Dear All
More nuggets of the lowest intellect from our mate in london Boris J.
All opinions welcome as always of course.
RJ
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
The Sublime Intellect of Boris - NOT!
(33 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Bojo is very intelligent. And very manipulative.
The die-in idea is suddenly looking even better to me though.
Posted 11 years ago # -
But.... I'm already lying down on my bike ;-)
Posted 11 years ago # -
He's not gone ahead with the 'planned' speech, opting instead for a more friendly pro-bike approach. One suspects a very quick re-writing was done!
Posted 11 years ago # -
from the article:
"But the risk is that the association of cycling with death may be doing the opposite. It may be scaring people away."His comments may be inappropriate, but it does seem to be a topic we (cyclists) are conflicted with...
We say Helmets, and high Vis makes cycling appear dangerous to the general (non cycling) public, making the assertion more people don't cycle because of that.
We then have demo's like PoP, or ghost bikes, or lying down in the road as per the article and say, "too many people are dying, this needs to stop", making the assertion thatif it did stop more people would cycle, and that cycling is too dangerous.
We also use statistic like chances of being killed are x in y Bn's of km's, so cycling is really quite safe, making the assertion that the non cycling public should cycle now.
Some of the above, to me anyway, seem to put across the same message that cycling is dangerous. Of course there are those who would say that one/either/neither/all of those statements above are correct, even when they appear to contradict the other statements.
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's the great confliction of our time. Numbers give desperately needed legitimacy to the campaign to make cycling safer. Asking for those changes is an explicit statement that we don't feel it's safe.
Personally, I don't feel cycling is safe enough to recommend to anyone I care about who isn't relatively young and fit / aggressive. I would be gravely concerned if my parents or any other relative decided to take up cycling.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Bald, I think it is those conflicts the Boris is trying to stoke - divide and conquer, etc.
In my mind;
Cycling is safe.
HGV's are currently unnecessarily dangerous to cyclists.
So while (in my opinion) helmets, hi-vis, et-al would provide only a very small (if any) benefit targeting HGV's with additional training and mirrors would have a large benefit. I think Boris wants to put people off protesting in case they are seen as putting people off cycling when in actual fact the protests shouldn't be about making cycling in general safer, but about Boris's refusal to appropriately deal with a known problem.
Posted 11 years ago # -
What rust said.
Cycling is not particularly dangerous. Large motor vehicles are.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Cycling is safe.
HGV's are currently unnecessarily dangerous to cyclists."
It's the interaction of both users around each other that becomes dangerous, HGV's on the own are as innocuous as bicycle's.
HGV drivers tend not to be aware of what is on their left hand side, and cyclists tend not to be aware that they shouldn't be going down there. Both issues need to be addressed for sure.
Posted 11 years ago # -
HGV's on the own are as innocuous as bicycle's.
Try telling that to pedestrians, or indeed anyone in charge of a smaller vehicle.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"HGV drivers tend not to be aware of what is on their left hand side"
Require them to have mirrors then. If I were an HGV driver I can't imagine wanting to drive anywhere without being able to see what's on my left hand side.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Personally, I don't feel cycling is safe enough to recommend to anyone I care about who isn't relatively young and fit / aggressive. I would be gravely concerned if my parents or any other relative decided to take up cycling."
I agree with this from Dave in its entirety. Rightly or wrongly I feel that cycling is safe for me as I've been doing it for years and have developed that spidey sense and roadcraft. That obviously doesn't eliminate the totally left-field occurence, but for novice cyclists I do, genuinely, think the roads are too dangerous a place.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Require them to have mirrors then.
They mostly do, but it is well known that blind spots exist.
Cyclists also have a duty of survival to not go anywhere they may be crushed knowing how dangerous that area is. We need to take some responsibility too.
What I am saying above does not imply that I think all cyclist deaths where an interaction with an HGV has been involved are because the cyclist has not know, or heeded the danger. HGV drivers do drive past and then left cut cyclists.
Incidentally, many years ago I got caught inside a LRT bus on the left hand side at the Corstorphine roundabout when the railings were still there. It missed me by inches, I had nowhere to go but to lean as close to the railing as possible and hope for the best.
100% my fault due to ignorance, and I 100% have never done it again. I hold the bus driver 0% accountable for nearly killing me, I nearly killed me.We really need to educate drivers AND cyclists. My ignorance nearly killed me, and for that I have no excuse. Others have been far less lucky.
anyway I digress, back to the demo, and whether it makes cycling look more dangerous than it really is.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Hmmm, LGV's are required to have mirrors, what type is a subject for debate, however decent lgv drivers are paranoid about what's on their left hand side. Mirrors will only do so much however and it is impossible, not to mention impractical to watch the lh mirrors all the time. An artic driver is already watching the mirrors an astonishing percentage of the time, but one has to look forwards now and again whilst making turns!
I've driven artics with good mirrors, as carefully as I can, and still had cars and two wheelers place themselves into stupid dangerous positions where I only saw them *because* I was being extra careful. It wuld have been *soo* easy to hit them it's frightening, had they known what *they* were doing they wouldn't have put themselves into those positions. Once an artic cab is turned left with the mirrors pointed in towards the trailer even the best mirrors are still severely limited. For LGV's and smaller vehicles to safely share roadspace required education and awareness from both parties.
None of that excuses stupid or dangerous driving, but to automatically blame either drivers, riders, or even fleet managers is an unhelpful over-simplification. Each case must be considered individually and where there appears to be a common cause then action should be taken, but even if that action is successful, short of total segregation (which I personally do not advocate) it does not and can not unfortunately guarantee an end to collisions.Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm not sure if this is getting too OT. But, I do believe Boris's comments are designed to divide the cycle community and make any protests less effective.
I don't believe all HGV drivers are bad, or hold them automatically responsible in incidents with cycles. However, when I think about the problem of cycle/HGV collisions I struggle to imagine a more straight forward approach than adding additional mirrors to HGVs to limit the blind spots. Obviously this shouldn't be the only response.
"We need to take some responsibility too."
I feel I can only take responsibility for myself as a cyclist. I don't cycle up the sides of HGV's but I can't stop others from doing it.
I suppose an interesting question for the lorry drivers of this forum is:
Do you think that an increase in mirrors on HGVs could make them more dangerous?
I can imagine a situation like Smudge alludes to where so much time is spent looking in the mirrors that not enough time is spent looking forward. Or do you think it might encourage cyclists to ride up the inside of lorries knowing/believing that they can be seen in mirros?
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's easy to be too sympathetic to professional drivers IMO.
I would find it quite tricky to keep on top of all the variables while driving a massive wagon through a built up area, but I expect I would also find it difficult to fly a plane.
We demand that pilots don't slam into the ground because they found the instruments too demanding. It's bizarre that professional drivers aren't held to similar standards when comparatively their job, even including not killing cyclists, is about a million times easier.
It's tempting to buy into the "we have to take responsibility" argument but I think it's pretty broken. There is only one source of danger - the driver not ensuring the space about to be driven over is clear.
Crack that nut and you don't need the 70 million members of the public to master a complex survival routine to avoid being crushed to death. Just that one driver needs to a) have the right safety equipment and b) use it.
I will say that I'm sure 99.9% of people who make a living driving large vehicles do a perfectly decent job. The problem is these vehicles make up under 5% of road movements but cause over 50% of deaths. Something has to give and I don't think making the other 70 million of us responsible for a failure to check the nearside is clear is any kind of answer.
PS. it's not articulated, but almost no cyclist deaths are associated with articulated trucks anyway - they're almost all rigid body: http://mccraw.co.uk/sorry-mate-i-cant-see-blind-spot/
Posted 11 years ago # -
Sorry Dave I have to disagree with elements of what you say, I know professional pilots who would laugh out loud at your "about a million times easier" statement. Difficulty is relative, both jobs have their difficult elements, I'd have to do both to be able to speak with authority, however I have flown light aircraft and I have driven a range of LGV's so I'll stick my neck out..
Pilots are paid not to fly into the ground, correct, LGV drivers are paid not to drive into walls likewise. What airline pilots don't have to do is navigate in and out of airports in close proximity to unregulated light aircraft flown by pilots who are largely able to ignore the traffic rules. If they did there would be carnage and I doubt the airline pilots would get the blame.
The rate of deaths is not due to the attitude of drivers I suspect, rather that most minor mistake with a car will put a cyclist or pedestrian in hospital, with an LGV it will kill. That's why the majority of LGV drivers are very careful.
I don't believe in victim blaming, I also don't believe that we can absolve cyclists of any responsibility to exercise care around potentially dangerous junctions or road surfaces or vehicle types. I've had to take violent avoiding action in the past to avoid crushing cars who've done stupid things, that doesn't mean they weren't potential victims, or that I had been anything less than careful, but I understand just how easily things could have gone badly wrong. It's easy to blame drivers for not looking where they are going, but that reflects the same lack of understanding shown when people say cyclists falling over on tram lines have only themselves to blame when they crash on a perfectly visible, predictable hazard...Posted 11 years ago # -
Dave / WC
"isn't relatively young and fit / aggressive."
"I agree with this from Dave in its entirety"Why aggressive ?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I only wish that Scotland had a Boris, he's done more to promote cycling than the whole of the SNP combined.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Boris has a range of views that many people find unpalatable. For instance Infind his recent remarks on IQ to be eugenicist.
He likes to cycle a bike, which is nice. however, he has now been got at by some of his chums who have asked him to start blaming cyclists for their own misfortune rather than for instance banning lorries from central London.
he is a venal politician of the lowest order, wrapped up in a stand up comic buffoon shtick which seems to successfully obscure his real and nasty views from the voting public.
I do hope No one here can be swayed by him because he goes a bike?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I read his reported comments on ambition and ability and thought them perfectly reasonable.
Posted 11 years ago # -
That's right Charterhall, you are a fan of Boris for sure. and I am most defintely not. I found them to be unpleasant and elitist. it is still a free country and not a fascist junta, despite Boris's desire to take money from the needy and give it to the able. so we can agree to differ. But you are still wrong :-)
Posted 11 years ago # -
Not speaking for WC but for me it's aggressive because you have to take and hold at least sections of the road often against the desire of drivers to pass you. This morning for instance, on the A985, I had to make a right turn so had to move from the side of the road to the middle. At 6.35am there's a constant stream of traffic with a 50mph limit heading in the same direction going to the Rosyth dockyard so I have to signal, hold it for five seconds or so and then, literally, push my way into the flow of the traffic, forcing cars to slow down or hit me. If I didn't they would keep going, forcing me to stop and wait of a gap that wouldn't come. Maybe that's just assertive but it feels pretty aggressive when you're doing it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
On the subject of HGVs (referring to Rust's long-ago comment up top) I think it's appropriate to quote Douglas Adams...:
ARTHUR:
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal! Is it safe?
[Sound of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal salivating]
FORD:
Oh Yes! It’s perfectly safe - it’s just us who are in trouble.
[Original radio series fit the sixth]Posted 11 years ago # -
Even heavily segregated Netherlands still has a problem of lorries right hooking cyclists but the response is to investigate, redesign and to blame the lorry driver.
Anyway, sorry, but reaching back to the start, there's no real contradiction between saying cycling is fundamentally safe and that cycling is sufficiently dangerous that there should be greater segregation between vehicles and bicycles.
Cycling is safe in the sense that numerically very few people die while cycling and the odds of a cyclist dying on any particular journey are low but cycling is dangerous in the sense that the road environment is hostile, that cyclists need to be tremendously assertive (maybe even aggressive) and that the risks of dying are high compared to other road users. It feels dangerous. Many people don't do it because it feels dangerous. If more people did it, in the current environment, many more would die. Few people die because few people cycle. So if you want more people to cycle, you need to improve both real safety (bring down the casualty rate) and increase the perception of safety by increasingly separating bikes and cars.
BTW, I saw two pavement cyclists today, both pensioners, a man and a woman, one on Rose Street and one on Queen Street. No one seemed to be scared of them.
Posted 11 years ago # -
When I get a bit older,,I will go back to cycling on the WoL path and the NEPN and avoid the roads. in Shallah
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm not entirely without sympathy for the drivers. In my experience the drivers of big trucks inevitably give me lots of room and the only time things get uncomfortable is for instance if something comes the other way midway through a pass, whereas private motorists just make me uncomfortable all the time.
I'd almost say that the smaller the truck the worse it's driven, down to the vans that any ape can get behind the wheel of.
That said, even if we stick with the flying analogy (in the best traditions of CCE), we're still talking about 70 million members of the public going about their business in light aircraft and just a few commercial airliners taxing at the wrong time and crushing them.
Ultimately that's why I think we have to look at the drivers, the vehicles and the fleet managers / haulage firms for the solution. We're never going to train 70 million Britons in such a way that they won't get run over, for Boris to tackle what are probably just a few thousand drivers of construction trucks in London is much more appropriate.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yup def agree that the standard of driving drops with the smaller trucks / vans. Also massively worse in drivers who drive as an incidental to their core employment (step forward the council aand posties. I've spoken with post office managers who openly admit (off the record of course) that the majority of their drivers are dangerously bad!)
The only (short term and achievable) way I see to sort the specific problem in London is to seperate the trucks and the bikes, to me the only way to do that is to limit the times trucks are allowed into the city.
It has been done elsewhere in the world, it just requires political will, but while Mr Johnson is no fool, he is a British politician and that appears to mean afraid of upsetting any motor vehicle group these days (except motorcclists of course who must be protected from themselves of course, sigh) :-(Posted 11 years ago # -
Dave's argument seems sound although I am now worried that if big trucks stop at periphery depots and transfer their cargo to wee vans we will be worse off. The idea would be more to try to get the stuff delivered in the wee small hours when we are in bed, safely tucked up? How feasible is this?
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
