To the Cycling Adult with a child on Goodrich Road at 22.45 on Sat 26th July

[LadyDeliah]

My point is nothing to do with whether they are optional or not.

My point is that no matter how many lights, bells, whistles etc you put in a bike, if you fail to address the inherent dangerousness vehicles pose to other road users, then it's like putting a sticking plaster on a smashed skull or broken bones.

[mako]

Travelling at speed downhill in a badly lit section of road you should be concentrating not shouting at the other cyclists so loud that it may have disturbed local residents. How could this have helped the young cyclist? You do not sound very safe to me and therefore think it harsh you judge the other cyclists without knowing their full circumstances.

[Administrator]

Moving this to the Lounge as it's yet another discussion about cycling which is no longer East Dulwich specific.

[Cedges]

-- moved topic --

[Jeremy]

Yes there are dangerous drivers around on the roads, and inadequate provisions for bicycles. Surely that's a pretty good reason in itself for making sure that you can be seen clearly... instead of basically saying that there's no point.

[Cedges]

I was travelling at a safe speed for a cyclist for the type of road, bearing in mind i was fully lit. I was also hyper aware of my surroundings, hence how I spotted other unlit cyclists in the dark. Too fast to stop, turn round and catch up with someone in the other direction uphill is differest to too fast in general.

I think you are really missing the point of my post if you have nothing better to do than try and pick holes in my actions, clearly I am only horrified by the unsafe actions of another and hoped to bring it to their attention and remind other road users that there are total idiots around and that we all need to be hyper aware all of the time.

I shall not be wating my time pandering to any of your further comments should you wish to make any.

mako Wrote:

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

> Travelling at speed downhill in a badly lit

> section of road you should be concentrating not

> shouting at the other cyclists so loud that it may

> have disturbed local residents. How could this

> have helped the young cyclist? You do not sound

> very safe to me and therefore think it harsh you

> judge the other cyclists without knowing their

> full circumstances.

[LadyDeliah]

Some people may be interested in this:

The National Funeral for the Unknown Victim of Traffic Violence

Saturday 15 November 2014

http://stopthekilling.org.uk/the-national-funeral-for-the-unknown-victim-of-traffic-violence/

The 10 demands are:

1. Stop the Killing of Children

? set up a national, multi-billion pound programme to convert residential communities across Britain into living-street Home Zones and abolish dangerous rat-runs.

2. Stop the Killing of Pedestrians

? establish a national programme to fund pedestrianisation of our city and town centres, including the nation?s high-street, Oxford Street.

3. Stop the Killing of Pensioners from excessive speed

? introduce and enforce speed limit of 20 mph on all urban roads, 40 mph on rural roads/lanes and 60 mph on all other trunk roads.

4. Stop the Killing of Cyclists

- invest ?15 billion in a National Segregated Cycle Network over the next 5 years.

5. Stop the Killing by HGVs

- ban trucks with blind spots by making safety equipment mandatory and strictly enforce current truck-safety regulations, to reduce levels of illegally dangerous trucks down from estimated 30% to less than 1%.

6. Stop the Killing without liability

- introduce a presumed civil liability law on behalf of vehicular traffic when they kill or seriously injure vulnerable road-users, where there is no evidence blaming the victim.

7. Stop the Killing from Lung, Heart and other Diseases caused by vehicular pollutants

? make it mandatory for particulate filters that meet latest EU emission standards to be fitted to all existing buses, lorries and taxis.

8. Stop the Killing at Junctions

- introduce pedestrian crossing times long enough for elderly disabled to cross. Legalise filtered junction crossings by cyclists with strict legal priority for pedestrians and carry out urgent programme of physically protected left-hand turns for cyclists.

9. Stop the Killing from Climate Crisis caused by CO2 emissions

? all transport fuels to be from environmentally-sustainable, renewable sources within 10 years.

10. Focus on Life!

- Transport governance must make safety and quality of life the top priority. Reform all council transport departments, the Department of Transport and Transport for London into Cycling, Walking and Transport Departments with formal pedestrian and cyclist representation.

I'd go further by banning HGV's in towns & cities between 7am-7pm and using negligent or unlawful act manslaughter for cases where a driver kills someone by careless or dangerous driving (the unlawful acts).

I'd also use ss.47, 20 & 18 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 for anyone who causes actual bodily harm (no need to show intent) or grevious bodily harm, with intent/recklessness, with their vehicle.

The current offences which somehow excuse a driver from committing these crimes, just because they do so with a vehicle are repugnant and promote a culture of immunity for drivers which does not exist with any other group of people.

[Otta]

4. Stop the Killing of Cyclists

- invest ?15 billion in a National Segregated Cycle Network over the next 5 years.

?15 billion? Is the person that wrote this having a complete and utter f**king laugh? Seriously?

We;re a bit strapped for cash at the moment.

[mako]

concentration, fitness and speed more important to cycling safety than a light on the back

[Otta]

You're probably right mako, but I think the point about the lights is that it helps others to see that you're there rather than it helps you to see them.

[LadyDeliah]

The money spent on facilitating vehicle use over the past century is enormous, cycling should be facilitated properly, not just as an add-on to the investment for vehicles.

" The Government‟s National Infrastructure Plan 2010, published in October, describes planned

investment in infrastructure of ?200 billion over the next 5 years. Between ?15 billion and ?20billion will be spent each year directly on renewals and capacity enhancement projects and programmes"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45758700/Infrastructure-Cost-Review-HM-Treasury-and-Infrastructure-UK

Why shouldn't a sizeable amount of that spending be attributed to cycling and pedestrian provision?

[Jeremy]

mako Wrote:

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

> concentration, fitness and speed more important to

> cycling safety than a light on the back

More tedious diversion tactics.

Just because there are other (arguably) more important precautions, doesn't mean you shouldn't use a light. Just because our cycling infrastucture is behind many other cities, doesn't mean you shouldn't use a light. Just because cars pose more of a danger than bikes, doesn't mean you shouldn't use a light.

[LadyDeliah]

I agree that cyclists are better off using a light, but as I've said over and over above, this does not tackle the root of the problem, which is the dangerousness of vehicles and the cultural acceptance that maiming and killing by vehicle is somehow the fault of the victim.

[Jeremy]

Enough of the victim complex. Nobody seriously thinks that cyclists who get hit are automatically at fault.

[LadyDeliah]

You should check out @cyclehatred if you think that nobody thinks like that.

I'd be interested to know if, ignoring the lights issue for a moment, whether you agree that the root problem is the inherent dangerousness of vehicles.

[Otta]

No that isn't the root of the problem.

And the "blaming the victim" thing is beneath you.

If a cyclist gets killed because of someone's bad driving, that is the driver's fault. If a cyclist gets killed because of bad/stupid cycling, that is their fault.

As a peestrian, if I take a stupid risk and run out in front of a bus because I can't wait a few seconds on the pavement, then it is my fault if I get squashed. I can't say "it's the fault of the bus because it's big and heavy".

[Jeremy]

I actually think the main problem is the infrastructure.

Cars, buses, lorries are inherently dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians - but given that they're not going anywhere, you have to think of ways to make things safer, and use the roads in a spirit of cooperation.

Automatically blaming drivers of vehicles makes no more sense that always blaming the cyclist. There will always be a few idiots in the world, whichever way they choose to get around.

[LadyDeliah]

I'm not actually apportioning blame. It's about inherent dangerousness. There should be a higher standard of skill & care expected of anyone who is in charge of anything that has the capacity to kill or maim in the way vehicles do.

I agree that current infrastructure is a massive problem, but that will take years and a political will to fix, but measures to improve the standard of driving skill and hold drivers to account in the same way as anyone else who cause death or damage, are things that can be introduced more quickly.

[Jeremy]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> It's about inherent dangerousness. There should be a higher

> standard of skill & care expected of anyone who is

> in charge of anything that has the capacity to

> kill or maim in the way vehicles do.

Yes of course, which is surely why we have tests/licences/points/bans for drivers - and no equivalent for cyclists.

Personally I do not think that more regular tests would be helpful because the people who'd need it the most would probably mentally discard everything as soon as they've passed, and go back to their old habits.

How easy is it to report dangerous driving to the police? And how likely is it that the driver would get points on his licence? So many cyclists have cameras now, you'd think it would be easy to catch the worst culprits.

[Otta]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> It's about inherent dangerousness. There should be a higher

> standard of skill & care expected of anyone who is

> in charge of anything that has the capacity to

> kill or maim in the way vehicles do.

I do take this point, but however skilled drivers are, there will always be accidents because of stupid cyclists and pedestrians.

Nearly 5 times more pedestrians than cyclists killed in London last year, and they don't even travel in the road.

[twinhunters]

Shame when a genuine concern for road users has turned into a cyclist versus motorist debate, until it isn't us versus them or them verus us, how can road safety ever be improved.so so sad.

[LadyDeliah]

Otta - Pedestrians should be included in any discussion about road safety and the high numbers of pedestrians killed by cars only underlines my point about the inherent dangerousness of vehicles.

Jeremy - Re-tests would be useful because it would force drivers to address their bad habits, give a chance for re-education on road safety issues or changes in the law and if the re-tests were set to a much more appropriate (higher) standard then presumabley those most at risk of being a danger to others would no longer be entitled to be on the roads.

I have a helmet cam and have almost daily evidence of dangerous or careless driving, some of which is very serious. I'd be happy to hand it over to anyone who wants to edit the hours of footage so I can report them! It's very time consuming and policing of drivers shouldn't be down to individuals.

I have my helmet cam primarily so my family have evidence to push for prosecution of anyone who kills me, or I can do the same if I'm hit but don't die. A side-effect of having the helmetcam is that many drivers pull back when they see it rather than try overtake when there is no room. It acts as a traffic calming device, when they see it, so I beleive that visible policing/monitoring of drivers' behaviour, zero tolerancce re prosecutions and appropriate punishments would have a pretty big effect on road safety.

[Otta]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Otta - Pedestrians should be included in any

> discussion about road safety and the high numbers

> of pedestrians killed by cars only underlines my

> point about the inherent dangerousness of

> vehicles.

No, no it doesn't. Because we don't know how many of those killed were killed because they were stupid.

And you've not acknowledged the point that it doesn't matter how skilled a driver might be, there will still be accidents because there are stupid cyclists and pedestrians all over the place. Not a majority of course, but plenty about. You seem incapable of acknowledging this just because you might be a good cyclist.

[Otta]

twinhunters Wrote:

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

> Shame when a genuine concern for road users has

> turned into a cyclist versus motorist debate,

> until it isn't us versus them or them verus us,

> how can road safety ever be improved.so so sad.

I think you're probably right.

I'm neither motorist or cyclist by the way.

[titch juicy]

Lady Delilah

As it stands, you're probably doing the cycling cause more harm than good by repeatedly refusing to admit that bad cycling can and does result in accidents.

A one-eyed, blinkered view rarely gains much traction.