Sure it has planning. But it was planned in 1666, and our needs now are very different than they were three-and-a-half centuries ago--there's only so much space between the buildings and deciding how to alot that space to pedestrians, lanes, parking, etc. is a delicate act.

While there is room for improvement, I think London's done quite well. I don't believe there are any other organically grown cities that have the volume of traffic London handles. I mean, Vancouver is new, planned, and is a fraction the size of London and the traffic situation isn't hugely better.

Personally (and I'm probably going to get low-ranked for this), I'm for the pedestrianization of Central London. Leave it for the taxis and buses (perhaps commercial vehicles could be required to get a daypass, with businesses inside the central zone allowed a certain number of passes per month). Build some Park-n-Rides (see Oxford for an excellent example). When I go back to London, I never bother driving into London anyways (except perhaps late at night to see a show). It's far more convenient to bus and tube to wherever I'm going.

↓↑report

I don't know about the infrastructure of London but in this situation is clearly the fault of the truck driver even if the bicycle was in the middle of the road.

↓↑report

A great deal of central London was planned around multi-lane motor vehicle traffic, when the city was rebuilt after the blitz. If not for that, it would be totally impassable (imagine Paris without the boulevards -- a late 19th century addition, btw).

In this case the bicycles do what they're supposed to, which is pull into the far left lane, which they're entitled to, and the truck passes them in the center lane. Except as is obvious, it's going too fast, with its rear door flapping open, so it swipes a parked car and causes mayhem. Totally the truck driver's fault.

Bike lanes are good, but bikes are also entitled to the traffic lanes, which they need while turning. The real problem in congested urban areas is speeding ... there is no reason for a vehicle like this truck to accelerate to 30+ mph just to go half a block and sit at a traffic light. Yes, your truck can out-accelerate a bicycle from a standing stop, but that doesn't mean it has to. The country I've seen do the best job calming trafffic in urban areas is Germany, because they set low speed limits (30 kph) and enforce them.

If you've got a city with a grid pattern like most U.S. cities, you can afford to take a minor street in each direction and make it pedestrian/cycle only. That's going to be a lot safer with a lot higher volume of bicycle traffic than just bike lanes. I've not even ridden a lot in the city, and still I'm amazed at the drivers who think they have some right to overtake bikes without giving them a lane's worth of clearance (car people: a bike is like a tercel, it may be slow and crappy but it still has the same right to be there as you). Getting roared past by a car that gives you a few inches clearance or (worse) clips your handlebar with its side mirror is scary as hell.

↓↑report

Or unlucky. Seriously, what are the odds of something like that happening?

↓↑report

I was on my bike when I was hit by an elderly driver who made a right turn at a red light - he said he "didn't see" me. Fortunately, it was a very low-speed collision that only resulted in me getting a few stitches, and my GT was still rideable.

I tried negotiating with his insurance co., but the rep said they take everything to court. I was only asking for about $1500 to pay the medical bills, but they were determined to deny my claim.

I walked out of the courtroom with a $10,000 verdict in my favor. Suck it, State Farm, I tried to be fair.

↓↑report

Asuka, the key words here are "as is practicable." They were within 2-3 feet of the curb. If you had ever ridden in urban areas on a bike, you would know there are many hazards in the road if you ride too close. Car doors opening, grates, broken glass, etc. They weren't taking up "an entire lane." It is very clear in the video.

If you added up all the time you'll "waste" behind all the cyclists you'll ever encounter in your lifetime, I'll guarantee you it doesn't add up to one traffic stoppage due to one single wreck caused by some distracted cheeseburger eating, coffee drinking, texting, make-up applying "multi-tasker" behind the wheel of their 2 ton steamroller.

So, rather than getting in a twist over some perceived slight (cyclists think they own the road), why don't you try a little patience and regard for your fellow man. We have 16lbs of steel and carbon fiber, you have 4000lbs of Japan's finest and associated airbags. Please, we don't fare well in those meetings, and our wives and kids would love to have us back home.

↓↑report

+1

↓↑report

It appears that "peloton" (if you can call that loose group of wandering cyclists that) is taking up an entire lane of traffic, forcing the truck to drive perilously close to the parking lane. I don't know about London, but in most of the States, occupying the entire lane and impeding traffic is not legal.

↓↑report

I dunno about all the states, but in California bicycles are supposed to ride as if they are a car and they have the right of way, including traffic lanes. It's most commonly seen during left turns. Cars are allows to pass if its safe, but you don't have to, and they don't have to stay to the right.

↓↑report

umm asuka you have no clue. Bicyclists can take a lane of traffic and if you ever see a 'peleton' riding there is no realistic way to ride single file and stay efficient as a group.

Cyclists have the same right on the road as any other vehicle. There are usually bike lanes in more congested areas but bicyclists can use any lane and often 'occupy' an entire lane in situations such as making a left turn at a light. You confuse common courtesy, and logical safety precautions, of yielding to cars with legality.

Also, truck was not that close to parked cars. the rear door swinging open the extra three and a half feet is all it took to hook the parked car.

↓↑report

Asuka better check your facts

Cyclists are considered vehicles and
have to obey traffic signs and signals as if they were
on a motorbike or something like that.

If you rode you'd know this.

where you from that bikers have no rights on the road?

↓↑report

Hence the adjective "MOST", as in, "not all". In the State I live in (I just checked code, so I definitely DO have a clue), bicyclists most certainly must keep right. Its preposterous to allow bicycles to occupy an entire lane - they aren't cars, and they can't maintain legal speeds (oh wait - "can't maintain legal speeds on MOST roads"). As for these riders, they were riding dangerously, regardless of the local law, and they were very lucky that none of them were killed.

↓↑report

Here are the regs on riding in the street in the three States that comprise my metro area: "Ride with the flow of traffic AS CLOSELY AS PRACTICABLE TO THE RIGHT-HAND CURB OR EDGE OF ROADWAY. Full lane use allowed WHEN TRAVELING AT THE NORMAL SPEED OF TRAFFIC." So, unless you're Lance Armstrong and can maintain a 25+ mph speed, you must stay to the right. So, "Snowtarded" (what an appropriate name), you might want to get a "clue".

↓↑report

Asuka, you told them. Honestly, I will say that if bikers wants to take up a lane in the street rather than driving close to the curb, then my hood ornament will end up in someones A$$. Bicycles are not cars and several bikers forget to realize this.

↓↑report