The Times Campaign for safer cycling

[Steady rider]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 329483.ece

In Westminster Hall they were talking good deeds for cycling, well done the Times and the MPs who attended, as listed

Ian Austin, Maria Eagle, Tessa Jowell, Kerry McCarthy, Andrew Smith, Lilian Greenwood, Susan Jones, Kate Hoey, Alison Seabeck, John Leech, Mark Lazarowicz, Ben Bradshaw, Zac Goldsmith, Sir Gerald Kaufman, Nia Griffith, Sadiq Khan, Jeremy Corbyn, Heidi Alexander, Stella Creasy, Tony Cunningham, Jim Cunningham, Karen Buck, Martin Horwood, Andrew Slaughter, Meg Hillier, Jason McCartney, Andrew George, Tom Brake, Fabien Hamilton, Guy Opperman, Julian Sturdy, Rehman Chishti, John Howell, Richard Harrington, Rob Wilson, Jack Lopresti, Mark Hunter, Sir Alan Beith, Simon Kirby, Andrew Bingham, Michael Ellis, Mike Weatherley, Sarah Woolaston, Jane Ellison, Gavin Barwell, Mark Menzies, Graham Evans, Paul Maynard, Nigel Mills, Fiona Bruce, Angie Bray, Tessa Munt, Jonathan Lord, Bob Stewart, Neil Carmichael, Andrew Selovs, Stephen Lloyd, Oliver Colville, Shailesh Vara, Sir George Young, Richard Graham, Norman Baker, Andrew Jones, Julian Huppert, Steve Brine, Robin Walker, Sir Bob Russell, Diane Abbott, Jo Swinson, Seema Malhotra, Rushinara Ali, Stephen Pound and Sheila Gimor.

[David Cox]

Agree just watched it an excellent and constructive debate.

[David Cox]

just pleasing to see the power of big media... and the attention it can focus also shows that The Times knows how to run a campaign and get in public eye Agreed.

- the CTC should learn from them (that is me speaking as a member as well).

Rootes - I am sure we could and it would be great to have their resources. However, dont underestimate the support that CTC officers have given the Times journalists in preparing their campaign and shaping most of the 8 points. a lot of this is down to Roger Geffen. Cycling Weekly covers this well in today's edition

[snibgo]

The debate had lots of warm and fuzzy words -- more of a love-in than a debate, apart from the opposition transport woman -- and no promises from the government. None at all, unless I missed something?

Not that I really expected anything.

[anothereye]

Times has a transcript here:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 329483.ece
it's in blog form so best to read it backwards from bot of p2.

I'm re-assured to see that they are aware of the issues, unlike the recent discussion in the 'other place'.

[snibgo]

That's a commentary, not a transcript. A transcript is available from Hansard.

And the Times has another summary.

[thirdcrank]

The debate had lots of warm and fuzzy words -- more of a love-in than a debate, apart from the opposition transport woman -- and no promises from the government. None at all, unless I missed something?

Not that I really expected anything.

That's also a commentary, but it was ideal for me on a "need to know" basis. (I'm in the middle of a bit of a plumbing emergency so I've bookmarked the Hansard report for some bedtime reading.)

[CyclistsFROWUK]

Needs the government to actually do something about it !.they have the power ,, if they were so concerned about ,cyclists safety, the environment, traffic congestion, ect, .. they could and would do something about it

[snibgo]

"Act now to save cyclists, councils told"
Norman Baker and Mike Penning write to councils asking for changes.

The letter.

[snibgo]

The Time is getting a bit hysterical with yesterday's headline, "Cycling injuries ‘treble in six years’". The article explains that this isn't for the UK, or GB, or England, or London, but only at one particular London hospital. Perhaps another nearby hospital would have shown a dramatic decrease in cycling injuries.

The abstract of the study from which these number come doesn't mention this trebling, which I suppose isn't meaningful.

[Steady rider]

Yesterday I was riding on a 3m wide road, van behind, I had to move over to let it by. Later on a 5m wide section, double decker bus passed at about 0.8m and doing about 35 mph. later on a bend 5.5m wide probably, people carrier passed at about 0.5 - 0.6 m, very close. In about 5 minutes of riding 3 examples of drivers passing too near. Individually they probably did not see much wrong with their driving, almost standard driving practice. To change this a minimum passing clearance is required. Training this and that type of driver takes years, by introducing a minimum passing clearance, change can occur in the short term. It could be number 1 on the Times list. see section 'Minimum Passing Clearance'


ps, hint possible connection, Erke and Elvik (Norwegian researchers) 2007 stated: ‘There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and NZ, the increase is estimated to be around 14 percent.’

[Tonyf33]

First of all a 20mph speed limit is not worth the paper it is written on, it never gets backed up, it rarely gets adhered to, it doesn't stop dangerous driving and in my own experience it causes more problems than it solves, personally there's bigger fish to fry.
The attitude of not only drivers but the general populous needs to change, education with regard to how people HAVE to drive (as in make it the law) and show how shocking the consequences are if they don't.
Send a clear message that anti social driving will not be tolerated in any way shape or form, the threat that drivers present to vulnerable road users should be combatted with far harsher penalties, mini driving bans, higher fines and not letting off Joe bloggs because they couldn't be buttocked to slow down sufficiently as they 'couldn't see', which has become an all too common occurence of late involving cyclists' deaths.
How people accquire a driving license needs to be addressed and made much tougher and more in depth, not enough onus seems to be put upon safety, it's all about passing a test, a bit like kids today coached to pass exams, they know the knowledge but often don't get the why or how.
Those with licenses already need to be forced to take training on a regular basis and be able to show that they are safe to remain licensed to be on the road. A revised test every 7 years should suffice with health checks mandatory every year as part of your MOT (even if no MOT due).

It's pretty clear to me, if you cannot control a dangerous, potentially lethal piece of equipment properly you should not be operating it until you show competence to do so and fully understand the dangers that you present when operating such and why you need to do X Y Z when presented with vulnewrable users.

Frankly I stopped reading about the Times campaign after the first day, I have zero belief that anything effective will get done, nothing ever does. People in power will blow hot air out of their behinds as usual and a few more cycle lanes will be put in here and there near trunk roads and some paint will get laid down in some towns & cities but actually jack (Rude word removed) will get done.

[reohn2]

Other than the 20mph limit,Wot ^ he said and also any judge who allows the words "momentary lack of concentration" or similar sniffling reason for killing people with a motor vehicle,should be strung up with his/her genitalia.
I'm sick to the stomach of reading that excuse!

Anyway as you were,The Times is wonderful, la,la,la

[AlanD]

I just had a reply back from Ed Vaizey. In fairly typical politician speak, used a lot of words to say not very much.

[Bubsy]

The Times has launched a campaign for safer cycling. see http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3306502.ece This thread is to discuss it. I am fascinated by the issues surrounding transport, and percieve that although the motives may be admirable, the methodology is fundamentaly flawed, a bit like drawing up legislation in 1780 to be nice to slaves, as opposed to treating all humans with respect, and offering them all the same chances.

There is no getting away from the cold fact that in a typical year 100 cyclists will die in 'accidents' with cars, and no car drivers will die in 'accidents' with bikes. Until such time as we adopted a 'guilty until proven innocent' approach to transport casualties, favouring the more vulnerable users, we will always have a slew of fatalities where the dead cannot defend themselves. This approach is fundamental to continental approaches. People don't just cycle in Holland 'cos it's flat. (30 counties in this country are flatter). People cycle because cyclists are not treated like second class citizens to be patronised.

I couldn't agree more; driving is utterly selfish and dangerous, and those who are irresponsible enough to do it should only be allowed to do it on the basis that any collision is automatically their fault. I would actually go further than "guilty until proven innocent"; I don't think you can be "innocent" as a motorist. If you collide with a cyclist, then, whatever they may or may not have done leading up to the collision, the collision is invariably your fault, because you're the one who chose to go speeding around in two tons of metal cage when you didn't need to. As with slavery and everything else of that ilk, there is always a more responsible and humane alternative to motoring, and those who claim otherwise are just making excuses to give themselves a lazier and easier life at the direct expense of others, which I find totally deplorable.

The only reason we don't all see motoring as barkingly, madly dangerous is because it is so widely practised and accepted. (This is almost always the case where you find otherwise reasonable and respectable people doing something fundamentally unreasonable; take religion as another example.) Those of us who are more enlightened, and are able to think independently, owe it to all road users to set about changing this terrible perception which causes so many thousands of completely avoidable and senseless deaths. In the meantime, until we can educate everyone, we need to discourage motoring as much as possible by creating new offences, extending existing ones (e.g. by lowering speed limits and bringing in more speed cameras), and coming down very, very hard on infringements (we need much more in the way of instant lifetime bans, 4-figure and 5-figure fines, and prison sentences). We need to close the motorways, narrow other roads (where this would not endanger cyclists), and generally be as much of a pain to drivers as we possibly can, and we shouldn't be ashamed of doing so. This approach ought to force drivers to consider cycling, even where they are too selfish to do so because of mere "unimportant" reasons like not being a lethal danger to vulnerable, legitimate road users.

Sorry if I'm ranting, but it's a subject which I feel very strongly and passionately about. Every time I go cycling or walking, it makes me incredibly angry to see all those cars speeding past, especially when you consider that so many journeys are under 2 miles in length. It's one of the very worst things about today's society IMO.