Blood on the streets

UN reckon there are circa 4,000 deaths on the roads per day !

The biggest difference is while people riding bicycle* are likely to cause harm to themselves by cycling with risk, people driving cars are likely to cause harm to others by driving with risk.

*never use the word cyclist as it somehow implied they're a different lower species.

I could go on...

I dare say you will ;-)

It's just a bit galling to see the 'they do this and that' constantly. 'they' don't, though some do. Despite choosing to encase themselves in metal, most drivers are normal and rational and care for those around them to a certain degree. The same as most cyclists. Maybe because most cyclists are also regular drivers.

Alkali I think you missed the point that if they make the slightest mistake while operating a motorised vehicles, it can actually likely to cause fatality.

A simple quick glance at a phone screen can mean the difference between life and death.

A simple quick glance at a phone screen can mean the difference between life and death.

Must turn off LFGSS thread update e-mail reminder thingy...

So they turn without checking
They natter on their phones
They speed
They pass close
They hoot and deny walkers their right to cross roads
The beep cyclists into the gutter
I could go on...

They jump red lights
They ride on pavements
They endanger pedestrians
They undertake
They ride up the inside of lorries

Pointless and foolish generalisations can go both ways, and serve no useful purpose.

They jump red lights
They ride on pavements
They endanger pedestrians
They undertake
They ride up the inside of lorries

Pointless and foolish generalisations can go both ways, and serve no useful purpose.

The biggest difference is while people riding bicycle* are likely to cause harm to themselves by cycling with risk, people driving cars are likely to cause harm to others by driving with risk.

*never use the word cyclist as it somehow implied they're a different lower species.

ed covered that

They jump red lights
They ride on pavements
They endanger pedestrians
They undertake

.

You're right drivers do all these things too. Many more people are killed by drivers doing these things than by cyclists doing them...

So rather than bickering about what the best solution would be eventually. Can we actually do something? We all know that we will be just ignored unless we cause a sustained noise that affects the powers that be. We know that bad infrastructure and unenforced traffic laws contribute significantly to cyclist-vehicle collisions.

So when do MPs go home usually? Flash ride every day at parliament square until something is done.

What about TFL's planning office? Flash ride every day there until something is done.

What about the Met? Flash ride every day until they've arrested 100 motorists for dangerous/careless driving? (With no collision)

What about the boroughs and their shit cycle lanes with post-boxes in the middle and randomly end? Pick one and flash ride until they are removed?

Let just wait till an MP is killed while cycling.

You're right drivers do all these things too. Many more people are killed by drivers doing these things than by cyclists doing them...

The problem is that you seem to be advocating selective enforcement- which is exactly the situation we have currently that is demonstrably not working.

Until the rules are applied equally to every road user then one group or another will (with justification) be able to point out the injustice being done to them.

My point in to operate a policy of harm reduction policy. Enforce the things that are more risky to others. Having 4 policemen handing out leaflets and talking to cyclists about pavement cycling will not reduce harm, having the same policemen pulling over drivers on their phones will reduce the possibility of harm.

People talk about speeding (a factor in many incidents) almost proudly while the every single time the media talk about cycling they ask about rljing which while illegal, doesn't feature in many harmful incidents.

I always find this time of year the most sketchy for commuting. The clocks go back, everyone is suddenly commuting home in twilight/darkness the roads are always damp/littered with wet leaves.

It takes everyone a few weeks to get used to the change in conditions and I generally feel less safe around this time of year.

Enforcement should be selective.
Indeed it already is and always has been.
Currently it is in response to the most complaints received.
It should be in response to the greatest risk to others.

Currently we have a crack down on pavement riding in Reading, adjacent to a road full of crawling traffic. People complain to the police about the cyclists, not the traffic.
Not enough people complain about the driver's behaviour.
The police only respond after an accident with a car, they claim they are there to prevent an accident caused by a cyclist.

My point in to operate a policy of harm reduction policy. Enforce the things that are more risky to others. Having 4 policemen handing out leaflets and talking to cyclists about pavement cycling will not reduce harm, having the same policemen pulling over drivers on their phones will reduce the possibility of harm.

People talk about speeding (a factor in many incidents) almost proudly while the every single time the media talk about cycling they ask about rljing which while illegal, doesn't feature in many harmful incidents.

i.e. "stop picking on us and pick on them?"

If you encouraged equal enforcement - for example police ticketing ASL encroaching drivers AND RLJ'ing cyclists on the same day in the same locations - don't you think that that would send a far stronger message to all road users?

It might also serve in some small way to bring all road users together, given that one thing that drives them apart at the moment is both camps pointing to the other never being punished for things- RLJ/Mobiles/ASL/Pavement/Speeding/blah blah blah.

^ This is being done. I have been involved in sessions with both RLJing cyclists and asl offenders at the City police.

However in terms of stopping this carnage the effect of this is negligible. Dammit I do not agree that we are dealing like with like when enforcing road behavior. The point having been made several times above is that people on bikes are benign, they can't really hurt anyone (other than themselves sometimes). People in motors can kill people quite easily which is why clamping down on their behaviour properly, with proper punishments for even 'minor' infractions (such as speeding slightly- 5mph difference can kill)

I think it is time for a national prime time TV advertising campaign specifically about the dangers of undertaking large vehicles.
I wonder what it will take for this to happen.

I think it is time for a national prime time advertising campaign specifically about the dangers of undertaking large vehicles.

This so much.

But can be conflicting because of this;

Shouldn't left turns for HGVs be banned?

How the hell would that work?

that poster... what it doesn't show is that those cyclists were there before the shitting great lorry rocked up and decided to hang a sharp left.

How the hell would that work?

plan your hgv routes accordingly?
For years my mother planned all her journeys to avoid right turns. (In London, for 15 years or so).
She worked it out in advance.
Can't be hard to add in some software in a Sat nav.

I think it is time for a national prime time TV advertising campaign specifically about the dangers of undertaking large vehicles.
I wonder what it will take for this to happen.

As pointed out above it will take a lot when the 'infrastructure' encourages it. Those segregated cycle lanes that then carry people blithely across junctions are particularly idiotic. I'm not a fan of pseudo 'Dutch' solutions in general

The solution is simple - banned HGVs from rush hour.

It's not exactly the solution to end all solution, but it's a start in the right direction to dramatically drop the number of cyclists being killed.

I never thought I'd say this, but I think Ed is right.