Blood on the streets

Reads like Kerouac.

On a related note I am getting a bit annoyed at how wearing a helmet/high vis is being treated the same as following traffic signals & having lights. People on both sides need to realise one set is law & the other is conjecture. Not to mention behavior, etiquette & road positioning which are arguably the most important aspect of getting through london (via any mode of transport).

And this is the other thing that I massively agree with.

One of the things that really irritates me when riding around though is behaviour that is inconsiderate rather than massively illegal, drivers closing gaps, edging forward when it does them no good, driving too close, that sort of stuff.

Reads like Kerouac.

Will edit when I'm not working

the issue is not whether or not people choose to 'keep themselves safe', until it becomes law the entire argument one way or the other is moot.

The problem arises when the debate surrounding cycle safety centers entirely on these unproven safety measures to the detriment of the very fucking REAL issue of poor road design and criminal lack of infrastructure. To be honest, everytime one of you lot start yapping at each others throats because someone else doesn't or does wear a fucking hi viz vest / helmet / headphones / picks their nose while riding, you push the debate further and further down that rabbit hole, which is precisely what venal cunts like b.johnson want you to do, that way it stops people asking the right (or in his case, wrong) questions.

Well she's got almost 4,000 people lapping up her twaddle on Twitter, sadly. Absolutely agree re: road behaviour, positioning and lights. These are the things that really matter when it comes to safety (especially the first two). For some reason, commentators are obsessed with hi-vis, helmets and now... headphones! I despair...

Thanks for the uprate on the comment :P

It is not said but there is a massive implication in what lots of cyclists say IMHO.

GOOD STUFF DELETED

I cannot prove any of this, because the only way to prove it would be to have people come on this thread and say 'I admit it - I think hi viz very sensible, but I look like a prat wearing it so I don't. It's down to cars to avoid me, it is not my job to help them do their job.'

I think that each of us make our own choices.

Me, I wear a helmet, but don't really expect it to do much good in a serious accident. I stop at red lights, though stop significantly in front of one on the way home, because I think it is safer (at Tally Ho in Finchley). I have a helmet and a bike covered in reflective tape, would get the tube rather than cycle with no lights, but don't wear hi viz. I pretty much always wear headphones.

Obviously I /could/ wear hi viz and not have headphones, but I personally don't think it woudl make a deal of difference.

Here is a myth busting document we wrote a while ago to inform the police about cycling. We are resending it to the Met commissioner to help with the Met giving appropriate advice about helmets, hi viz rljing etc. Feel free to forward this

I'd say the focus has to be on what is actually scientifically proven.

Is there a link between wearing headphones/accidents? According to the data set CTC researched, no. So while intuitively you'd think it's more risky, the data doesn't back this up.

Is there a link between lorry / cyclist collisions and higher death rates? Absolutely. Now what to about this is another thing.

Is there a link between less severe injuries/less total injuries and helmet wearing? Inconclusive on reduction of injuries, reduction in cycle in some areas.

I personally follow the road rules, but expect others not to do so. Which is good as otherwise I would have been scooped up 3 times last year by cars that were supposed to give way to me. Legally they would have been at fault. Anecdotal evidence is suspect though ;)

I always have lights at night. As for hi-vis I have reflective strips on my jacket and shoes. Served me pretty well for 25 years of riding around central London

and

other things being equal hi viz at night makes you more likely to be seen

Reflective material at night, not "hi viz", makes you more visible. The old orange pedal reflector is a good one even before you take reflective strips into account.

Hi viz probably stands out well in certain conditions (gloomy overcast) but I can't say it offers any particular benefit under sodium lamps, or even in other lighting conditions. You might as well argue that a high contrast against your background is key to visibility - this could involve wearing dark colours at some times.

To which I would add the fact that every effing workman and his dog wears a fluoro tabard will hardly make you stand out in the average streetscene.

Lights are more important, the hi viz thing is largely a chartreuse herring imo.

^article backing that up
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/10/cycling-high-visibility-safe-fluorescent

Jeez. You troll. Why the victim bashing/blaming?

Sooner or laters, he gonna do a Lynchman.

HE MEANT REFLECTIVE NOT HI-VIS EVERYONE

Jeez - if you're going to keep bashing away at this particular bit of suspect meat, don't you think that's quite an important distinction to make?

^^ I wish I had your optimism.

Sooner or laters, he gonna do a Lynchman.

As far as I'm aware he hasn't claimed to have one testicle yet

Here's another charming victim blaming pile of crap. Care to add your comments chaps?
http://www.motherwifeme.com/london-cyclists-safety/

Interesting that she witnessed a serious traffic collision and didn't bother to report it, then has the sheer brass neck to pompously lecture about road safety. In fact, I think I'll tell her.

Even the very nice police sergeant at the Tower Hamlets motorbike safety thingy believed the lies about high-viz - and tousled my grey jacket saying "this won't do much good at night"...

But it has give or take as much reflective material, ie. the thing you can actually see at night when there is less light, as your average flouro nodder jacket, but doesn't make me look like (as much of) a twat.

Why can't people who comment, especially when they are in authority e.g. the police stopping you at the side of the road, be informed first!!?? Argh

Also ^ that woman - who thinks the important factors of her life are mother wife me - oh feminism where art thou - describes nearly side swiping two cyclists. Sounds like a confession of driving without due care if you ask me.

Interesting that she witnessed a serious traffic collision and didn't bother to report it, then has the sheer brass neck to pompously lecture about road safety. In fact, I think I'll tell her.

That blog read a bit like it had been phoned in, to be honest. Perhaps Mrs McQuiltcover or whatever her name is is just a devious cover for the Wiggle marketing department

Who makes high vis? They must be greasing all the right palms. Forget big oil and big pharma its the high vis corporations we need to stop!

Also ^ that woman - who thinks the important factors of her life are mother wife me - oh feminism where art thou - describes nearly side swiping two cyclists. Sounds like a confession of driving without due care if you ask me.

This bit is a particular joy

"If I hadn’t been fully concentrating I could have knocked one or both of them off their bikes."

Because full concentration is an optional extra, a bonus if you will, when driving a car in the city.

I am not sure what I detest more... victim blaming or the fact that a significant number of cyclists seem unable to accept that they have to take some responsibility for their own safety.
This may appear to be reasonable but when the context is that six people have died while on bikes, and there is no available evidence of those cyclists' wrongdoing, to lead with and give prominence to the cyclist behaviour issue is victim blaming.

Who makes high vis? They must be greasing all the right palms. Forget big oil and big pharma its the high vis corporations we need to stop!

Well 3M are major players in the technology and hold a lot of patents about it...

'With $30 billion in sales, 3M employs 88,000 people worldwide and produces more than 55,000 products, including: adhesives, abrasives, laminates, passive fire protection, dental products, electronic materials, medical products, car-care products (sun films, polish, wax, car shampoo, treatment for the exterior, interior and the under chassis rust protection), electronic circuits, and optical films.'

Is this the right place to bust the Paris is safer myth?

Many people are trotting out the story that Paris had no cycling fatalities last year (or was it the year before).

What they mean is the City of Paris district had no cyclist fatalities, that only refers to the central area, equivalent to about one and half times the size of London's zone one.

From February 2012 to April 2013 there were no cyclist fatalities in a similar size zone around Central London. As we have been drastically reminded this month fatal crashes are statistically rare events which can come in clusters and be absent for long periods. There is no causal relationship which can be drawn from this.

My casual observation is that there is a higher density of cycle use in the central area of London than in the equivalent area of Paris. Does anyone have data on this? There is a far higher density of large construction type HGVs in London as there is very little if any high rise building allowed in the centre of Paris.