Cycle campaigning

I spotted the delicious contradiction in that paragraph too Oliver...I thought the context of the post nullified the contradiction i.e I was expressing myself to the groups and forum for pretty much the first time.

You made it sound as if you'd been along to meetings and had your fingers burnt.

Its great to hear that some junctions are being recitifed. Its a tiny percentage though. And besides, it doesn't just take a dodgy junction to cause an accident.

Of course not. Remember, though, that junction redesign is meant to address a lot of objectives, not just 'cycling safety'. There are also walking, streetscape, liveability, accessibility, etc.

Nope, it was based on cost and convenience.

Really?

well done to you for making the right decision. cost was one of my reasons for moving away from mpv to riding.

and yes many people cant afford to drive.

but keep doing it on grounds of health and safety (dangerous riding a bike innit).

in this way the motor manufacturers / the nasty parts of the government are criminalising the poor.

i resent the fact that the poor / some of my friends have been turned into criminals (because the community is too dangerous too move through without a car).

what do you think ?

Oh, I think that would be a good thing, but so would cycle training at point of sale. However, remember that a huge number of bikes are sold, hm, 'informally'.

This is why I'd like to see bike shops taking a small bit of responsibility and teams of volunteers talking to people on the street and hanging notices on parked bike handlebars. I really believe it could raise awareness.

I wrote a business case to gain funding for an independent info campaign a while back and received some interest from a few companies who were happy to fund printing and distribution in return for a money off voucher for their products on the back. Perhaps a little poor taste given the severity of the message although perhaps it would reduce the scaremongering factor slightly?

cycling is safe.

we want safer driving.

concentrate your efforts on the drivers.

they are the ones that are doing the killing.

20 mph !

and drivers being being killed. ( i have lost a friends to road death).

20 mph makes it safer for everybody including drivers :-)

check out the road peace website. and the 20's plenty website :-)

I'm a driver (sometimes) and I'm not "doing the killing".

Does the debate really need to be so 'us and them'?

check out the road peace website.

and i am checking out now.

We have a road to share out there. Share being the appropriate word. Turn the debate into a face off and the dialogue is over before it begins.

i resent the fact that the poor / some of my friends have been turned into criminals (because the community is too dangerous too move through without a car).

what do you think ?

Criminals in what way? Driving without VED/insurance? If so, this is a conscious decission that they themselves make. If I couldn't afford my cars and all the expenses they incur, I wouldn't have them.

The community issue is not one we have here (long my that be the case).

This is why I'd like to see bike shops taking a small bit of responsibility and teams of volunteers talking to people on the street and hanging notices on parked bike handlebars. I really believe it could raise awareness.

CTUK do not leave their promotional material on locked up bikes because, if the bike is left over night, the leaflet still attached to it marks it out as a bike that is open to being nicked. CTUK and Hackney do distribute promotional material to bike shops, libraries and sports centres though.

cycling is safe.

we want safer driving.

I also want safer cycling. We are kidding ourselves, and I don't know why, if we think that many cyclists can't reduce further the (usually small) risks involved in cycling and, perhaps just as importantly, actually enjoy cycling more.

Does the debate really need to be so 'us and them'?

This. The goal needs to be everbody sharing the road. Neither cyclists nor lorries are going anywhere.

I'll stick my neck out and agree with Stonehedge on this one.

I can appreciate that it's taboo to suggest that anyone died on the roads because of a combination of naivety, carelessness or impatience, but unfortunately they all have the potential to be fatal.*

It's plainly obvious that standards of cycling around London vary from reasonably competent to absolutely terrifying. Before anyone accuses this of being 'victim blaming' I'd like ask who is fault if a pedestrian walks out from between two parked cars and is floored by a cyclist at 20mph? Many cyclists would indignantly blame the pedestrian, despite them being (arguably) the more vulnerable party and who should therefore be taking more care when using the road.

My dilemma with regards to safety campaigning is that cyclists as a group are stuck in a position between demanding respect from particularly dangerous vehicles, without often returning the respect that these vehicles are due despite the danger that they pose to us.

*note that I didn't specify cyclists.

CTUK do not leave their promotional material on locked up bikes because, if the bike is left over night, the leaflet still attached to it marks it out as a bike that is open to being nicked. CTUK and Hackney do distribute promotional material to bike shops, libraries and sports centres though.

Interesting. There is also a risk for corporate littering liability.

Top tube stickers? Using soft glue that leaves no residue and peels easily...

I'll stick my neck out and agree with Stonehedge on this one.

I can appreciate that it's taboo to suggest that anyone died on the roads because of a combination of naivety, carelessness or impatience, but unfortunately they all have the potential to be fatal.*

It's plainly obvious that standards of cycling around London vary from reasonably competent to absolutely terrifying. Before anyone accuses this of being 'victim blaming' I'd like ask who is fault if a pedestrian walks out from between two parked cars and is floored by a cyclist at 20mph? Many cyclists would indignantly blame the pedestrian, despite them being (arguably) the more vulnerable party and who should therefore be taking more care when using the road.

My dilemma with regards to safety campaigning is that cyclists as a group are stuck in a position between demanding respect from particularly dangerous vehicles, without often returning the respect that these vehicles are due despite the danger that they pose to us.

*note that I didn't specify cyclists.

My worst crash was when a van turned left without indicating. I was doing 23mph (garmin figure for the moment of decelaration) on my road bike and undertaking everything as the traffic was moving at about half that.

The van driver clearly should have indicated but what actually happened was he nearly missed his turning, rapidly checked his mirror but as I was travelling at over 40fps it is possible that I wasn't clearly in view when he made the unsafe decision to turn. Could I have slowed in time if he had indicated?

These are intended as rhetorical questions. My point is that he should have indicated and I should not have been travelling that much faster than the prevailling traffic flow.

My bike ended up under the van. I somehow managed to eject.

i think stickering could still antagonise people

i agree that increasing the skills of cyclists is very useful, but it is one of many approaches that can overall help improve all road users safety and well being

there are many potential issues to be addressed, both cyclists and drivers attitudes/training, road layout, infrastructure and even pedestrian education - i have not seen a green cross code advert in years

i think stickering could still antagonise people

i agree that increasing the skills of cyclists is very useful, but it is one of many approaches that can overall help improve all road users safety and well being

there are many potential issues to be addressed, both cyclists and drivers attitudes/training, road layout, infrastructure and even pedestrian education - i have not seen a green cross code advert in years

They used to have these for drivers too, how to use box junctions, passing behind the vehicle at cross roads etc.

I miss them all.

Remember those ads on telly about how to share the road with horses (showing my age)? I can't believe there isn't the possibility for cheap instructionals for cyclists and motorists about giving each other a bit more care and respect. The motorbike ones (think bike and the think ahead ones) seem very effective. It really wouldn't hurt for there to be a governmentally endorsed message reminding us all of our obligations.

We have a road to share out there. Share being the appropriate word. Turn the debate into a face off and the dialogue is over before it begins.

Well said.

This here is yet another example of the dividing lines being drawn https://www.lfgss.com/thread77390.html. Naturally it has prompted quite a reaction from 'us', which I think purposefully fails to recognise some of the more reasonable points the article makes. It's not all hot air and rage, which we can't for a moment claim to not be guilty of when inevitably pointing the finger of blame at motorists. They're not continually at fault. They are capable of making suggestions which we should take note of. That shouldn't be difficult to admit. I'm a committed cyclist, but that doesn't make me anti-motorist. Some seem to consider that the default position. You're right to say that's doomed from the start.

I also don't believe that cycling isn't dangerous, as has been said a couple of times above. It is, all things being relative. Nobody can guarantee their safety in any situation, let alone sat on top of a bike. It's a risky undertaking and clearly dangerous to ride through a congested city. To insist it's not a dangerous activity is to somehow cloak cycling itself in a bubble which it cannot maintain. Despite that it should be encouraged, but I'm not blind to the dangers. They have to be addressed as best they can be.

Strategy is all about defining the expected outcome, related timescale, the urgency and the realism of each campaign. Strategy planning would go a long way to make sure that all of the critical issues are addressed in the most timely and achievable ways.

I feel that the sheer number of cycle safety organisations and lack of coordination is working against eventual success. They all have similar principles but the insularity I referred to earlier seems to preclude cooperation.

Perhaps a NATO style treaty or alliance is in order?

^^^^^ You give no indication of who you feel was to blame for that? Personally I feel 'filtering' is a privilege that we're afforded by virtue of being able to fit through gaps between slow or stationary traffic. I reckon it's a bit of a stretch thinking that this allows us to undertake traffic moving at 15 mph.

Hey guys...thought I'd spill my guts about this seeing as my post in spotted triggered some further debate. I have no intention to cause offence with this post and hope that this will trigger a debate that will teach me more about issues I know little about.

Firstly I'd like to say that campaigning for safer roads and more sensible legislation governing the use of lorries in central London is clearly a very important thing. As somebody who covers 100mi+ a week on London streets I see lorries squeezing themselves through roads that simply cannot accomodate them safely and junctions that are misleading, confusing and sometimes downright dangerous. LCC and other campaign groups do have a ethical responsibility to address this and it is a cause to which I am happy to lend my support. At some point, TFL and other organisations will have to listen and have to take action and collective and cumulative pressure is key.

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 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.

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.

I see heartstopping moments every other day when out on my bike and can remember clearly the days when I was less experienced and used to put myself into dangerous positions until others taught me the errors of my ways. From where I am standing, the ratio of near misses caused by bad cycling compared to bad lorry driving/layout is approaching 10:1.

No campaign group is going to make a blind bit of difference to lorries and junctions between now and the end of the summer. 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.

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.

How many times have you filtered through a small gap because you feel confident and safe to do so only to realise that half a dozen nodders have followed you through that gap despite the fact the lights are about to change?

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.

These are my humble opinions. Please tell me if I am wrong. If anybody has any suggestions on what I can personally do (shut up is not an option ;) ) then please let me know.

Thanks to all of you who have Facebooked me and PM'd me in support. Its nice to know that I'm not the only person who has these views.

(Sits back and awaits the flaming and nergging).
Good points about personal responsibility and rljing but to me it is still a no-brainer: lorries should not be allowed to tear around our inner city roads especially during rush hour. Far more responsibility needs to be taken by those training the drivers, the construction companies, council and the drivers themselves.

And hang on - you say you don't go to LCC meetings and other forums because you're "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" yet you admit that "Fresh blood is woefully overdue" - so come on, be that fresh blood!

Frankly, I think there are quite a few sanctimonious members of this forum - isn't it incredibly derrogatory and generalising to refer to certain types of cyclists as nodders because they/their bikes don't look like you/yours?

I'm not having a dig btw - it's good to have a debate about these issues!

A