Die-In and Vigil at TfL HQ. Public

I prefer the campaigns philosophy of http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/ to the idea that you can chivvy people into cycling by talking down the risk. You can't make something feel safe and enjoyable by showering them with statistics when they can just see that the road layout puts them in close contact with dirty great construction lorries. The spate of deaths might have the effect of putting people off, but I don't see how campaigning to do something about it would. Most people think cycling is indistinguishable from suicide anyhow - that's why they aren't doing it. So if you want to expand the cycling demographic, the Next 'Die-In' is at Vauxhall Cross
Thursday 19th Dec 07:30 - 08:30

this is what i think http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/about/

So if you want to expand the divide between cyclists and commuting motorists, the Next 'Die-In' is at Vauxhall Cross
Thursday 19th Dec 07:30 - 08:30

ftfy

I hope I'm wrong though.

I prefer the campaigns philosophy of http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/ to the idea that you can chivvy people into cycling by talking down the risk. ... So if you want to expand the cycling demographic, the Next 'Die-In' is at Vauxhall Cross
Thursday 19th Dec 07:30 - 08:30

Seems like this will put more people off cycling.

Seems like shrieking danger is less than helpful and effectively says don't ride a bike till we turn into Holland. We need gentrle nudging, education and training of drivers and cyclists, proper enforcement of poor risky drivers, ongoing infrastructure tweaks (Like those mentioned here and like those in Hackney.

All the energy that goes into negative campaining takes away from positive cycling promotion

All the energy that goes into negative campaigning takes away from positive cycling promotion

Summed it up nicely.

"All the energy that goes into negative campaining takes away from positive cycling promotion"

I'm not unfamiliar with your argument, but i think you are wrong, and might be ignorant of some history. Where cycling is a genuinely mass form of transport, this has never resulted from nudging, or anything at all gentle, politically speaking. It has resulted from doing something to the roads to make them not only be but appear safe to cycle on - and by "shreiking" things properly connected with the responsibility of city planners for the arrangement of our streets ("Stop Der Kindermoord").

One strand of what you are saying is that there are lots of sound reasons to be brave, and that more bravery will be encouraged among a slightly larger demographic by the right sort of propaganda and a bit of decorum or self-cenorship about cyclist deaths and injuries. That's more or less the philosophy of recruitment into the Marines. Good on you chaps - i've got a pretty stiff upper lip myself - but what about the civilians?

I agree that any suggestion that you shouldn't be cycling at all untill dutch standards are in place everywhere would put of cyclists, but I don't see that campaigning for safe provision amounts to this. There are lots of bits of holland where dutch standards are not in place: they generally install the cycle infrastructure when the road becomes dues for renewal anyway. That's what we are not currently doing and should be doing, in addition to the fixes that are recommended at http://theconversation.com/never-mind-investment-we-can-improve-cycle-safety-now-21247

Pissing-off motorists. Pissing off the general public is the concern. People who commute by private car in london are a much smaller demographic and have much less public sympathy than the amount of space they take up on the roads would lead you to believe. Attitudes of those on the bus matter a lot more - and yes, there I'm with you in hope that what results isn't antagonism. I take it that TfL passengers would want bus drivers to have such technical gizmos, and for there to be such physical infrastructure, that their commutes to work are not interrupted by the bus having to stop so that an ambulance can be called? Also, bus passengers are pedestrians, and the "Stop The Killing" campaign seems to unite those campaigning for pedestrian safety with cyclist campaigners - check their fb group - for the moment the media might be portraying this as a "cycling protest" but there is a tactical gain to be won here in the broader base of concern about blind lorries and busses that this "Stop The Killing" campaign seems to involve. If the chaps demonstrating for pedestrian and cyclist safety keep it civil, the main inconvenience will be to the Mayor's political image - which is precisely how to exert pressure. To judge from LCC updates, it would appear that others squaring up to the mayor is reaping dividends in implementation brought forward.

BTW, I agree very much with the praise heaped on the Poynton Scheme http://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-services/what-we-do/route-design-and-construction/shared-space-busy-intersection-poynton
by
http://theconversation.com/never-mind-investment-we-can-improve-cycle-safety-now-21247

Definately 'shared space' is the way forward for a lot of London - remove the 'go faster - now you have a right to run him down' signage and you can increase capacity and reduce speed both - win win for cyclists. The problem is that we will need more and bigger Poynton style schemes before the DoT are properly up to speed with the idea. Segregation also works and is more doable in the near to middle term, I think. So MANY things work, but nothing goes forward properly without demos that impose a political cost for victim-blaming and other excuses.

The wires have been very quiet about the Vauxhall Cross die-in. What occurred?

the poynton scheme sucks as a cyclist and a driver.

Have the Vauxhall Cross one happened?

Look like it had;

when I saw a clip on the news (last thursday I think) it looked like there were only a dozen or so people there - not very impressive, indeed it could make the reasoning behind the campaign look like only a few people are concerned

or very few people think this is a valid protest. either the aims of the protesters (which are not clear to me ) or the method

There were about 60 for the actual die in, which is in-line with what the organisers asked for, in order to commemorate casualties at this junction. Commuters were joining in and passing on as their deadlines required. Personally I think it's pretty impressive that you could get such numbers for something at 7.30 AM Here's an account: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/dec/20/cyclists-die-in-vauxhall-bridge-road-safety

I gather not everyone on this thread thinks that it's a good thing. I do. It was all cleared with the police and peaceful and so forth, so I'm not really clear what the beef is with the method. Aims include getting TfL to move beyond the suicide paint towards infrastructure that ordinary people want to cycle on, and other obvious and achievable stuff like actually installing the sensors that eliminate blind spots on heavy vehicles. That operation safeway should spend a bit more time on compliance from the vehicles that actually do the killing is also a demand.

Don't ride on the suicide paint, take your place on the road.

They protested just there because there's an on-pavement cycle-way which ends exactly at the junction.

well said dancing james. and lets have bikeability training for some transport planners too

Don't ride on the suicide paint, take your place on the road.

ah, but that way less people will take up riding and therefore it won't get safer

what puts people off is that the road design isn't attractive to newbie cyclists, not that campaigning reminds people of this problem. there's been a campaigns upsurge after the spate of deaths not simply in response to the deaths themselves but in response to the outrageous victim-blaming narrative that Boris & co tried to weave around those deaths, which was far more likely to put people off than pointing t the real problem. by continental and NYC standards the blue paint is a dangerous joke. if it at least did not have cars parked in it and motors stopping in the ASL boxes without the slightest idea what they are for or fear of enforcement, that would be another small advance from spin to reality

what puts people off is that the road design isn't attractive to newbie cyclists, not that campaigning reminds people of this problem.

The biggest issue is that it discourage people whom are thinking about cycling, the title "stop murder of cyclists" give the implication that it's a lots worse than it sounded.

what puts people off is that the road design isn't attractive to newbie cyclists, not that campaigning reminds people of this problem. there's been a campaigns upsurge after the spate of deaths not simply in response to the deaths themselves but in response to the outrageous victim-blaming narrative that Boris & co tried to weave around those deaths, which was far more likely to put people off than pointing t the real problem.

The biggest issue is that it discourage people whom are thinking about cycling, the title "stop murder of cyclists" give the implication that it's a lots worse than it sounded.

In addition to Ed's point, Rob, there's been a constant message put out for a few years now (long before recent deaths) by campaigners which implies that cycling is 'dangerous' (when it's a low-risk activity). Campaigners don't need to stress this, because others, who don't want people to cycle, will happily do it, anyway. Whenever the supposed 'danger' of cycling becomes so prominent as to blot out all other aspects of it (easily done), people will be discouraged from cycling (exactly in the same way as would happen with any other activity).

Invoking the demon of 'safety' in response to 'danger' is counter-productive. Most people would tell you that their homes are safe, but a huge number of life-changing 'accidents' happen in the home (simply because people spend a lot of time there), and the idea of a 'safe' environment is a myth, whether it's homes or streets you're talking about. However, the gap between the unattainable nirvana of 'safety' and reality often makes people despondent. This is why it is important to stress that we have to reduce crashes (still plenty of potential there) rather than attain 'safety'. This is not merely a conceptual nuance, but a very important practical distinction.

Campaigners must be careful neither to accidentally talk down the cause for which they are working by communicating an unrealistic image of 'danger', nor to invoke some sort of unrealistic ideal.

Obviously agree with you on the victim-blaming problem, which is the Mayor's 'dead cat' strategy to distract the public and the media from the real issues (much as the Mayor doesn't give the impression that he understands the problems very well).

subvert campaign:
http://stopthekilling.org.uk/posters-and-subvertisements/#jp-carousel-558
http://stopthekilling.org.uk/posters-and-subvertisements/

some blogs/campaigns:
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/about/
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/
http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/
http://www.voleospeed.co.uk/
http://saferoxfordstreet.blogspot.co.uk/
https://www.facebook.com/rethinkingchildhood?directed_target_id=0
https://www.facebook.com/groups/231904483648270/