearing their glasses then they might not be able to see you.
-Do you not think that a driver driving around half-blind is more the problem??
-Well, we’re just here to talk to cyclists. We don’t know yet why so many cyclists are being killed but there are a lot of bad cyclists out there.
-There are a lot of bad drivers too, perhaps you should talk to them as they’re the ones doing the killing.
-Okay, well, get some hi-viz.

I’m fucking furious. Is victim blaming now policy??

What ludicrous BS.
Road CC are asking people to mail in about their experiences - info@road.cc

And where they are more likely to be seen by the lorry and bus drivers.
If drivers park all along the cs2 and cyclists are forced into the lane they may be less at risk
a. because they'll be visible and
b. drivers will be less attempted to punish the riders who aren't in the cycle lane
win-win

Granted, further along the CS2 this may be applicable, and is certainly how I ride.

But having to move around a stationary vehicle, into a single lane already full of vehicles coming off the roundabout at speed, is not ideal.

Ordinarily I'd use the road rather than the CS2 over the roundabout, but due to the light sequence, this isnt always possible, espeically if the roundabout is already full of large vehicles waiting for the green to proceed west.

Even Southwark Cyclists backed the Die-in as well.

If the 'die-in' achieves anything it will be some fruitless piece of knee-jerk legislation. If I was a betting man my money would be on a compulsory helmet law.

This morning I got stopped by the police on Vauxhall Bridge.

-Hi, we’re stopping all cyclists in light of the recent cyclist fatalities, to make sure that you’re making yourselves as safe as possible. Obviously it’s great that you have lights on and are wearing a helmet, but have you considered wearing a hi-viz jacket?
-No, I’ve got really bright lights, reflective material on my coat and my bike, and I position myself in the road so that I can be seen.
-I just think that if a driver wasn’t wearing their glasses then they might not be able to see you.
-Do you not think that a driver driving around half-blind is more the problem??
-Well, we’re just here to talk to cyclists. We don’t know yet why so many cyclists are being killed but there are a lot of bad cyclists out there.
-There are a lot of bad drivers too, perhaps you should talk to them as they’re the ones doing the killing.
-Okay, well, get some hi-viz.

I’m fucking furious. Is victim blaming now policy??

had a similar discussion with my parents last night. i don't wear hi-viz but i always wear a helmet, have a backpack with reflective stuff on and have pretty decent lights. my stepdad was talking about the reduced visibility he has when driving a van but in my experience if a cunt isn't going to see you, hi-viz is not going to make much of a difference. and the idea that all cyclists NEED to be clad in bloody fluro lends itself to an attitude that it is the cyclist's responsibility to make themselves safe regardless of lane drifting, non-indicating, inattentive and aggressive vehicular arseholes.

but yeah, lowest hanging fruit etc... :(

The Met's Safer Transport Command were pulling over people who aren't wearing a helmet

This is exactly what I was worried about coming from the recent media stuff.

Anyone who spends any time in the saddle will realise that fluoro (or, let's be honest, a helmet) isn't going to do much against an inattentive driver. Hi viz will just blend into the background against all the rest of the hi viz the streets are littered with these days (building workers, maintenance workers, I even saw schoolkids on a walk the other day wearing sodding hi viz tabards).

This is a pathetic police response - particularly the mention of a driver 'not wearing their glasses'

And yes, cycle training - did it the other week and it was so good I went back for another session.

Absolutely, I don't wear hi-viz because I'm not on a building site or signalling to planes on a runway. I'm on a bike, on a well lit road, with lights on IN THE DAYLIGHT. Hi-viz is not going to save me, or anyone else. If you're in driver's blind spot you could have the Batman call sign shining on you and you won't be seen. And that's being generous to drivers - you don't have to be in the blind spot not to be seen, as "not looking" seems to be the unifying feature of drivers, on my commute at least.

Kids wearing hi-viz - yes, I see this a lot and definitely agree that it becomes an indistinguishable fluro sea. When I was a teacher and took my kids out on trips it was good if they wore something so I could spot them from afar - perfectly easy to do without hi-viz though, particularly if your school has a uniform...

(Incidentally, I've only just started wearing a helmet full time after I got run over by a bus and had to watch the CCTV of the incident and don't want my mum to have to watch CCTV of me with no helmet on - I'm aware it does the square root of fuck all when you're under a bus but I don't want my mum to worry any more than she already does).

What ludicrous BS.
Road CC are asking people to mail in about their experiences - info@road.cc

Great, I'll email them. Thanks.
I've already tweeted it and had no response yet.

had a similar discussion with my parents last night. i don't wear hi-viz but i always wear a helmet, have a backpack with reflective stuff on and have pretty decent lights. my stepdad was talking about the reduced visibility he has when driving a van but in my experience if a cunt isn't going to see you, hi-viz is not going to make much of a difference. and the idea that all cyclists NEED to be clad in bloody fluro lends itself to an attitude that it is the cyclist's responsibility to make themselves safe regardless of lane drifting, non-indicating, inattentive and aggressive vehicular arseholes.

but yeah, lowest hanging fruit etc... :(

Exactly. If you have reduced visibility it is YOUR responsibility to drive more carefully. Not other people's to accommodate you. If you're not safe to drive, get out of the fucking vehicle (sorry - no offence to your stepdad). I can never decide whether drivers just DON'T see, CHOOSE not to see, or SEE but decide it's not worth paying attention. Either way, yes, cyclists should make themselves safe by cycling responsibly and ensuring they can be seen (lights, road positioning etc) but motorists have just as much responsibility to make sure they don't turn their vehicles into killing machines in the interests of shaving 10 seconds off their commute or sending that important text message or eating a ginsters pasty or whatever.

hey great fucking start to another week
http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2013-11-18/cyclist-killed-in-walworth/

https://twitter.com/GreenJennyJones/status/402434049001549826

Must ban HGV's in at peak times to save #cyclists. I'd be happy to critical mass a road junction every day for month during morning rush hr.

ITV report says the accident was at half past noon?

12.37

12.37

12:07 I believe the emergency call was, he was declared dead at 12:37. Think that was on the rider down thread.

Also, fwiw, I agree with Buffalo Bill about banning HGVs from London. I've previously written this up with colleagues:

• Deaths of cyclists in London: trends from 1992-2006
  

12:07 I believe the emergency call was, he was declared dead at 12:37. Think that was on the rider down thread.

Also, fwiw, I agree with Buffalo Bill about banning HGVs from London. I've previously written this up with colleagues:

• Deaths of cyclists in London: trends from 1992-2006
  
  

Ah, hadn't seen this before! Great stuff.

Also, fwiw, I agree with Buffalo Bill about banning HGVs from London. I've previously written this up with colleagues:

• Deaths of cyclists in London: trends from 1992-2006
  
  

I don't disagree with this bit either:

Conclusions
There is little evidence fatality rates have fallen. Freight vehicles over 3.5 tonnes continue to present a disproportionate threat; they should be removed from urban roads and more appropriate means of delivery of essential goods found.

But that doesn't cover the highest risk vehicles though, the construction industry tippers.

When I'm banging the drum for regulation, control and additional licensing, it's those vehicles specifically that I'm aiming at.

I can't see how the construction industry could function without the vehicles (they're delivering concrete, glass and steel whilst removing rubble and waste). So the question is how can those vehicles be handled such that the industry still works with all other rules in place (noise restrictions banning work outside of certain hours, etc).

Specialist Inner-city HGV's? Closed sides, special driving position that offers better visibility, a sensor on the left hand side, limited to 20mph.

You could even have them provided by the city (for exclusive hire use in the city) and just use them for transporting building stuff along roads inside a certain zone then have the same cranes from skip hire lorries to swap the contents onto normal HGVs with big bouncy suspension at the site entrance/edge of town.

Wouldn't be that hard & would probably cost less than those stupid routemasters.