Stop Killing Cyclists stage vigil at ‘murderous’ junction

Judge dreadful wrote:

I sympathise with the idea behind these protests, but ... calling a 'movement' "stop killing cyclists", "stop the murderous slaughter of cyclists", "won't somebody think of the children cyclists, and stop squishing us with your murderous diesel death wagons" and the like, isn't going to help.

On the other hand, calling the movement "Hey, just let us ride our bikes, m'kay?" probably won't work either...

As has been said by commenters over and over again, there were this number of accidents that were causing the deaths of motorists at a particular junction, then it would have been closed and re-engineered in the blink of an eye and protests like this wouldn't be necessary.

The problem is that too many white van driving, Daily Fail reading so-and-sos (yes, that is a generalisation) will see protests like this and all they can think is "Bl**dy cyclists holding me up again...".

Judge dreadful wrote:

Guess what, cycling in a densely populated, busy, urban conurbation, is a risky business.

Really? It isn't in much of the Netherlands. It isn't in Copenhagen either.

Judge dreadful wrote:

We need to make sure that we get a point across, but calling a 'movement' "stop killing cyclists", "stop the murderous slaughter of cyclists", "won't somebody think of the children cyclists, and stop squishing us with your murderous diesel death wagons" and the like, isn't going to help.

Really? It worked for "Stop de Kindermoord" which led to the Netherlands implementing infrastructure that made riding a bike safe for everyone. It seems to be working in London to an extent too.

Judge dreadful wrote:

I sympathise with the idea behind these protests, but I think cyclists need to be careful, not to jump on some 'social media' driven bandwagon, and risk being seen as a bunch of whiny left wing bed wetters. Guess what, cycling in a densely populated, busy, urban conurbation, is a risky business. We need to make sure that we get a point across, but calling a 'movement' "stop killing cyclists", "stop the murderous slaughter of cyclists", "won't somebody think of the children cyclists, and stop squishing us with your murderous diesel death wagons" and the like, isn't going to help.

My Dutch isn't great, but I believe "Stop de Kindermoord" translates surprisingly accurately to "won't somebody think of the children cyclists, and stop squishing us with your murderous diesel death wagons".

Although I don't think diesel was as popular back then. Perhaps that bit got lost in translation.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/01/stop-child-murder.html

Judge dreadful wrote:

Guess what, cycling in a densely populated, busy, urban conurbation, is a risky business.

Is it? Why?

Is driving a car in those places also a risky business? Why?

Are the two comparably risky? Why?

velodinho wrote:

Not sure about the "killing" message. It insinuates that the drivers are the "killers". I doubt very much that the majority of the drivers in these tragic incidents are untouched by these events, although I would recognise that the " killers" are probably being identified as TfL, City of London and the local boroughs; but it really is a brutal message.

And I would call the entire automobile industry and its apologists the actual killers - the others you mention are merely 'useful idiots'.

Zero wrote:

velodinho wrote:

Not sure about the "killing" message. It insinuates that the drivers are the "killers". I doubt very much that the majority of the drivers in these tragic incidents are untouched by these events, although I would recognise that the " killers" are probably being identified as TfL, City of London and the local boroughs; but it really is a brutal message.

And I would call the entire automobile industry and its apologists the actual killers - the others you mention are merely 'useful idiots'.

Sorry, I don't buy that. You think it's the motor industry that doesn't care about cyclists?

The car industry has made huge strides in improving the 'external' safety of its products: I'm living proof, the car that hit me cushioned the impact very well and all my injuries were from hitting the ground.

A lot of R&D is going into making HGVs safer by reducing blind spots, mandating cameras and sensors (all of which are useless if they are not fitted, dirty or the driver ignores them, of course).

The operator of the machine is responsible for their actions. The car driver that hit me drove onto a roundabout without looking; some HGVs are badly maintained and driven with undue haste; some people who ride bikes make unwise choices of where on the road to ride (notably, up the inside of HGVs at junctions).

Gizmo_ wrote:

The operator of the machine is responsible for their actions

That's only true in part. The driver is responsible for obeying the law but not for being given an unsafe machine to drive around vulnerable users at peak times.

The point is that an unnecessarily risky environment has been created and is being tolerated because of a lack of political will.

Gizmo_ wrote:

some people who ride bikes make unwise choices of where on the road to ride (notably, up the inside of HGVs at junctions).

That's true - it's where the cycle lane is.

Gizmo_ wrote:

The operator of the machine is responsible for their actions. The car driver that hit me drove onto a roundabout without looking; some HGVs are badly maintained and driven with undue haste; some people who ride bikes make unwise choices of where on the road to ride (notably, up the inside of HGVs at junctions).

It's perfectly true that people are responsible for their actions, but people make mistakes, and these cannot be 'educated out' for any situation (no matter how often some people suggest they can be). Environmental changes must be made to prevent these mistakes leading to the serious injury or death of vulnerable road users. This means infrastructure and rush-hour bans for HGVs.

Gizmo_ wrote:

You think it's the motor industry that doesn't care about cyclists?

No, they don't.

They care only about selling cars. They use adverts and sponsor activities that glamourise speed, that sell the dream of the open (empty) road for you to drive as you please... and people are suckers for a dream. Add in celebrities like Parris and that fat chef who think that terrorising people for their choice of transport mode is OK and not forgetting Clarkson, the chief role model for gedouttamyway arseholes, and an excuse for drivers to behave aggressively the world over. All these people are part of the problem.

Gizmo_ wrote:

The car industry has made huge strides in improving the 'external' safety of its products: I'm living proof, the car that hit me cushioned the impact very well and all my injuries were from hitting the ground.

What a joke!

The same car industry that makes heavier, bigger, faster cars than before? That simply wants to sell you a new car that's 'better' than your current one. And when did anyone choose a car because it better protects pedestrians? How many companies make proactive moves and go beyond the bare minimum to make their vehicles and drivers safer? Very, very few.

You are not proof of anything, but there are plenty of DEAD people that are proof of the danger of motorised traffic to pedestrians, cyclists and occupants of other cars. In this country drivers are still killing 1,700 people a year - that's 5 people every day - as well as seriously injuring 21,600 more with a total of 183,000 casualties. Then add in the huge number of incidents where there is no injury reported.

In any other industry this would be truly catastrophic. Machines would be made safer, people would be vetted and trained, protected and have their license revoked if unsafe. On the roads it's, well, just one of those things...

Actions like the die-in are not the only solution but when a situation is as bad as this then drastic measures must be taken. There is no bigger prompt for change than mass participation. As any MP will tell you, for every 1 letter received there are 9 more people with the same views who don't write.

Well done to those who attended and made the event news; you are helping to bring about positive change. Chapeau!

Simon E wrote:

How many companies make proactive moves and go beyond the bare minimum to make their vehicles and drivers safer? Very, very few.

I'm not an expert on where the balance lies between legislative push, marketing opportunity and engineering opportunity lies but today's cars are far, far better at protecting their occupants than those of 30 or 40 years ago. Airbags, anti-lock brakes, crumple zones, side impact protection, automatic braking, retracting and cushioning steering wheels, headrests and self-tensioning seat belts all round, etc. My first car - a 1983 Ford Sierra - had 2/8 of those.

That stuff sells - any manufacturer who got a reputation (even undeserved) for making unsafe cars would pay a heavy price. People are worried about themselves and their kids.

I agree that car buyers don't think about pedestrians and cyclists (who might also be their family ironically) when buying a car. I don't know if you're a car owner but did you check out the NCAP ratings for pedestrian safety?

Duncann wrote:

People are worried about themselves and their kids.

Why? That fear fuels the proliferation of 4x4s on our streets and the increasing number of them on the school run - vehicles which are more dangerous for everyone else. Oh, the irony!

The improvement in so-called 'safety features' can also allow occupants to feel more removed from the environment around them. Leads to risk compensation.

Duncann wrote:

did you check out the NCAP ratings for pedestrian safety?

No. NCAP ratings would not be a factor in my buying decision. I am acutely aware that my decisions when driving are far more important than relying on passive devices a manufacturer may have built into the vehicle.

Does anyone really believe that NCAP ratings etc prevented a pedestrian or cyclist from being killed when hit by a car? Is this not more relevant?

from http://www.20splentyforworthing.org.uk/whynot30

and https://twitter.com/petersiemensma/status/611833506285682688

Simon E wrote:

Duncann wrote:

People are worried about themselves and their kids.

Why? That fear fuels the proliferation of 4x4s on our streets and the increasing number of them on the school run - vehicles which are more dangerous for everyone else. Oh, the irony!

Firstly if you're not sure why people might be worried about themselves and their offspring (in the original context of manufacturers producing cars with poor safety) then that strikes me as odd - somewhat lacking in empathy or understanding.

Second, i'd wager that a not insignificant amount of money and fashion is probably more to do with the proliferation of 4x4s specifically. Some 4x4s give a sense of safety (increased detachment due to height primarily i'd imagine) but it's not restricted to that niche alone, nor is it an intrinsic engineering feature of them. They're just todays Volvo estate in many ways.

fukawitribe wrote:

if you're not sure why people might be worried about themselves and their offspring (in the original context of manufacturers producing cars with poor safety) then that strikes me as odd - somewhat lacking in empathy or understanding.

Did I say that? No.

It is quite the reverse. I have kids, I worry about them as much as any parent but I don't buy a Chelsea Tractor or other nice car then drive it the 1/2 mile to school, parking on double yellows or where it blocks a crossing point despite regular requests in the school newsletter to use the nearby car parks.

The ludicrous thing is that these parents are creating the same risk for others that they would not wish on their own children. Why is that OK? Similarly, too many drive near others in a manner that they would NEVER EVEN DREAM of doing around their own family or friends. I don't understand that behaviour and when I encounter it I find it very distressing.

If you think I lack empathy then you really have missed my point entirely.

Quote:

Some 4x4s give a sense of safety (increased detachment due to height primarily i'd imagine) but it's not restricted to that niche alone, nor is it an intrinsic engineering feature of them.

I didn't say it was, 4x4s are merely an example (and there are driving patterns associated with certain types & brands of cars). Most modern cars are built to be fast, comfortable, quiet and effortless to drive, and therefore are often driven by people who assume that this means they can show contempt for the rules of the road and for others' safety.

I recently replaced my ancient VW Polo with a 12 year old 1.2L Skoda (55bhp) and have found that 30 mph on the same urban roads feels much slower and sticking below it takes more effort. But that doesn't make it OK to do 45mph, any more than it is to tailgate someone doing 29 mph or 'punishment pass' a cyclist.