Transport for London’s new crash map immediately crashes Just hours after it was launched yesterday, TfL’s new interactive digital collision map went down for about an hour, as excited Londoners zoomed in to find out where accidents had happened. The map uses data collected by the police dating back to 2005. Users can filter the results by location, seriousness of incident, and date …
As someone that travels to lots of other foreign cities, I would surely have a peep before blindly heading into the unknown.
I'd like to see results like these for an intersection in Chicago Fullerton, Lincoln and Halsted.... three street intersection, and yes I was in a bumper to bumper to bumper there...
"And of course no cyclist ever avoided that roundabout."
It seems that the majority of cyclists coming from the North now use a back street route a few blocks to the East down through Hoxton, resulting in a hugely congested cycle route where large numbers of cycles compete with pedestrians to get across the incredibly dangerous forked multi lane commercial road junction.
I now prefer to tackle the roundabout itself on my bike, because there are far fewer cycles and most of the cars seem to have at least some knowledge of basic road rules and common courtesy.
(The trucks are still scary as hell though, but I give them a very wide berth...)
@AC
(The trucks are still scary as hell though, but I give them a very wide berth...)
as a cyclist and a driver i give bigger vehicles a wide berth as standard. They cant see as well and cant stop as well as smaller vehicles. is this not common knowledge?
Should cyclists need some training to give vehicles a wide berth before driving on Londons roads?
@Chris 17 - Should cyclists need some training to give vehicles a wide berth before driving on Londons roads?
Maybe drivers should get some training to give vehicles (which includes cycles) a wide berth.
Construction lorries (and other similar vehicles, but they are the massively over represented vehicle type) should be required to have a banksman, and should be banned during peak commuter traffic.
Or maybe we could actually build sensible infrastructure to keep the big metal boxes away from people, without ridiculously impeding the flow of those people.
The number of accidents at a location is of no use in determining the risk unless you also know the number of vehicles that passed the location during the same time interval.
If there has only been a single accident per year at the edge of a remote seldom visited cliff top road but 10 accidents per year at a busy intersection, it does not mean that driving over the cliff is safer than negotiating the intersection.
In general these sort of projects are generally welcome.
However @Cynic_999, pointed out a problem. Does knowing the number of vehicles passing a segment of road always directly relevant?
For example, it is nice to try and say to cyclists "this place is dangerous because there were $A accidents/month". However, what if the presence of cyclists affects the behaviour of drivers?
The worst time to be a cyclist is when the traffic is moving well!
I mean sometimes in central London, the other cars are virtually parked!!!
P.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
