davidk

Mellors Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the man with a van Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > most cyclists do not stop and traffic lights > anyway > > > What a load of bollocks. Some don't (and they are > idiots, granted). Most do. Yup, TFL also found that about 17% of cyclists RLJ. About the same proportion as motor vehicles, as it happens. White van man: Did you exceed the speed limit at any point on your journey yesterday? Fiddle with your phone at any point? Yes and yes? Then pipe down about cyclists.

the man with a van Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really so when I nearly run over a cyclist who > fell of his bike in front of me if I had run him > over why is he the victim not me it was his fault > not mine just because they are on cycles not mean > that they are not at fault Because we have a system of presumed liability for any vehicle following another vehicle. Person in a car ahead brakes hard and you run into him? Your fault. Person on a bike tumbles off infront of you and you run him over? Your fault. I'm glad you were driving carefully and managed to avoid him.

spider69 Wrote: > > What has not been mentioned is the Dutch system > has evolved over many many decades. > > Most Dutch cities are no where near as busy as > greater london. > > Also the Dutch are more considerate of others > unlike here. There is nothing inherently different in the character of the Dutch compared to us. They have just designed the conflicts out of their roads. And it is untrue that the centre of Dutch cities are less busy. I have spent a lot of time in The Hague and Amsterdam. Plenty busy. Also very safe to walk and cycle around. Dutch cities have evolved to be how they are because political decisions were taken to redesign public spaces for the benefit of everyone, not just motor vehicle traffic. We do not have the political will to even begin that evolution in this country. "Smoothing Traffic Flow" is King.

savage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > David > > It really sadens me that you think I blame the > cyclist as I don't. > > Why can't I come onto this forum and admit I > almost did something so horrendous and make some > suggestions that may or May not prevent an > accident happening in the future? Because you explicitly said that the reason (or one of the reasons) you didn't see him was because he was dressed autumnally.

the man with a van Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So when has a cyclist admitted they were in the > wrong TFL found that in crashes involving cyclists, blame could be apportioned to the cyclist in just over 10% of cases.

I don't understand the "London is bigger than Amsterdam" argument. The overall size of the city is irrelevant. Most cities in the Netherlands had very similar roads and very similar public spaces to the UK until they started to do something about all of the deaths on their roads. Yes, that is going to mean driving a motor vehicle in London will be less convenient and you will be given less space. You're just going to have to get used to that idea because it is coming. In the short term, we could very easily restrict HGV movements in the city, we did it for the Olympics. We're doing it right now in fact, just the wrong way around. HGV's aren't allowed in London until 7am, just when all the cyclists and pedestrians start making their journeys. Madness. The voluntary safety equipment under TFL's FORS scheme should be made mandatory immediately. No access to London without FORS compliance for any HGV.

Good that you saw the person on the bike and stopped. A pity that you seem prepared to have blamed him had you hit him. It is your responsibility to look out for the traffic to which you have to give way. It is the cyclists responsibility to ride in a way that is appropriate for the conditions. His clothing and safety gear is irrelevant.

Yes, very balanced. Except of course that enforcing the use of helmets would make no difference to accident outcomes (the people who die in London are not dying from head injuries) and would most likely suppress demand for cycling, which is a lose-lose for everybody. The solution in the incident that you describe is for there to be properly segregated cycling infrastructure provided on main roads, and intense traffic calming and mode filtering on side roads. In the Netherlands, you would have had to give way to the cycle track before making your left turn, everyone would have understood this and there would have been none of the confusion which led to the crash. It is more often than not a failure of design rather than behaviour or judgement. The Dutch and the Danes have safer roads than us. They are not better drivers, they just organise their public space better.