CYCLISTS ARE OWN BIGGEST DANGER

[tb]

yes folks this is the HEADLINE on the London Evening Standard that I just picked up this afternoon.

I believe this to be the immediate backlash to the announcement that the government plan to spend £160 million on the latest London superhighway.

In my humble opinion ( as a road cyclist of some 40 years and 25 of those in and around London ) it's not necessary to spend £160 million on this superhighway at all. Spend the money on health care / provision for the elderly / education....
We don't need a superhighway for goodness sake. It's simple to ride safely around London if you have your wits about you and you accept that we share the roads with other road users.
Personally I don't feel the need to be shepherded down a segregated cycle lane that costs so much and will cause so much inconvenience for everyone else who doesn't happen to travel by bicycle!

I sincerely hope that for the sake of London and cycling this superhighway doesn't happen !

[Valbrona]

Money badly spent. I have never believed in segregation. Would have been better spent on enforcing road traffic laws.

[MikeF]

Meanwhile National Express boss and TfL board member Sir John Armitt has claimed that “the biggest danger to cyclists are themselves”.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-londons-new-cycle-lanes-are-a-major-step-10025881.html

So how many cyclists have been killed by cyclists?

[Mick F]

Money badly spent. I have never believed in segregation. Would have been better spent on enforcing road traffic laws.

+1

Segregation is a Bad Thing.

[Ron]

it's not necessary to spend £160 million on this superhighway at all. Spend the money on health care / provision for the elderly

Why spend money on health care when you can spend money on improving the transport network in a manner which will encourage more people to engage in active travel and reduce pollution from motor vehicles which will in turn reduce demand for expensive health care?
An improved transport network will benefit the elderly and all other age groups.

[MikeF]

It's simple to ride safely around London if you have your wits about you and you accept that we share the roads with other road users.

Not for all. Advice needed here http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=93752&p=861397#p861397

[[XAP]Bob]

BAD segregation is a bad thing.

Done well it would be good. I propose we segregate all motor vehicles to the motorways.

[661-Pete]

Meanwhile National Express boss and TfL board member Sir John Armitt has claimed that “the biggest danger to cyclists are themselves”.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-londons-new-cycle-lanes-are-a-major-step-10025881.html

So how many cyclists have been killed by cyclists?

To do them credit, the Evening Standard do say in their own editorial, re Armitt's remark:

It is a crass comment, ignoring cyclists’ vulnerability on the roads, though sadly representative of some drivers’ attitudes

and they then go on to report:

— as the LTDA boss’s claim that some cyclists are “the sort of Isis of London” suggests.

I would say, that last remark is worse than 'crass'. It is deeply offensive. The LTDA bloke really ought to be held to account for that vile slander.

Some years ago, on the very last occasion that I ever showed up at a London Critical Mass, I was upset by seeing a group of participating cyclists who'd surrounded a black cab and appeared to be threatening the driver. I seem to recall posting on a forum (not this one), that if that's the way CM conducts itself, I'm through with CM, and I kept my word. However, if the guy supposedly representing black cabbies spews this sort of bilge, I'm wondering whether to retract my comment about CM? Not that I'm prepared to attend another CM, that is...

[ArMoRothair]

Personally I don't feel the need to be shepherded down a segregated cycle lane that costs so much and will cause so much inconvenience for everyone else who doesn't happen to travel by bicycle!

I sincerely hope that for the sake of London and cycling this superhighway doesn't happen !

You are right of course. Holland has done it completely wrong and needs to look to London to see how a real cycling culture can be fostered. Perhaps if they learn from us then one day they too will enjoy the levels of active travel we revel in.

[Malaconotus]

It's simple to ride safely around London if you have your wits about you and you accept that we share the roads with other road users.

I think that's a horribly distasteful and offensive insult to the memories of the many experienced, careful, cyclists who have been killed riding in London and elsewhere.

[oldstrath]

yes folks this is the HEADLINE on the London Evening Standard that I just picked up this afternoon.

I believe this to be the immediate backlash to the announcement that the government plan to spend £160 million on the latest London superhighway.

In my humble opinion ( as a road cyclist of some 40 years and 25 of those in and around London ) it's not necessary to spend £160 million on this superhighway at all. Spend the money on health care / provision for the elderly / education....
We don't need a superhighway for goodness sake. It's simple to ride safely around London if you have your wits about you and you accept that we share the roads with other road users.
Personally I don't feel the need to be shepherded down a segregated cycle lane that costs so much and will cause so much inconvenience for everyone else who doesn't happen to travel by bicycle!

I sincerely hope that for the sake of London and cycling this superhighway doesn't happen !

That's fine for everyonewho is a fit, confident, lucky rider. What about all the people who would like to cycle but are too frightened to venture out among motorised traffic? Don't you care about them?

[profpointy]

yes folks this is the HEADLINE on the London Evening Standard that I just picked up this afternoon.

I believe this to be the immediate backlash to the announcement that the government plan to spend £160 million on the latest London superhighway.

In my humble opinion ( as a road cyclist of some 40 years and 25 of those in and around London ) it's not necessary to spend £160 million on this superhighway at all. Spend the money on health care / provision for the elderly / education....
We don't need a superhighway for goodness sake. It's simple to ride safely around London if you have your wits about you and you accept that we share the roads with other road users.
Personally I don't feel the need to be shepherded down a segregated cycle lane that costs so much and will cause so much inconvenience for everyone else who doesn't happen to travel by bicycle!

I sincerely hope that for the sake of London and cycling this superhighway doesn't happen !

That's fine for everyonewho is a fit, confident, lucky rider. What about all the people who would like to cycle but are too frightened to venture out among motorised traffic? Don't you care about them?

Although I'm sure the poster above can answer for himself, here's my take on it.
The trouble with the "roads are OK for fit confident people" argument is that it assumes that cycle provision such as the superhighway and cycle paths in general are "the answer". Whilst I do fit into the "confident road cyclist" category, I have found nearly every facility provided actually makes my journey slower, less convenient and more dangerous. In fact by eschewing use of said facilities for these reasons, actually makes staying on the road noticeably more dangerous and intimidating than if the facility wasn't there. So despite my being a "fit, confident, lucky rider", I find facilities, indirectly rather off-putting, and I'm not easily intimated by traffic. I do see your point, but mere facilities are not the answer, and it's a dishonest argument to link being frightened off roads, with must have facilities.

( the upstream poster bringing in some tasteless shroud waving was very poor show )

[NUKe]

Proper Segregation is a good thing, the Dutch and Danish models prove it. personally I hate cycling in traffic and on the few occasions I have to go in to our local major town I hate mixing it with the traffic. Forutnately I don't have to commute there everyday, and Ipswich is hardly London. Well thought out Cycle highways are definetly the way to. And if they get the London one right it will pay for its self many times over in reduced congestion, a fitter population and
less fatalities and hospital visits from RTA's

[pwa]

The idea that "cyclists are own biggest danger" is clearly wrong, but it is certainly true that some of us increase the risk to ourselves by the way we behave. When I visit London I cringe when I see the complete lack of road sense of some (not all) cycling commuters. I cringe for two reasons. Firstly, because they are putting themselves at a higher level of risk. And secondly, they harm the reputation of the rest of us.

Danger on the road is a mix of our own actions, and the actions of those around us. And we can add to that the influence of infrastructure. We all have direct influence on our own actions, so that part of the mix is something we can all work on immediately. But the rest of the mix contains significant dangers that we cannot fully control. New, improved infrastructure is part of the answer in towns and cities.

[honesty]

Having cycled in Uppsala with its very nice segregated cycle network, good segregation is fantastic. A must if you ask me for urban environments. We took myself (first time visitor), a guy who hadnt been on a bike for 20 years, a 8 year old and a 6 year old, and their mum across the centre of a large busy city without any worries about motor traffic, and it was easy.