Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Another tragedy. My sympathies to his family and friends.


As someone who cycles daily to and from Victoria, the issues surrounding cycling saftey are numerous. A few thoughts below:


- Cycling infrastructure is poor to atrocious. There are almost no segregated cycle lanes and the sooner major junctions are given "cyclist priority" phased lights the better;


- Cyclists can be their own worst enemy. I see far too many "bike ninjas", all dressed in dark clothes and no lights going as fast as possible, weaving through traffic. In an urban environment I'm ambivilent about the benefits of high-vis but wearing headphones seems utterly bonkers despite what DJKQ will tell you;


- The arguments continue to be a vicious circle. Cyclists will continue to ride in aggressive-defensive manner until roads are designed with them in mind and drivers begin to recognise us as legitimate road users. BUT by not riding in a courteous and sensible manner cyclists continue to damage their own reputation, endanger their own safety and the chances of better infrastructure provision;


- Drivers are still poor at 'thinking bike' and appreciating vulnerable road users. I think further training as part of the driving/HGV test on cycle awareness is a good start;


- I don't like the way that it is deemed to constantly be the requirement of cyclists to 'make' themselves safe i.e. helmet, high-vis, endless lights etc etc. It would be as ridiculous to ask all cars to be painted white as they are easier to spot in the dark. Or for every driver to wear fire proof overalls to eliminate any deaths due to fire in crashes. Pedestrians aren't expected to dress like a quarterback to cross the road despite the inherent danger in doing so and the high number of pedestrian deaths every year. The heaviest burden or responsibility for safety should rest with those in charge of the vehicles causing the most harm in an accident from HGV to car to motorcycle to bicycle to pedestrian in that order.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Another tragedy. My sympathies to his family and

> friends.

>

> As someone who cycles daily to and from Victoria,

> the issues surrounding cycling saftey are

> numerous. A few thoughts below:

>

> - Cycling infrastructure is poor to atrocious.

> There are almost no segregated cycle lanes and the

> sooner major junctions are given "cyclist

> priority" phased lights the better;

>

> - Cyclists can be their own worst enemy. I see far

> too many "bike ninjas", all dressed in dark

> clothes and no lights going as fast as possible,

> weaving through traffic. In an urban environment

> I'm ambivilent about the benefits of high-vis but

> wearing headphones seems utterly bonkers despite

> what DJKQ will tell you;

>

> - The arguments continue to be a vicious circle.

> Cyclists will continue to ride in

> aggressive-defensive manner until roads are

> designed with them in mind and drivers begin to

> recognise us as legitimate road users. BUT by not

> riding in a courteous and sensible manner cyclists

> continue to damage their own reputation, endanger

> their own safety and the chances of better

> infrastructure provision;

>

> - Drivers are still poor at 'thinking bike' and

> appreciating vulnerable road users. I think

> further training as part of the driving/HGV test

> on cycle awareness is a good start;

>

> - I don't like the way that it is deemed to

> constantly be the requirement of cyclists to

> 'make' themselves safe i.e. helmet, high-vis,

> endless lights etc etc. It would be as ridiculous

> to ask all cars to be painted white as they are

> easier to spot in the dark. Or for every driver to

> wear fire proof overalls to eliminate any deaths

> due to fire in crashes. Pedestrians aren't

> expected to dress like a quarterback to cross the

> road despite the inherent danger in doing so and

> the high number of pedestrian deaths every year.

> The heaviest burden or responsibility for safety

> should rest with those in charge of the vehicles

> causing the most harm in an accident from HGV to

> car to motorcycle to bicycle to pedestrian in that

> order.



Agree totally.

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

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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