Dear Boris, Enough is enough!

Is it just cyclists? I wonder how many pedestrians and motorcyclists trucks have also killed in London?

of the 25 or so people killed in collisions with HGVs in London each year about 40% are pedestrians, about 29% are cyclists and about 15% are motorcycle/moped riders.

ASLs are ridiculous. The cycle lanes leading to them encourage people to undertake, nobody obeys them, any sensible cyclist rides straight past them and if he or she is stopping at all should stop as far ahead as possible so as to get a good view of the pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

I seriously think that if they just got rid of all the ASLs but kept the driver's stop lines as far back as the ASLs have moved them the problem would be solved. Cars would just stop at the line.
Yesterday's crash happened at a junction with an ASL but with no feeder lane. We are supporting moves by TfL to make those ASLs enforceable, as the law stands it is difficult for the police to enforce many of the ASLs in London.

is the ASL issue going slightly off topic?

As well as lobbying the mayor for action to promote safer cycling, there needs to be an increased public/media awareness of fatalities - cycle processions are relatively effective, but the broader demographic, could ignore this..... processions could be combined with more long term action

Compulsory blind spot mirrors/better training to increase awareness for cyclists and drivers in built-up areas/a big sign at every major traffic intersection warning all drivers and cyclists of the possible danger... All these things would help...

That's pretty fucking patronising.

+1 on that

Generally women have a far better casualty record than men, not just when cycling but in most areas of life. I don't know why this is, maybe they are just smarter than us.
When it comes to collisions with HGVs it seems that women's natural tendency to stay safe does not work. I don't know why this is.
Rather than attacking women I think we should really concentrate on the trucks and drivers - what is it about their behaviour that endangers all cyclists, even the more cautious ones.

Meanwhile back at the FGSS HGV thread... I dont think ayone is trying to make it an man v's woman topic just that an alarming number of the deaths have been female.
Those ASL lanes that lead to the box scare me because you see cyclists waiting in them with cars/busses/HGV indicating, would it be safer to remove the lane part of the ASL? and just wait behind the traffic if you dont make the box, The ASL's could be bigger thats for sure

*doh, what blue quinn said!, must read all posts before adding ;)

+1 on that

Generally women have a far better casualty record than men, not just when cycling but in most areas of life. I don't know why this is, maybe they are just smarter than us.
When it comes to collisions with HGVs it seems that women's natural tendency to stay safe does not work. I don't know why this is.
Rather than attacking women I think we should really concentrate on the trucks and drivers - what is it about their behaviour that endangers all cyclists, even the more cautious ones.

Sorry I was not attacking women, I was attacking those kinds of magazine articles which treat cycling as a fashionable lifestyle whilst never mentioning how to stay safe in traffic.
It came across wrong.

measures and mandates and newly painted lines are one thing - a good thing at that.

they will not, however, stop the skip driver I passed this morning who had a mobile phone clamped to his ear as he narrowly avoided running over a commuter in full reflective garb who waiting patiently to turn right off a main road... being such an idiot. unbelievable.

going to back to suggestions for the format of the campaign, what about some kind of tracking of the number of cycling fatalities in a public place.

Ghost bikes are good but my understanding is that they are foten removed? I think a central location and a more permanent tribute to every rider would have more impact in the long run.

they will not, however, stop the skip driver I passed this morning who had a mobile phone clamped to his ear as he narrowly avoided running over a commuter in full reflective garb who waiting patiently to turn right off a main road... being such an idiot. unbelievable.

Number of vulnerable road user increased dramatically in the past few years (vulnerable in the sense of not being enclosed in metals), so small offence such as using a telephone while driving should be deemed as a big offence when such judgement could easily lend to the death of a peds/cyclists.

Get rid of the £60 fixed penalty, and put in some real number, let says £500? or even £1,000 (with the usual 3 point fine), that WILL force them to think twice, £60 isn't much for the driver when they pay half that for fuel (whether £60 is a lots for us when caught RLJ),

After all I saw a policeman stopped a driver after he was caught using the phone, police fined him, he drove off and promptly got back on the phone, of course it's not exactly a proper solution to prevent HGV/cyclist incident, but netherless a small step in the right direction.

is the ASL issue going slightly off topic?

Not really, it highlights one of the key factors in cyclists safety, road design. Despite the marked increase in cycling in London, this is barely matched in terms of changes in road design to accomodate this. The old design principles are still in place that pander to drivers demands. Any realistic campaign for change should address this issue.

As for ASLs and their feeder lanes, I think that used wisely they can be a perfectly good tool for cyclists safety. The main problem doesn't lie with their existence but on how people approach and treat them.

Ghost bikes are good but my understanding is that they are foten removed? I think a central location and a more permanent tribute to every rider would have more impact in the long run.

the council (depend on the area) respectfully let them lock a ghost bike for a long period, says half a year to less than a weeks.

after all despite it's intention as a tribute to the person who die, it is an obstruction on the road after all (such as the one on Kingsway/Theobald junction).

As for ASLs and their feeder lanes, I think that used wisely they can be a perfectly good tool for cyclists safety. The main problem doesn't lie with their existence but on how people approach and treat them.

Much like the bicycle lane on Bloomsbury, quite often people approach it because they see it being very safe as it's design for them in mind, and often end up cycling as fast as they can, not realising the consequence that'll befall them if something happen, it leave them very little room to manoeuvre especially.

The junction between Marchmont and Travistock is terrible for that, there's nothing more dangerous than the illusion of safety that result in a number of incidents.

Get rid of the £60 fixed penalty, and put in some real number, let says £500? or even £1,000 (with the usual 3 point fine), that WILL force them to think twice, £60 isn't much for the driver when they pay half that for fuel (whether £60 is a lots for us when caught RLJ)
The threat of increased fines will do little to stop someone who doesn't see the inherent problem (moral and practical) in using a mobile phone whilst driving from using a mobile phone whilst driving. Although I'd definitely implement them anyway :D.

And set up a central fund that channels the proceeds from any fines involving cycling accidents to the families of the cyclists (if fatal) or the cyclist themselves (if not) involved? Or to a civic fund dedicated to improving cycling facilities around the county?

The 7am-7pm HGV ban would be good, but too much vested private interest for that to ever happen.

An increase in cyclists rights that see drivers always liable, at least partially, for any accident involving a cyclist? Isn't that the law in Amsterdam or something? The drivers would get over their frustration after a year or two...

Or a single-car per household mandate could be issued. (too far?)

point is, £1,000 is a lots of money for those who earn £250 a weeks, it is a rather large chuck out of their bank account.

it wouldn't stop them using the phone but it would defintely reduced the number of people using the phone.

I think a central location and a more permanent tribute to every rider would have more impact in the long run.

Not a new suggestion. I think that artist Jeremy Deller put up a permanent memorial to James Foster (Mosquito Bikes) after the ghost bike was removed. If I remember correctly it was smaller and less obtrusive but is still present. I would suggest something similar to that, family wishes permitting.

prompts the question: who pays the fines incurred by a commercially employed HGV driver?

I agree that increasing fines would have some impact with personal vehicle users, but will local government/public services fine themselves? Will the police issue a £1000 fine to a council recycling lorry driver, only for it to be paid by the council? Given that the police's track record on investigating themselves, I'm not holding out high hopes...

Similarly, if a HGV driver is delivering food for Tesco, would such 'expenses' be charged to the company or come directly out of the driver's pay? If the former, any personal incentive to change is undercut.

*disclaimer: *I might be way, way out here....

I hate to say it, but if there were permanent memorials to everyone who's ever died on the streets of London it would become a morbid place rather than a living city. Memorials get taken down; we move on. Harsh, but inevitable, and healthy.

perhaps I just somehow only see females cyclists rarely jump the red light

Last thing I want to do is revive/repeat an RLJ thread, but this is not true in my experience. I see a plethora of RLJing every day on my 20 minute commute from South to London Bridge. Guys, Girls, fast, slow, ginger and bold. Some of it dangerous, the majority not. All of it in my opinion - like kerb hopping or any other abuse of the code - sending an image to motorists of cyclists as irresponsible or irrelevant road users and undermining efforts to raise our status to equals or, dare I suggest, road users to be treated with additional caution and respect.

How we are thought of by other road users - and therefore how they drive/ride around us, is IMHO the single most imortant factor in our road safety. My two cents.

Not a new suggestion. I think that artist Jeremy Deller put up a permanent memorial to James Foster (Mosquito Bikes) after the ghost bike was removed. If I remember correctly it was smaller and less obtrusive but is still present. I would suggest something similar to that, family wishes permitting.

I mean one tribute for all riders that would grow as more accidents occured

I'd like to see the CTC take a lead on this. The LCC campaign run previously was flawed (as Bill has pointed out in moving Target) and the membership of the LCC is much smaller than the CTC - now something like 70,000 members and still growing.
I'll have a word with my friendly CTC councillors and find out what's going on.

Why do we jump red lights?
is it because we cannot be identified?
is it because we are in a hurry?
is it because we think it is safer than not jumping them?
or is it because traffic lights take no account of cyclists, their vulnerability, their getaway speed, their braking speed, their stability and are only suitable for motor vehicles?

I think sometimes that the whole approach to these things is too incremental and in fact radical solutions are required.

What would happen if all ASLs were removed (but the vehicle stop lines not moved forward again), and all cyclists were allowed to jump red lights legally, but with an automatic presumption of guilt/liability should doing so cause an accident with pedestrian or vehicle?

We already have the legal situation where you can proceed on an flashing amber if the road is clear. If cyclists were legally allowed to treat every red light as a flashing amber...

We're in no rush, we're still going faster than motorised transport, so why RLJ?

Increasing fines on HGV is most likely going to do more harm than good. Its going to force drivers to work faster and longer hours to make up for the money lost in a single fine, not a good idea. Large firms would also be more likely to employ underskilled, trained and equiped private contractors to take on all the risk which leads to more problem drivers and vehicles on the roads not less. If you want to improve the quality of HGV drivers and equipment you need to encourage firms and goverment bodies to own and operate their own fleets with properly trained drivers and well fitted out trucks not employ dodgey single vehicle contractors. This needs to be done through goverment legislation and tax incentives not through increasing fines on drivers.

At the risk of repeating myself (I may have said this before) I think one of the main problems is a lack of empathy on the part of drivers (and the same can probably be said for cyclists and peds). My suggestion is that all drivers have to renew their licence annually or bi-annually and part of the renewal process is a supervised hour-long cycle on the very roads they drive on... then at least every driver would know what it is like to be a cyclist (assuming they already know what it is like to be a ped).

Obviously this is a rather weak idea with some limitations, but its the best I've got right now!

I also think that a central memorial for cyclist would be a great way to illustrate the dangers we face, but it would need to be somewhere pretty obvious to have any effect.