Vehicular cycling is a pretty good technique outside London (although there's the odd idea or two I think are rubbish), but almost impossible to achieve much of the time within it as you just get run off the road / tons of abuse.

Returning to demimismo's earlier comments – I was talking generically and not re specific incidents, but if you want some try…

No, you said:

No – untrue categorically – all the cases recently have clearly been the result of the lorry moving and crushing static riders

I think that's not “generical” you are talking about “all recently cases”, which is specific. That's why I remembered the article.

And about the article you linked, I'm not saying that every case was caused by cyclists bad behaviour, I don't have that information. I only think we shouldn't only blame lorry drivers or local autorities, sometimes we should also think about the way we drive.

These funds will enable the borough to carry out an in-depth study of the collisions at this location and implement any cost-effective recommendations. TfL officers will be happy to work with their colleagues in the borough to improve safety for cyclists. “

That's a good thing, we'll see what happens, I really hope those funds become real-world solutions and not only shittylanes

Returning to demimismo's earlier comments – I was talking generically and not re specific incidents, but if you want some try:
http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist…
I wouldn't necessarily trust either ES or bystanders – notoriously unreliable witnesses and accurate reporters of quick trafffic accidents. I still think the lorry driver has some culpability for not leaving adequate space as a matter of course, but would agree that if the witnesses are reliable, the cyclist shares some responsibility. Insufficient cycle lanage and poor policing where they do exist (i.e. non-existent policing of advanced stop lines) are also to blame – strongly.

For where I'd blatantly copied my views from:
http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2009/07/t…

Also see most recent transport question time (reposted at http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/): “What action will you ask TfL to take in conjunction with Greenwich Council to improve safety for cyclists at the junction of A206 Woolwich Road and the southbound A102 in East Greenwich, described by the London Cycle Campaign as “wholly unsuitable for cyclists”, following the tragic death of Adrianna Skrzypiec, a cyclist killed there by a lorry on 15 May? – Caroline Pidgeon

The London Borough of Greenwich has responsibility as highway authority for road safety at this junction. Following a request for funding by the borough, TfL has provided £90,000 this year through the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) process. These funds will enable the borough to carry out an in-depth study of the collisions at this location and implement any cost-effective recommendations. TfL officers will be happy to work with their colleagues in the borough to improve safety for cyclists. “

The “vehicular cycling” cult studiously ignores this fact and the fact that calling bicycles “vehicles” is fundamentally misguided.

Sorry, if bicycles are not vehicles… what's a vehicle? And assuming bicycles are not vehicles… how I'm supposed to commute to work everyday? (I'm using the road right now).

In most places it is illegal to cycle on the sidewalks on the assumption that cyclists, being faster, pose a danger to pedestrian. This is why bicycle traffic is legally segregated from pedestrians. Yet the lawmakers responsible for this segregation ignore the far greater danger to cyclists from automobiles when cyclists are forced to share the same roads. Much as many of us succumb to the temptation to blame cyclists for not giving way to obviously more dangerous automobiles, this is logically the same, and morally equivalent to — or worse than — blaming pedestrians for not being on permanent lookout for bicycles if they try to take their own right of way if the law had required pedestrians and cyclists to all share the same paths. The main reason for the problem is the morally culpable negligence of lawmakers who fail to put in place the kind of separated infrastructure for bikes — equivalent to separated sidewalks and footpaths for pedestrians — that places like the Netherlands, Denmark and cities in Germany have done with such resounding success, leaving them with the lowest rates of cycling injuries and fatalities when compared to other major industrialised countries. The “vehicular cycling” cult studiously ignores this fact and the fact that calling bicycles “vehicles” is fundamentally misguided.

As long as automobiles continue to dominate our streets and roadways, everyone, no matter what their age, from 5 to 105, should be guaranteed as a basic right the ability to travel anywhere by bicycle (or skateboard, kicks-cooter or wheeled skates) with the same kind of safe, dedicated and segregated paths or roadways that are provided to pedestrians. And where pedestrian paths, bike paths and automobile roadways cross over each other, the priority should NOT be ease of access by the largest and fastest as it is nowadays, but rather to make crossing easiest and safest for the most vulnerable. Level crossings for automobiles should be abolished and everywhere where a sidewalk crosses over a roadway and/or cycle path, the sidewalk should continue at the same raised level, forcing heavy wheeled machine operators (and cyclists as well) to slow down and pay attention while they cross the intersection or turn onto an intersecting roadway; and physically segregated bike paths between the sidewalk and automobile lanes should, if already raised above the level of the car lanes, also remain raised as they cross another road and preferably also hinder fast turning by cars by raised bumps along their outside border with the adjacent roadway.

This is just one of the kinds of changes that could be put in place to ensure greater safety for cyclists and pedestrians. The truth is that lawmakers in most places have consistently put the convenience of motor vehicle operators above the safety of other users of the public rights of way, and worse, now that it is very clear what makes for greater public safety (and a reduction of automobile dependency that is at the root of so many of our environmental and health problems) is to favour the most vulnerable (and health- and environment- benign) users of the public rights of way and to provide for the convenience the most dangerous and destructive only to the extent it does not tread on anyone else's toes, so to speak.

Yes, I know that there is a need for more cyclist education, like what is done in the Netherlands as a matter of course in primary schools, but this is not done because cycling is not taken seriously. However, not only should this be required for every schoolchild to get them accustomed to cycling as a normal way to get around, and to any new adult cyclist, but it should extend to anyone who wants the privilege of holding a motor vehicle licence. Require every motorist to prove their cycling abilities and familiarity with riding a bike and the vulnerability to motor traffic that is involved, as part of their driver education and testing, before they can even receive a motoring license and again, before they have it renewed. Put the legal onus on motorists in collisions with cyclists or pedestrians, as is done in the Netherlands and Germany.

But DON'T throw helmets at the problem and DON'T go telling cyclists it's ultimately THEIR responsibility. In the final analysis, it's ultimately those who put in place an infrastructure that favours easy motoring over all else who are to answer for their irresponsibility in setting up and maintaining what has proved itself to be the source of so much unnecessary carnage.

Once you have screamed at an earphone wearing idiot who chose to undertook an Asda hgv which was clearly indicating left, with a bunch of cyclists hanging back in safety to let it turn over the bus lane, (not to mention other appauling incidents) there is no option but to think that some people simply do not know how to ride in traffic. Had the guy gone under the hgv it would not have been the driver's fault. But the rider didn't know this – and probably never will – because when i came along side to tell him how he had put his own life in danger, he took out his earphones, and sad “what? i didn't hear you”.

There is a reason I have ridden in London for 5 years without a major incident. It is because I treat myself as a road user, which makes me particularly cross at “thevoiceofreason.” You, sir, are a chump. You said “When you start paying road tax and have insurance (which let’s be honest is only a matter of time under the current regime) then maybe you will be entitled to be represented properly and have some input in to road matters.”

You ignore the fact that road tax does not in fact finance the road network; it is council tax which does this. Road tax goes into the black hole known as the Exchequer. As i live in a house, I pay council tax. Therefore I pay a contribution to the condition of the roads. I am also insured as I am a member of British Cycling. I take massive offence when people claim that each and every cyclist ignores the rules of the road. I tried jumping every red light on my way home once. How much faster did it make me? 6 minutes. I am busy. I have a hectic job. But really, I can cope with 6 minutes if it means that people who see me wait at red lights have a tiny semblence of respect for at least one cyclist.

If cyclists continue to put themselves at risk by riding up the inside of buses/hgvs, then there will continue to be serious accidents and deaths. We *know* that lorries have poor vision. Yet why do we ride near them? There is absolutely no problem to wait for 15 seconds to see it move off, and make sure you know where it is going. For those new to cycling (unlike, i suspect, all of us here), a cycle training course should be offered and promoted (as they already are).

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-…

“A restaurant worker who saw the accident, and did not want to be named, said: “She tried to come inside the lorry as it was turning. I don't think he saw her at all because she was right at the back. “

“Arthur Courtney, 62, who was drinking at the Rockingham Arms when the collision occurred across the road in Newington Causeway, said: “I don't think it was the driver's fault. “

“She came in at the back just as he was turning and he couldn't have seen her.

Do you have more data about that case?

Lorry drivers have been killing Londoners riding bicycles with chilling regularity,

Another way, arguably more accurate, to put it could be “Londoners have been commiting suicide riding bicycles into lorries with chilling regularity”.

That is what comes out of “not being interested in vehicular cycling”, I guess.