Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324754/Girl-11-dies-hospital-collision-lorry-south-London.html?ico=home%5Eheadlines


Here's the very latest person killed by a driver in London.

This morning I saw 2 adults with 8 children try to cross LsL at Upland Rd. Not a single driver slowed down on either side of the Island. An absurd imagine of this island of humans and a sea of traffic.

Whilst I don't doubt your account regarding drivers, I would also say that island is not designed as a crossing point for that many people....what were they doing crossing there instead of using a more appropriate crossing point?

Today's Southwark News reported this and added that the incident had not been reported to the police. Not good. This should have been reported to the local Safer Neighbourhood Team: SNT Mick Bell [email protected]


Upland Rd is pretty much between the 2 safe crossings possibly 500m each way. That's a lot for anyone to walk out of their way. Upland Rd has a bus stop on each side. People cross at bus stops. Court Lane enters LsL on a rather steep hill with drivers concerned about joining fast moving traffic and not looking at anything else. Goodrich School is down Upland Rd and St Anthony's is down Friern. This area is loaded with children.


To answer a message above, yes I agree with you, the correct placement for a safe crossing is Friern. Friern's not just off a bend, gives better vision and Friern is a wider road at its junction with LsL and at the same time less used which will give more space for all the different manoeuvres of drivers and pedestrians and cyclists.

This just came through on the subject of shared roads:


I am delighted to invite you to a seminar that I am hosting to discuss Cyclists and the Law in London?s Living Room, City Hall, London, SE1 2AA on Wednesday 22nd May from 6.30pm to 9pm. The event will aim to identify steps that the police, TfL, cyclists and others can take to reduce the number of deaths and casualties on our roads.


The seminar will feature short speeches from four prominent figures within London?s cycling community:


Andrew Gilligan, the Mayor?s Cycling Commissioner, will explain his role and his and the Mayor?s work at City Hall

Detective Chief Superintendent Scott Wilson, Metropolitan Police, will introduce some of the challenges the police face when dealing with cases involving cyclists and the law and how these challenges are handled

Kevin O?Sullivan, Levenes Cycling Injury Lawyer, will comment on his experience of assisting cyclists in London with legal problems

Darren Johnson AM will provide an overview of the Assembly Transport Committee?s work on cycling


These will be followed by an open discussion.


Findings from the seminar will inform a series of recommendations to be included an updated version of my 2007 report ?London?s Lawless Roads?, to be published in June 2013. The original report can be accessed here: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/archives/assembly-members-jonesj-docs-lawlessroad_report.pdf


If you are able to attend, please RSVP by Monday 20th May. Please complete the attached form and send it by email to [email protected]


City Hall is fully accessible for disabled guests. Please let us know if you have any particular access requirements. If you are unable to attend, please feel free to pass this invitation to a colleague to attend in your place. Refreshments will be served from 6pm.


I very much hope to see you on the 22nd May, and to hear your views and ideas on this important topic.


Yours sincerely,




Jenny Jones AM

Green Party Member of the London Assembly


Reply Form For


Seminar hosted by Jenny Jones AM: Cyclists and the Law


Wednesday 22nd May, 6.30pm-9pm*

London?s Living Room

City Hall

The Queen?s Walk

London SE1 2AA

*speakers will begin at 6.30pm prompt so please arrive at 6pm to allow time for security and registration at City Hall



Email this page back to Rachel Carlill, [email protected]

Or send by post to Rachel Carlill, Green Group, London Assembly, City Hall, The Queen?s Walk, London SE1 2AA


Enquiries: 020 7983 4964


Please complete the details below

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I will / will not be attending the seminar

Name:

Position (if any):

Company/Organisation:

Telephone:

Email:

Additional requirements

BSL interpreter:

Lip speaker:

Reserved parking spaces for orange / blue badge holder (including registration number):

Also included in the press release from Jenny Jones: http://www.london.gov.uk/media/assembly-member-press-releases/green-party/2013/05/news-from-jenny-jones-am-jenny-jones-am-to-host-cyclists-and-the


"A limited number of spaces are available for the event. If you would like to attend, please email [email protected] with your personal details by Monday 20th May. Places will be allocated on a first come, first served basis. Refreshments will be provided."

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Am I being cynical when I suspect that this

> > seminar will have little to do with getting

> > cyclists to obey the law?

>

> It is car drivers breaking the law is a bigger

> road safety problem. It is unsuprizing if people

> focucs on that.


People? You mean cyclists saying 'don't stop us disobeying the law - there's nasty drivers out there'. Which is right up there with the old 'why aren't you lot out there catching burglars'. And just as plausible.

Yes because car drivers breaking are law killing and injuring lots of cyclists. There aren't car drivers killed by cyclists.


To me, when I am cycling, cars being driven dangerously is a great concern to me. When I am driving, cyclist's dangerous cycling isn't of much consequence.

Dear Lord. This thread makes me want to jump in front of one of those bloody speeding cars. Admin could have a separate area of the forum for any post or thread mentioning cyclists and/or cars. Then I could ignore it completely...

Oh Henry you make Laugh out Loud!


henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am very careful when I driving. Especially when

> there cyclists around. They always fecking jumping

> red lights... nutters. Oh wait a minute.

Granted, there are few fatalities of drivers at the hands of cyclists, but there have been pedestrians killed by cyclists (ten between 2005 and 2009 for example) and 262 pedestrians seriously injured during the same period.


I think it's niaive to see a cycle as somehow not capable of causing death or injury. A cyclist jumping a light may also cause a vehicle to swerve which can lead to an accident.


At the end of the day, irresposible cyclists are on a par with irresponsible drivers, and equally capable of both having and causing an accident, which leads to death or serious injury.


What isn't in dispute however is that responsible cyclists come off worst in collisions with poor drivers. Making the roads safer for those cyclists, but not at the total cost of responsible drivers, is the challenge.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:


> At the end of the day, irresposible cyclists are

> on a par with irresponsible drivers, and equally

> capable of both having and causing an accident,

> which leads to death or serious injury.


Well that?s your opinion and I respect that. The difference seems quite clear to me but if the compromise position is that for the police taking more action against speeding drivers, drivers stopping in ASZs and drivers over taking cyclists too closely then they also give out more tickets for cyclists jumping lights then I would go along with that.

I think that's only fair and in the interest of everyone's safety.


Tbf to the Police, they do do mobile road blocks to catch cyclists jumping lights (and riding on pavements too) just as they do road blocks to catch uninsured drivers, untaxed vehicles etc. The problem is that they can't be everywhere all of the time and there has been a shift away from mobile traffic policing and more reliance on speed cameras and CCTV. But the problem of course is that CCTV is only interested in parking and bus lane misdemeanors, not dangerous driving or cyclists (or drivers for that matter) jumping lights.


So we end up with a situation where if you drive in a bus lane or park where you shouldn't you have a high chance of being fined. If you drive whilst uninsured or untaxed you have a semi-fair chance of being caught. But driving too fast or dangerously, jumping red lights etc (be it cycle or car) only a small chance of being caught and fined. And sadly being caught in those instances involves something going very badly wrong.

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Well that?s your opinion and I respect that. The difference seems quite clear to me but if the

> compromise position is that for the police taking more action against speeding drivers, drivers

> stopping in ASZs and drivers over taking cyclists too closely then they also give out more tickets

> for cyclists jumping lights then I would go along with that.


I'd be more than happy with that. I don't want to see anyone breaking the law. I hate to see drivers OR cyclists saying 'boo hoo, you should be hassling someone else'.


Everyone obeys the law = everyone is safer.

DJKillaQueen Wrote (my emphasis):

-------------------------------------------------------

Irresposible cyclists are on a par with irresponsible drivers, and equally capable of both having and causing an accident, which leads to death or serious injury.


Absolutely NOT. By any stretch of the imagination.


Am glad the little girl is ok, could have been a much worse outcome for her family.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
    • Sadly, the price we now all pay for becoming a soft apologetic society.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...