here

Nowt as queer as folk..eh.

Transport for London board member and chairman of the National Express Group

Of course they are. If cyclists had just driven instead they would not have been knocked off their bike. It’s blatantly obvious. Maybe we should just ban bikes. Or maybe even motor vehicles.

In reply to the OP, I would say that’s a distinct possibility in some cases based on the behaviour of some cyclists I have seen in London.

John is a f’ing moron.

I make him right. Have you seen half the cyclists in London? Dangerous positioning,rljs, oblivious to any traffic.

also today…

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-taken-to-hospital-with-serious-injuries-after-being-hit-by-bus-in-oxford-street-9767604.html

I think the real scandal here, is not anecdotal accounts of cyclists RLJ’ing, but that the future of the cycle lanes requested by thousands of Londoners, put out to consultation with a 78% approval, appears to be in the hands of some un-elected TFL board members with significant vested interests (e.g. National Express, LTDA and the Canary Wharf Group, who are apparently funding a the LTDA’s judicial review).

Of Course there is bad riding in London but also good urban riding as well Outside of London I barely see any good urban riding whether that be “serious” cyclists or novice.

To be honest though the issue is not that cyclist break the rules, of course they do just like everyone breaks the rules of the road, it would be amazing if the sample of society that uses a bike to commute is some how so different to the rest of society that they don’t break the rules (This is of course ignoring the fact that breaking the same rule for different road users produces vastly different risks). If there was an increase in pedestrian accidents in particular circumstance would everyone be blaming the pedestrians? No there would be an effort to reduce the circumstance where these accident occur by use of crossings, road engineering, traffic lights e.t.c.

People make mistakes all the time. Good systems don’t punish mistakes with death.

“The way in which many, many, many of them ride one is surprised that in fact the number of accidents is not far larger because it is an entirely different way of cycling to which you see in many other cities,”

That. is. a FACT.

Armitt’s comments came as he attempted to block Johnson’s proposals to install a number of new segregated cycle lanes across London.

And. That. is bizarre.

I’m more concerned by his casual dismissal of public opinion polls than his stupid comment about cyclists.

I can appreciate that the bus industry needs a voice on TfLs board, but you’d hope it would be attached to a brain.

Of course some cyclists do cause accidents. Some drivers cause accidents as well. It’s just that only lucky cyclists get to learn from their mistake. You can’t legislate for or design a completely idiot proof transport network, but you need to be working to minimise the risks.

“The way in which many, many, many of them ride one is surprised that in fact the number of accidents is not far larger because it is an entirely different way of cycling to which you see in many other cities,” Armitt, who is also Chairman of the National Express Group added

Armitt’s comments came as he attempted to block Johnson’s proposals to install a number of new segregated cycle lanes across London.

So in the context of campaigning against measures to segregate cyclists from cars/busses/lorries to try and reduce the likelihood of incidents is, he’s saying cyclists are too dangerous to mix with the other traffic?

Talk about a self defeating argument. We should really be applauding the clown, having him try counter points like that to a campaigns for improving cycling safety/infrastructure probably helps rather than hinders… Cyclists are “too dangerous” to ride in traffic you reckon? probably best to give them their own lanes…

Armitt’s comments came as he attempted to block Johnson’s proposals to install a number of new segregated cycle lanes across London.

And. That. is bizarre.

There’s been chatter about this in the Civil Engineering press of late, generally of opposition the large segregated cycle lane recently proposed – not due to any lack of love for cyclists, quite the opposite in fact. Segregated lanes do not address the dangerous junctions and other situations that will continue to exist, and for less experienced cyclists it gives them a false sense of security once they’re spat out at the end. In my mind money would be far better spent in training, both for cyclists and drivers, in how to be safe on the roads, awareness campaigns, enforcement and re-assessing the design of junctions and ‘dangerous’ sections of roads.

In my mind money would be far better spent in training, both for cyclists and drivers

I know what you’re saying, but ^^ that is just not going to happen. Ever.

There’s been chatter about this in the Civil Engineering press of late, generally of opposition the large segregated cycle lane recently proposed – not due to any lack of love for cyclists, quite the opposite in fact. Segregated lanes do not address the dangerous junctions and other situations that will continue to exist, and for less experienced cyclists it gives them a false sense of security once they’re spat out at the end. In my mind money would be far better spent in training, both for cyclists and drivers, in how to be safe on the roads, awareness campaigns, enforcement and re-assessing the design of junctions and ‘dangerous’ sections of roads.

I agree TBH, you’ll never achieve 100% segregated infrastructure in the UK and it wouldn’t actually promote sensible road use or modify behaviour on it’s own…

You’ll typically find, even amongst cyclists, that not supporting Boris’s blue lines gets you shouted down, apparently we should be Denmark… But we’re not.

Thinking further about it, could this Armitt chap have been trying to make the same point, and He’s now being selectively quoted out of context?

I’ll admit I’m like many and jumped to the conclusion that he was being “Anti-Cyclist” but it’s based on a rather lightweight four paragraph article… We should question more.

Thing is, it should be safe to cycle. End of.

When you go to Holland or Belgium you see people tottering along with handlebars piled with boxes and all ages and levels of fitness and ropey bikes weaving around. But it’s safe. That’s how it should be.

They have a combination of lanes, segregated lanes, cycle crossings and drivers who drive around as though hitting a cyclist is a capital offence. I have never ever seen someone reverse off a cycle zebra crossing to let me past before. Or a Porsche scream to a halt because I’m moseying up to a junction. We need a bit of that here.

I agree with clover’s comments, but the most important change needed to achieve that is drivers attitudes. They need better training, and harsher punishments.

Same can equally be said for cyclists of course.

not necessarily segregated lanes, but segregated cycle crossings at difficult junctions.
oh and cycle bypass of junctions. why engineer in all those advance stop lines, when you can make a cycle lane totally bypass the junction with no stop necessary.
pretty sure a civil engineer can earn a few bob from BoJo/TFL for that, and the guy with a vested interest in motorised traffic gains from that too.

in how to be safe on the roads, awareness campaigns, enforcement and re-assessing the design of junctions and ‘dangerous’ sections of roads.

The cycle lane proposals include redesign of lots of junctions. Read the consultations on the TFL website. This includes, for instance, the junction with Queen St Place at the north of Southwark bridge mentioned here http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/this-mornings-commute-brush-with-the-reaper-the-lahndahn-content

Even if you could somehow re-educate the entire driving population, 99% of people don’t want to cycle in amongst cars, busses and lorries. It’s usually existing cyclists that want “education”, not the people who don’t already cycle.

A lot of it has to do with education.

Those who have driven a passenger car, a van, a motorbike, a bicycle, walked a dog in an urban area, been sat in a truck, will have FAR greater appreciation, respect for other users and awareness then someone who only drives around in a yellow corsa.

Modern passenger cars/vans/trucks leave you so far removed from whats actually occurring in the big outside world that you do shut a large portion of your senses down.

Thing is, it should be safe to cycle. End of.

Wonderful Will these changes actually achieve it?

Road CC report
For the most part positive spin but there were some notable descenting voices.

Opponents of the scheme such as Canary Wharf Group, whose managing director of finance Peter Anderson sits on TfL’s board, had warned of traffic chaos if the proposals went ahead, and remain firmly against them, despite Mr Johnson last week presenting revisions including narrowing the cycle lanes at three pinch points.

So it’s already critically compromised then? It’s the “pinch points” where cyclists typically come to grief at present…

Green Party – Baroness Jones:

“The Hackney scheme is a great Quietway, but it is not a superhighway… Many cyclists will enjoy a quieter, less polluted route, but many others want the directness and speed of the main roads. With the deaths of two cyclists on Hackney main roads, so far this year, we have to make both choices safer.”

So it’s going to be Bimble on the Blue out of the way or suffer the wrath of a Range Rover driver if you choose to use a major route?
I over simplify, but I can see cyclists opting out of the major planned routes for at least part, if not all of their journeys, and then encountering driver’s with an even more negative attitude now when they see them not exclusively riding the cycle lanes…

Just tell them that they should be on the motorway….

Seriously though, I think the plans are a huge leap forward for London, let alone the rest of the UK which is lagging 20 years behind.

We’ve been doing training for years, it isn’t working. The Dutch have been doing infrastructure for decades, it works. If you want more people riding bikes then you need high quality infrastructure. If you object to it because you want to keep cycling down to a couple of percent modal share in return for an apparently harmonious (I don’t know where you live, but I certainly don’t have that!) relationship with drivers and not being ‘forced‘ to use quality bike infrastructure then fine. But don’t pretend that education works. It’s better than nothing but it’s a lot worse than infrastructure for making cycling safe, easy and normal.

I’m with the making cyclists visible, giving them infrastructure and doing something even if it’s not perfect. And countering the ‘it’s all their own fault’ nonsense at every juncture. We shouldn’t be expecting city centre cyclists to be experts.

The better it looks to cycle, the more cyclists. More cyclists = more drivers that understand what it’s like to be a cyclist (I think it’s a fair assumption that many cyclists also drive at some point).

I think that’s part of the Dutch/Belgian success. That and the infrastructure. Or maybe they’re just more polite…

One of the recent deaths was a friend of my sister; she was due to get married in a few months. Her parents have lost two of their three daughters in the space of a few months, as another died of cancer last year.

It’s utterly, utterly tragic.

harsher punishments.

is that anything to do with strict liability ?

which of course would also apply to cyclists hitting pedestrians, which sounds like it would be a good thing to implement as cyclists whizzing around pedestrians ‘dangerously’ is one of the public’s main issues it seems, having listened to several of these discussions on LBC.

We haven’t been doing “training for years”. There was a big gap between the old Cycling Proficiency and Bikeability. A generation missed, most of whom are now driving badly around cyclists.

And drivers get sod all practical training about cyclists. Really good piece on Barely Legal Drivers when one young man cut up a cyclist. He was sent on a course, part of which involved him cycling along a road while a car gave him a “punishment pass”. The young lad went **** mental, but said he understood now what he had done wrong before.

Modern passenger cars/vans/trucks leave you so far removed from whats actually occurring in the big outside world that you do shut a large portion of your senses down.

Here is a big issue – should vehicles with restricted visibility be allowed on roads like this ?

Surely they are not fit for purpose in such environments.

Training and education might reduce punishment passes, or people overtaking at pinch points, but how are you ever going to train people not to get impatient, tired, stressed and aggressive? or educate them not to make “genuine” mistakes?

The current road design means that the slightest mistake (and people will always make mistakes) could result in death. That is not a good design.

Of the people that have been killed by trucks/big vehicles turning left what percentage went up the inside of the vehicle versus what percentage had the vehicle approach from the rear before it turned ?

Strict liability is a possible solution, but I’m not totally convinced. Personally I would like to see quick, effective driving bans, one week, two weeks, one month*, to make people understand how important their driving licence is to their modern way of life. Then they might be more careful about losing it again.

*with employers obliged to hold their job open for them for the duration of the ban, so they can’t weedle out of it. And employers not allowed to pay for or arrange alternative transport in the meantime to ensure that the driver and employer both understand the seriousness of a driving ban.

Turnerguy has reminded me if something. There was a huge outcry after that dreadful month of cyclist deaths in autumn 2013(?), but have the inquests been held?

Everyone was quick to suggest solutions at the time but all us internet experts didn’t actually have the full facts of the actual incidents to work on.

Of the people that have been killed by trucks/big vehicles turning left what percentage went up the inside of the vehicle versus what percentage had the vehicle approach from the rear before it turned ?

Surely it would be better to have a road design where no-one dies regardless of who is at fault.

“The better it looks to cycle, the more cyclists. More cyclists = more drivers that understand what it’s like to be a cyclist (I think it’s a fair assumption that many cyclists also drive at some point).”

This, this, this!

The Dutch don’t cycle everywhere because they are all mad keen cyclicts, they cycle everywhere because they would be mad not to. Parking is expensive, roads are busy and most journeys are local – Bikes are designed for normal clothing and the cycle lanes are mostly clean and smooth. Most houses have proper bike storage mini garages so you simply wheel the bike out of your house onto a traffic calmed road where cars have presumed liability and in 100-300 yards you slot onto a well planned cycle lane (some segregated, many not) but all designed for cyclists whether or not it ‘inconveniences’ the motorist. when you finish your journey there will be covered bike parking. The whole thing is so seamless and easy that people not cycling somewhere are looked on as a bit weird. Almost every driver is also a cyclist so understands and benefits from the infrastructure at some point so don’t get as agitated by having to give way at roundabouts etc. This is all totally apart from the world of ‘hobby’ cyclists with the latest kit which also exist of course but is treated as it should be – a fun hobby for weirdo’s

Winston has it. Try to talk to a traffic engineer in these terms though. They just don’t get it.

Horatio – unfortunately your dream is just unlikely so long as humans are involved.

The point Turnerguy and i were making was which of the humans involved in the bike/lorry accidents had misjudged it. You can tarmac the whole nation into designated bike/car/lorry lanes but when one of the humans misjudges a manoeuvre its the cyclist who suffers the consequences.

Nice wee film about how they do it in Groningen here:
http://road.cc/content/news/96499-video-groningen-worlds-cycling-city-streetfilms
Why would anyone not aspire to this sort of traffic system?

TurnerGuy – Here is a big issue – should vehicles with restricted visibility be allowed on roads like this?

Surely they are not fit for purpose in such environments.

I agree with what your saying, the key elements seem to be crash resistance and sound insulation as well as aesthetics too.

I think it’s time for smaller and greener delivery vehicles carrying mini-containers that can be dropped on site and more car sharing in big urban areas.

‘City of Westminster Council found that drivers were to blame for 68 per cent of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles’

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3758677.ece