Incident near Oval Tube this morning

[theclaud]

No doubt the number of people pottering around on cyclepaths at the weekneds has gone up. Possibly even people going to work. Nothing whatsoever has changed in London - people still get squashed at big intersections and bridges etc same as they always have.

Personally, I take what the CTC says with a lot of salt, especially when it's "anecdotal", having done some work with. They have a drum to bang and they do - you can skew the stats anyway you like with this stuff. One person making two journes a year on a bike when they only make one last year is a 100% increase!

The CTC stuff isn't anecdotal, and Dellzeqq's (admittedly informal)observations are about cyclists using the roads, not cycle paths. And I believe London has seen the biggest increase of all. But even if the figures are modest the correlation is there - more cyclists, fewer deaths. Which means that doom and gloom is no good for us, because it discourages the thing that makes us safer - getting more people on bikes more often. Implying that it's suicide to commute by bike is the worst thing you can do.

 

[Bigtwin]

it discourages the thing that makes us safer - getting more people on bikes more often. Implying that it's suicide to commute by bike is the worst thing you can do.

Ah-hem. The casualty increase rate is the same as the cycling increase rate. It doen't make anyone safer by that measure. Luckily, deaths have dropped a bit this last year - good - but so what? Chance? Fluke? Or due to real action and modified behaviour?

What that does is allow town planners and the like to say "everything's fine here - deaths are dropping".

 

[User482]

The CTC stuff isn't anecdotal, and Dellzeqq's (admittedly informal)observations are about cyclists using the roads, not cycle paths. And I believe London has seen the biggest increase of all. But even if the figures are modest the correlation is there - more cyclists, fewer deaths. Which means that doom and gloom is no good for us, because it discourages the thing that makes us safer - getting more people on bikes more often. Implying that it's suicide to commute by bike is the worst thing you can do.

I can't speak for other parts of the UK, but there are quite a few formal traffic counts done in Bristol to assess the number of cycling journeys made. From what I know of them, we can be reasonably confident in their reliability.

It does seem clear that cycling is increasing, so if serious injuries/ fatalities are holding steady or even falling, this surely is grounds for cautious optimism.

Edited to add: I checked the stats for Bristol - 40% increase in cycling trips since 2003/4. That's using the same set of 43 sampling points around the city centre.

 

[Origamist]

Ah-hem. The casualty increase rate is the same as the cycling increase rate. It doen't make anyone safer by that measure. Luckily, deaths have dropped a bit this last year - good - but so what? Chance? Fluke? Or due to real action and modified behaviour?

Bigtwin, you've misunderstood the stats. The 12% refers to the increase in cycle traffic (or "road traffic" in the report), not a 12% increase in cycling casualties. The figures on page 10 make this clear.

The total reported casualties among pedal cyclists increased by 1 per cent compared to 2007.

 

[Riverman]

That sounds nasty. Hope she pulls through.

That's what I've heard. It was something about men being more likely to get ahead of traffic at a red light.

Quick question. If I'm coming up to a red light and I see a lorry or bus near the front should I always try and get in front of it before it turns or should I stay behind it and wait for it to turn?

I don't trust HGV drivers. Even if I were slightly in front of them I think some drivers wouldn't see me, they'd speed up and turn into me especially if the lights turned green as I tried to pass them.

edit: Just noticed that she's died. RIP

 

[Crankarm]

My heartfelt sympathies and condolences to the family and friends of this cyclist. I hope she did not suffer in her passing .

However, I fundamentally disagree with the CTC in how it is addressing cycling safety by advocating a strategy of safety in numbers. How does it DIRECTLY address the many dangerous situations cyclists face on the road? By promoting this safety in numbers campaign they are saying if they get enough people on bikes say half or every one in the country, statistically it can be said that their policy has been a success if only a small proportion of people who cycle are seriously or fatally injured. I think it is a strategy that does absolutely nothing for cycling road safety. If for example cycling numbers increase 5 fold but 1000 cyclists are seriously injured or killed every year on our roads that is ok because the numbers cycling have increased dramtically so 1000 is statistically insignificant. Absolute 80llocks. It really annoys me. Instead why don't CTC address the safety issues that we face every day lobby the Government harder and harder to try to get the law changed for cyclists to mirror the Dutch system of liability on the motorist. Why don't they lobby the Highways Agency and local authorities for segragated cycle facilities at dangerous road junctions. They could even gang up with RosPA and lobby the government for hard hitting adverts on prime time TV making drivers aware of cyclists as has similarly has been done for motorcyclists, to deter drink drivers, speeders and VED tax dodgers. I'm so pleased I'm not a member of the CTC anymore knowing that were I still a member my hard earned would be going on quite useless campaigns and strategies. In my many years of cycling in London and in the provinces I have never benefitted from anything the CTC has done. That's my 2p worth.

 

[Bigtwin]

Bigtwin, you've misunderstood the stats. The 12% refers to the increase in cycle traffic (or "road traffic" in the report), not a 12% increase in cycling casualties. The figures on page 10 make this clear.

The total reported casualties among pedal cyclists increased by 1 per cent compared to 2007.

Correct - I'm talking crap about that table. However, the London figs don't show any such drop. In the 10 years to 2003 fatalities increased increased by 25%

Fig 3: Pedal cyclist casualties by year and age (banded) in Greater london (excl. City)
1981 to 2003
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
N
um
b
e
r
o
f
c
as
u
a
lt
ie
s
Under 16
16-24
25-59
60 + over
Unknown


City of London
Data for the City of London is only
available on the LAAU ACCSTATS
database from 1986 onwards. Table 4
and Figure 4 show P/C casualties in the
City of London from 1986 to 2003.

Overall P/C casualty numbers in the City
are relatively low, however, the general
trend was upward from 1987, reaching a
peak of 91 in 1999. Numbers fell in 2000
and then rose slightly in 2001 and 2002,
falling again in 2003 to 64.

In terms of progress towards the 2010
target, a comparison of the 2003 figures
with the 1994-98 average shows an
overall reduction of 13% in all P/C
casualties, but an 8% increase in KSI
casualties.

Pedal cycle usage in Greater
London

In order to gain a clearer picture of the
extent of the P/C collision problem in
London, it is important to look at casualty
numbers in relation to pedal cycle
movements.

Regular surveys of radial traffic
movements in London are carried out
which give useful indicators of the change
in travel over time. These surveys
measure 24-hour radial vehicle flows
crossing the Greater London boundary
and inner and central London cordons.
Each cordon is measured every two to
three years.

Figure 5 shows the radial cordons,
combined 24-hour pedal cycle
movements between 1980 and 2003.
P/C movements across both the
boundary and inner cordons have
reduced over this period (-36% and -7%
respectively). Numbers across the
boundary cordon have been falling quite
steadily from a high of 16,000 in 1986 to
a low of 9,000 in 2001. Numbers across
the inner cordon rose steadily from a low
of 24,000 in 1987 to 31,000 in 1999 and
then fell to 25,000 in 2002. P/C
movements across the central cordon
have been on a general upward trend for
the last ten years, reaching a high of
65,000 in 2003. Cycle usage in this
central area has increased by 41%
between 1981 and 2003.

 

[upsidedown]

Quick question. If I'm coming up to a red light and I see a lorry or bus near the front should I always try and get in front of it before it turns or should I stay behind it and wait for it to turn?

I don't trust HGV drivers. Even if I were in front of them slightly I think some wouldn't see me then speed up and turn into me.

How do you know how long the light has been red ? You can make a guess by the length of the queue, but is it worth getting caught half way when they change ?

Do yourself and the driver a favour, keep well away.

I think it's a little unfair to say that a driver would turn in to you. I couldn't drive one of those things, and the vast majority of people that do have my utmost respect.

 

[Arch]

That sounds nasty. Hope she pulls through.

Quick question. If I'm coming up to a red light and I see a lorry or bus near the front should I always try and get in front of it before it turns or should I stay behind it and wait for it to turn?

I don't trust HGV drivers. Even if I were slightly in front of them I think some drivers wouldn't see me, they'd speed up and turn into me especially if the lights turned green as I tried to pass them.

No. In fact, the opposite to always. Never.

(unless you are absolutely sure that it's only just stopped and won't move off again until you are past, and there is plenty of room to get past, and no pedestrian railings).

It's really not worth it, for the few seconds advantage you get jumping the queue, most of which will only overtake you again anyway. I don't tend to try and get past anything longer than a LWB transit unless I've seen the lights only just change to red and I know the length of sequence (with most lights on my commute, I know the light timings pretty well).

It's not, like upsidedown says, about trusting or not trusting the driver. All vehicles have blind spots, and in some lorry blind spots you can lose a small car.

 

[Riverman]

It was in response to someone saying that male cyclists generally go to the front of traffic at lights so they aren't as many fatalities.

Just seemed abit too much of a generalisation. I agree, going to the front of lights when there are lorries around is dangerous.

 

[Arch]

It was in response to someone saying that male cyclists generally go to the front of traffic at lights so they aren't as many fatalities.

Just seemed abit too much of a generalisation. I agree, going to the front of lights when there are lorries around is dangerous.

I thought the thing about male cyclists was that some survey reckoned they were more likely to JUMP the lights, (or at least cross the line) and so be well ahead of traffic when it started off.

 

[TimO]

Quick question. If I'm coming up to a red light and I see a lorry or bus near the front should I always try and get in front of it before it turns or should I stay behind it and wait for it to turn?

As others have said, don't try it. Trying to guess whether you can get in front and be sure that the driver has seen you before (s)he starts to pull away is a mugs game, which you are sure to eventually loose, big time.

If possible, I'll avoid areas such as the main roads around Kennington, since the traffic levels are high, the roads wide, and really not generally very friendly places for cyclists.

Having said that, I did use the A3 through there for a couple of weeks when I was doing Jury Service, and you do get quite a lot of cyclists who clearly use that route a lot, and know where and how to get into the correct lanes in plenty of time. Likewise, as in a lot of London, the drivers of motorised vehicles tend to expect to see cyclists a lot more than in other parts of the country. The downside is of course that with big vehicles, such as HGVs and buses, you only need the very occasional bad driver, or slight loss of attention, and the consequences can be horrible.

 

[Riverman]

I apologise as I didn't mean to offend HGV drivers.

In regards to the second point, I have had this happen to me once before. It's not a case of going way infront of a lorry that he sees you and turns but actually trying to get in front of a lorry when the lights are red then getting up beside it only for the lights to quickly change.

 

[stoatsngroats]

Believe me when I say that ''we'' are most defo not out to ''get'' cyclists. I always look for them and that's coming from a drivers POV and not of one that cycles to work eveyday.

+1

As a daily driver of HGV's, (Rigid - NOT bendy ones!) I can vouch for the training which, in my case, made great noise aout cyclists on the road - it WAS drummed into me by my instructor.

During my test, I could have failed for not looking out for a cyclist as I passed by, and for the many voices here and elsewhere who call for more testing of drivers - MOST hgv drivers will have had AT LEAST 2 tests, one for cars, one for HGVs (possibly 2 for HGVs); that's not to say that we're better drivers, just that many will be aware of cyclists. The problem is the potential blind spot - As I said in another post - JUST DONT GO THERE!

 

[Tynan]

I've notice hgv drivers getting much better with bikes these days, that many more bikes, I will go in front of them if I know the lights but I'll put myself in front and well in front to be sure to be seen