Cycling and the ED street grid

[bawdy-nan]

louloulabelle Wrote:

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

> James Barber are the police going to enforce the

> rules of the road to the many Dulwich Cyclists

> that do not stop at Zebra crossings, red lights,

> do not indicate or even look around them when

> changing direction, mount the pavement when it

> suits them to aid their journey, ride without

> lights etc in dim/dark conditions, ride two/three

> abreast when not appropriate......and so on.

Actually enforcing rules of the road is mentioned in the plan as is persuading the police to adopt a more relaxed attitude to pavement cycling (for children and vulnerable people)

[aquarius moon]

Wider pavements would be the way forward.

Pedestrians one side, cyclists the other. At quiet times, mingle & all live together.

No cars to worry about, less accidents.

Will it ever happen? Probably not.

[rodneybewes]

They have a few of those in the City - routes where cycles join in pedestrian areas to quickly cross roads which are on dangerous one-way systems. I was very sceptical when they first started out - I wasn't sure that pedestrians and commuter cyclists (as opposed to kids and tourist/barclays bikers) would commingle well. I've been surprised though. Cyclists slow right down to give way to pedestrians - I haven't seen one collision in a couple of years since they started, everyone in the same bit of space. I certainly haven't seen any accidents publicised in that time. There's a couple going from Southwark Bridge to Cheapside that I use every day.

[Dulwichgirl82]

"? 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. "

I can't understand this, my understanding regarding uk law is innocent until proven guilty, and as someone that has to

Drive as part of her work, i think it would be grossly unfair for me to be automatically liable in the case of a cyclist causing an accident or more likely a genuine accident and automatically be found guilty/liable if I couldn't provide 'proof', not always an easy thing to do!surely I should also be innocent until proven guilty even if driving a car!

Also in this scenario the phrase 'victim' could also apply to a road user whether driving a car or riding a cycle.

I think there are bad drivers and bad cyclists and those are the ones any changes or laws should be aimed at, not a blanket law on any and all!

[rodneybewes]

They're talking strict liability for insurance purposes. They've done this in other cities (Rome did it with motor scooters) and found that deaths and injuries were significantly reduced. You are basically saying if you are in a collision with a more vulnerable road user (whoever that might be - cyclist, pedestrian, horse...), it will affect your insurance.

If you take cyclists out of the equation and just look at the amount of pedestrians who are killed and injured in the UK every year - especially children - where motor vehicles are to blame you really have a couple of choices. You either significantly increase the criminal penalties for the offences (meaning stiffer sentencing with all that means), or you give people a financial incentive to drive a lot more carefully. The latter approach has seemed to work.

There are plenty of civil laws in the UK which are strict liability, these are matters of public policy and make sense. And I also agree that there are plenty of bad cyclists, I see them every day. And pedestrians for that matter. And car drivers. This is South London after all.

When pedestrians make mistakes they tend to hurt themselves. When cyclist make mistakes they tend to hurt themselves, and, rarely, other cyclists and pedestrians. The last government stats for accidents by motor vehicles (2013) give the following figures - deaths 1,713, serious injuries 21,657 and casualties 186,370. Have a look at the last figure. If you are going to incentivise any group to act more carefully, it has to be motor vehicles, especially in London.

By the way I tend to cycle into and out of work (around St Paul's to East Dulwich), walk plenty and drive some evenings for short journeys, and weekends. So I'm all three.

[wulfhound]

@rodneybewes - they're not really pavements though, more pedestrianised areas that you're allowed to cycle through (in that they don't usually run alongside a road). There are exceptions (indeed some in Southwark - Dulwich Common on the S Circular springs to mind), but they're only justified when you have a wide, lightly used pavement and a very fast busy road.

Presumed liability means "presumption" not "automatic", the onus is on the operator of the heavier vehicle to prove they were in the right. This also applies to crashes involving lorries and cars, and those involving cyclists and pedestrians. It's sensible because whoever is operating the larger and more potentially dangerous vehicle should be exercising the greater responsibility.

@Dulwichgirl82, as someone who has to drive for their work, please can you try & get away from the idea that there is such a thing as a "genuine accident". Somebody made a serious mistake, every time. Not, by any means, always a driver; but someone did, and someone likely got badly hurt (or at least had to waste a perfectly good afternoon sorting out a smashed headlight or wing mirror) as a result.

Incidentally, the main reason why airliners don't crash in the West anymore (well, pretty much) is that the aviation authorities adopt exactly this approach. No accidents, only preventable mistakes. Same goes for the rail network, at least since the spate of accidents at the start of the millennium. Yet seven or eight Jumbo jets full of people die on the roads every year in the UK alone.

@aquarius moon the problem with allowing pavement cycling (apart from OAPs finding it intimidating and unpleasant) is that pavements don't have priority over side roads. So on a dense street grid like ED it's a frustrating, tiring, stop-start experience (and according to some cycle instructors, actually more dangerous than cycling on the road - highest likelihood of getting hit is at junctions), whereas if you're on the major carriageway you can just flow.

[Dulwichgirl82]

I have to disagree, of course there are genuine accidents, things that can't be predicted or stopped. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try but a surprise skid, a car/bike malfunction that couldn't be predicted etc. And in reality probably in many cases mistakes by both parties causing accidents which on a luckier day would have just been a near miss.

As I said we should all try and be better, but I feel blaming one side more than an other is not really a solution, in an ideal world cars and bikes would have some form of separation to be prevent these accidents, where I agree sadly the cyclist is likely to come off worse.

[rodneybewes]

@wulfhound - this is true, although my point is more that there are places where pedestrians and cyclists share the same space with little or no issue. I'm much more in favour or segregated cycle space for mass transit at the expense of cars. Except in the case of kids - I don't think we should be putting them anywhere near roads and have no problem with them on pavements at all.

@dulwichgirl82 - it's not really a question of blame - in my experience cyclists and car drivers are just as poor as each other. It's back to the stats though. Poor car/bus/lorry driving leads to thousands of deaths and injuries every year, you have to focus your attention there if you want to improve safety.

[nunhead_man]

Re your post Dulwichgirl82;

You mention "genuine accidents, things that can't be predicted or stopped"

1) a "surprise" skid - you were going too fast and/or are poorly trained to drive the vehicle

2) car/bike malfunction that couldn't be predicted - no! - poor maintainance or poor original design!

3) in reality probably in many cases mistakes by both parties causing COLLISIONS which on a luckier day would have just been a near miss. .....................

What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?

4) "in an ideal world cars and bikes would have some form of separation to be prevent these COLLISIONS where I agree sadly the cyclist is likely to come off worse" -

a) we need less motor vehicles including cars - leading to better health, better air quality, less pedestrian and cyclist casualties, clamer and happier streets

b) much less chance if 20mph is enforced on low traffic roads and motor vehicles segregated on higher traffic roads with enforced limits over 20mph

[Dulwichgirl82]

I had a feeling someone would do that! I guess we have differing opinions on the matter which is fair enough

[jack'n'danny]

Maybe "cyclists" should stick to the parks? Good enough for me when I rode a bicycle.

[LadyDeliah]

not much use if you want to get to somewhere other than a park.

[Earl Aelfheah]

How did you get your bike to the park?

[jack'n'danny]

I walked it there......much safer than using the roads which after all were built for Cars.

[wulfhound]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> I have to disagree, of course there are genuine

> accidents, things that can't be predicted or

> stopped. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try but a

> surprise skid, a car/bike malfunction that

> couldn't be predicted etc. And in reality probably

> in many cases mistakes by both parties causing

> accidents which on a luckier day would have just

> been a near miss.

Genuine accidents are vanishingly few in number. I've been involved in a handful of crashes, witnessed a lot more, and every time somebody (sometimes me) screwed up. But people adopt a "shit happens" mentality and then wonder why 2,000 lives a year continue to be lost. Some might call that an acceptable price to pay for business as usual, I'm not one of them.

> As I said we should all try and be better, but I

> feel blaming one side more than an other is not

> really a solution

It's not about blame, it's about taking responsibility when you bring more speed, power and mass to the situation. That applies equally to cyclists in parks (those who ride fast around small kids and dogs are as bad as any inconsiderate motorist) and on greenway paths, drivers on the roads and truckers on the motorway.

> in an ideal world cars and

> bikes would have some form of separation to be

> prevent these accidents, where I agree sadly the

> cyclist is likely to come off worse.

That's what they're planning to do in parts of Central London over the next year or two, and on those roads (where they need to keep traffic moving and there isn't any alternative route) it's the right thing to do. Out here though things are a bit more nuanced - you can't really put in a separated bike lane along Barry Road, Peckham Rye or Lordship Lane (not without losing a lot of parking or taking from the common, at least) so the Spine route plans to use back streets. But that in turn means that through motor traffic has to be kept on the above mentioned main roads, to keep conditions on the back streets quiet enough that an 8yo can ride it.

[wulfhound]

jack'n'danny Wrote:

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

> I walked it there......much safer than using the

> roads which after all were built for Cars.

*ahem*.

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/__data/assets/image/0010/356851/lordship-lane-00634-640.jpg

[spark67]

I've been cycling for about 15 years now to and from work, I have noticed a drop in aggressive driving I have to say, the ones I have encountered seem to be those people who seem to have a default setting of aggression.... like the black cab driver who pulled out of a junction I was going across, causing me to swerve into middle of the road, calling me a *f@cking cyclist* when I had right of way ( I just shouted "uber" back) And yes I also see the odd bad cyclist and kamikaze pedestrian who should know better too, But a bad driver is the one who is going to cause most damage to someone (A wayward cyclist or pedestrian crossing without taking much notice will normally come off worse in a car collision)

I tend to have got awareness through experience, I now avoid hot spots and use cycle routes that take me around congested areas and though parks, may add 5 minutes to a journey, but I feel safer.

[jack'n'danny]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> jack'n'danny Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I walked it there......much safer than using

> the

> > roads which after all were built for Cars.

>

> *ahem*.

>

> http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

>

>

> http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/__data/assets/image/

> 0010/356851/lordship-lane-00634-640.jpg

Lovely picture of Lordship Lane, no bikes!!! And glory be, not one "Hipster"

[Jeremy]

jack'n'danny Wrote:

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

> Lovely picture of Lordship Lane, no bikes!!! And glory be, not one "Hipster"

Wonder when that was? Pre-trams... so pre-WW1? I bet some of the regular posters on here could tell us a tale or two about those days...

[njc97]

"not one Hipster"? Apart from matey with the suit and flat cap on. Bet he drinks locally brewed real ale as well.