- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Ghost bike for Brian Dorling at Bow Roundabout (©John Stevenson:road.cc)Die-in planned at Transport for London headquarters as ‘save our cyclists’ petition hits over 18,000 names
After a horrific run of crashes in which five cyclists died on London’s roads in nine days, London cyclists are taking action both on line and in real life. A ‘Save Our Cyclists’ petition calling on London mayor Boris Johnson to take urgent action is rapidly approaching 20,000 signatures after just 24 hours, and a ‘die-in’ protest and vigil has been organised for November 29 at Transport for London headquarters.
The die-in protest will start at 5pm on Friday November 29 with a vigil for the cyclists who have died on London’s roads outside Transport for London HQ at 197 Blackfriars Road. That will be followed at 5.30 by the die-in and rally, before the event ends at 6.30.
“Transport for London needs our peaceful protest to be brought right to their door - the HQ of those who have failed to make our streets safe for our children or our pensioners to cycle on, never mind fit adults,” say event organisers.
“Cycling safety needs to be top of TfL's priorities, as should befit a 21st century city looking for ways to tackle congestion and pollution. If Crossrail was predicted to kill 120 workers during its construction, work would be halted immediately. Cyclists are just as important.”
The full details are on the event’s Facebook page.
Save our Cyclists
Addressed to Boris Johnson and his cycling commissioner Andrew Gilligan, the Save our Cyclists petition on 38degrees asks: “Where is your sense of urgency?”
Petition creator Rhiannon Redpath wrote: “We call on Boris Johnson and Andrew Gilligan to vastly accelerate their plan for expenditure of the £913 million cycling fund, by releasing an accurate, costed and time-bound plan for how the fund will address cycle safety over the next 12 months, from the end of December 2013.
“TFL and the Mayor for London do have the right idea. But, as plans are drawn up, consultations are carried out, and meetings are had, London’s roads continue to be unsafe, and cyclists are losing their lives.
“We are calling for urgent action from Boris Johnson and the Cycling Commissioner Andrew Gilligan to accelerate their plans, and to be clear about their intentions for cycle safety in London.”
Launched yesterday, the petition hit 10,000 signatures within hours and is now racing toward 20,000.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 3 sec ago
Chalk up another data point for something like Jevons Paradox / "what our fathers called luxuries, we term necessities" / keeping up with the...
- Miller 3 min 29 sec ago
That's a shame. He seemed like a decent guy and he had a good no-fuss website. Bought a few things from him over the years and he was contactable...
- chrisonabike 6 min 9 sec ago
(Brunel pictured next to an early bike lock).
- Blackthorne 1 hour 7 min ago
It's mentioned in benefit #2 in the article...
- levestane 1 hour 19 min ago
Pneu ballon and hookless rims are back, I still have some 27" Birmalux rims in the shed somewhere.
- brooksby 3 hours 8 min ago
Well yes, but it is the holidays
- Bigtwin 3 hours 38 min ago
I have the gross misfortune to live on her "patch". The state of roads policing (and the actual roads) and consequent danger everytime one gets on...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 20 min ago
Thank you for that excellent forensic analysis, I couldn't figure out where I'd gone wrong! Must drink more coffee and put on glasses before trying...
- Cugel 5 hours 27 min ago
Strangely, I've ridden all of those roads/routes you describe (and a lot more in Noerthern England) entirely without a gizmo of any kind, other...
- ktache 5 hours 59 min ago
Effective little things. Even have them on my Good Bike, my least reflectored. Still working through packs of them I got very cheap at Tesco.
Add new comment
52 comments
To indicate a right turn - "Using your left arm as if indicating a left turn but raise your forearm so it is at a right angle to your upper arm and parallel to your body. "
Only Americans seem to believe in these unintuitive car-centric hand signals. Using your LEFT arm to show you're going RIGHT makes no sense, unless you're in a car and can't just stick out the appropriate arm.
[[[[ When cycling, and I find myself in that ambiguous situation, I always raise my RIGHT arm and stick it out sideways, which surely tells all drivers behind me that I AM NOT TURNING LEFT, and that I must be GOING STRAIGHT AHEAD, or possibly even veering to the right. And if a driver behind me thinks I'm about to veer to the right, that's ok by me. Once in a while, some clod will ignore my right arm, but very rarely.
And remember the poor lorry-driver. He has to watch out for cyclists, send texts on his mobile, eat a bowl of ready-brek, peer at his satnav, ogle passing women drivers, and roll a ciggy----all at the same time! Give the geezer a break, eh?
P.R.
With Death on the ROADS becoming a DAILY Occurence in London , it is no wonder that some , when hearing of YET Another Casualty , assume it is a Cyclist !
http://news.radiojackie.com/2013/11/cyclist-killed-in-roehampton.html
Time that David Cameron set an example ! Carrying a helmet dangling from the Handlebars , sends the WRONG Message ! Better left at home , than being seen as an " IF I MUST "! Boris in recent times appears to consider wearing a helmet in " Photo Ops " as deriguer . When he does more than arrange with Media , WHEN he can be " photoed " ,then he should ride ALONE & Unaccompanied the " BLUE Paint " that he THINKS , saves Cyclist from the Traffic ! When he sees Police People Carriers using " Blue Paint " as part of their lane wandering regime , will he conclude that " Mr Motorist is doing a " DO AS I DO , not as the LAW REQUIRES ?
STRICT LIABILITY and 1 1/2M Safe Passing Laws , TODAY , not when the Death Toll is COSTING VOTES !
Another cyclist has been killed in London today: http://news.radiojackie.com/2013/11/cyclist-killed-in-roehampton.html
Transport planners, unfortunately give "priority" to keeping the traffic flow moving and by that they mean motor vehicles. Safety of cyclists including sorting out junctions/roundabouts etc. with some sort of priority or separation is not high up the list. Think this is the essential problem, I think.
Signed. Could I also suggest signing the London Cycling Campaign petition - the more voices heard, the better.
www.lcc.org.uk
In - TFL have alot to answer for
Signed. Personally, I would like to see accountability automatically revert to the powered vehicle as per mainland Europe (French anyway). I'm sure this would make drivers more aware and/or alert - at a minimum.
"...Signed. Personally, I would like to see accountability automatically revert to the powered vehicle as per mainland Europe (French anyway). I'm sure this would make drivers more aware and/or alert - at a minimum...."
Whilst being a lifelong cyclist: club rider, mountain biker, bike shop worker, tourer both home and abroad, commuter - including Central London and Bikeability instructor, I, like I'm sure the majority of cyclists on here, also drive. I enjoy driving and cover 20,000+ miles a year.
In an accident, I don't want to be automatically blamed for the idiocy and lack of common sense exhibited by a sizeable minority of cyclists who don't make any effort to make themselves visible or turn their heads to look over their shoulder before carrying out a maneuver or signal their intentions, fit lights, etc, etc.
Whilst the above will not guarantee safety in all circumstances or protect from dangerous, inconsiderate and inattentive driving, I'm sure it would go a long way to prevent a large proportion of accidents or at least lessen their extent.
I do understand that a driver can put forward mitigating evidence in defence but I'd rather not be assumed guilty and then have to prove my innocence.
I talk from experience as, in my mid teens, I was involved in 4 separate collisions that sent me sprawling across bonnets onto the road or into flower beds(!) - all of which, looking back, I shared a sizeable part of the blame for. If I knew then what I now know, I could probably have avoided all of them by amongst other things, wearing hi-vis clothing, fitting lights, making proper observations and better positioning. I'm just lucky to have the benefit of hindsight, others, as we have seen recently, aren't.
Whilst signing petitions such as these we, as cyclists, need to make sure our own house is in order and that each one of us are doing as much as we can to ensure our own safety.
I would like to see compulsory training for all 16 year olds to act as a refresher for those that have done Bikeability in primary school and as a life skill for others before they go on to take driving lessons - hopefully giving the next generation of drivers better awareness of cyclists and giving the next generation of cyclists the tools that they need to keep safe.
That's not how Strict Liability typically works. What it does is place the burden of proof on the operator of the heavier vehicle. HGV > Car > Bike > Ped. So if something bad happens, the onus is on the person bringing more kinetic energy to the table to prove they were in the right.
I think that's fair enough. Yes, some cyclists are absolute bloody idiots. However, whenever we drive, we're making an active choice to put enough mass and energy on the road that their idiocy may very well be fatal. As a society, we don't generally regard the death penalty as a just punishment for stupidity, so as I see it that's a reasonable balance.
It's also nice to know, as a car driver & especially on motorways and trunk roads, that lorry drivers have an extra imperative to look out for those most likely to be hurt by their actions. (Though personally, I'd like to see more legal liability focused on the operating companies, rather than the individual drivers).
[/quote] So if something bad happens, the onus is on the person bringing more kinetic energy to the table to prove they were in the right.[/quote]
Yes, I do understand that you will always have to prove you took reasonable care but it does seem like 'guilty until proven innocent'.
[/quote] As a society, we don't generally regard the death penalty as a just punishment for stupidity[/quote]
That is correct but I would regard punishment as a deliberate imposition of a penalty. Where a cyclist gets killed or injured in an accident through negligence or stupidity on their part, the motorist hasn't set out to deliberately (assuming they have taken reasonable care) kill or injure the cyclist - indeed the motorist also becomes a victim of the cyclist's negligence (having to live with the consequences).
And you didn't feel the need to mention safe infrastructure once!
Honestly, that's a really bad idea. Here in Switzerland pedestrians and cyclists cross the road and pull out without a second thought. They walk/ride across zebra crossings without looking, stopping or even breaking step. Because they have right of way they don't consider that motorised vehicles have to see them and have to stop from 50/60 km/h. You see the young kids (5/6) being taught by the Police to Stop, Look and Listen and not start crossing until the vehicles have stopped but as soon as they reach 10/11 they're dashing across the road with no regard for other road users. All road users from pedestrians to biggest HGVs should take responsibility for their actions and take care for one another. Shifting the automatic blame is not the answer.
Looks for Swiss road death statistics.
This wasn't the cyclists fault! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZCS3FLgYWM
I'm not saying the driver isn't without fault. The road layout does not help, but neither does the cyclist. She should really have looked over her shoulder and made some indication of taken the lane. By hugging the side of the road she shows no intention of where she is going.
The driver should have given her more space and should not overtake her. But in another respect, it is the left-hand turning lane and she is following the curb. So I can see what he is anticipating. Ultimately as a cyclist you have to take charge of that scenario and move early, safely and decisively, indicating what you are doing. You can have all the high viz, lights and helmets, but if you are not indicating your intentions and do not look before making your manuoeuvre then you will get into those situations. Even my cycling proficiency from 30 years ago taught me that.
There will always be bad drivers, but hardly any want to be killers.
The lane that the cyclist was in is marked as straight on and left turn. If the cyclist was going to turn left she would have been in the bus lane/cycle lane to the left of the island. How is a cyclist supposed to signal that they are going straight on? She could have been further out from the curb but heavy traffic can be very bullying and intimidating. This was entirely the lorry's fault and the mini bus behind is just as bad, if not worse for tailgating and about to do the same to the bloke with the camera.
Using your left arm as if indicating a left turn but raise your forearm so it is at a right angle to your upper arm and parallel to your body. Sadly the majority of motorists are unaware of hand signals that should be used when indicators fail. You can also use this to let the police or traffic warden on points aware of your intentions to move ahead.
But to give no indication at all is not helpful. Cyclists in London are terrible at signalling. Drivers rely on it. That is why they have indicators. This is why cycle education is key!
Drivers complaining about cyclists not indicating is a blatant case of pots calling kettles black.
I've come to two conclusions recently:
1. Indicators are now an optional extra, and in the times of austerity most drivers clearly couldn't afford them (what with AC, electric everything and video players being essential!)
2. Indicating when changing lanes is the a terrible faux pas. Forget farting in a crowded lift, shouting into your mobile on the train, sitting down next to the fainting pregnant lady on the tube, or throwing up over your boss at the christmas party. All those you can get away with. Indicating before changing lanes on the motorway is now the only unforgivable sin in Britain.
In the USA that's often used to mean a right turn: allows you to keep your right-hand on the the bars/brake. I had thought that an arm completely raised vertically was proposed for straight-ahead but never accepted?
Interesting the signal you mention is not shown here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highway-code--60
You're right about the signal, but it's usually drivers using it when there's no indicator on the vehicle or the bulb is gone.
In the UK, that signal would be done with the right arm out the window, for a left turn. I do wonder why it's not shown, as it's part of the Highway Code booklet I got this year (driven for 20 years, just wanted to properly look it over again).
US bikes are set up with front brake on the left-hand lever, so you'd usually want to keep your left hand on the bar. More so than the right.
This isn't in the highway code and looking up hand signals for cyclists through Google suggests that this actually means a right turn
It's in the Highway Code. Primarily for indicating to wardens/police on points what your intentions are. Left arm horizontal - left turn. Right arm horizontal - right turn. Left arm at 90 degrees- straight ahead. Older versions of the Highway Code have the same for when you are moving and they are signals you should use on a vehicle without indicators (vintage). I've started using the ahead one at questionable junctions while moving and when stopped to stop my being cut up. Meanwhile in the USA it means turn right.
While I agree that she was really too far in at that point, I also suspect looking at the video that the truck driver changed his mind at the last moment.
Watch the video again, the lane clearly indicates straight on with the option to turn left. Leave your poorly compiled comments at home.
I never said it didn't. As I said in my poorly compiled comment the infrastructure is partly to blame. That is the only lane for turning left (do I also have to say 'and straight on' for you?). So if you are over on the left-hand side and you want to go straight on you will compete with idiots turning left....take the lane and keep them behind you, do it early and safely when you can get the space.
Sorry that my opinions don't match yours. You should open your mind.
That's surely more the message here than anything else? Sticking in the road-position suggested by the bicycle lane is dangerous.
However, if the rider in the picture did take my advice then she'd get a lot of stick from other people for being an "aggressive vehicular cyclist".
Blaming the victim much?
The courts, for once, decided that the driver was wholly at fault. You actually disagree about the proportion of blame?
Indeed not. The driver is entirely and solely at fault. He cleary sees the cyclist, overtaks with a minimum of space, and then turns immediately left into her path.
She could have taken the lane more - but look, she's riding on the blue paint which is exactly where TfL is telling her to go. If she was taking the lane more, she'd probably get honked at by dozens of motorists for "not being in the cycle lane".
And, hang on: Are you really suggesting that we can blame the cyclist for not checking over her shoulder for some idiot cutting in in front of her WHEN SHE'S CONTINUING IN A STRAIGHT LINE IN HER LANE??
You must be reading the '68 version of the highway code from when the entire DoT was on acid
Come on. A blind man without a stick or guide dog can see she's going straight ahead, and given her speed, the intention is pretty damn obvious.
Pages