BBC article on cycling danger

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm

LN

--

Never knowingly understood

On Oct 9, 2:32*pm, lardyninja wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm

LN

--

Never knowingly understood

Victim-blaming crap.

Rather than instruct cyclists not to undertake (undertaking was not
involved in ANY of the 8 cyclists killed by HGVs in London this
year) , why not offer guidance to lorry drivers not to drive
illegally, without brakes or insurance, whilst on a phone or drugged
or drunk or whilst shuffling paperwork.

On Oct 9, 2:40*pm, spindrift wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:32*pm, lardyninja wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm

LN

--

Never knowingly understood

Victim-blaming crap.

Rather than instruct cyclists not to undertake (undertaking was not
involved in ANY of the 8 cyclists killed by HGVs in London this
year) ,

Not that I disbelieve you, but have you got proof of that?

why not offer guidance to lorry drivers not to drive
illegally, without brakes or insurance, whilst on a phone or drugged
or drunk or whilst shuffling paperwork.

I think you will find such rules exist (but perhaps not enforced
enough) & in cases like that it is not only cyclists in danger.


Francis

On Oct 9, 3:45*pm, francis wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:40*pm, spindrift wrote:

On Oct 9, 2:32*pm, lardyninja wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm

LN

--

Never knowingly understood

Victim-blaming crap.

Rather than instruct cyclists not to undertake (undertaking was not
involved in ANY of the 8 cyclists killed by HGVs in London this
year) ,

Not that I disbelieve you, but have you got proof of that?

*why not offer guidance to lorry drivers not to drive
illegally, without brakes or insurance, whilst on a phone or drugged
or drunk or whilst shuffling paperwork.

I think you will find such rules exist (but perhaps not enforced
enough) & in cases like that it is not only cyclists in danger.

Francis

City of London [Police] spot checks on HGVs [were] carried out on 30
September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid2, which is
intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in
relation to lorries.
On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five
of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012
Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least
one way

Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of
HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included
overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver
hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases),
driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).

3 women have been killed by collisions with lorries so far this year.
I doubt that being able to turn left on red would have enabled any of
the 3 to avoid the collisions that killed them.

Meryem Ozekman, killed at Elephant and Castle last week, was nowhere
near a traffic light when she was run over. Rebecca Goosen, killed on
Old Street, was almost certainly going straight on over the junction
with Aldersgate Street, as her office was on Cowcross Street, so she
is likely to have followed Clerkenwell Road at least to the St John
Street junction.1 And Eilidh, killed at Notting Hill Gate, is known to
have followed NHG all the way down to Shepherd’s Bush, and, in any
case, is reported to have been on the right hand side of the lorry
that killed her.

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/arti...-at-the-lights

spindrift wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:32 pm, lardyninja wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm

LN

--

Never knowingly understood

Victim-blaming crap.

Rather than instruct cyclists not to undertake (undertaking was not
involved in ANY of the 8 cyclists killed by HGVs in London this
year) , why not offer guidance to lorry drivers not to drive
illegally, without brakes or insurance, whilst on a phone or drugged
or drunk or whilst shuffling paperwork.

You'd rather trust your life to the hope that they've all received,
understood and are acting on that message would you? Rather than be
proactive in ensuring your own safety?

--
Matt B

spindrift wrote:

City of London [Police] spot checks on HGVs [were] carried out on 30
September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid2, which is
intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in
relation to lorries.
On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five
of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012
Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least
one way

Last time you presented those assertions I asked you for more details.
Did you ever find a reliable source that wasn't based on hearsay?

--
Matt B

spindrift wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:45 pm, francis wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:40 pm, spindrift wrote:

On Oct 9, 2:32 pm, lardyninja wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
LN
--
Never knowingly understood
Victim-blaming crap.
Rather than instruct cyclists not to undertake (undertaking was not
involved in ANY of the 8 cyclists killed by HGVs in London this
year) ,
Not that I disbelieve you, but have you got proof of that?

why not offer guidance to lorry drivers not to drive
illegally, without brakes or insurance, whilst on a phone or drugged
or drunk or whilst shuffling paperwork.
I think you will find such rules exist (but perhaps not enforced
enough) & in cases like that it is not only cyclists in danger.

Francis

City of London [Police] spot checks on HGVs [were] carried out on 30
September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid2, which is
intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in
relation to lorries.
On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five
of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012
Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least
one way

Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of
HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included
overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver
hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases),
driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).

So no drink or drug offences then?

3 women have been killed by collisions with lorries so far this year.
I doubt that being able to turn left on red would have enabled any of
the 3 to avoid the collisions that killed them.

Meryem Ozekman, killed at Elephant and Castle last week, was nowhere
near a traffic light when she was run over. Rebecca Goosen, killed on
Old Street, was almost certainly going straight on over the junction
with Aldersgate Street, as her office was on Cowcross Street, so she
is likely to have followed Clerkenwell Road at least to the St John
Street junction.1 And Eilidh, killed at Notting Hill Gate, is known to
have followed NHG all the way down to Shepherd’s Bush, and, in any
case, is reported to have been on the right hand side of the lorry
that killed her.

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/arti...-at-the-lights

So no proof that the 8 killed were not undertaking then?
--

Tony Dragon

On Oct 9, 5:22*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:45 pm, francis wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:40 pm, spindrift wrote:

On Oct 9, 2:32 pm, lardyninja wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
LN
--
Never knowingly understood
Victim-blaming crap.
Rather than instruct cyclists not to undertake (undertaking was not
involved in ANY of the 8 cyclists killed by HGVs in London this
year) ,
Not that I disbelieve you, but have you got proof of that?

*why not offer guidance to lorry drivers not to drive
illegally, without brakes or insurance, whilst on a phone or drugged
or drunk or whilst shuffling paperwork.
I think you will find such rules exist (but perhaps not enforced
enough) & in cases like that it is not only cyclists in danger.

Francis

City of London [Police] spot checks on HGVs [were] carried out on 30
September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid2, which is
intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in
relation to lorries.
On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five
of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012
Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least
one way

Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of
HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included
overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver
hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases),
driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).

So no drink or drug offences then?

3 women have been killed by collisions with lorries so far this year.
I doubt that being able to turn left on red would have enabled any of
the 3 to avoid the collisions that killed them.

Meryem Ozekman, killed at Elephant and Castle last week, was nowhere
near a traffic light when she was run over. Rebecca Goosen, killed on
Old Street, was almost certainly going straight on over the junction
with Aldersgate Street, as her office was on Cowcross Street, so she
is likely to have followed Clerkenwell Road at least to the St John
Street junction.1 And Eilidh, killed at Notting Hill Gate, is known to
have followed NHG all the way down to Shepherd’s Bush, and, in any
case, is reported to have been on the right hand side of the lorry
that killed her.

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/arti...-at-the-lights

So no proof that the 8 killed were not undertaking then?
--

Tony Dragon

Exactly.

So why focus on cyclists undertaking?

Fair play for letting women cyclists put their own view forward, but
the entire theory about the deaths of women cyclists in London is
flawed, the whole premise has no proof that the cyclists did anything
wrong, yet there are a section of road users that cause the most
damage, breach the laws routinely, and are involved in a
disproportionate number of deaths.

On Oct 9, 5:47*pm, spindrift wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:22*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:



spindrift wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:45 pm, francis wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:40 pm, spindrift wrote:

On Oct 9, 2:32 pm, lardyninja wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
LN
--
Never knowingly understood
Victim-blaming crap.
Rather than instruct cyclists not to undertake (undertaking was not
involved in ANY of the 8 cyclists killed by HGVs in London this
year) ,
Not that I disbelieve you, but have you got proof of that?

*why not offer guidance to lorry drivers not to drive
illegally, without brakes or insurance, whilst on a phone or drugged
or drunk or whilst shuffling paperwork.
I think you will find such rules exist (but perhaps not enforced
enough) & in cases like that it is not only cyclists in danger.

Francis

City of London [Police] spot checks on HGVs [were] carried out on 30
September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid2, which is
intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in
relation to lorries.
On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five
of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012
Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least
one way

Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of
HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included
overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver
hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases),
driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).

So no drink or drug offences then?

3 women have been killed by collisions with lorries so far this year.
I doubt that being able to turn left on red would have enabled any of
the 3 to avoid the collisions that killed them.

Meryem Ozekman, killed at Elephant and Castle last week, was nowhere
near a traffic light when she was run over. Rebecca Goosen, killed on
Old Street, was almost certainly going straight on over the junction
with Aldersgate Street, as her office was on Cowcross Street, so she
is likely to have followed Clerkenwell Road at least to the St John
Street junction.1 And Eilidh, killed at Notting Hill Gate, is known to
have followed NHG all the way down to Shepherd’s Bush, and, in any
case, is reported to have been on the right hand side of the lorry
that killed her.

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/arti...-at-the-lights

So no proof that the 8 killed were not undertaking then?
--

Tony Dragon

Exactly.

So why focus on cyclists undertaking?

Fair play for letting women cyclists put their own view forward, but
the entire theory about the deaths of women cyclists in London is
flawed, the whole premise has no proof that the cyclists did anything
wrong, yet there are a section of road users that cause the most
damage, breach the laws routinely, and are involved in a
disproportionate number of deaths.

The whole article is like "ickle wickle ladies aren't like the big bad
boys".

It suggests a theory as fact.

"In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women
cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike
men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the
driver's blind spot."

This is not true, it's a misreporting. Hypothesis printed as fact.
It's ********, the report did not say that at all.

The bit about women being reluctant to use ASLs because they feel
exposed to public gaze sounds like a load of made-up twaddle as well.

Victim-blaming crap.
I thought it was an excellent non-blaming positive and balanced piece.


Rather than instruct cyclists not to undertake (undertaking was not
involved in ANY of the 8 cyclists killed by HGVs in London this
year) , why not offer guidance to lorry drivers not to drive
illegally, without brakes or insurance, whilst on a phone or drugged
or drunk or whilst shuffling paperwork.
Because the statistics seem to show there is something (as yet unknown) in
the way cyclists cycle. ie. Two groups of cyclists appear to have
different road experiences. It /may/ *possibly* _for example_ be that
blokes are better at surviving trauma even though they get involved in more
crashes. It /may/ *possibly* _for example_ be that blokes have bikes with
more gears and want to use them whilst ladies 'potter about' on lower spec,
lower acceleration, lower speed machines.

Yes, of course everyone needs to pay more attention on the road and unsafe
driving eliminated but that's another matter entirely.

--
Peter 'Prof' Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
http://vulpeculox.net