Five cycling fatalities in first six days of 2015

Simmo72 wrote:

The irony is we need a widening gap, that is a physical widening gap. cars are passing too close, largely by the growing trend to plonk more traffic islands in the middle of the road for pedestrians who can't be bothered to wait until the road is clear. help one user, kill another.

I think another factor is the trend for ever wider and larger vehicles for the inadequate, which doesn't help with the space required to pass safely.

I think the pedestrian island argument is a bit unfair, with ever busier roads you can wait longer and longer for traffic to be clear in both directions, and let's not forget pedestrians are supposed to have priority.

Let's face it the crossing only means waiting an extra second or two while the cyclist passes through it. Though of course that didn't stop someone the other day trying to squeeze through one at the same time as me .... that led to an altercation which can be a story for another day....

Simmo72 wrote:

The irony is we need a widening gap, that is a physical widening gap. cars are passing too close, largely by the growing trend to plonk more traffic islands in the middle of the road for pedestrians who can't be bothered to wait until the road is clear. help one user, kill another.

What we need to move to is simply a situation where drivers have effectlively no rights, where they are expected to give way to all other road users rather than the current situation where everyone is cowed by cars. I don't know if something like priorité droite in urban areas might help?? by forcing drivers to give way to everything entering the main road? but have presumed liability so the driver is assumed guilty in every incident would be a start. There also needs to be an acceptance that EVERY incident needs to be looked into, not just those that end in death or serious injury. Simple risk pyramid, how many minors equals a major, equals a death. ignoring the minors is easy but means you never really solve problems.

mrmo wrote:

presumed liability so the driver is assumed guilty in every incident

They'd be presumed liable, not presumed guilty.

mrmo wrote:

What we need to move to is simply a situation where drivers have effectively no rights, where they are expected to give way to all other road users rather than the current situation where everyone is cowed by cars.

That would be great if there was also enforcement of laws. At present, many bike riders are squished or intimidated by drivers breaking the law; the police, CPS and courts usually do nothing about it. The police, in cars, are among the offenders themselves.
Changing the law to make it stricter or harsher is useless if the law isn't being enforced anyway.

mrmo wrote:

There also needs to be an acceptance that EVERY incident needs to be looked into, not just those that end in death or serious injury.

Now you're talking! However, note that many incidents involving injury are also currently not looked into, and sometimes the cops refuse to attend the scene of road incidents if the victim is on a bike. In such cases, nothing gets recorded and the situation doesn't even go into the statistics that subsequently get quoted. It's not unusual to report an incident to the police and be told that they are not even remotely interested unless you attend a police station and submit a written statement in person. Not a helpful attitude if you are in hospital (yes, I've been in that situation).

I mentioned this in an email to the head of the West Yorkshire IPCC and he wasn't interested. As with the WY police themselves, he is not interested in any offences where the victim is on a bicycle at the time.
It seems that we live in a society where having a bicycle between your legs is interpreted as wearing a badge that says "you may commit any offence you like against me without fear of any consequences", in a way that ceases to be true the moment you get off.

Simmo72 wrote:

The irony is we need a widening gap, that is a physical widening gap. cars are passing too close, largely by the growing trend to plonk more traffic islands in the middle of the road for pedestrians who can't be bothered to wait until the road is clear. help one user, kill another.

or cant be ask walk to pedestrian cross

wlizhi wrote:

Simmo72 wrote:

The irony is we need a widening gap, that is a physical widening gap. cars are passing too close, largely by the growing trend to plonk more traffic islands in the middle of the road for pedestrians who can't be bothered to wait until the road is clear. help one user, kill another.

or cant be ask walk to pedestrian cross

Eh?

Simmo72 wrote:

The irony is we need a widening gap, that is a physical widening gap. cars are passing too close, largely by the growing trend to plonk more traffic islands in the middle of the road for pedestrians who can't be bothered to wait until the road is clear. help one user, kill another.

What you are promoting is simply giving in to the car lobby, accepting that pedestrians and cyclists are second class road users. That pedestrians have no right to cross the road. That cars must be allowed to overtake regardless of whether it is safe or not.

Sorry to say that is one of the reasons we are in this mess.