Cyclist killed in London. You wouldn’t guess…

Posted on 27 abril 2012. Filed under: Sin categoría |

No, you wouldn’t guess, reading the discussion on it, or reading the blog posts on it


Another cyclist / lorry death and why your help is needed
A male cyclist in his 20s died in Homerton Hospital, Hackney, yesterday (Friday 4th Feb) after being struck by a left turning lorry on the Kingsland Road / Dalston Junction on Wednesday.

Two years ago today (February 5th) Eilidh Cairns was killed by a truck as she cycled through a junction at Notting Hill.

Today, Eilidh’s sister Kate Cairns is asking for cyclist’s help in order to pass a written declaration at the EU to fit all heavy goods vehicles in Europe with side sensors and cameras in order to eliminate their blind spots. A number of MEPs have signed up to the motion, but many more are needed before it expires in two weeks time;

http://www.eilidhcairns.com/campaign/

The whole process will take no more than two or three minutes of your time using an automated form, and it might just make a difference.

Most of the London MEPs have signed, so if you have a family address outside of the city I’d encourage you to use that.

Thank you for your help, and please ride safe.


No, you wouldn’t guess that behind all this hand-wringing about “dangerous lorries” and similar horsecrap, what is buried is that the guy died, er, guess what, in a cycle lane.

Here is the spot on Street View, back… (sorry, apparently I am unable to embed the sight).

… and front, complete with next-candidate-to-be-killed cycle-lane-ignoramus.

And the usual deadbrain bikelaneists think that what’s needed to solve this disaster is “Dutch style infra”. Wow.

The segregation issue is becoming a Turing Test for cyclists, indeed.

Txarli

CiudadCiclista | Lista de correo | Wiki CC

More posts in English here.

Make a Comment

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

11 comentarios to “Cyclist killed in London. You wouldn’t guess…”

RSS Feed for El carril-bici es el opio del pueblo ciclista Comments RSS Feed

Hi, I don’t really get your point. I’m Italian, and living in the Netherlands at the moment, cycling in Italy as much as in Holland. In Holland, it’s just much simpler and safer. Bad cycle paths make cycling life worse in Holland as much as in Italy, but in Italy there are not only less cycle paths, but also more bad cycle paths. It makes a lot of difference.
I thought that good bike lanes make more people travel by bike. In your post on “Vikingland” you say that bike lanes did not improve the biking/walking and biking/driving ratios. That’s a very interesting statement, but it’s quite hard to believe, at least for me. Where did you find the figures? It’s surprising because the Dutch invest a lot in mobility alternative to cars (that is trains, bikes and buses), and I would be surprised if it was all for nothing.
If your point is that bike lanes do not necessarily bring a social and economic revolution, well, that’s not very surprising. If you think that bikes taking over the streets will bring the revolution, I think that’s only feticism.
Maybe what you mean is that the people thinking that Holland or Denmark are perfect seem silly to you, and I would agree on that. But still there are good things to be learned from the Dutch experience with bikes. Yours looks to me just too much as some sort of fake and cheap bike anarchism, but I’m happy to be proven wrong. My bad Spanish may just have made me misunderstand most of the things you say.

Please, would you care to explain in what way do “good” bikeways make cycling easier? What of the following basic skills for operating bicycles are not needed any more when using them?

0. To know which side of the road/path to ride.
1. To know how to ride in a straight line without wobbling.
2. To know how look behind without while riding on a straight line without wobbling.
3. To know how to negotiate lane changes with other drivers.
4. To know when one has the duty to yield and when one has the
right of way.

Can’t you think of any additional skills that might actually be needed when riding on a “good” bicycle path? because some come to mind right away, thus making its use actually more difficult.

I think we’re talking about different things. If you live in areas with heavy or fast traffic, the skills that you mention are already well above the average person on a road shared with cars. Not to say about children. Cycle paths, in those cases, if well built (that means, for me, wide, completely separated from cars and with priority over them) they can provide a way to use bikes where people wouldn’t otherwise. I can’t think of extra skills on such a bike path, if you think something, say that loud.

Based on your reasoning, by the way, pedestrians should share the same road as cars as well. But as you can easily understand if you cycle on a path where people walk on, that doesn’t work well. Bikes and pedestrians have different weight, size and speed just, mmm… let me think… just like bikes and cars actually.

Anyway, if you live in a quiet area with little or no traffic a cycle path will change nothing at best. As well as in most parts of (european) city centres, where narrow spaces make shared roads with low speed limits a much more clever idea (oh, incidentally, just as they do in Holland). And cycle paths don’t create people who use them as much as money doesn’t make happiness. And good things can be used in stupid ways. Bicycle paths can be good things, if part of clever mobility policies. It’s not a religion as you seem to believe. They’re not necessarily evil just as much as they’re not necessarily good.

And again: “In your post on “Vikingland” you say that bike lanes did not improve the biking/walking and biking/driving ratios. That’s a very interesting statement, but it’s quite hard to believe, at least for me. Where did you find the figures?” I guess you mean that in Holland, as everywhere else, after the second world war cars have unfortunately become the main mean of transport. But that doesn’t tell the whole story, because in Holland cars have become less the main mean of transport than virtually every other rich country. Surely it’s not all thanks to bike paths, but at least a bit. Or no? Your religion doesn’t allow to say that?

I am not the poster, so I do not know where he got the figures, however I don’t know how you can find them surprising since bike ways were made to clear the roads off cyclists.
In any case, you talk so much but you did not answer my question. If bike paths make cycling easier then sure they must remove at least one of the basic skills needed for cycling anywhere except perhaps a closed track where you are all alone. So which one is it that is not needed? If you do not recognize that list of skills as absolutely necessary then you do not ride safely no matter where, and no facility is going to change that. And yeah I can think of extra skills needed when riding on a bike path, just figuring out how to handle the contradictions on bike path-road intersections makes extraordinary demands on the mental capabilities for everyone, motorists and cyclists.

Your list means nothing: changing lane or stopping at traffic light is not the same thing if you have to deal with pedestrians, bikes, buses, cars, or trucks. My experience, and I’m not alone, is that biking on cycle paths is great if they’re properly thought, built and maintained. In Spain or whatever, I don’t know.
You fail to see that the world is a complex place without clear distinction between good and bad. And you also don’t listen, as I’m repeating what I alread said. Bike paths can do good or bad depending on how they are made and how they’re used. Just like anything else.
Bye.

My list means nothing? You are completely wrong. It lists basic skills without which you can not operate a bicycle safely. It is as if I had said to you that in order to cross the street safely as a pedestrian you must know the very basic procedure that we teach 5 year old kids:

Look left
Look right
Make sure no one is coming
Look left again, make sure no one is coming then cross.

And then you tell me that that list means nothing because the world is a complex place or some other unrelated comment. I would say to you, go ahead, cross the road without looking you fool !

Or do you think that operating a vehicle, let it be a car, a truck or a bicycle requieres no skills whatsoever? You are so confused. The world must indeed look like a very complex place to you, complex and fuzzy.

In Holland, it’s just much simpler and safer.

Yeah, and the reason for that are the segregated structures, uh? I see where you are coming from.

I thought that good bike lanes make more people travel by bike.

you were wrong. Sorry. Time to look twice.

In your post on “Vikingland” you say that bike lanes did not improve the biking/walking and biking/driving ratios. That’s a very interesting statement, but it’s quite hard to believe, at least for me. Where did you find the figures?

The figures, my friend, are all over the place: you just have to want to see them (and more importantly. want to see the reality behind them). I won’t spoil for you the pleasure of googling “modal share in Europe” and finding out. Do come back should you need any help interpreting “the figures”, just make sure you do your homework about them, because I tend to not be very kind with lazy people who expect me to explain basic arithmetic to them.

If you think that bikes taking over the streets will bring the revolution, I think that’s only feticism.

…whereas thinking that painting the streets blue/red/green will bring about the revolution is exactly… what?

there are good things to be learned from the Dutch experience with bikes.

i wholeheartedly agree: we can learn how not to do things.

ours looks to me just too much as some sort of fake and cheap bike anarchism,

hey, that is a good one! I have by now been called a number of things, among them fascist, elitist, taliban, road warrior, troll, and several other I don’t care to remember, but I don’t think I have been called “cheap anarchist” until now. Can I put that on my CV?

And now, excuse me if I drop it here for the time being. I have important things to do, like going swimming.

Thank you master for teaching me the truth [this is called: irony].
Anyway, the figures are indeed interesting. And indeed it seems that biking competes with moving by car as much as with walking, but cars compete with public transportation much more. Nothing really surprising, if you think of it, given how fast you go with the various means. I still don’t understand your view, and I don’t really see much of a connection with a good/bad/useful/useless bike lanes discussion, but you surely do and I do not want to continue the discussion either.
But be sure: I never thought that bike lanes are the only thing needed to get more bikes on the streets. Actually, I don’t even think that having more bikes on the streets is necessarily the aim, what I do think is that less cars would be better, for many reasons, and to obtain that you need to have more people on bikes, but many more on trains, and for sure even more just without the need to move at all.
The only thing I do not understand is why people on the internet have so much fun fighting, always thinking they have all the truth in their hands and none everywhere else.
Cheers.

Thank you master for teaching me the truth [this is called: irony].

No: it is called: lame attempt at irony.

indeed it seems that biking competes with moving by car as much as with walking, etc…

No: what seems indeed is that you either have not done your homework with the figures, or that you don’t understand them.

The only thing I do not understand is

No: there are a lot of things about this issue that you clearly do not understand at all.

why people on the internet have so much fun fighting, always thinking they have all the truth in their hands and none everywhere else.

No: I do not “have fun fighting” this stupid battle about a no-brainer topic. And your broad painted platitudes about “people thinking that they have all the truth in their hands” do not take an ounce of truth out of the sad constatation that the segregationist/bikelaneist gibberish is a huge heap of horse manure.

Cheers.

It’s kind of funny that you’re so busy screaming [most likely, only metaphorically], that you don’t even realise that I agree with you on many points (bike lanes are not a solution, Dutch model is hardly reproducible…). I just don’t agree on your point that bike lanes are “intrinsically wrong” as a matter of principles. It’s not mathematics, it’s hard to evaluate such a thing as “the usefulness of bike lanes” or “their ease of use” without a context and a look into the very specific situations. You say that the numbers tell that bike lanes change nothing, but I’ve seen many numbers and they don’t convince me at all, at least as much as I’m not convinced by who says that bike lanes are the solution to all (bike, traffic, or world) problems. Correlations are not causes and effects, if you know what I mean, so it’s very hard to tell from a few numbers, taken in very different countries and conditions, what’s really the cause of what. And I can’t find how to stop notifications of replies.

I just don’t agree on your point that bike lanes are “intrinsically wrong” as a matter of principles.

See? you just don’t get it. Don’t despair: you eventually will, if you work hard at it.


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: