HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by Hugh Thompson, 15:20, Mon 12 August 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Cars and trucks make mistakes and have accidents with cyclists, sharing the same road, as there is no incentive to give priority to cyclists.

  In Australian towns, the main streets entering the centre of town or beach or civic area are paved or bricked over including the intersections, so pedestrians and cyclist can use the full width of the road and combined pavement, safely, with narrow lined lanes for cars to go one way in the middle, at 5 miles an hour, to get to the rest of the road network or shops or homes, but they are driving on pedestrian areas and must give way to cyclists and pedestrians, so if they hurt anyone, its immediately a charge of careless driving.

  You let them off scot free at the moment so they have no incentive to be courteous to cyclists.

  Look up the road code and where side roads enter a main road, not an intersection but a right or left turn, they must slow down and let pedestrians cross in front of them before proceeding.

  Get them to obey the road code first and respect the pedestrians right to cross the road, and not give way to cars where the motorist has to slow and make a turn.

  https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183

  The rode code omits it! Please find out why?

  Where a side roads enters a main road and has to turn right or left, does the car have priority to make pedestrians walking along the path of the main road, wait while they block the road from them crossing while they wait to find a gap in the traffic to turn left or right into the main road.

  I was told the pedestrian must be given way to, before proceeding to the edge of the main road, so the car does not block the pedestrians crossing the side road.

  I can find it in the road code. Where is it?

• Posted by Abdurrahman Raqib, 16:00, Mon 12 August 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I feel most people aren't aware of the cycling rules - even I wasn't, until I looked them up a few seconds ago.

  https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

  I do hate to rant, but I think a lot of the hate directed at cyclists is true: too many misuse cycle paths and pavements, thinking they are not obliged to do any more than ring the bell, a second or two before impact; and far too many think they can sneak the red light, causing annoyance for moving cars and pedestrians alike.

  I'm half inclined to formally propose that cyclists require a valid license to ride around on our streets!

• Posted by Hugh Barnard, 16:07, Mon 12 August 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Apart from the fact that this is more political grandstanding, Boris, loathsome or not has done more for cycling in London than Ken. But to answer this rhetorical question, look at best practice in the 'cycling' countries, cycle around the East End yourself [if you dare] especially Commercial Road, Kingsland, Forest Lane, Romford Road etc. Look at the dilapidated cycle lanes THAT EXIST already but neglected by politicians of all stripes and you'll know why this isn't really worth the effort of answering. Hey it's another 'insultation' where we speak and you don't listen, isn't it?

• Posted by s mcguire, 19:19, Mon 12 August 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Cycling - earth shattering stuff! Are you sure EU are the competent authority? As above(Hugh Barnard).

  More positively - every journey begins with a first step.

  Suggest, - designated lorry routes.(discourage)Limited. - designated car,bus,taxi only routes.(Speed Limit 40mph max) - all other roads for parking & transit to the nearest non transit only road, exemptions for local bus,taxi etc. Speed limit 20mph. - potential cycle only routes built adjoining new tfl/dlr lines.

  Random and for cause, drug & alcohol testing for all drivers/cyclists and possibly even pedestrians.

  Awareness training,safety campaign. Mandatory reporting of all incidents involving vehicle, drivers & cyclists. Blackbox driver monitoring,(tiredness & erratic, fuel intensive driving) and video cams on lorries,taxis,buses possibly new cars, and other proven tech.

  Expansion of Boris bikes(fitted with transmiter )lorries can pickup up at proxmity of say 1 meter away which gives a warning.

  Driver bans and confiscation of cycle/vehicle whatever, for users who endanger others as witnessed by or evidenced to appropriate traffic police.

• Posted by Michael Bundy, 20:09, Mon 12 August 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I welcome this opportunity to open a dialogue with Jim Fitzpatrick. I am a weekend cyclist who would cycle to work in central London if I thought it safe to do so. The few occasions I have cycled to work, during a tube strike, were so hairy I would not risk it willingly again unless proper cycle tracks were available. Only when selected side streets are completely closed to cars to form a designated cycle track will the indimidated cyclist dare to venture onto the killing streets of London.To paraphrase George Orwell : Four wheels bad Two wheels better ! But with one cyclist a month being crushed under the wheels of the Juggernauts of the capital, the quiet majority of would-be cyclists will stay at home or take the tube. Michael Bundy Wapping

• Posted by Lauren, 21:01, Mon 12 August 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I'm a cyclist and I have just started with Breeze cycling to help get more women in cycling. I agree that roads could be safer for cyclists, but I also agree that cyclists could be more courteous to other road users. Found it really interesting reading rules for cyclists - no one ever gets taught them like you do road rules!

  Some thoughts

  I think that automatic driver at fault would help rude drivers rethink their horrid behaviour

  Cycle routes are poorly maintained and sometimes unsafe - cycle lanes should be bigger, more protected

  Councils need to commit at a local level to cycling. I wrote to Mayor Luftman over a week ago to ask who was responsible for cycling at tower hamlets so I could look to start promoting Breeze rides locally - still no response

• Posted by Corinne Kitsell, 23:40, Mon 12 August 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I work in Westminster so my cycle ride from Tower Hamlets starts well along the cycle superhighway to Tower Hill. But it's pretty hairy after that along the parts of the Embankment where there's no cycle lane e.g. the Blackfriars Underpass.

  I think there should be a cycle lane created all along the Embankment as this would link up the various cycle superhighways into a network.

  I used to live in Switzerland and there they have separate traffic lights for bikes at busy junctions which give the cyclists a few seconds headstart. That works really well as it gives you time to get across the junction and out the way of any vehicles turning across the cycle lane.

• Posted by Simon Mesner, 16:45, Wed 14 August 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I feel that cycling should be promoted more. It's heartening to see the tide has changed and we are moving towards more and more people cycling. I feel that more money should be invested in infrastructure and welcome the moves to do that that have been announced.

  Separate cycle lanes would be fantastic. There are some wide pavements that have hardly a pedestrian using them (the Highway in Tower Hamlets is one), which could be split into pedestrian pavement and cycle line fairly easily. Raising or kerbing bus/cycle lanes at least for sections would also keep other traffic away from cyclists.

  Campaigns to raise awareness of cyclists for all road users seem to be having an impact and should be continued. However hatred towards cyclists is still prevalent as can be seen if you view the comments collected by @cyclehatred on Twitter.

  But many cyclists need training on how to use the road. I feel that to cycle on the road, formal training should be required to obtain a (cheap) license (I cycle regularly by the way). They are after all road users. Cycling whilst wearing headphones should be illegal (I see an incredible amount of cyclists riding on road with headphones in).

  Lorries shouldn't be allowed on the road unless they have at least the extra large mirrors to see in previous blind spots. And in time all should have proximity sensors.

• Posted by Martin Donkin, 20:19, Thu 15 August 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Tower Hamlets has the fourth lowest household ownership of cars in London (and in the country), yet is blighted by busy wide roads. These roads divide up our community, pollute our borough and endanger lives and living standards. The majority of traffic is thru traffic and brings little benefit to the borough.

  Some of the most dangerous roads and junctions in London are located in the borough and they have been the scene of the deaths of Brian Dorling, Svitlana Tereschenko and Mary Bowers. These deaths galvanised this camping to make cycling safe.

  I am lucky to be here, just last year I was clipped by a car, which veered into the mandatory cycle lane while undertaking another vehicle at speed. I was lucky to walk away. This happened just near Thames Magistrates' Court on Cycle Superhighway 2. A, supposedly, safe route. The driver did not stop.

  I am an experienced cyclists and I often find London's roads terrifying. I can understand why people are afraid of taking up cycling, despite its many benefits.

  The people in this borough would greatly benefit from less space and resources dedicated to vehicles and better provision for pedestrians and cyclists.

  #Decent minimum standards We do not need to look far for best practice. The Netherlands has spent the last 40 years tackling this issue and their solutions are now very refined. I really hope we do not take another 40 years developing our own solutions, when we can implement theirs immediately. A useful summary of the principles of Dutch design and their minimum standards: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-infrastructure

  # Precautionary measures TfL and other authorities have already admitted that various roads and junctions are not safe and are planning to make improvements. Given that we KNOW these roads and junctions are not safe we should be reducing speeds and capacity NOW to prevent loss of life. This will be a temporary inconvenience for some, but that will hopefully provide further encouragement to authorities to get on with making junctions and roads safe. Once they are safe, these limits can be lifted.

  #Encouraging responsibility Driving a vehicle is a privilege and not a right. To be granted that privilege, drivers must be required to have care for more vulnerable road users. Unfortunately, our courts routinely allow drivers to get away with murder — literally. If I were to kill you accidentally with a knife, I would expect to end up in jail. If I were to kill you accidentally with a tipper truck, there is a fair chance that I would be at liberty — and possibly get away with killing a second time (http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lorry-driver-serial-killer-of-london-cyclist-and-pedestrian-pleads-guilty). We need to rebalance our justice system to protect the vulnerable. I am not convinced of the need for strict liability, though this would speed compensation claims for victims. However, I am absolutely convinced that the Police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Justice system are failing to prosecute dangerous drivers and remove them from our roads.

• Posted by Bill Patten, 12:08, Sat 17 August 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I drive quite regularly in Central London. At night, I really don't know how many cyclists' lives I have saved! There are a significant number of cyclists who wear dark clothing, have 'lights' which just do not do what it says on the tin and who weave dangerously between vehicles. I want cyclists to cycle safely but rather than put all the blame on motorists for accidents involving cyclists, more should be done to ensure that cyclists have an awareness of road practice. After all, I had to pass a test to allow me to drive on our roads, why not have a similar requirement for those who wish to ride bicycles on our roads?

• Posted by Martin Donkin, 11:05, Sun 18 August 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Ah. The "cyclists should be licensed, wear special clothing, etc". argument.

  If you follow that argument pedestrians should ware hi-viz, helmets, have eyes in the back of their heads and have a license. On a side note, cycle helmets are not rated to provide protection at an average cycling speed, but they would protect pedestrians from trips and falls. If there is ever an attempt to make helmets mandatory for cycling in the UK, we should only do so after we've made it mandatory for walking, as that, is actually backed up with evidence: http://www.cyclehelmets.org

  Vehicle drivers are required to have a licence because their vehicles are supremely capable of killing and maiming. They are seriously dangerous pieces of bone crushing machinery and this is why you must have a license. It is your responsibility to not kill other people, not their responsibility to not get killed by you.

  Pedestrians sometimes walk or run into each other, but this is unlikely to cause death. The same is true for pedestrian-cyclist collisions, which are rare. The statistics show that when these happen, the cyclist usually comes of worse.

  I think the idea of licensing pedestrians or cyclists is frankly ridiculous, but I think all school children should be given help in building their confidence on the road.

  I don't think motorists are entirely to blame, though, like the minority of red-light-jumping-cyclists, there is a minority of drivers who drive faster than is safe under the conditions, jump lights, park in cycle lanes, enter ASLs, cut people up, etc. While cyclists shouldn't do this, when a vehicle driver breaks the rules they are truly endangering more than just their own life.

  I think a lot of the problem in the UK, is that the approach we have had is not to recognise that cyclists are fundamentally not like other forms of traffic. I can understand that drivers that get stuck behind me pootling along at 12mph can get frustrated. On many roads in London you might have to wait a long time before the opposite lane gives you a gap big enough to overtake me safely. I'd much rather that we follow the netherlands approach and provide specific exclusive provision for cyclists.

  I know there's often an argument that there's not enough space in London for dutch style infrastructure. Some people say that much of Amsterdam was levelled during the war and they had a blank sheet to work from. This is factually incorrect - the physical environment of Amsterdam escaped the Second World War almost entirely unscathed. Its city centre streets remain particularly narrow, hemmed in by historic buildings. There was no opportunity for redevelopment. They have, however, made choices about the use of their roads.

  With a rising population and no space to build new roads, London will be forced to make similar choices over use. In the future, you will not be able to choose to drive into London as there will simply not be space. You will have no option, but to use more space efficient (and less polluting) transport (e.g walking, cycling or public transport).

  As cycling and walking is going to be a big part of London's future, we might as well start getting it right now.

  Cycling needs to be safe for everyone. We need segregated infrastructure where we can be confident that everyone from toddlers to grannies can cycle in safety. While drivers will have to give up space, I'm sure they will be happier too if we were segregated.

  To end on a positive note, here is a lovely video of happy people of all ages cycling in the Netherlands: http://youtu.be/swqaAIkGtpA (notice the lack of helmets and Lycra - they are just normal people going about their business).

If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency, log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK, sign up in order to HearFromYourMP.