Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun May 03, 2026 13:30

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Cyclist Killed in London
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 16:55 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
In the Times (a paper campaigning for safer cycling) today:

The Times wrote:
Boris Johnson warned London’s cyclists today that they had to “obey the law of the roads” after it emerged that a man killed in a collision with a double-decker bus had just ridden the wrong way up a one-way street.

Transport for London said that its preliminary investigation suggested that the man – the fifth cyclist to die in the capital in nine days — had just ridden the wrong way up Leman Street to cross the Aldgate junction in East London when he was hit by the bus on Whitechapel Road at 11.30pm. The cyclist, who has not yet been named, died in hospital at around 4am.

The collision came soon after hundreds of cyclists from around London converged for a silent protest several miles to the east at the Bow Roundabout after a young woman was dragged under a lorry in the rush hour. She was named today as Venera Minakhmetova, a 24-year-old Russian national who lived in Bethnal Green. Ms Minakhmetova was the third cyclist killed by an HGV at the roundabout in the past two years.

Scotland Yard said that both the cyclist and the lorry had been heading west along the A11 to the roundabout, which is one of London’s most notorious and complicated junctions. The lorry was turning south towards the Blackwall Tunnel while Ms Minakhmetova was heading straight on.
The male driver of the lorry stopped at the scene and spoke to officers but there have been no arrests.
The latest deaths put pressure on Mr Johnson, the London Mayor, with British Cycling demanding an “urgent investigation” and the former Labour Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, calling for an independent review of the city’s designated cycling “superhighways”. Initial reports had wrongly suggested that the cyclist killed last night had been riding along Superhighway 2.

Mr Johnson told the LBC radio station: “There’s no question of blame or finger-pointing – that doesn’t work in these circumstances. But unless people obey the laws of the road and people actively take account of the signals that we put in, there’s no amount of traffic engineering that we invest in that is going to save people’s lives.”

He added:?“Some of the cases that we’ve seen in the last few days really make your heart bleed because you can see that people have taken decisions that really did put their lives in danger.

“You cannot blame the victim in these circumstances. But what you can say is that when people make decisions on the road that are very risky - jumping red lights, moving across fast-moving traffic in a way that is completely unexpected and without looking to see what traffic is doing - it’s very difficult for the traffic engineers to second-guess that.

“I’m appealing to all cyclists, as well as all motorists, do think of the laws of the road, because if you take these hasty, rash decisions that we’re seeing sometimes, then you will be endangering your life.”
Gordon Seabright, chief executive of the cycling charity CTC, said cyclists were “sickened by the continuing failure to protect cyclists, in particular from the dangers caused by lorries in our towns and cities”.

“We want to see the Mayor of London and all those responsible for the safety of our streets living up to their promises.” Martin Key, campaigns manager at British Cycling, added: “While cyclist deaths are rare, it is clearer than ever that national government and councils must take urgent action on designing roads that address cyclists’ needs.

In some cases cyclists are the architects of their own problems.

Boris Johnson said "You cannot blame the victim in these circumstances." Yes you can if they were in the wrong.

Gordon Seabright said cyclists were “sickened by the continuing failure to protect cyclists...". Why didn't he say that this cyclist should have been looking out for his own safety? He might still be alive then.

Martin Key added: “While cyclist deaths are rare, it is clearer than ever that national government and councils must take urgent action on designing roads that address cyclists’ needs." He should have replaced the word "cyclists" with "all road users" at the end of that sentence. This would demonstrate that there is no preference being demanded for one group at the expense of others.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 21:48 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
I saw an article somewhere today that suggested a cycle highway. Perhaps in major towns this might be a way of solving the problem, keeping cyclists away from pedestrians and vehicles.( Next bit is thinking out loud, and not intended to ruffle cycle feathers)
However, there would need to be some form of policing this - but oh, last government thought of this , one of the advertised functions of PCSO was to police cyclists. So we'd need some sort of cycle warden ,to enforce the use of the cycle lanes . Problem is how do they fund it. And there is the problem. Segregation and enforcement without those who's safety is paramount ,because of the few who don't think the law applies to them , cause problems.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 19:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
It is certainly a sad rash of events. You'd think hearing of one would make every cyclist even more vigilant and take ever greater care.

If you cycle ahead of a lorry and it then cuts you up were you not better to allow the lorry to go first? So are the cyclist priority not helping to create the very danger that they profess to help prevent ?

The area where this last fatality took place, (bow junction) had had a major bike highway meet a roundabout and happened on a turn off.
Each of the 6 deaths have all happened with heavy goods vehicles.
It has to be a clear case of look after yourself. We are all responsible, yet I still see cyclist run reds, as if they do not even apply to them !
I agree the cyclist might have been cycling safely other than when the incidents happened. I find it hard to think that any lorry will have deliberately chosen to drive into the cyclist which surely is the alternative than the 'clashes' that have occurred? Is this the truth and reality in these sad events ?

If I am unsure about a lorry turning I will WAIT, and I think that this is key. Nearly every lorry around London has stickers saying just this 'Stay BACK'. It's wise and sensible.
Some cyclist have been demanding a priority over others, as they are vulnerable, and the reality is that we all exist together on the streets and it is up to us to keep us safe, but I think that this is wrong. We need cyclists to know HOW to be safe within the traffic and for all road users, to be clear (and reminded) just where the boundaries are. What is right and wrong and what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't !

The priority to cyclist doesn't make them safe it just means they have their own area sometimes.
I think there maybe a case for allowing better engineering of roundabouts. Why do many roads have to have a curved entry off the roundabout? It may slow a few vehicles but for everyone is creates a pinch point and I see near misses and accidents at these points. And as I recall these are where a few of these accidents happened.
It is an engineering and self awareness / responsibility, that will help to prevent these incidents. :)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 21:37 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I think the Evening Standard mentioned that he came out of the "wrong" end of a one-way street and under a bus. The bus driver probably won't have been expecting it . It also said the bus driver had not been arrested.

This is part of the reason I am so passionately against any move to make the motorist automatically to blame unless proved otherwise. It's just likely to lead to less care and more risk-taking on the part of the cyclist.

It looks like they're waking up to this problem in Cambridge at least!

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News...1106094824.htm


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 02:14 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Pedestrians have priority on any road - but only a foolish one would step in front of a lorry to exercise that right... yet from what I have seen on YouTube, many seem insistent on making a point of risking all to exercise their right of way!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:54 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
The problem with this is that many cycling advocates seem to argue that the only way to improve the lot of cyclists is to make that of motorists worse, thus encouraging a spirit of confrontation rather than co-operation.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:17 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Quote:
think there maybe a case for allowing better engineering of roundabouts. Why do many roads have to have a curved entry off the roundabout? It may slow a few vehicles but for everyone is creates a pinch point and I see near misses and accidents at these points. And as I recall these are where a few of these accidents happened.
It is an engineering and self awareness / responsibility, that will help to prevent these incidents. :)


This is happening a lot on roundabouts near me and I'm sure all over the country. Roundabouts that have, for decades been easy flowing and allow two lanes of traffic to enter and negotiate the roundabout together without conflict are now being redesigned to make this difficult without people having to brake at some point to allow the other car free passage. Traffic engineers seem to have this demonic obsession that making roads more dangerous will, save the planet/ cause everyone to be much safer by reducing speeds to a crawl/improve the roads for everyone/justify their job at re-apprasile.

Drivers and Insurance companies need to start suing highways departments when badly engineered roads cause accidents and damage, that is un-neccessary by road changes from safe to dangerous.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 20:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
yet I still see cyclist run reds, as if they do not even apply to them !


Did any of the cyclists killed recently get killed running a red light? No.

Cyclist gets squashed by a lorry, certain people start saying "well cyclists do this, cyclists do that".

What's the motivation there?

Is it like, a cyclist gets killed by being run over by a lorry, other cyclists do silly things, therefore cyclist that got killed deserved it due to the way some other cyclists behave?


Serious question.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 20:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
And don't worry SafeSpeedv2, you're not the only one doing it, London's Mayor has too, and received a mauling for it, and rightfully so.

"The mayor's comments this morning which targeted cyclists breaking the law as the primary cause of death and serious injury is an attempt to blame the victims, rather than tackling the real problem of HGVs, buses and dangerous junctions".

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 40052.html


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 01:02 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Are you saying that these cyclists didn't die as a result of breaking any laws? The distinction is important. If a motorist loses control of his car having exceeded the speed limit and kills himself, or jumps a red light and gets killed because a truck coming the other way hits him, would you consider motorists entitled to get all uppity and say that something needs to be done about this, that, or the other, or would you say "they got what they deserved, the laws are there for a reason"?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 09:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
Are you saying that these cyclists didn't die as a result of breaking any laws?


Wow, there's a whole tangled thread of mixed and warped thinking wrapped up in that little sentence right there.

Sounds like you're a card carrying member of the "well, they deserved to die because cyclists (including the dead themselves) break the law" brigade.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 16:08 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
What a lot of socialist rubbish from the Independent, imagining some evil plot behind a sensible comment from the mayor.

In the accident originally discussed, who was the "victim"? IMO, the cyclist was the perpetrator leaving the bus driver as the victim, traumatised for the rest of his life. Seen in this light, Boris's comment is correct.

Cyclists don't deserve to die on the roads. Just like all the rest of us, they need to look out for their own safety and that of others. Riding up the inside of trucks just to gain a slight advantage in the queue is stupid given the potential risks.

There has been an announcement that £35M is to be spent on improving safety of cycling. None of this is allocated to training. This says it all really.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 16:11 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
malcolmw wrote:
There has been an announcement that £35M is to be spent on improving safety of cycling. None of this is allocated to training. This says it all really.

And how much is allocated to enforcement of laws applying to cyclists? My guess would be another zero.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 16:40 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Quote:
Mole wrote:
Are you saying that these cyclists didn't die as a result of breaking any laws?


Wow, there's a whole tangled thread of mixed and warped thinking wrapped up in that little sentence right there.

Sounds like you're a card carrying member of the "well, they deserved to die because cyclists (including the dead themselves) break the law" brigade.



You are usually the first person to imply that breaking the rules of the road is dangerous because those rules are ALWAYS there for OUR safety. I'm sure you would say that motorists exceeding the speed limit,jumping a red light or crossing a solid white line, who come a cropper only have themselves to blame.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 17:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
malcolmw wrote:
What a lot of socialist rubbish from the Independent, imagining some evil plot behind a sensible comment from the mayor.

In the accident originally discussed, who was the "victim"? IMO, the cyclist was the perpetrator leaving the bus driver as the victim, traumatised for the rest of his life. Seen in this light, Boris's comment is correct.


Johnson wasn't just commenting on the one incident though, he was commenting on all of them, tarring all the dead with the same brush like you are. Nice.

In the context it's not a sensible statement, it's pointing the finger knowing people will go with him and not look at the big heaping stink of dung his transport policy is.

To add, there has been no conclusion how the guy in the first post got hit by the bus, many disagree with TFLs initial observations which were made before any investigation. Now why would TFL do that?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 17:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
graball wrote:
I'm sure you would say that motorists exceeding the speed limit,jumping a red light or crossing a solid white line, who come a cropper only have themselves to blame.


Er yes.

You're totally missing the point though which is very telling.

I would "blame" the individual motorist, not assert ALL motorist who die at the wheel were breaking the law at the time and this is what caused their demise as has been done here.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 17:49 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
weepej wrote:
I would "blame" the individual motorist, not assert ALL motorist who die at the wheel were breaking the law at the time and this is what caused their demise as has been done here.

But you might well say that such behaviour amongst motorists is quite common.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 21:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
PeterE wrote:
weepej wrote:
I would "blame" the individual motorist, not assert ALL motorist who die at the wheel were breaking the law at the time and this is what caused their demise as has been done here.

But you might well say that such behaviour amongst motorists is quite common.


I wouldn't.

Why would you.

What's the motivation for taking the death of a person, and then then pointing out other people do silly things.

WE see it all the time, cyclist killed by an HGV, people all over the internet write that cyclists go up the inside of HGVs even if that's not what happened in this case.

Why?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 23:48 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I don't believe the mayor was saying ALL cyclists are guilty of these misdemeanors. I think this was a reference to a small number of cyclists in this latest bunch of fatalities. You have to keep an open mind to the possibility that they WERE all to blame for their own demises. That's tragic, certainly, and may or may not be true, but it's a possibility that it IS true, and one would hope he had access to more information than any of us before making such a statement.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 23:56 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
weepej wrote:
Mole wrote:
Are you saying that these cyclists didn't die as a result of breaking any laws?


Wow, there's a whole tangled thread of mixed and warped thinking wrapped up in that little sentence right there.

Sounds like you're a card carrying member of the "well, they deserved to die because cyclists (including the dead themselves) break the law" brigade.


I'm sure you'd have been the first to leap to the defence of a similar number of deceased motorists, had a similar comment been leveled the other way round Weepy! :wink:

Clearly, you appear to have made your mind up already. I'm keeping an open mind to the possibility that they might have had something to do with their own misfortunes. As for the "...because cyclists break the law..." bit, no, you've made an incorrect assumption there. ANY road user who breaks the law and as a result finds themselves dead, will be at least partially to blame for their own death. "deserving" has nothing to do with anything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.043s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]