However, I sometimes feel that the focus has shifted too far away from the cyclists themselves. We must all take responsibility for our own safety and I also think that as a dedicated and proud cyclist I have a responsibility to spread the safe cycling message to other cyclists who perhaps are less aware or experienced. Sometimes, in fact quite often, cyclists are in accidents due to their own actions.
I think that most people who ride in London have noticed the huge spike in road works, bottlenecks and lorry traffic in recent months. The next 6 to 12 months will probably be the most dangerous period facing london cyclists possibly ever. Can you imagine what it is going to be like when we have millions of people descend on our city in hire cars with little experience of driving on the other side of the road and bringing continental/global driving styles with them? Add the logistics vehicles (lorries too!) to that swollen number of road users and things could begin to look quite nasty.
I wouldn't worry too much about extra (motor) traffic in terms of safety. Counter-intuitively, the available evidence correlates traffic growth (any traffic) with a reduction in crashes (as motor traffic especially has grown over the last couple of decades, and speeds have consequently gone down, especially in the inner cities, there have been fewer crashes). What is to be worried about are certain aspects of the Olympic Route Network, which will be cleared of other traffic for faster travel by the 'Olympic Family'.
I feel very strongly that the various campaign groups MUST scale back their attention from junctions and lorries for a period of time and pile their resources into hammering home cycle safety messages to everybody who they can possibly engage with. I think we should be flyering bikes with key messages, targeting cyclists on busy commuter routes, getting bike shops to talk to purchases at point of sale... really shouting about the free cycle training that is available etc etc etc. I'm sick to death of being told by various campaign group members on this forum that this approach will not work...it will improve things if only slightly.
Who has told you here that cycle training 'doesn't work'? It's one of the best things there is. Have you seen the last evaluation done by Tower Hamlets?
Don't be too confused by an apparent conflict between 'infrastructure' and other things. There is none. The high-level infrastructure interventions (network permeability, nodes/junctions) make a massive difference, too, it's just that TfL are highly inert in this respect. They are definitely worth campaigning for. Low-level infrastructure interventions are less worth campaigning for, but it always depends on what people's political conditions are.
I appreciate that the various groups do a lot to promote cycle safety but I feel that some groups have become quite insular and also are afraid to go out there and force the message on people for fear of scaring people away from their bikes. I feel, perhaps, for once, that it is time to take that risk and see if we can save a few lives and limbs in the coming exciting period for London.
It would be interesting to hear which groups you mean.
No campaign group is going to make a blind bit of difference to lorries and junctions between now and the end of the summer.
That's definitely not true, Dan. In Hackney alone, for instance, we've got a couple of very worthwhile junction interventions on the boil, and there is certainly constant progress on the lorries issue. Did you hear that cycle training is now officially a CPD module for many professional drivers (lorries, buses)?
I feel that some of the groups have become particularly insular and caught up in their own manifestos to the point of losing focus on some issues that are probably more pressing than others.
Probably, but can you be more specific? PM me if you don't want to say on the thread.
On the subject of personal responsibility, if we see somebody do something dangerous I feel we must say something even if we risk an abusive response. To all the RLJers on the forum, please think about what you do. I RLJ sometimes and feel quite safe doing so but we are setting an example to riders who maybe don't have the same experience as some of us and who don't have the neccessary experience to read the roads. Even if we are rljing safely, others will see us, think its ok and put themselves at risk. We must lead by example. Further, the roads work because every road user is supposed to obey the same set of rules and behave predictably. Over the coming months especially, we need to be acting predictably so that drivers who are not used to driving in London have the best chance possible of making it from A to B without taking one of us out.
There's a pretty influential theory that suggests that if all street users adhered to the rules of the Highway Code, or other, similar, sets of rules in other countries, crashes would be very much reduced. That's one reason why it's not a good idea for bike riders to violate the HC all the time. Yes, people on bikes cause very little road danger, but they are still people just like car drivers, and we expect others to act in such a way that they can wish for us to act in the same way. This is obviously on a basic human level, and avoids the tedious 'us and them' when it comes to other street users.
So...on to why I don't go to LCC meetings and other forums to debate these issues. Quite simply, I'm sick of the holier than thou and sanctimonius attitude that seems to pervade those who have been involved in those groups for a long period of time when somebody attempts to bring new ideas to the table. Fresh blood is woefully overdue.
Might I just point out the delicious contradiction inside this paragraph? ;)
We all do what we can, Dan, don't get me wrong. There's no moral obligation for you to get involved, and if people in campaign groups whose meetings you've attended put you off, you could do worse than coming along to a Southwark or Hackney meeting, where you'lll at least meet Alex or myself, and perhaps we're just about bearable. :)
If you don't want to go on your own, get a posse together.
Good post, Dan.
I wouldn't worry too much about extra (motor) traffic in terms of safety. Counter-intuitively, the available evidence correlates traffic growth (any traffic) with a reduction in crashes (as motor traffic especially has grown over the last couple of decades, and speeds have consequently gone down, especially in the inner cities, there have been fewer crashes). What is to be worried about are certain aspects of the Olympic Route Network, which will be cleared of other traffic for faster travel by the 'Olympic Family'.
Who has told you here that cycle training 'doesn't work'? It's one of the best things there is. Have you seen the last evaluation done by Tower Hamlets?
http://146.101.137.229/resources/Campaigns/CycleDigest68%282011-12%29.pdf
(See the article on page 4.)
Don't be too confused by an apparent conflict between 'infrastructure' and other things. There is none. The high-level infrastructure interventions (network permeability, nodes/junctions) make a massive difference, too, it's just that TfL are highly inert in this respect. They are definitely worth campaigning for. Low-level infrastructure interventions are less worth campaigning for, but it always depends on what people's political conditions are.
It would be interesting to hear which groups you mean.
That's definitely not true, Dan. In Hackney alone, for instance, we've got a couple of very worthwhile junction interventions on the boil, and there is certainly constant progress on the lorries issue. Did you hear that cycle training is now officially a CPD module for many professional drivers (lorries, buses)?
Probably, but can you be more specific? PM me if you don't want to say on the thread.
There's a pretty influential theory that suggests that if all street users adhered to the rules of the Highway Code, or other, similar, sets of rules in other countries, crashes would be very much reduced. That's one reason why it's not a good idea for bike riders to violate the HC all the time. Yes, people on bikes cause very little road danger, but they are still people just like car drivers, and we expect others to act in such a way that they can wish for us to act in the same way. This is obviously on a basic human level, and avoids the tedious 'us and them' when it comes to other street users.
Might I just point out the delicious contradiction inside this paragraph? ;)
We all do what we can, Dan, don't get me wrong. There's no moral obligation for you to get involved, and if people in campaign groups whose meetings you've attended put you off, you could do worse than coming along to a Southwark or Hackney meeting, where you'lll at least meet Alex or myself, and perhaps we're just about bearable. :)
If you don't want to go on your own, get a posse together.