To the cyclist on the pavement ...

[binary_star]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> I want to know why only pedestrian deaths are important.

Essentially, because Loz thought he was onto to something with that.

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> It's a total nonsense.

Indeed.

[LadyDeliah]

Ready to tap out yet Loz?

[malumbu]

Sorry for jumping on the pavement this morning to get round stationary traffic - and thanks to the pedestrian who pointed out that I should have been on the road. It helps if pedestrians do give us grief (in a firm rather offensive way). BTW I am being serious here.

[Rolo Tomasi]

Thanks malumbu

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Ready to tap out yet Loz?

Goodness me no. I think I actually have BS on the verge of an aneurysm.

[LadyDeliah]

So come on then, counter my logical demolition of your crap stats!

[edcam]

I don't know why this thread has become bogged down in interpretation of statistics. Some cyclists just need to stop being dicks - that's all.

[binary_star]

binary_star Wrote:

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

It's fine to get annoyed but pretending it's a road safety issue is a bit silly.

northlondoner Wrote:

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

> Well it is a safety issue, no ? Squeezing thru every available space, jetting the wrong way down one way steets etc is dangerous for the rider.

Ah yes I see your point NL, some cyclists look like they are a danger to themselves and I'm sure some are - London's streets are full of reckless individuals. However whilst it seems like what you're saying should make sense, there are clear recommendations from TfL to open up one-way streets to 'through' cyclists:

"Wherever possible, provision should be made to permit cyclists to cycle both ways in one-way streets."

I have cycled up a few of those streets and it didn't feel particularly dangerous tbh. TfL have also considered reviewing other rules such as allowing cyclists to make left turns at red lights and rather than trying to prevent cyclists from squeezing trough small spaces, they'd like to make those spaces wider so it's not necessary for them to do so.

From Chapter 3 of the London Cycling Design Standards

[LadyNorwood]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> binary_star Wrote:

> ---------------------------------------

> It's fine to get annoyed but pretending it's a

> road safety issue is a bit silly.

>

> northlondoner Wrote:

> ------------------------------------------

> > Well it is a safety issue, no ? Squeezing thru

> every available space, jetting the wrong way down

> one way steets etc is dangerous for the rider.

>

> Ah yes I see your point NL, some cyclists look

> like they are a danger to themselves and I'm sure

> some are - London's streets are full of reckless

> individuals. However whilst it seems like what

> you're saying should make sense, there are clear

> recommendations from TfL to open up one-way

> streets to 'through' cyclists:

>

> "Wherever possible, provision should be made to

> permit cyclists to cycle both ways in one-way

> streets."

>

> I have cycled up a few of those streets and it

> didn't feel particularly dangerous tbh. TfL have

> also considered reviewing other rules such as

> allowing cyclists to make left turns at red lights

> and rather than trying to prevent cyclists from

> squeezing trough small spaces, they'd like to make

> those spaces wider so it's not necessary for them

> to do so.

>

> From Chapter 3 of the London Cycling Design

> Standards

I was hit by a courier cyclist who was going the wrong way down a one-way street - I was thrown into the middle of a three lane street; by the time I had been picked up by some helpful pedestrians the traffic was starting to flow towards me, luckily I wasn't hit by a car as well..... The cyclist yelled abuse at me (called me a c*unt etc) and rode off at speed, still going the wrong way; I had a cut on my head, my clothes were torn and bloodied and I had grazes, cuts and a fracture in my shin - but the cyclist was OK so that's alright then...

[eastdulwichhenry]

Some cyclists need to stop being dicks. Particularly those who sail through red lights with no consideration at all and those who barge on to pavements as if they have a right of way.

But equally, some pedestrians need to stop getting on their high horse about the occasional careful cyclist who moves slowly on a pavement, taking care not to interfere with pedestrians, in order to avoid them and their children facing a particularly dangerous stretch of road.

[Parkdrive]

LadyNorwood Wrote:

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

> binary_star Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > binary_star Wrote:

> > ---------------------------------------

> > It's fine to get annoyed but pretending it's a

> > road safety issue is a bit silly.

> >

> > northlondoner Wrote:

> > ------------------------------------------

> > > Well it is a safety issue, no ? Squeezing

> thru

> > every available space, jetting the wrong way

> down

> > one way steets etc is dangerous for the rider.

> >

> > Ah yes I see your point NL, some cyclists look

> > like they are a danger to themselves and I'm

> sure

> > some are - London's streets are full of

> reckless

> > individuals. However whilst it seems like what

> > you're saying should make sense, there are

> clear

> > recommendations from TfL to open up one-way

> > streets to 'through' cyclists:

> >

> > "Wherever possible, provision should be made to

> > permit cyclists to cycle both ways in one-way

> > streets."

> >

> > I have cycled up a few of those streets and it

> > didn't feel particularly dangerous tbh. TfL

> have

> > also considered reviewing other rules such as

> > allowing cyclists to make left turns at red

> lights

> > and rather than trying to prevent cyclists from

> > squeezing trough small spaces, they'd like to

> make

> > those spaces wider so it's not necessary for

> them

> > to do so.

> >

> > From Chapter 3 of the London Cycling Design

> > Standards

>

>

> I was hit by a courier cyclist who was going the

> wrong way down a one-way street - I was thrown

> into the middle of a three lane street; by the

> time I had been picked up by some helpful

> pedestrians the traffic was starting to flow

> towards me, luckily I wasn't hit by a car as

> well..... The cyclist yelled abuse at me (called

> me a c*unt etc) and rode off at speed, still going

> the wrong way; I had a cut on my head, my clothes

> were torn and bloodied and I had grazes, cuts and

> a fracture in my shin - but the cyclist was OK so

> that's alright then...

It seems there are some on here that adopt a fanatical defence of cyclists and can see no wrong in what they do, and if you try to counter their point of view you get rounded on. I've always said the rules that apply to road users should be adhered to by all including cyclists, but some on here believe they are in some way exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us. The next time I see a lunatic careering down the pavement on cycle I'll do my best to make way for it, as clearly they have the right of way.

[binary_star]

LadyNorwood Wrote:

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

> I was hit by a courier cyclist who was going the

> wrong way down a one-way street - I was thrown

> into the middle of a three lane street; by the

> time I had been picked up by some helpful

> pedestrians the traffic was starting to flow

> towards me, luckily I wasn't hit by a car as

> well..... The cyclist yelled abuse at me (called

> me a c*unt etc) and rode off at speed, still going

> the wrong way; I had a cut on my head, my clothes

> were torn and bloodied and I had grazes, cuts and

> a fracture in my shin - but the cyclist was OK so

> that's alright then...

That sounds awful LN. This kind of conflict is never 'alright then'? Many of us have similar horror stories. I have had countless terrifying incidents with motorists and on more than one occasion have been left bleeding in the street to drag my bike off the road by myself, also been sworn at, spat at, ridden off the road, been subjected to incredibly vulgar sexual abuse and gesturing. Sometimes people are just assholes.

However, I do think that in the main, conflicts between different road users can be greatly reduced by good design. Thankfully the Transport Research Laboratory are making great progress in this area. Where cycling is permitted both ways on a one way street there should be a clear indication of this with a cycle lane. Poor design of these spaces leads to conflict - Rye Lane for instance - the thing that looks like a slightly darker footpath is actually a cycle lane to allow cycling in the 'wrong' direction. I avoid it as I have had to many close shaves with pedestrians there.

[the-e-dealer]

So the Cylists are fighting back now.

[PokerTime]

http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/25/cctv-footage-released-of-moment-asperger-sufferer-was-killed-with-a-single-punch-4320000/

There are rules, one of which is cyclists should not use pavements. Yes road safety needs to be improved, and particularly of the risks taken by some drivers (risks that endanger other drivers as well as cyclists). No amount of signs, fines and lights are going to re-educate all those that fail to see the point of why those rules exist in the first place, which is why we end up with humps and pinch points etc.

Mos of the problems stem from human behaviour, not road management or design. And dealing with that is the challenge. How to stop a speeding motorist is as difficult a question as how to stop a cyclist running a red light. Using this stat or that stat on road deaths is neither here nor there. If all road users followed the highway code, there would be no need for this discussion in the first place. 'Always avoid an accident if you can' - it's on the first pages of the highway code - THAT's what needs to be drummed into the heads of ALL road users. Ah if only it were that easy.

There is a parallel between the law breaking cyclist and the law breaking driver and it's this. The desire and absolute right to get from A-B as quickly as possible. Having to slow down or stop for anything or anybody is the equal inconvenience they both share. I think a discussion of that psychology is far more useful than point scoring over what has been an obsessive debate over what qualifies as useable stats.

Yesterday I left a friends house. I was on my cycle in a quiet street and couldn't find a cycle wide gap between parked cars to get onto the road. So I cycled on the pavement to look for a gap in which I could do this. A woman approaching on the pavevemnt stopped to let me pass her (as the pavement wasn't wide enough for both of us). I was cycling at walking pace but I stopped and said 'no, I shouldn't be on the pavement, you pass first'. She replied with 'thank you' and then I thought about this thread. The point is this. A pedestrian on a pavement, most of the time feels they have to give way to a cycle on a pavement, because a cycle if it hits them, can hurt them. THAT's why the highway code says what it does. Yes, as road users, we can all work towards a consensus of what will work best. But using that to break the law and claim use of the pavements is imo, wrong.

[northlondoner]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> In parts of northern Europe (Finland, for example)

> it's obligatory to wear a reflector if you are a

> pedestrian. It makes sense there and would do

> here. This doesn't remove the obligation from the

> motorist/cyclist/motorcyclist to drive safely!

Good idea. Perhaps flashing lights and luminous helmets as well.

And ligt up fake noses .

[binary_star]

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> Mos of the problems stem from human behaviour, not road management or design.

Humans make mistakes. It's normal behaviour to try to avoid accidents, but since none of us can actually stop being human or reduce the limitations that come with it, the next best thing is to look at the safety of our transport infrastructure and vehicles.

Changes here can make HUGE differences to fatality and casualty rates. Massive improvements have been made across the country by introducing speed-control engineering measures and gaining a greater understanding of how traffic flow, road layout and vehicle engineering impacts road user safety.

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> Using this stat or that stat on road deaths is neither here nor there.

Stats and studies are used by relevant authorities to identify which parts of our transport infrastructure need to be prioritised in terms of increasing safety/reducing congestion and as a way to gauge the relative effectiveness of various methods designed to improve safety/congestion. This definitely merits discussion.

Stats also happen to be used inappropriately by internet trolls as a poor attempt to hide prejudiced opinions under the guise that they are evidence-based. Some of us get sucked into those rather pointless discussions. Hey-ho, only human.

[binary_star]

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> There is a parallel between the law breaking cyclist and the law breaking driver and it's this. The desire and absolute right to get from A-B as quickly as possible.

Not true, cyclists sometimes have to 'hop' onto pavements, run or turn left on red lights for safety reasons. Whether or not you think they are justified in doing so is another matter, but research may help raise awareness here. For instance did you know that a report conducted by the London Road Safety Unit into cyclist fatalities found:

"a higher proportion of female cyclists (18 out of 21) were involved in fatal collisions with goods vehicles than fatal collisions with other types of vehicle. Women may be over-represented in this type of collision because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights."

"As many collisions occur at signalised junctions when goods vehicles are turning left, nearside [cycle] lanes to advanced stop line reservoirs may exacerbate the problem by encouraging cyclists to approach along the nearside kerb."

"In 3 of these eight cases, it was felt that there might have been the opportunity for Pedestrian Guard Rails to have contributed in some way to the injuries sustained by the cyclist."

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> If all road users followed the highway code, there would be no need for this discussion in the first place. 'Always avoid an accident if you can'.

Highway code completely useless in teh above instances - in fact following it (or in the case of pavement railings, not being able to disobey it) has the potential to actually reduce safety. And, anecdotally, purely reading, understanding and following the highway code wouldn't have helped the cyclists I've seen being left-hooked, swerved into, almost squashed into railings by overtaking lorries, run into by cars running junctions, knocked off their bikes by pedestrians walking out into the road unexpectedly, etc, etc. Yes, human error was a factor in those incidents, but so was poor design - the route I take to work has cycle lanes chucking cyclists out into left-turning traffic, lanes that merge around blind bends, junctions with blind spots, shared cycle lanes that look like footpaths, ASLs that cross four lanes of traffic with a left-hand entry point, etc, etc, etc.

If we take the footpath example (on Rye Lane), which would have be easier:

- Giving every pedestrian on Rye Lane a copy of the Highway Code and telling them to avoid walking on a cycle lane that looks like a footpath.

- Designing the cycle lane so that it didn't look like a footpath.

Some of our transport infrastructure is so poorly designed it's creating dangers where none should exist.

[PokerTime]

I don't disagree with any of those points. What I would say though is this.

Why does a cyclist need to hop onto a pavement, as opposed to getting off their cycle and walking across a junction? I absolutely agree that many junctions and indeed roundabouts are not cyclist friendly and we've all been suddenly forced onto pavements to avoid being hit by vehicles. That is not really what prompted this thread. Hopping onto a pavement to avoid a vehicle squeeze is different to using the pavement instead of the road.

Cycle paths, feeder lanes and boxes all help, and pressure should be kept up to improve the provision of those things and I entirely agree regardng Rye Lane. The highway code though clearly instructs drivers to give cyclists as much room as they would when overtaking a car. In practise that never happens. So I would argue that the highway code does make for safe roads in principle, but that the reality of navigating narrow roads within a congested capital city makes the highway code impractical.

In many ways, cycling can't win. There is as much a difference in size, weight, speed etc from pedestrian to cycle as there is from cycle to vehicle. That does make cycles unique as road users imo. But even with all the protected cycle lanes/ routes that could be desired, there'd still be some cyclists who would vent frustration at slower cyclists getting in their way and soem drivers who would show no awareness when crossing those routes. So I think psychology is something that merits dicussion within all aspects of road design and planning.

[grumpyoldman]

Be careful if you question a cyclist on the pavement, this was tragic and i am not suggesting it would happen again.

The attorney general is considering whether to review the four-year sentence given to a man who killed another man with a single punch.

Andrew Young, 40, suffered a head injury and died in hospital after the assault in Bournemouth in 2013.

Lewis Gill, of Sutton, south London, admitted manslaughter and was jailed at Salisbury Crown Court on Friday.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said the attorney general was considering seeking a longer sentence.

He called it a "repugnant crime", adding: "I think most of the public will feel justice hasn't been done."

"In a case where [the attorney general] judges the sentence to be too lenient, he can go back to the courts and seek a longer sentence," Mr Grayling said.

"He may chose to do this in that case."

Dorset Police described the killing outside a Tesco Express store in Charminster Road as a "violent attack on an innocent man".

CCTV showed Mr Young, who had Asperger's syndrome - a form of autism - apparently challenging Gill's friend, who was cycling on the pavement.

Mr Young spoke with Gill's friend, who was on a bicycle

Moments later, Gill, 20, who was walking along behind, was shown punching Mr Young in the face.

Mr Young fell backwards and hit his head on the ground.

Andrew Young died after being punched by Lewis Gill

Conservative MP David Davies told the Daily Mail it was an "outrageously lean sentence".

Chris Grayling told Daily Politics the sentence was being reviewed

"In two years he will be out walking the streets after taking somebody's life," he said.

"He has attacked someone unprovoked and should be properly punished.

"People need to realise if you punch someone like that, and they fall backward, they can die."

Gill, who carried out the assault on 6 November, had an extra six months added to his sentence after admitting an unrelated charge of handling stolen goods and breaching a suspended sentence order.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> So come on then, counter my logical demolition of your crap stats!

I've not posted any stats on this thread, LD, just a link to someone else's. I think you must be referring to BS's... well... BS.

[Loz]

Now that the long saga of binary_star's jiggery-stattery has come to it's long drawn out, rather boring and seemingly pointless end, more people seem to have rejoined the thread. Time to see if we can get a decent debate going. So. I'll try again.

I think most people (including myself) think that more cycling is a good thing. The cycling lobby could easily harvest a lot of good will and achieve some their goals much faster, but some of the community have an unerring ability to get up people's noses, as this thread shows. A lot of good stuff is done behind the scenes with government and the police, but their public persona of cyclists is absolutely wretched.

As it is, politicians and other decision makers are making positive noises, but are almost certainly reticent to act for fear of being seen as 'pandering to the cycling lobby'. If the general public was bought on board with a friendlier approach, rather than yelled at and browbeaten with the general 'holier than thou' attitude, then things may just move a lot faster.

I'd hasten to add, the cycle-evangelists are a small proportion of the cycling fraternity, but they are the loudest. Are the ones so loud in demanding improvements to cycling actually holding back the development of cycling in the UK?

[PokerTime]

Mayor Boris announced work to thirty most dangerous roundabouts and junctions in London today, to make them safer for cyclists. Elephant and Castle roundabout is in there. The spend will be ?300 million. That has to be a good thing.

[binary_star]

grumpyoldman Wrote:

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

> Be careful if you question a cyclist on the pavement, this was tragic and i am not suggesting it would happen again.

grumpyoldman, this is an extremely tragic story and very upsetting, however I wouldn't let this incident influence your decision about whether or not to challenge behaviour you feel is dangerous or antisocial (from cyclists or anyone else).

From the description of the cyclist and the attacker (the cyclist's friend) it seems they were both intimidatingly large and unpleasant guys. It's possible that due to the victim's aspergers he wasn't able to correctly gauge the social situation or read behavioural cues from the pair before challenging them. Not that I am suggesting he is in ANY way culpable but just acknowledging that having a cognitive disorder may have impaired his judgment whereas most of us may have been better able to read the situation and would have said nothing in that instance (but might/should have otherwise).

I won't be watching the video that was posted earlier as it sounds horrific but it seems like a very unfortunate set of circumstances contributing to what surely must be an isolated incident - I doubt even the cyclist's friend who threw the punch had any idea that one punch would be fatal - the whole thing is very sad indeed.

[binary_star]

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> Mayor Boris announced work to thirty most

> dangerous roundabouts and junctions in London

> today, to make them safer for cyclists. Elephant

> and Castle roundabout is in there. The spend will

> be ?300 million. That has to be a good thing.

Saw that in the paper on the way home and thought of this thread!

It will be good, finally getting segregated lanes :)

[LadyDeliah]

Loz, stop dodging the bullet. Do you still claim that cyclists are similarly dangerous as motorists? Yes or no? Simple :-)