Cycling UK Forum

Central London's unfortunate record of cycling deaths is largely due to inexperienced cyclists jumping in at the deep end.

As an experienced cyclist I find it safer than most other places in the UK simply because traffic is usually slower and more processional.

blackbike wrote:Central London's unfortunate record of cycling deaths is largely due to inexperienced cyclists jumping in at the deep end.

As an experienced cyclist I find it safer than most other places in the UK simply because traffic is usually slower and more processional.

Many of the cyclists who have died on London's roads have been experienced cyclists. That said, let's not forget, that millions of journeys are made without incident. London's roads are still relatively safe, even for inexperienced cyclists, and the benefits far outweigh the risks.

wilde2 wrote:Thank you, yes that was what I meant - it looks quite a long/complicated route, so I thought a sat nav might help if I went wrong. Out of interest, why would you not recommend this? Thank very much for your suggestions re TFL, I will do that.

When I have a route that I want to ride regularly, like for a commute, I go over the route slowly, and when I have the leisure to explore a bit, such as early on a Sunday morning.

If a GPS or something will boost your confidence, there's nothing worng with that, but it's much easier to learn a route without the pressure of time and traffic.

Good luck

blackbike wrote:Central London's unfortunate record of cycling deaths is largely due to inexperienced cyclists jumping in at the deep end.

As an experienced cyclist I find it safer than most other places in the UK simply because traffic is usually slower and more processional.

Really!? so the majority of the cyclist killed in accidents were the ones at fault?
Is this one of those internet facts or Daily Mail facts
and of course, due to your Ready Brek glow that surrounds you, cars, buses, cyclist, and a whole host of pointy and heavy objects
just ping off you.

I'd like to see that analysis too. My impression is that more KSIs are attributable to the way London mixes cycles among heavy vehicles and to cyclists following directions (narrow left edge cycle lanes, for example) when it wasn't safe to do so, which isn't always obvious even with experience. For example, you can't know that a lorry is going to roll up behind you and its driver will forget you're in front by the time the lights change.

This is an oft used route for me - every Monday and in reverse on Fridays - the rest of the week I am quartered elsewhere in Central London. If you want a companion to ride you through the quiet route possibilities just let me know. I usually start at LST at about 8.40 am with a view to getting to Pimlico about half an hour later. The time is dictated by traffic lights. I don't use popular/busy routes except in places - the worst being the Strand.

You are unlikely to regret it as a means of getting to work.

All the best,

Abu.

Lots of good advice here. I don't thing the CycleStreets app or website has been mentioned. This can give verbal directions into an earpiece but is best used for planning...can switch from quiet to balanced to fastest routes to compare.

My advice would be to plan on this site, maybe mark it on a map and devote a Sunday to recce and learn your chosen route. Then go easy for the first few weeks...after that you'll never look back.

I'd each the advice about getting some training if you feel that might help and being extremely careful moving past motor vehicles on the left...and making sure you're visible to drivers in terms of assertive positioning.

My two best kit tips would be to get a set of 'rain legs' if you're commuting in work clothes and always keep your tyres at the right pressure using a track pump.

blackbike wrote:Central London's unfortunate record of cycling deaths is largely due to inexperienced cyclists jumping in at the deep end.

As an experienced cyclist I find it safer than most other places in the UK simply because traffic is usually slower and more processional.

Absolute nonsense. The unfortunate record of cycling deaths in London is mainly down to lorry drivers many of whom have been arrested and or convicted for it. The death rate of the helmetless inexperienced cyclists on Boris Bikes is far lower than for the general (more experienced) cycling population of London.

But its always easy to blame the dead victims who are unable to tell their side of the story.

TonyR wrote:

blackbike wrote:Central London's unfortunate record of cycling deaths is largely due to inexperienced cyclists jumping in at the deep end.

As an experienced cyclist I find it safer than most other places in the UK simply because traffic is usually slower and more processional.

Absolute nonsense. The unfortunate record of cycling deaths in London is mainly down to lorry drivers many of whom have been arrested and or convicted for it. The death rate of the helmetless inexperienced cyclists on Boris Bikes is far lower than for the general (more experienced) cycling population of London.

But its always easy to blame the dead victims who are unable to tell their side of the story.

I don't know who is to blame for cycling casualties in London, but common sense would suggest that inexperience will put a novice commuter at additional risk. A newby would be well advised to exercise a good bit of caution for the first few weeks and not be tempted to try to keep up with faster commuters.

TonyR wrote:

blackbike wrote:Central London's unfortunate record of cycling deaths is largely due to inexperienced cyclists jumping in at the deep end.

As an experienced cyclist I find it safer than most other places in the UK simply because traffic is usually slower and more processional.

Absolute nonsense. The unfortunate record of cycling deaths in London is mainly down to lorry drivers many of whom have been arrested and or convicted for it. The death rate of the helmetless inexperienced cyclists on Boris Bikes is far lower than for the general (more experienced) cycling population of London.

But its always easy to blame the dead victims who are unable to tell their side of the story.

I see many examples of poor and risky cycling in London: squeezing through small gaps between lorries/buses, passing lorries and buses on the left, RLJing at cross roads, cycling in the gutter etc. I don't know the facts behind each London cyclist fatality in the past few years but I do not believe that all victims were entirely blameless of risky practice. Nor do I believe that building site lorry drivers have exercised sufficient due care and attention. In fact the statistics of the over representation of building site lorries in cyclist deaths point to there being a serious problem with this type of vehicle; generally poor driving, inherently unsafe vehicles, or a combination of the two?
The fact is that there is blame on both sides, in some instances the driver was at fault, in others the cyclist.
In order to successfully move forward to a safer road environment one must address all sides of the issue as opposed to taking a blinkered one sided campaigning type view.

andrewk wrote:I don't know the facts behind each London cyclist fatality in the past few years but I do not believe that all victims were entirely blameless of risky practice. <......>
The fact is that there is blame on both sides, in some instances the driver was at fault, in others the cyclist.

Not every case but in London its 3.5x more likely to be the motorist's fault than the cyclist's http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 758677.ece