Blood on the streets

£50 for not wearing a helmet? I'd like to have that discussion with a police officer.

Nope. They were spreading yet more dis-information and missing big opportunities to push useful advice. I got stopped on Vauxhall Bridge this morning as was advised to wear Hi viz and a helmet.
I was pretty pissed off and and asked,

"what's the point in giving this advice when there are no UV lights? Shouldn't you be pushing scotchlite reflective material??
Exactly how would a helmet and hi viz have helped any of the recent casualties?"

Le shrug was the response. I was so upset and disappointed to forgot to ask why the free cycle instruction wasn't being pushed instead?

<<<<<<<<<<<

Totally wasted effort. Anyway I thought they didn't have the funding for enforcement? What is about 6 corpses in a fortnight that turns up resources previously not available?

agree with you entirely about the conflation of entirely disproportionate issues and the distorted dialogue it fosters, tho im at a bit of a loss as to how my post infers otherwise.

I've heard good things about James O'Brien and i did notice him giving the usual suspects a good shoe-ing on twitters today -

James O'Brien ‏@mrjamesob
@GaryBrown_62 Exactly. You'd wait to learn specific details before apportioning blame to anyone. That's not happening with dead cyclists.

but he appears to be a lone voice of reason in amongst the other weapons grade fuckwits the station employs. James Max, Fatty Ferrari, Petri Hoskins - these fatuous cowards should be held to account for the ignorance and misinformation they say and allow to go unchallenged.

BBC London doesn't fare much better mind you - the normally affable Eddy Nestor has a habit of allowing his phone-in contributors anti cycling bullshit to go unremarked upon, and Paul Ross still thinks he pays Road Tax.

I did wonder why (when I hit auto-search the other day) I had what I thought was cab-driver-only radio in my car.
I wonder if they actually pull over and stop driving when they talk to mouth off in their uniquely arrogant, self-satisfied, infuriatingly ignorant way to radio stations?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/police-catching-cyclists-who-break-the-law-81518

Is it now illegal to ride without a helmet in the UK?

How effective are those 4th mirrors? Can they be improved upon - made twice the size as currently? How well does it cover the fatality zone by the wheel arch? Can they be improved be replacing them with more of a concave shape at the bottom, for added visbility? What kind of penalties are in place for not keeping them in good working order, and do they work? May be worth investigating! Then it can be tackled right at the root.

in fact, we should try to move the focus away from cyclist actions entirely. a key point would be to assume all collisions where a vehicle hits a cyclist are caused by dangerous driving on the part of the

I don't think it's fair, and this will just promote animosity from drivers. I'm generally against measures that set us apart from regular traffic andturns us in to a distinct breed that needs extra protection. Insurance premiums will also probably go up across the board, causing many problems. It would probably start a call for all cyclists to be licenced, insured and MOTd. In saying that i'm all for a more efficient way road traffic collisions are handled, just not with one side automatically presumed innocent.

..

We'll probably have driverless cars before this becomes a reality. ID cards were shelved due to high costs, privacy issues and government mistrust in handling of the information, will drivers accept a compulsory retrofit? Sounds like a GCHQ/NSA wet dream.

I remember that, it was blasted because it was a very stupid ideas - what happen to the cyclists who doesn't have the transmitter? the driver's attention will be diverted to hearing the beep rather than actually looking properly, etc.
The only major impact is the attitude and education of drivers to make it safer to drive in London.
I blasted the idea of fitting all cyclists and pedestrians with transmitter tags . There are now at least two companies bringing cycle/pedestrian detectors to market. They use radar and video recognition techniques and don't rely on the cyclist having special kit. The companies claim very high degree of accuracy.
A far better fix, but slower to implement, is to get rid of all the high cab off road style vehicles and replace them with something like this.

Nope. They were spreading yet more dis-information and missing big opportunities to push useful advice.

How many people can they realistically target with useful advice though, given they also wanted a stop and chat? Stopping a few hundred cyclists on a bridge during a morning rush hour, while it's nice they're being somewhat proactive, looks to me like the actions of a police chief wanting to be seen 'doing something' after a few road deaths and sending a unit out.

agree with you entirely about the conflation of entirely disproportionate issues and the distorted dialogue it fosters, tho im at a bit of a loss as to how my post infers otherwise.

I've heard good things about James O'Brien and i did notice him giving the usual suspects a good shoe-ing on twitters today -

but he appears to be a lone voice of reason in amongst the other weapons grade fuckwits the station employs. James Max, Fatty Ferrari, Petri Hoskins - these fatuous cowards should be held to account for the ignorance and misinformation they say and allow to go unchallenged.

BBC London doesn't fare much better mind you - the normally affable Eddy Nestor has a habit of allowing his phone-in contributors anti cycling bullshit to go unremarked upon, and Paul Ross still thinks he pays Road Tax.

I've been guilty of this but I don't think it's easy for many that cycle to 'get it' let alone those that do not. I find myself getting quickly rilled including a horrible descent on facebook with a cyclist that thought it entirely appropriate to blame all the cyclists for their recent deaths and called them morons....As a result I'll be deleting my facebook account soon. Opinions are like arseholes....I just have problems when it's the arseholes proffering them.

Time constraints mean I can't but I'd love to call each and everyone of these shows/stations and have it out on air..... <- see what I mean? Just that term 'have it out' is escalatory talk.

I love Eddy. He was the compare at my sister's wedding recently. Sad to hear he allows this nonsense to drone on his show. Something keeping thigs (tentatively) together is most people know a cyclist. As a result all of my family members are very cautious around cyclists (not that they were bad but just knowing it could be me). Green shoots, eh?

How many people can they realistically target with useful advice though, given they also wanted a stop and chat? Stopping a few hundred cyclists on a bridge during a morning rush hour, while it's nice they're being somewhat proactive, looks to me like the actions of a police chief wanting to be seen 'doing something' after a few road deaths and sending a unit out.

Sure it was horribly reactionary but rather than banging on about helmets and high viz just suggest doing a free cycle training course and getting/wearing reflective materials, no?

Given how their members ride, they too, are in the dark.

I blasted the idea of fitting all cyclists and pedestrians with transmitter tags . There are now at least two companies bringing cycle/pedestrian detectors to market. They use radar and video recognition techniques and don't rely on the cyclist having special kit. The companies claim very high degree of accuracy.
A far better fix, but slower to implement, is to get rid of all the high cab off road style vehicles and replace them with something like this.

If it's able to carry the same load as current beasts then how will they read what traffic flow is like say 6+ cars down the road to be able to stop fully loaded?

Is it now illegal to ride without a helmet in the UK?

No it's still fine to ride without , won't become compulsory imo

Wonder why they pulled her over:

http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur18/CO786-13Cyclist.jpg

I suspect he was asking for dieting tips.

Cyclist: "I always ride with a helmet and hi vis, it's much safer!"

Copper: "Tell me something I don't know!"

Cyclist: "Salad tastes nice"

If it's able to carry the same load as current beasts then how will they read what traffic flow is like say 6+ cars down the road to be able to stop fully loaded?
in a word: carefully

A far better fix, but slower to implement, is to get rid of all the high cab off road style vehicles and replace them with something like this.

It'll be very slow to implement as you'd have to wait until that design was made all over the world. Trucks are made to suit global structures. Left or Right hand drives give manufacturers enough headaches as it is.

A specific City design would never be commercially viable.

It'll be very slow to implement as you'd have to wait until that design was made all over the world. Trucks are made to suit global structures. Left or Right hand drives give manufacturers enough headaches as it is.

A specific City design would never be commercially viable.
The Dennis Eagle and Mercedes Econic cabs seen on refuse lorries can be adapted to construction tippers. I have seen one on a 26 ton tipper in London and on a 32 ton waste lorry in Australia.
Some other manufacturers are already worried by the potential competition.

The 'Safer Lorries' design is excellent and eminently feasible to be rolled out on a large scale. Just another part of the jigsaw.

The Dennis Eagle and Mercedes Econic cabs seen on refuse lorries can be adapted to construction tippers.

Does those refuse lorries have the same cab design that killed two cyclists back in 2011?

You and I know that no matter what safety feature HGV have, the drivers ultimately decided on the fate of people's live.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24987425

Shouldn't the question be "isn't driving getting more dangerous?"
They could report too, how many drivers have harmed people...

If anyone was listening to BBC London I've just been on (about 10.40am) as my pseudonym of 'Dave from Canary Wharf' :)

Made the point that headphones are a massive distraction and Boris should be worrying about HGVs, made the point that road positioning has much more effect than high viz/helmets, made the point that looking over your shoulder is far more important than hearing and gave Scoble a mention (something along the lines of my deaf friend who cycles around London perfectly safely because he can look at the traffic, he doesn't need to hear it). Also made the point that HGV drivers are victims of the system too.

Vanessa was actually very reasonable and gave me more time than I thought I would, so hopefully I've evened out the debate a bit.

Well done. Johnson is all about smoke and mirrors.

I
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.

The problem (from a purely academic point of view) is it's quite hard to get decent figures/breakdowns of what exactly the vehicles are. So, while I agree with you, I don't know that it's possible to prove that these are the highest risk statistically.

That said, I am talking with my colleagues again about updating the analysis some more. I've also been interested to read in this thread about the comparisons with Paris - someone posted a link to info from 2006 to 2012; if anyone knows of any more data (or, any "official" sources that might have published online or be willing to provide) then please let me know (pm is probably best as I don't know if I'll see all the individual posts to this thread).

Cheers,

d0cA

boris solves it with a headphone ban
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/boris-johnson-considers-banning-cyclists-headphones