A bad day in London

[TonyR]

Yet another lorry death in a blue lane and a serious coach injury as well in London yesterday

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/c ... 23706.html

[661-Pete]

Very sad. The lorry death is being discussed in this thread.

[AndyBSG]

And yet again London's roads claim another cyclist with a second one in hospital in a serious condition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24910969

With the two deaths last week, one at Mile End and the other victim of the Holborn coach crash passing away after 4 days in hospital, that takes it to 3 fatalities in 7 days.

The common theme? All three fatalities and the seriously injured cyclist were struck by HGV's with a lorry, two buses and a coach involved.

All this rubbish about blind spots on HGV's really doesn't cut it for me. I've driven 18 tonne lorries and know full well that the mirrors which are required by law give better visibility in an HGV than in most other vehicles on the road.

It's purely a case of drivers not checking before they pull away.

[Mark1978]

It's purely a case of drivers not checking before they pull away.

Yes, but human nature being what it is, this isn't likely to change. The 'solution' is to remove HGV / cyclist conflicts. How you achieve this is the debate, if that's by segregating cyclists or segregating HGVs?

[AndyBSG]

This is getting ridiculous. Another death at Bow roundabout this morning, involving an HGV, only 30 minutes after I cycled past there on my daily commute.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/b ... 36566.html

There's a protest ride planned there for 6.00 - 6.30 this evening. Not sure what I think of a protest ride at one of London's most dangerous roundabouts during rush hour.

So that's 4 deaths in 8 days on London roads, the third death at Bow roundabout in 2 years.

[boliston]

i think that "on road" cycle lanes are a cause of many of these conflicts and give a false sense of security to inexperienced cyclists.

i'd prefer to see EITHER fully segregated cycle lanes OR cyclists using the normal traffic lanes

[Mark1978]

There's a protest ride planned there for 6.00 - 6.30 this evening. Not sure what I think of a protest ride at one of London's most dangerous roundabouts during rush hour.

Although blocking up rush hour traffic won't win them any motorist friends, it's protests like this which have a big impact are the ones that get noticed and action taken.

[ArMoRothair]

Although blocking up rush hour traffic won't win them any motorist friends, it's protests like this which have a big impact are the ones that get noticed and action taken.

Agreed.

Doing nothing is hardly an option any longer. It is worth spending a few minutes looking at this video explaining how the Dutch cycle infrastructure came about. It didn't just happen by magic, it took similar protests to kick-start it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jY ... xN_uDTZLqy

[keepontriking]

Cycling organisations and individuals have been lobbying for years to no avail - or rather they have achieved a few painted lines and blue (or red, or green, or brown*) strips.
*There is no consistency, which is symptomatic of our present highway strategies.

Demonstratrions are all that is left and after the latest deaths those who plan our roads must sit up and stop playing with paint brushes but introduce effective segregation. Bikes and lorries/buses just don't mix.

The right messages now are starting to be said by some cycling groups - they need to be acted upon.

I like this approach:
http://spaceforcycling.org/

[mjr]

www.space4cycling.org (note it's a 4 and a well-intentioned volunteer got spaceforcycling before London Cycle Campaign) is not a campaign for indiscriminate apartheid. It's for protected space for cycling on main roads, no-through-motor-traffic zones, 20mph speed limits, safer cycle routes to schools, liveable high streets and more parkland cycle routes.

[keepontriking]

Yes that '4' is the London-based campaign for their local elections, the other seems a wider approach.
We do need to become much more united under a common call.

Over the years cycling groups have often been their own worst enemy but with the current climate when cycling is top of the agenda and it's time to all work together. The deaths and injuries we are hearing about are not just unacceptable, but avoidable.

As a cyclist I don't want to be mixing with lorries,cars, buses, etc, and I know drivers would prefer we weren't in their way either from the curses they so often emit.
We are on the same side so let's also work with them too.

[mjr]

Yes that '4' is the London-based campaign for their local elections, the other seems a wider approach.
We do need to become much more united under a common call.

Over the years cycling groups have often been their own worst enemy but [many good reasons]

The 4 is currently London-based, but I think the aims would stand up in most places. I think the London Cycle Campaign didn't want to take it national without asking and tread on anyone's toes. I hope it will become much wider after various campaign groups meet this weekend.

However, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the different cycling groups represent different interests. It doesn't hold the motoring groups back, where the MSA, CC, CCC, IAM, RAC, AA and so on all have different interests - sometimes they're united, sometimes they're opposing - so why should it hold CTC, CN, BC and so on back?

I don't think it's possible to avoid all mixing with cars and so on, just like people have to mix with them a bit when walking. I feel the real problem is that people on bikes are sometimes expected to mix with lorries or pedestrians in unrealistic ways that cause conflict.

[661-Pete]

The 4 is currently London-based...

I know it's pure coincidence, but, at first glance, I read that as referring to the four cyclists who have lost their lives in London in the past few days.
What can one say?
What can I, and the many others like me who live outside London and outside our major cities, contribute towards the fight against this carnage?
The issue has now taken the front page of the Evening Standard - see:

If nothing else, more and more people will take notice of what is happening. People from right across the board: cyclists, motorists, parents, kids, politicians, the lot. But what will the effect of that be? "Cycling is dangerous: I'd never allow my children to cycle". That sort of thing?
Sorry, I don't have answers. Where I live, a much safer part of the country, segregation is worthless. Cyclists have a relatively stress-free time on the highways. I have always at heart been an anti-segregationist. But in our big cities - segregation - if it's done properly, if it's the only way to save lives....?
If nothing improves, London and the other big cities will lose their cyclists altogether. Which will merely serve to drive them through the next gateway to Dante's Inferno....
Nevertheless, not a call to 'Abandon Hope'...

[Mark1978]

I think what they are asking for is common sense in terms of speed limits and traffic volumes being at trigger for segregated facilities. It working in both ways if traffic volumes and speeds can be reduced.

How practical is it to provide segregation for HGVs?! I guess not very? As the way I see it, it's not about "getting bikes out of the way" but "getting lorries out of the way"

[Steady rider]

On motorways traffic have to leave space, 2 seconds I think between vehicles or face a fine.

http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/tips ... story.html

Lorries and buses need to leave a 2 seconds gap at all times when moving. Leaving a good gap allows for improved viewing and seeing cyclists on the inside. Driving close to the vehicle in front restricts the view on the inside especially.

The Highway Code needs changing as the CTC voted for this year.
(In 2013 the CTC voted at their AGM for the following motion ( 2665 for and 7 against);

5) Proposed by Colin Clarke, seconded by Ron Healey.

That CTC seeks amendments to the Highway Code when it is next revised, to increase cyclists’ protection in both civil and criminal law, including: greater priority at junctions; stronger requirements on the need for drivers to leave space when overtaking cyclists; and changes to advice which may be used by drivers and their insurers (or others) to argue that cyclists are liable for their own injuries, e.g. by not wearing helmets or high visibility clothing.)


Overtaking (162 to 169)
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-t ... 162-to-169
163 SEE BELOW FOR SUGGESTED CHANGEs in BLUE
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
(a list is provided in the Code)
• give motorcyclists at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car. Cyclists and horse riders require passing at lower speeds with plenty of room.

The caption on the picture requires re-phasing
Suggest
‘pass vulnerable road users with extra care and generous clearance '

213
Take extra care passing cyclists, preferably leave 1.5m or more but at least a minimum passing distance of one metre between the motor vehicle and a bicyclist for speeds up to 30 mph. At higher speeds more room should be provided and sufficient to prevent contact with the person operating the bicycle if the person were to fall into the driver’s lane of traffic. Pass with care and not at excessive speed.

The above suggestions could be made within a month, I expect. They would cost zero.
If protesting having precise requirements may help to achieve change. We want A, B, C etc.

ps Melbourne has a 40 km limit for the city area, 25 mph limit within the core area of London may benefit all road users.http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victor ... 6746288505 some are talking about a 30 km/hr limit.