Poor transport links: any one else thinking of fleeing East Dulwich?

[titch juicy]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There used to be some others on here but now it

> feels like it's just me who think that East

> Dulwich's poor transport links are part of its

> appeal - far less transient and more local. If we

> had a tube for eg we'd soon be like Clapham North

> - full of Saffas and Aussies..whereas we only get

> the quality one's of course :). Fooks given about

> SE22's transport by me? None. - i just sit on the

> 40 most mornings up to E&C and enjoy it. The tube

> from Elephant is the sh1tiest part of my commute

> by far!

This, exactly. Except I take the 40 on to London Bridge or Fenchurch Street and it's genuinely quality time. Comfortable, air-con, listen to music and/or read a book.

If the tube came to ED i'd consider moving on.

[Otta]

Yeah, I never understand why people moan so much about sitting on a bus. For me it's my reading time. Headphones in, world around me blocked out for a blissful while.

That's something I actually miss now I am walking in the mornings, but I also enjoy the walk and it gives me some exercise which is good because fitting the gym in can prove difficult. But it means I am reading less.

RE Walking speed. I am a fast walker, but I think 20 minutes per mile is a reasonable standard, and definitely not "grandpa" speed.

I used to enjoy cycling (many moons ago), but I just wouldn't feel safe doing it now (largely due to my less than perfect eye sight).

[Beulah]

You really need to retract this:

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, what are the causes of these accidents? When

> a cyclist dies because he decided to undertake a

> big bus which was turning left, it's not because

> bicycles per se are dangerous: it's because he was

> an idiot and what happened was Darwinian

> selection.

There are many, many reasons why accidents like this happen.

Perhaps you should actually bother to find out why first...

[Otta]

Why should they retract? In the specific set of circumstances described it seems pretty clear that the cyclist was acting dangerously.

[Jeremy]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah, I never understand why people moan so much

> about sitting on a bus. For me it's my reading

> time. Headphones in, world around me blocked out

> for a blissful while.

The bus is OK for pottering around locally in S London, when you don't have to be somewhere at any specific time. For a night out in Brixton or going up to the Horniman, it does the job.

But for commuting, it just takes far too long and is too unpredictable - most people need to be in work at a certain time. Especially if school/nursery drop-off means you can't leave earlier. Or indeed, you need to do the evening pick-up.

Also the constant stop-start movement (and frequent poor driving) makes me feel sick, and certainly rules out book/kindle/phone/tablet.

[titch juicy]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah, I never understand why people moan so much

> about sitting on a bus. For me it's my reading

> time. Headphones in, world around me blocked out

> for a blissful while.

>

> That's something I actually miss now I am walking

> in the mornings, but I also enjoy the walk and it

> gives me some exercise which is good because

> fitting the gym in can prove difficult. But it

> means I am reading less.

>

> RE Walking speed. I am a fast walker, but I think

> 20 minutes per mile is a reasonable standard, and

> definitely not "grandpa" speed.

>

> I used to enjoy cycling (many moons ago), but I

> just wouldn't feel safe doing it now (largely due

> to my less than perfect eye sight).

I walk home (from Liverpool Street to Crystal Palace Road = 5.1 miles) occasionally and it takes me 1hr 20 mins.

[titch juicy]

Beulah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You really need to retract this:

>

> DulwichLondoner Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Also, what are the causes of these accidents?

> When

> > a cyclist dies because he decided to undertake

> a

> > big bus which was turning left, it's not

> because

> > bicycles per se are dangerous: it's because he

> was

> > an idiot and what happened was Darwinian

> > selection.

>

> There are many, many reasons why accidents like

> this happen.

> Perhaps you should actually bother to find out why

> first...

I reckon if you totted up all cycling deaths on the London roads over the last 5 years, that quite a large majority would be caused by a cyclist undertaking a large vehicle that was turning left at a junction.

It's pretty idiotic in my mind. It couldn't be more well advertised how dangerous this is. Yet, every week I still see someone doing it. I've tried to stop people too.

Now, i'm not saying this is the cause of all cyclist deaths and there are bound to be some instances where this has happened where perhaps the driver wasn't indicating, but i'm surprised there haven't been more deaths caused by a cyclist being impatient or wreckless.

In my experience, drivers of large vehicles (particularly buses) have become much much more aware and sensible in recent years. It's their livelihood after all.

But, of course any cycling death is tragic and horrendous, but even more so when they're preventable like this.

It's a big bugbear of mine. The cycling cause in London would advance so much quicker if cyclists helped themselves a lot more as well as putting pressure on councils for better facilities and better rules.

[DulwichLondoner]

Beulah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You really need to retract this:

> There are many, many reasons why accidents like

> this happen.

> Perhaps you should actually bother to find out why

> first...

? Why on Earth should I retract?

I'm afraid I was misunderstood. Let me try to clarify.

There are some accidents which, however tragic, are perfectly avoidable and depend entirely on the stupidity of the people involved.

I see pedestrians trying to cross Park Lane, the northbound bit, when it's red for them: a 3-lane road with a 40mph limit. If they get hit by a car, yes, it's a tragedy, but a perfectly avoidable one, and one that was entirely their fault.

If a bicycle or motorcycle tries to undercut a big vehicle, like a bus, a big truck etc, which is turning left, it has only itself to blame if it gets crushed.

If a motorcyclist has an accident because the bike is too powerful and he can't control it (controlling a powerful bike is much harder than controlling a powerful car), or because he rides too fast, or because he does a wheelie, etc, none of this means that motorcycles per se are dangerous, but simply that the motorcyclist in question was an idiot.

All of this to say that simply looking at accident numbers doesn't tell us much. If many accidents are due to stupid behaviour which is perfectly avoidable, well, simply avoiding that stupid behaviour will make us much much safer. If many cyclists die because they are stupid enough to undertake big busses, it doesn't mean we have to suffer the same fate: all it takes is enough brain cells to realise we don't have to undertake a big bus turning left! Same story for pedestrians crossing the rod dangerously, for motorcyclists behaving like idiots, etc.

In other words, the true measure of risk is not so much how many accidents there have been, but how many would have been unavoidable even with unreprehensible behaviour, eg when the idiot is someone else and not you.

When people tell me that cycling in London is dangerous because vans and busses are always crushing the poor cyclists, I disagree because all it takes is to *stay back* (which I do on my big, loud and powerful motorcycle, which has a higher chance of being noticed and of accelerating away if needed). I think it's dangerous for the other reasons I mentioned: no protective gear, less visibility, effectively silent, everyone always trying to overtake, etc.

Clearer now?

[DulwichLondoner]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There used to be some others on here but now it

> feels like it's just me who think that East

> Dulwich's poor transport links are part of its

> appeal - far less transient and more local.

There is a difference between infrequent and unreliable!

Trains every 15 minutes can be (sort of) fine if the schedule is respected.

[Beulah]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why should they retract? In the specific set of

> circumstances described it seems pretty clear that

> the cyclist was acting dangerously.

It was a gross generalisation.

It's pure victim blaming and calling them "idiots" is disgraceful.

I'll give one specific (and local) example: KCH physio Esther Hartsilver was killed on her way to work in Camberwell a couple of years ago by a left turning delivery lorry. The subsequent inquest didn't blame her but the poor road layout.

[Otta]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I walk home (from Liverpool Street to Crystal

> Palace Road = 5.1 miles) occasionally and it takes

> me 1hr 20 mins.

Fair enough. Then I would suggest you're a faster than average walker. I think I probably am too, but I still think 20 minutes per mile is a reasonable average.

[Otta]

I walk my kids 1.2 miles to school in the morning. That takes us about 20 - 25 minutes. If I was alone I'd do it a lot quicker, but I still think we walk at a good pace.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Thanks for pointing out my legs, I had no idea. Just think, all these years we've been investing in public transport unnecessarily. If only people had been told about this 'walking' thing earlier we could have saved millions.

[titch juicy]

I do walk fast (well, at least for the first couple of miles!).

[Earl Aelfheah]

An hour and three quarters:

[DulwichLondoner]

Beulah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It was a gross generalisation.

> It's pure victim blaming and calling them "idiots"

> is disgraceful.

> I'll give one specific (and local) example: [...]

I cannot and won't comment on specific cases I do not know.

Where is the generalisation? Did I maybe say that all pedestrians / cyclists / motorcyclists who die in a collision deserved their fate? I most certainly did not! What I said was that ***some*** accidents, however tragic, are entirely avoidable and depend only on the individual's stupid behaviour. All of this to say that the raw number of accidents is not a particularly indicative measure of risk and danger, because some accidents are perfectly avoidable, some are not - and only the latter are a true reflection of risk and danger.

What is wrong with this line of reasoning?

PS You talk about road layouts; like I said I cannot comment on specific cases I do not know, but, generally, what kind of road layout do you think would avoid cyclists being crushed by vehicles turning left?

Is it too much to ask that cyclists and motorcyclists stay back when a big vehicle is turning?

Can a big vehicle still crush a cyclist or motorcyclist who stays back?

[geobz]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Yeah, I never understand why people moan so

> much

> > about sitting on a bus. For me it's my reading

> > time. Headphones in, world around me blocked

> out

> > for a blissful while.

>

> The bus is OK for pottering around locally in S

> London, when you don't have to be somewhere at any

> specific time. For a night out in Brixton or going

> up to the Horniman, it does the job.

>

> But for commuting, it just takes far too long and

> is too unpredictable - most people need to be in

> work at a certain time. Especially if

> school/nursery drop-off means you can't leave

> earlier. Or indeed, you need to do the evening

> pick-up.

>

> Also the constant stop-start movement (and

> frequent poor driving) makes me feel sick, and

> certainly rules out book/kindle/phone/tablet.

Yes it does feel like bus drivers are clueless and the training they give them is minimal. I used to take the bus occasionally 4 years ago but since then I just decline myself the displeasure of getting on a bus. There are people that adore it as it seems from this forum which I find it weird but meh...

[Beulah]

>

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm obviously not going to change your mind so I

> won't go on too much, but...

I hear you. Just to be clear, of course I don't want to convince anyone - I was just explaining why I don't cycle to work.

My gripe is not with people cycling, but with priority given to cyclists over bus users (bus lanes removed to make way for segregated cycle lanes), because it benefits a minority to the detriment of a majority of users, as all cyclists can take a bus, but not all bus users can cycle.

[titch juicy]

I can completely understand why people don't cycle to work. I'm lucky in so far as im reasonably fit, not scared of the roads/traffic (totally understand why people are) and have good private bike parking and shower facilities at work.

I can't understand why people don't get the bus though. It's comfortable, reliable and gives you time to relax with a book or music. The extra 15 mins it takes to get in are a luxury to me rather than a chore.

I think London would be a much nicer place if everyone slowed down by 5% instead of being caught up in the rat race.

[Beulah]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I cannot and won't comment on specific cases I do

> not know.

> Where is the generalisation? Did I maybe say that

> all pedestrians / cyclists / motorcyclists who die

> in a collision deserved their fate? I most

> certainly did not! What I said was that ***some***

> accidents, however tragic, are entirely avoidable

> and depend only on the individual's stupid

> behaviour. All of this to say that the raw number

> of accidents is not a particularly indicative

> measure of risk and danger, because some accidents

> are perfectly avoidable, some are not - and only

> the latter are a true reflection of risk and

> danger.

> What is wrong with this line of reasoning?

> PS You talk about road layouts; like I said I

> cannot comment on specific cases I do not know,

> but, generally, what kind of road layout do you

> think would avoid cyclists being crushed by

> vehicles turning left?

> Is it too much to ask that cyclists and

> motorcyclists stay back when a big vehicle is

> turning?

> Can a big vehicle still crush a cyclist or

> motorcyclist who stays back?

Please stop describing people who are killed in road accidents as "stupid" and "idiots", they are almost always not.

It's easy to say "left-hook" accidents are avoidable but there are often many factors at play: cycle lanes pushing cyclists to the left of traffic (and into their blind spots) at traffic lights ; HGVs with huge blind spots that cyclists are not aware of; poor/nearly blind/distracted HGV drivers; advance stop lines encouraging cyclists to get to the front at red lights; poorly designed junctions that create sudden pinch points; inexperienced riders; lorries too big for London's narrow streets; huge potholes that cyclists have to avoid...

Many of these points have all been raised in criminal and coroners' courts as factors contributing to the deaths of cyclist in London in recent years.

What you term "stupid behaviour" may actually be a logical outcome of those factors.

[titch juicy]

Beulah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichLondoner Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Beulah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > It was a gross generalisation.

> > > It's pure victim blaming and calling them

> > "idiots"

> > > is disgraceful.

> > > I'll give one specific (and local) example:

> > [...]

> >

> > I cannot and won't comment on specific cases I

> do

> > not know.

> >

> > Where is the generalisation? Did I maybe say

> that

> > all pedestrians / cyclists / motorcyclists who

> die

> > in a collision deserved their fate? I most

> > certainly did not! What I said was that

> ***some***

> > accidents, however tragic, are entirely

> avoidable

> > and depend only on the individual's stupid

> > behaviour. All of this to say that the raw

> number

> > of accidents is not a particularly indicative

> > measure of risk and danger, because some

> accidents

> > are perfectly avoidable, some are not - and

> only

> > the latter are a true reflection of risk and

> > danger.

> >

> > What is wrong with this line of reasoning?

> >

> > PS You talk about road layouts; like I said I

> > cannot comment on specific cases I do not know,

> > but, generally, what kind of road layout do you

> > think would avoid cyclists being crushed by

> > vehicles turning left?

> > Is it too much to ask that cyclists and

> > motorcyclists stay back when a big vehicle is

> > turning?

> > Can a big vehicle still crush a cyclist or

> > motorcyclist who stays back?

>

> Please stop describing people who are killed in

> road accidents as "stupid" and "idiots", they are

> almost always not.

>

> It's easy to say "left-hook" accidents are

> avoidable but there are often many factors at

> play: cycle lanes pushing cyclists to the left of

> traffic (and their blind spots) at traffic lights

> ; HGVs with huge blind spots that cyclists are not

> aware of; poor/nearly blind/distracted HGV

> drivers; advance stop lines encouraging cyclists

> to get to the front at red lights; poorly designed

> junctions that create sudden pinch points;

> inexperienced riders; lorries too big for London's

> narrow streets; huge potholes that cyclists have

> to avoid...

>

> Many of these points have all been raised in

> criminal and coroners' courts for factors

> contributing to the deaths of cyclist in London in

> recent years.

> What you term "stupid behaviour" may actually be a

> logical outcome of those factors.

But if a cyclist has been stupid/wreckless/impatient (cycling down the inside of a large vehicle indicating left at a junction) then irrespective of how distasteful it is to call them so, it could well be that they are stupid (and/or wreckless and/or impatient).

None of those points you've made about extenuating circumstances above would stop a cyclist from waiting behind a large vehicle until it had turned. Nearly all large vehicles now have a large, bright yellow sticker on the back warning cyclists not to cycle down the inside in those circumstances.

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My gripe is not with people cycling, but with

> priority given to cyclists over bus users (bus

> lanes removed to make way for segregated cycle

> lanes), because it benefits a minority to the

> detriment of a majority of users, as all cyclists

> can take a bus, but not all bus users can cycle.

I see what you're saying, but I think perhaps that overlooks the purpose of the cycle lanes, which is not just to make life nicer and safer for cyclists but to attempt to engender a cycling culture to help fight the pollution which is choking London (literally, in the case of 9,000 people a year) to death. There are a mass of other factors which also affect traffic flow - the huge rise in delivery vans (especially as people are apparently now taking to having Amazon deliveries made to their offices instead of homes), residents demanding that ratruns are cut off, massive increases in building work etc etc. Cycle lanes are somewhat to blame, but they're only one of a multitude of factors.

Just noticed something quite interesting: on Google maps, the satellite images of Blackfriars Bridge Road are pre-cycle lane and the Streetview pictures are post-cycle-lane. Interestingly, apart from one thirty yard stretch outside One Blackfriars, the roads are exactly the same: there were four lanes on the bridge before, there are four lanes now, yet sit on a bus in a jam on Blackfriars and it won't be long before someone says "If that bloody cycle lane wasn't there..." Of course I'm not denying that cycle lanes have increased congestion in places, but I think there's sometimes a disconnect between what people perceive their effect is and what the true effect is.

[JohnL]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> None of those points you've made about extenuating

> circumstances above would stop a cyclist from

> waiting behind a large vehicle until it had

> turned. Nearly all large vehicles now have a

> large, bright yellow sticker on the back warning

> cyclists not to cycle down the inside in those

> circumstances.

It's the brain fart (excuse the language)that frightens me

about cycling around lorries.

[rendelharris]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But if a cyclist has been

> stupid/wreckless/impatient (cycling down the

> inside of a large vehicle indicating left at a

> junction) then irrespective of how distasteful it

> is to call them so, it could well be that they are

> stupid (and/or wreckless and/or impatient).

>

> None of those points you've made about extenuating

> circumstances above would stop a cyclist from

> waiting behind a large vehicle until it had

> turned. Nearly all large vehicles now have a

> large, bright yellow sticker on the back warning

> cyclists not to cycle down the inside in those

> circumstances.

Agree with your first paragraph, not so sure about the second - of course cyclists shouldn't ride up the inside of stationary lorries, but when one of these awful accidents occurs we do tend (or I do anyway) to assume the cyclist has done just that whereas it often later comes out when the lorry driver has been prosecuted that they overtook the cyclist and turned across them (in at least one case last year without signalling). There was a case last year where it was proved that the driver of the fatal truck would have had the woman he killed in his vision in front of him for over twenty seconds, but he still turned across her. Sometimes it's the cyclist doing something stupid; often it's not.