Blood on the streets

Hi guys,

Sorry to interrupt, but I thought this thread was the best place to ask.

What is segregated cycling?

My colleague was asking me about the aims of the "die-in" and I didn't really have an answer.

Fanks.

Totally separate infrastructure for motorised and non-motorised traffic, I thought- like those shitty lanes in Bloomsbury that peds are always walking straight into.

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/IMG_0198_utrecht_biking.jpghttp://thisoldcity.com/sites/default/files/images/netherlands_bike_lane_rbt.jpghttp://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mab2jsNuih1rct4o9o1_1280.jpg

re the thing going on up there with Jeez et al:

I gave up reading this page quite near the top, but would like to add that surely blaming people is only justified when they are actually to blame, regardless of wether they are victims or not?
If you want to reduce the risk of a head injury then wear a helmet, if you want to discourage dangerous overtaking then ride in primary... if you get hurt when you've done nothing wrong, blame the driver.

Why should anyone do this?

So that we can keep on arguing, obvs.

Mr Bloggs should've been wearing a helmet. Mr Driver shouldn't have been texting.
These people are both to blame.

I am trying to get TW2 to admit that he was victim blaming and apologise for calling me a cunt. Likewise ed.

Alternatively I would like to have what is victim blaming and what is not made a bit clearer to me because I really cannot see why what TW2 said is any different to much of what Boris etc says which is called out as victim blaming.

And I'd like the moon on a stick and a puppy that plays football- but going on and on and on and on and on about it won't get me those, either.

My point being that you are overlooking a fairly basic tenet of interpersonal relationships.

You are, essentially, saying "dance, monkey, dance" in your demands for people to answer you.

What's in it for them?

It's a shame that it is Jeez I have to agree with... but I have to agree (a teensy little bit) with jeez.

We all know that if you ride primary in all the situations that you think it wouldn't be safe for a motor vehicle to overtake, you get a lot of aggro, "get to the left", hooting, punishment passes etc. I for one find that unnerving and it is often followed by a dangerous overtake anyway. The very fact these lorries did overtake dangerously implies their drivers thought it was a perfectly good place to do so, hence probably wouldn't like it if some impudent cyclist was impeding their lawful progress to the next traffic jam.

So yeah, in some situations more primary would reduce the problem, but in some others it would antagonise the dangerous road user on a timed contract with 10 tons of metal under his fat arse.

I think from a policy / united front type direction it would be good to be clear that the aetiology of terrible and life-endangerous moments as per above is wholly inside the cab of the HGV/bus.

edit: Cycle training would help, but far fairer than to put more responsibility on the cyclist would be to train the drivers better, and remove things like unreasonable time targets that supersede safety.

No, I'm pointing out that the way you disport yourself does not incline people toward a) your point of view and b) doing what you "order" them to do.

Wow, and we're off again.

I actually think Jeez has a point here, unfortunately it's not actually the one he is trying to make.

TW2, seeing the video evidence, has spotted a fault with the rider's positioning, that has been established as being a factor in encouraging the type of pass they are victims of. I think he is assigning them a degree of blame, but he is right to based on clear evidence.

BJ's waffle about headphones was based on absolutely no evidence and was a disgusting attempt to shift focus away from the miss-management and inaction over the infrastructure that he is responsible for, that has been shown to be dangerous.

Well why didn't you say that before?

My key point was (as you say) that when someone is passed dangerously close that is 100% the fault of the driver and 0% the fault of the cyclist, even if the cyclist was not riding in the best way possible. My second key point was that to say that to say that the cyclist was not cycling very well is to imply that the driver is less than 100% at fault and the cyclist is more than 0% at fault, which is, by definition victim blaming.

You inferred the victim blaming, it was not implied. For example, "I didn't lock my house very well" does not remove any culpability from the burglar who then breaks in.

My understanding is that (in theory at least) if a car can't get round you then it won't pull up alongside then turn left in front of you.

sorry everyone.

sorry everyone.

Nobody's blaming you (except possibly Jeez)

I'm blaming him, but I won't admit it.

House of Commons Transport Committee meeting today:

Metropolitan Police Commander Dave Martin, whose responsibilities include road policing said 52% of London cycling deaths in the last four years have involved accidents with large goods vehicles.

Asked if there was a war going on between cyclists and motorists, Mr Martin said: "I would not describe it as a war. But there have been things that have caused great concern.

"People are going through red lights - both cyclists and motorists. And motorists are still using mobile phones at the wheel."

Mr Sinha said: "There is no war. A lot of people are very concerned. I hope people are not put off cycling (by recent events.)"

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cycling-in-london-risky-campaigner-tells-commons-transport-committee-after-spate-of-deaths-8978378.html

I am trying to get TW2 to admit that he was victim blaming and apologise for calling me a cunt. Likewise ed.

Sadly, I did not call you a cunt, like the victim blaming nonsense, only you think i did.

Because I am happy to admit that I am a moronic bullying cunt who could not think logically if lives depended on it, have no concept of reason, and delight in picking on the site othodoxy.

ftfy , but seriously most of your posts are sensible and contribute to the site , why not just completely leave this alone ?

Depressing results in a new Com Res survey - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25176031 - "London cyclists: Fifth of riders 'stop bike-commuting" :(

• 20% of cyclists said they had stopped cycling to work
  
• 63% said they cycled on pavements to avoid dangerous roads and junctions
  
• 30% said they have changed their route to work
  
• 68% disagreed that London's roads are safe to cycle on
  

20% of cyclists said they had stopped cycling to work

Yeah, but it's cold and I can't remember who Bradley Wiggins is any more.