TFL: Ignoring the bull again.

Posted on
Page
of 2
/ 2
Next
  • So here's a thing. http://shop.tfl.gov.uk/sidsy.html

    It would seem that TFL are co-opting the CTC's "Stop Smidsy" campaign, munging its nomenclature, and turning it into yet another stick with which they can bash cyclists.

    As a group of creative thinkers, what would LFGSS like to see as submissions for the contest?

    I am hoping for day-glo nodder vests bearing the WAC print. Or maybe a poncho with reflective lettering that says "TFL won't build me a cycle lane. Please don't run me over and kill me, because you might get some points on your licence."

    Any other potential submissions?

  • "You didn't see me because you didn't look, you massive cunt"

    Seems to work for me in those 'post conflict' situations.

  • Maybe we could have an electroluminescent wire version of edscoble's favourite gif.

  • I've done mine, where do I pick up my prize?

  • If someone could work this onto a flashing LED shirt, I'd be all over that like pigeon shit.

  • A mudguard, a nice mudflap with a retroreflective orange triangle (target demographic: hipster with wet arse crack when it rains). It will be made from very sustainable bamboo painted (non toxic, natch) in a fetching cerise or aqua.

  • It's ugly, it's Yellow, but it could save your life

  • I've just emailed cyclingaccessory@tfl.gov.uk asking them when the competition to actually get motorists to look properly is being launched. And if there isn't one, why not.

    TfL are like Nelson, the school bully from the Simpsons.

    Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!

  • Email send too.

  • The best deterrent to avoid a collision beside Cycle Training is this;

  • The best deterrent to avoid a collision beside Cycle Training is this;

    So you say.

  • legal;

  • Mixed feelings...

    (1) Cyclists (and peds) should be in no doubt...

    The Highway Code says:

    Rules for Pedestrians
    Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear), which can be seen by drivers using headlights up to three times as far away as non-reflective materials.

    ...but I'm sure you'd get told to fuck off if you suggested pedestrians walked around with reflective armbands and sashes on!

    Quite rightly too! When did we get into such a state that we need to wear emergency survival equipment jut so somebody can avoid walking a bit? Bring back the requirement to travel slower than walking speed with somebody walking in front of each car with a flag.

  • Hang on: joggers (who are pedestrians) often wear retroreflective and flourescent stuff all the time. And good for them.

    Also, I tend to prefer shoes and coats with bits of reflector on for my kid, as much for walking and skating as cycling. Refuse collectors, highway workers, emergency services etc all wear hi viz for being around roads routinely. And so they should.

    Mocking the highway code for good advice (even if not practicable by those who need to work in a suit etc) is plain nuts!

  • Dear TFL

    I refer to the SIDSY campaign you've begun, encouraging cyclists to wear hi-vis.

    This is a massive waste of time and effort. The cyclist being unlit or wearing dark clothing are factors in less than 5% of accidents- source:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2­009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

    Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury.

    Why not concentrate efforts on the cause of most vehicle/cyclist accidents- the driver of the vehicle?

    I think I could wear a flashing laser cannon emitting the same stuff that came out of The Ark and made the nazi's face melt in that film and drivers would still fail to see me on my bike. Concentrate on where the danger really lies, with drivers.

    Best regards

    spin

  • Hang on: joggers (who are pedestrians) often wear retroreflective and flourescent stuff all the time. And good for them.

    Also, I tend to prefer shoes and coats with bits of reflector on for my kid, as much for walking and skating as cycling. Refuse collectors, highway workers, emergency services etc all wear hi viz for being around roads routinely. And so they should.

    Mocking the highway code for good advice (even if not practicable by those who need to work in a suit etc) is plain nuts!

    I'm not mocking it at all but making the point that we're now living in a society where we accept that having to put reflective items on our children is sensible. As ever, it's just my opinion.

    The real subject of this thread was the announcement by TfL of a competition to help make cycling safer yet they've absolutely failed to follow even their own guidelines for junction design all over London and also asked the company doing the study of the gyratory around Kings Cross to ignore cyclists as they are a low number using that junction; despite being 20% of the casualties at that junction being cyclists.

    I definitely wasn't being glib about the Highway Code but I will do think it's absolutely ludicrous that we accept the roads the way they are and that we even need most of the Highway Code for reasons either of too many vehicles or people simply not giving a shit about others.

  • Generally cyclists are not seen because motorists don't look. How will wearing anything different make them look?

    Irresponsible campaign by cyclist hating TfL. Arent TfL the people who may be prosecuted for killing cyclists?

  • Well, if I'm going to look like an utter bulb...might as well do it right.

  • @edscoble - legal, unless the blue battenburg is reflective, in which case it isn't.

  • Wow. TFL face palm. They just cant seem to get it right can they.

  • I've got a reflective Sam Browne belt. It makes me look like a right bulb. So I don't wear it. If cyclists won't wear something that might save them from being splattered by (the general concensus here seems to agree) morons in cars then that proves that cyclists are equally daft.

    To blame all accidents purely on the driver is making a sweeping generalisation and one which will never stand up to scrutiny. Lots of cyclists, again me included, make poor decisions and take silly risks. Filtering through heavy traffic is a benefit of cycling, not having to sit in a sweaty tin box is a benefit of cycling, but having a big protective cage around you is a benefit of driving.

    If we, as cyclists, were aware of our place on the road as a very small fish in a big and fast moving pond then maybe we would reconsider our attitudes to the cars around us. Being an angry little dark fishy achieves nothing, being a glowing, pulsating neon beaconfish makes us legitimate roadusers.

    Right, I'm off to troll the Helmets thread...

  • I've got a reflective Sam Browne belt. It makes me look like a right bulb. So I don't wear it. If cyclists won't wear something that might save them from being splattered by (the general concensus here seems to agree) morons in cars then that proves that cyclists are equally daft.

    Some would argue that cyclists are daft for getting on the road on the first place, they'd be no accidents at all if people didn't cycle. Why not go the whole hog ?

    Wearing Blackpool illuminations isn't going to save you from drivers who don't look. Or more worringly, do look and think "It's only a cyclist"

  • Not looking isn't the problem, not seeing is.

    More likely to get seen = less likely to get squashed.

  • More likely to get seen = less likely to get squashed.

    Having proper infrastructure == less likely to get squashed. The rest is conjecture.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

TFL: Ignoring the bull again.

Posted by Avatar for mr_tom @mr_tom

Actions