London Tour de Danger attracts hundreds of riders

On 15/11/2011 17:54, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 15/11/2011 17:24, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:59:25 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:32:56 +0000,
wrote:

On 14/11/2011 23:54, Bertie Wooster wrote:

[ ... ]

If Google Streetview driver was misled into believeing it was safe
to go up the inside of a left turning truck, can you understand why
some cyclists might believe it OK for them to go up the inside of a
left turning truck, in the mistaken belief that the truck will be
going straight on?

Very easily - and the sovereign remedy for this is to tell all
cyclists - LOUDLY - that it is A Bad Idea.

Would you, then, agree that the Cycle Superhighway in Bow, which has
killed 2 cyclists is a very bad design as it dumps cyclists on the
inside of the inside lane at the Bow roundabout?


The Cycle Superhighway did not kill those unfortunate people. It may be a
poor layout, but the responsibility for the deaths lies with the cyclists
and drivers involved.

There is a (remote) possibility that TfL will be held accountable for
corporate manslaughter for poor road design.

There is also a remote possibility that there is life on Mars....

That interplanetary possibility is nothing like as remote as TaL being found
guilty of "corporate manslaughter".

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:24:22 +0000, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:59:25 +0000 (UTC), Scion wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:32:56 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 14/11/2011 23:54, Bertie Wooster wrote:

[ ... ]

If Google Streetview driver was misled into believeing it was safe
to go up the inside of a left turning truck, can you understand why
some cyclists might believe it OK for them to go up the inside of a
left turning truck, in the mistaken belief that the truck will be
going straight on?

Very easily - and the sovereign remedy for this is to tell all
cyclists - LOUDLY - that it is A Bad Idea.

Would you, then, agree that the Cycle Superhighway in Bow, which has
killed 2 cyclists is a very bad design as it dumps cyclists on the
inside of the inside lane at the Bow roundabout?


The Cycle Superhighway did not kill those unfortunate people. It may be a
poor layout, but the responsibility for the deaths lies with the cyclists
and drivers involved.

There is a (remote) possibility that TfL will be held accountable for
corporate manslaughter for poor road design.


Is it Anchor taking out a private prosecution?

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:15:30 +0000, JNugent wrote:

On 15/11/2011 17:54, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 15/11/2011 17:24, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:59:25 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:32:56 +0000,
wrote:

On 14/11/2011 23:54, Bertie Wooster wrote:

[ ... ]

If Google Streetview driver was misled into believeing it was safe
to go up the inside of a left turning truck, can you understand why
some cyclists might believe it OK for them to go up the inside of a
left turning truck, in the mistaken belief that the truck will be
going straight on?

Very easily - and the sovereign remedy for this is to tell all
cyclists - LOUDLY - that it is A Bad Idea.

Would you, then, agree that the Cycle Superhighway in Bow, which has
killed 2 cyclists is a very bad design as it dumps cyclists on the
inside of the inside lane at the Bow roundabout?


The Cycle Superhighway did not kill those unfortunate people. It may be a
poor layout, but the responsibility for the deaths lies with the cyclists
and drivers involved.

There is a (remote) possibility that TfL will be held accountable for
corporate manslaughter for poor road design.

There is also a remote possibility that there is life on Mars....

That interplanetary possibility is nothing like as remote as TaL being found
guilty of "corporate manslaughter".


I bet no-one predicted that the introduction of motorways would lead to deaths.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:54:27 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

There is a (remote) possibility that TfL will be held accountable for
corporate manslaughter for poor road design.

There is also a remote possibility that there is life on Mars....

Ahhh... Dave - the Moody Hipsterman... The one who asserted the
Millennium Dome to Excel cable car would never be built.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKLeeXmnjnI

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 07:16:06 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:54:27 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

There is a (remote) possibility that TfL will be held accountable for
corporate manslaughter for poor road design.

There is also a remote possibility that there is life on Mars....

Ahhh... Dave - the Moody Hipsterman... The one who asserted the
Millennium Dome to Excel cable car would never be built.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKLeeXmnjnI

And look... That unviable form of transport being transported...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKLeeXmnjnI&t=2m15s

Phil W Lee wrote:

Scion considered Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:59:25 +0000 (UTC)
the perfect time to write:

Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:32:56 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 14/11/2011 23:54, Bertie Wooster wrote:

[ ... ]

If Google Streetview driver was misled into believeing it was safe
to go up the inside of a left turning truck, can you understand
why some cyclists might believe it OK for them to go up the inside
of a left turning truck, in the mistaken belief that the truck
will be going straight on?

Very easily - and the sovereign remedy for this is to tell all
cyclists - LOUDLY - that it is A Bad Idea.

Would you, then, agree that the Cycle Superhighway in Bow, which has
killed 2 cyclists is a very bad design as it dumps cyclists on the
inside of the inside lane at the Bow roundabout?


The Cycle Superhighway did not kill those unfortunate people. It may
be a poor layout, but the responsibility for the deaths lies with the
cyclists and drivers involved.

It may not have actually killed them, but it drew them into the
dangerous junction, and from an angle that made it particularly
difficult for the trucks concerned to see they were there.


That may be so, but more awareness from both parties would have avoided
tragedy.


TfL were warned that this would happen before it was built, when the
route was being surveyed.
When the plans were published they were warned again, and an
alternative layout that avoided the dangers was suggested as a
zero-cost alternative.
They chose to ignore all the warnings and implement it the way they
did, so must bear the major responsibility for the entirely
predictable (and predicted) outcome.

It will probably be cited in future years in legal textbooks as a case
of "how to commit corporate manslaughter".


I hope not. Most deaths on the road could be prevented by different road
layouts and additional traffic management. (Think extremes - normal urban
roads with crash barriers segregating the two lanes. Traffic lights at
*every* junction.) The responsibility for safe conduct on the roads *must*
lie with the users.




It's hard to imagine a case which fits the definition better.


Not really.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:54:20 +0000, Judith wrote:



(You missed of "****wit")


And that is a great honour to be ****witted by the anthropophagee judith.


--

snip


--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:53:29 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:


Its hard to imagine a bigger ****wit M'Lud.

And that is a grreat honour coming from the vorephilic you.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:39:37 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:



Why should we cater for the whims of a tiny minority?

I love being a tiny minority!



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On 15/11/2011 06:35, Simon Mason wrote:

--
Simon Mason

Pedestrian, car driver, van driver, cat walker, chemist, astronomer,
radio ham, scholar, acrobat& daily
cyclist. Oh and personal lifestyle coach and weight loss motivator of
course.

Tattoo, spotting the seaplane approaching the island, runs up a tower
and excitedly yells, with a French accent, "Ze Plane! Ze Plane!" and
rings a bell.
--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University