Bikes make up one sixth of Central London traffic, says TfL

Tigerlily wrote:

It would be simpler and cheaper to start removing parking spaces along B roads and create 'Blue Routes' ....also to have rush hour windows 8-10am and 4-7pm which are free of motorised traffic apart from buses on the main routes.

Simple and cheap is not the same as good though. Also, they rely on enforcement to work (like the current situation). Doing things properly is far better, more permanent and self-sustaining for the long term.

Tigerlily wrote:

It would be simpler and cheaper to start removing parking spaces [ ... ] and create 'Blue Routes'

Removing parking spaces and instituting a lane consisting of nothing but paint would be, in the city of Leeds, a method of creating unregulated blue parking areas. The entire route would be full of the same parked cars that currently occupy parking spaces.
Some of the parked vehicles would be police cars and vans.

Is it different in London?

And if you continue making 500 journeys a year for 50 years then the odds become 1 in 41, or 2.5%. It's a real risk but still seems small compared to all the other ways you can die.

1/(1-((1-(1/1000000))^(500*50))) =~ 41

bdsl wrote:

And if you continue making 500 journeys a year for 50 years then the odds become 1 in 41, or 2.5%. It's a real risk but still seems small compared to all the other ways you can die.

1/(1-((1-(1/1000000))^(500*50))) =~ 41

Exactly - there's a lot written about the dangers of cycling on London's streets and to a degree, this misses the point. I've been cycling commuting in London for a couple of decades and it's a lot better than it used to be. It could be better still for sure but people need to have some perspective.

OldRidgeback wrote:

bdsl wrote:

And if you continue making 500 journeys a year for 50 years then the odds become 1 in 41, or 2.5%. It's a real risk but still seems small compared to all the other ways you can die.

1/(1-((1-(1/1000000))^(500*50))) =~ 41

Exactly - there's a lot written about the dangers of cycling on London's streets and to a degree, this misses the point. I've been cycling commuting in London for a couple of decades and it's a lot better than it used to be. It could be better still for sure but people need to have some perspective.

The real danger of a particular journey (your real risk) is not going to be assessed by looking at all cycling trips in London and dividing by the casualties. The real figure for you is going to include the specifics; the route you take, the time of day, the conditions, your experience, your riding style (lots of experienced chancers exist), your age and athletic ability (to react).

Some cyclists are more at risk than others.

Currently anytime you're near a tipper truck in the rush hour the risk is upward.

Scrufftie wrote:

That's 1 in a million on any given journey. If you commute and make 500 journeys a year (assuming you cycle each way, the odds shorten to 1 in 2000, which doesn't sound so good.

The odds are 1 in 2000(sets of 500 journeys) though, which also sounds fine. And is also exactly the same thing.

jasecd wrote:

All well and good but you can massively accelerate this trend by taking dangerous drivers off the roads and aggressively enforcing traffic laws. The behaviour of a sizeable minority of drivers is what keeps many people from cycling.

Even if it were possible, it would take decades to properly install cycling infrastructure across the city. Forcing a change in driver behaviour would not be easy but is likely to be far quicker and less costly yet I have not once heard a politician or "leader" speak out about this. Until they do then they will continue to fail vulnerable road users everywhere.

How to you ensure that EVERY driver EVERYWHERE in London ALWAYS drives in a way that is safe an legal? Where else has done so, and how much did it cost? What is the ongoing cost of this?

What feels dangerous is the proximity of large, fast-moving motor vehicles. The vast majority of these are not driven dangerously, but that doesn't make it feel safe enough for most people. To make it FEEL safe enough infrastructure is far more important than behaviour, and when you build it properly you engineer it to allow mistakes without costing lives. There is simply no way you can police the roads to remove misjudgement.

teaboy wrote:

jasecd wrote:

All well and good but you can massively accelerate this trend by taking dangerous drivers off the roads and aggressively enforcing traffic laws. The behaviour of a sizeable minority of drivers is what keeps many people from cycling.

Even if it were possible, it would take decades to properly install cycling infrastructure across the city. Forcing a change in driver behaviour would not be easy but is likely to be far quicker and less costly yet I have not once heard a politician or "leader" speak out about this. Until they do then they will continue to fail vulnerable road users everywhere.

How to you ensure that EVERY driver EVERYWHERE in London ALWAYS drives in a way that is safe an legal? Where else has done so, and how much did it cost? What is the ongoing cost of this?

By having all their vehicles fitted with GPS tracking and front and rear cameras and black box data recorders to make them responsible for their actions and resolve insurance and legal matters quickly and collision avoidance systems to prevent accidents in the first place.

If a drug was introduced to the market that killed 4000 annually and maimed far more it'd be banned and taken off the streets immediately why not take the same approach with road safety?

Initialised wrote:

By having all their vehicles fitted with GPS tracking and front and rear cameras and black box data recorders to make them responsible for their actions and resolve insurance and legal matters quickly and collision avoidance systems to prevent accidents in the first place.

If a drug was introduced to the market that killed 4000 annually and maimed far more it'd be banned and taken off the streets immediately why not take the same approach with road safety?

If you just remove that pesky democracy thing, you might have a chance of introducing such a measure. I know some might be surprised by this, but people often object to being watched by their governments.

Initialised wrote:

By having all their vehicles fitted with GPS tracking and front and rear cameras and black box data recorders to make them responsible for their actions and resolve insurance and legal matters quickly and collision avoidance systems to prevent accidents in the first place.

If a drug was introduced to the market that killed 4000 annually and maimed far more it'd be banned and taken off the streets immediately why not take the same approach with road safety?

If you just remove that pesky democracy thing, you might have a chance of introducing such a measure. I know some might be surprised by this, but people often object to being watched by their governments.

Initialised wrote:

teaboy wrote:

jasecd wrote:

All well and good but you can massively accelerate this trend by taking dangerous drivers off the roads and aggressively enforcing traffic laws. The behaviour of a sizeable minority of drivers is what keeps many people from cycling.

Even if it were possible, it would take decades to properly install cycling infrastructure across the city. Forcing a change in driver behaviour would not be easy but is likely to be far quicker and less costly yet I have not once heard a politician or "leader" speak out about this. Until they do then they will continue to fail vulnerable road users everywhere.

How to you ensure that EVERY driver EVERYWHERE in London ALWAYS drives in a way that is safe an legal? Where else has done so, and how much did it cost? What is the ongoing cost of this?

By having all their vehicles fitted with GPS tracking and front and rear cameras and black box data recorders to make them responsible for their actions and resolve insurance and legal matters quickly and collision avoidance systems to prevent accidents in the first place.

That isn't a preventative measure though, is it? There is nothing to stop people still driving dangerously, or in a way that prevents people from wanting to cycle on the road with them. You might catch more people, but it still won't make it feel safe enough. Also, where else has done this, and what were the results? What are the costs, and who analyses the billions of hours of data?

Initialised wrote:

If a drug was introduced to the market that killed 4000 annually and maimed far more it'd be banned and taken off the streets immediately why not take the same approach with road safety?

That isn't what you call for - you suggest watching everyone and monitoring movement so they won't take the drug. The only thing that physically removes the killing machines is infrastructure changes.

teaboy wrote:

Initialised wrote:

teaboy wrote:

jasecd wrote:

All well and good but you can massively accelerate this trend by taking dangerous drivers off the roads and aggressively enforcing traffic laws. The behaviour of a sizeable minority of drivers is what keeps many people from cycling.

Even if it were possible, it would take decades to properly install cycling infrastructure across the city. Forcing a change in driver behaviour would not be easy but is likely to be far quicker and less costly yet I have not once heard a politician or "leader" speak out about this. Until they do then they will continue to fail vulnerable road users everywhere.

How to you ensure that EVERY driver EVERYWHERE in London ALWAYS drives in a way that is safe an legal? Where else has done so, and how much did it cost? What is the ongoing cost of this?

By having all their vehicles fitted with GPS tracking and front and rear cameras and black box data recorders to make them responsible for their actions and resolve insurance and legal matters quickly and collision avoidance systems to prevent accidents in the first place.

That isn't a preventative measure though, is it? There is nothing to stop people still driving dangerously, or in a way that prevents people from wanting to cycle on the road with them. You might catch more people, but it still won't make it feel safe enough. Also, where else has done this, and what were the results? What are the costs, and who analyses the billions of hours of data?

Initialised wrote:

If a drug was introduced to the market that killed 4000 annually and maimed far more it'd be banned and taken off the streets immediately why not take the same approach with road safety?

That isn't what you call for - you suggest watching everyone and monitoring movement so they won't take the drug. The only thing that physically removes the killing machines is infrastructure changes.

In addition; "Not dying is a low bar. Aim for happy cycling": http://lcc.org.uk/articles/not-dying-is-a-low-bar-aim-for-happy-cycling

There are plenty of things I can do and be pretty sure I won't die as a result of. That generally isn't a sufficiently good reason for me to go out of my way to do them; I want to actually ENJOY them.

I don't want to paraphrase the article too much, but in short; to encourage mass-cycling, you need to provide an activity that is not only non-fatal, but actually pleasant. Playing musical chairs with smoke-belching rhinoceroses is not everyone's idea of fun, fatal or otherwise.

I found this debate really inspiring and wrote a post about safe cycling in which I quoted small bits of it, especially the great line - "Not dying is a low bar - aim for happy cycling." Here's the post - http://averagejoecyclist.com/benefits-separated-bike-lanes/

I really admire what you Londoners are doing with your bike superhighways - here in Vancouver we have massive public outcries every time another few blocks get a separate bike lane!

My wife and I took a vacation in London in 2006. We LOVED the city and we love cycling too, but we never even thought of cycling in London - it looked really dangerous to us. Once these highways are in, I cannot wait to go back and explore London by bike!
Average Joe Cyclist
P.S. I cannot figure out why my names shows up as "A" - I wanted it to be Average Joe Cyclist, but I must have done something wrong!

All well and good but you can massively accelerate this trend by taking dangerous drivers off the roads and aggressively enforcing traffic laws. The behaviour of a sizeable minority of drivers is what keeps many people from cycling.

Even if it were possible, it would take decades to properly install cycling infrastructure across the city. Forcing a change in driver behaviour would not be easy but is likely to be far quicker and less costly yet I have not once heard a politician or "leader" speak out about this. Until they do then they will continue to fail vulnerable road users everywhere.

Fortunately, policy-makers in London have finally realised that building safe cycling infrastructure is the only way to achieve mass cycling (as demonstrated amply by countries like the Netherlands).

In about one year's time, the centre of London will look very different and will be much more welcoming to every-day cycling. That's not decades, is it? It's 12 months (or we could call it two years for design and build).

Consider, there are quite simply no cities in the Western world that have achieved mass cycling by concentrating on driver behaviour and insisting cyclists ride in fast or heavy motor traffic. None... and I doubt there ever will be.

mad_scot_rider wrote:

For contrast how does cycle-specific spending compare?

Bet it's nowhere near 16.667%

I should ruddy well hope not. One of the strongest arguments in favour of cycling support is how much cheaper it is, and how much potential it has to reduce maintenance costs.