Forum Topic

I'm not a cyclist, but I'm all in favour of trying to encourage cycling and discourage unnecessary car use in London. Cycle lanes and cycle paths can only be a good thing. However, we the public need to keep an eye out for, and report, infrastructure which is conducive to accidents. I give two examples, the first of which is a relativey minor local problem, which may possiby never have been reported. The exit from Barley Mow Passage to Dukes Avenue used to have a chicane barrier to alow down exiting cyclists. The barrier was removed several years ago, and replaced by a single post. Pedestrians walking from the High Road past the Catholic church and cyclists exiting Barley Mow Passage are completely unsighted, because the end wall of the church is almost right up to the pavement. Unfortunately cyclists regularly exit Barley Mow Passage at speed, and cross straight over the pavement, sometimes only inches away from pedestrians.The second example is much more serious, and the risk has been known for a long time. It was reported on FixMyStreet five years ago, and nothing has been done in that time to address the problem.The  junction of Vauxhall Bridge Road and Drummond Gate is controlled by traffic lights, which include lights for a pedestrian crossing on the North side of the junction. Today, on the way to the Tate Gallery, my wife and I crossed  Vauxhall Bridge Road from Drummond Gate. We crossed during the pedestrian phase of the lights, but on stepping onto the pavement on the East side of Vauxhall Bridge Road we were almost immediately faced by a cycle lane (or is it technically a cycle track?) on the pavement, and were almost taken out by a teenage idiot, travelling very fast on an electric scooter, and then shouted at by a rather more mature cyclist, following behind him, also travelling at considerable speed. As I'm not familiar with this junction, it never occurred to me that when we crossed on the pedestrian light, there would not be a red light for people in the cycle lane. But surely under the new hierarchy in the Highway Code the scooter rider and the cyclist should have reduced their speed to avoid an accident? I'd be interested in the views of the forum's "cycle lobby" (no criticism implied by the use of what is a pejorative term for some). I find it incredibe that the person who reported the absurdity of this layout, which dumps people crossing on the green pedestrian light straight into the path of cyclists, had exactly the same experience, and nothing has been done about this inherently flawed design in five years.

Robert Fish ● 271d

Despite the denials of the usual suspects, there is a  major difficulty with reporting how many people are injured by cyclists.. I know pedestrians who have been injured  by cyclists who have scarpered.  One went through the correct procedure but has yet to see this properly  recorded in the stats after more than a year.  Because the police have no way to pursue the culprit and  no incentive, no  registration, no lights in the dark, they let the matter slide, leaving my friend to get over it alone after her trip to hospital.  She still hasn’t seen it feature in the  official stats a year on.Another  elderly friend, who was more seriously injured by a cyclist on  the pavement of CHR never even chose to call the police.  She focussed on her own recovery. She couldn’t identify the cyclist who didn’t stop,  and believed the police would take no action to identify them, probably correctly.  No registration number, no insurance, probably no technical crime as it stands. Even though she was  walking on the pavement. In both cases, the injured people were women in their seventies who should be able to walk the streets and pavements of Chiswick without being knocked down and badly injured. Both went to hospital and took time to recover.  In one case the incident was reported but to little effect, in the other it wasn’t.  Neither could get any hope of redress, in neither case could the cyclist, who didn’t stop, be identified. If the rules get tightened up, the culture may  start to change, and there will be more  chance for these types of cases to be identified.  Then the numbers of cyclists who cause injury to pedestrians may be more accurately recorded.  In the current situation, it’s easy for those who so wish, just to deny that the problem exists.

Jackie Elton ● 273d

Well when you are inventing things I haven't said and attributing them to me to argue against things I have said then there is bound to be a contradiction. I'm not sure what you call somebody who does that to people and then calls them autistic but I'm pretty sure that it is an indicator that they have little interest in the common good. We can add that to all the other indicators that suggest the same about Simon Hayes. I didn't say it happens a lot. I have no idea how often it happens. Do you? I don't think so. I doubt that you have trawled through the reports on the 13,400 pedestrians and the 15,000 cyclists hurt in collisions with motor vehicles in London between 2020 and 2022 to count who was to blame. Let alone the much higher figures for the rest of the country.I do know that drivers kill 5 people every day and seriously injure another 80. I know that there were 7,708 hit and run collisions in London in 2021, a doubling of the figure in 2009. Maybe those drivers were all innocent victims of errant pedestrians and cyclists. https://www.roadpeace.org/new-report-highlights-the-rise-of-hit-and-run-collisions-in-london/#:~:text=There%20were%20an%20unacceptable%207%2C708,a%20serious%20injury%20or%20fatality.The dead and injured are victims regardless of who is to blame and how often. Motor vehicles are by far the biggest cause of misery and suffering for people and their families on our roads and we need to take much more serious and radical action to deal with that. And certainly not lie about the reviews and reports of proven measures such as LTNs which even the government had to admit are popular and work to reduce traffic and its consequences. What wild and unfounded accusations against motorists have I made? I admit that the facts about the harms caused by motor vehicles and the facts about illegal driving are shocking but they are facts.All of this is really easy to understand if you are not driven to fury by prejudice and, ironically, what is coming across as an over-developed sense of victimhood for motorists. Some of us drivers are willing to confront the damage that car primacy in transport and space is doing to our society and communities and the health of our fellow citizens. One can be a driver and care about the common good. Noted that your concerns for road safety evaporated even more quickly than the traffic post-LTN as soon as there was any suggestion of upholding the hierarchy of road users and ensuring that the most vulnerable receive the protection of the law. I guess that would be victimising the people who kill and hospitalise the most ...It is very good of you to keep offering me the opportunity to bring the facts to the table for the readers of this forum. Thank you.

Paul Campbell ● 283d

You contradict yourself. Post after post ranting about killer drivers and how cyclists are the victims. Then you admit that there are occasions when cyclists are entirely to blame for their actions. And it happens a lot.You might need some autism assessment by the sounds of it. The problems you have in interacting normally with other people cloud your judgment.The infrastructure argument is flawed. There is certainly occasion to have segregated lanes but the imposition of them on roads where they just don’t work is wrong-headed. Similarly with LTNs. They don’t work in most instances and the alleged data to support them (from Aldred) ignores the basic good practice any worthwhile research should include. Let’s not measure traffic moving at less than 10km ph and call it evaporated!No, not signing any petition because I’m well aware of how Rnglish law works, thanks. There’s been too much of a shift towards blame culture - fueled by social media and pressure groups such as yours - without any recourse to facts. Funny how you are quick to find any evidence to support Fitzgerald (although he and his mates ignored a road marking to slow down), yet you make wild and unfounded accusations about motorists.I do hope that you insist that all visitors and deliveries to your home come on bikes. Those delivery vehicles have a habit of flattening unsuspecting cyclists you know. And your acquaintances and family will no doubt wholeheartedly agree to not use cars under any circumstances, I’m sure!Perhaps your first petition should be about cows. As your wise old friend Boardman was quick to point out, more people are killed by them, so perhaps you should campaign for better segregation for livestock.Anyway, thanks for admitting that cyclists are often in the wrong. We’ve all been waiting years to hear you say that!

Simon Hayes ● 283d

No what I am saying is just normal and reasonable. I've never come across anybody who claims that any road user is infallible. Strawmen invented by culture warriors but not actual people.Why do you think we campaign for infrastructure change? The more separation, the fewer motor vehicles in unsuitable places, the less harm regardless of blame. Serious road safety campaigners are motivated by reduction of deaths and injuries and not by vindictiveness. 20mph reduces deaths and injuriesLTNs reduce deaths and injuriesCycle lanes reduce deaths and injuriesAnd they generate a better quality of life for people and better communities. Remember that scientists say that cyclists are more connected to community and more interested in the common good than drivers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494423001731The only people whose upset I take satisfaction in are those who oppose these measures that are proven to improve road safety on the basis that they cause them inconvenience or trigger their bizarre pathological hatred for other road users or insult their misplaced sense of superiority. I do absolutely love them being upset. This forum is deeply satisfying in that regard. Most drivers are not like them. Most people are not like them.Will you sign a petition for presumed liability? You are remarkably keen to assign blame even where the police are satisfied it does not exist so what would you be afraid of? The burden of responsibility is on every driver and cyclist to prove they were not at fault in a RTC with a road user that is above them in the hierarchy of road users. What is not to like? Parity and real positive impact on road safety. Only people with something to fear could possibly oppose it. And libertarians of course.

Paul Campbell ● 283d