1,000 attend 'die-in' protest at Transport for London HQ

I really find some of the attitudes on display here weird.
1. This was a London protest about London deaths on London streets outside the office responsible for the design of London streets. The fact that six people have died on London streets in three weeks is not a UK-wide problem, TfL is not a UK-wide organisation.
It's a wholly appropriate response to a localised problem organised by a local organisation. If Manchester, Liverpool or Cornwall are facing similar issues, there is nothing stopping their cycling orgs copying the idea or doing something else. And I, as a cyclist, would get behind them doing it.
Instead, here, we have presumably non-London cyclists mithering on about sodding Londoners. Nothing's stopping you getting your own thing going, and trying to rain on our "die in" is not only manifestly stupid and callous but also counter-productive.
2. That's because where London leads, because we have all the politicians and big organisations to do with road design here, the rest of the UK follows. That may not help the issues we have with rural roads immediately, but it will help with our other cities. I personally think the more cities and towns form their own cycle orgs, the more protests we see across all our cities, the harder we are pushing. So stop moaning and start shouting.
3. In the absence of a currently strong national body (CTC, Sustrans - neither are forceful enough IMHO), we do what we can. Would I like to see a properly funded "Cycling England" style body being enabled to take on national issues? Yes. But I'm not sodding waiting until we get one, and neither should anyone else.

That may be the case but until we get a sensible person to spearhead a national cycling campaign (please Mr Boardman, your country needs you) we have to struggle on with whatever traction there is. London is gaining this because a bike is one of the cheapest and most efficient ways around a criminally polluted city. The fact that the inexperienced are dieing is rightly shining the light on how there is a massive lack of coordinated sensible thinking and vehicles continue to kill with abandon. The real scandal is how many pedestrians get taken out but that again is another story.

That may be the case but until we get a sensible person to spearhead a national cycling campaign (please Mr Boardman, your country needs you) we have to struggle on with whatever traction there is. London is gaining this because a bike is one of the cheapest and most efficient ways around a criminally polluted city. The fact that the inexperienced are dieing is rightly shining the light on how there is a massive lack of coordinated sensible thinking and vehicles continue to kill with abandon. The real scandal is how many pedestrians get taken out but that again is another story.

I'm just getting the feeling lately that there are two separate groups of cyclists forming in the UK, those who cycle in London and those who don't and neither could give a toss about the other.

London are out to change ONLY London while everyone else wants the whole country sorted out.

The LCC did organise a space 4 cycling ride on parliament in the summer. This one was TfL specific as they're the ones slopping a bit of blue paint on London's roads on the basis that it constitutes infrastructure when coroner's have gone so far as to suggest it creates a false sense of security. This protest involved pointing the finger directly at TfL with a number of specific demands.
http://lcc.org.uk/pages/why-safer-lorries

Whilst the protest involves a number of London specific issues they could just as easily be seen as relevant to the country.
There was a good cross section at the die in and the more cycling moves towards the mainstream, the greater the likelihood of progress, not just for London but the whole country. However, it will be one step at a time

most friends and associates who don't live in London find the city a total headf*ck to even visit, let alone try cycling across

London desperately needs proper cycling infrastructure because rising numbers of inhabitants placing extreme stress on the existing public transport places cycling as the ideal transport solution for the masses, as long as its is made safer for less experienced cyclists.

If you want to see this in your city, join its cycling campaign group like LCC and help make it happen. There should be a list of them at http://www.cyclenation.org.uk

What a Terribly English protest. Why do I feel that had it been held in a 'warmer-blooded' country, it would have lasted a lot longer, been a lot louder, rowdier, and would have properly stuffed the traffic for the entire evening? As it stands, just how inconvenienced were London's private car and truck users? Probably no more so than a run-of-the-mill RTI.

I can't be bothered reading the rest after the fourth paragraph.

Why just ask for London.....It should be the WHOLE of the UK that gets £33 per head....

I am not going to comment further, because it'll just explode what already has been a difficult debate

What a malicious and misleading interpretation by Andrew Gilligan regarding the demand that a “ban on any vehicles whose drivers cannot see adjacent road users” means a ban on lorries.

It does not.

It's a demand that lorries (in this example) are fitted with blindspot eliminating technology and mirrors. Such as the newest style mirrors and cameras where this isn't fully covering blindspots.

Cheap and proven technology, which is probably less than £1,000 per lorry.

He just lost a massive amount of respect with that rhetorical red herring.

I meant to add that in spite of the constant digs at 'cyclists' in every corner of the media, there is an enormous untapped demand for cycling in London and elsewhere.

All the annual big events, from London-Brighton to Bike Week demonstrate this again and again.

But it is hugely dependent on having the right infrastructure in place that means people can feel safe while doing so.

What makes Gilligan's stance so disappointing is that he views this approach as a 'knee-jerk' reaction, just like his master.

I don't think we could expect anything less from Boris cheerleader Andrew Gilligan...

It seems to me that there is a clear implication in Gilligan's comments - unfortunately echoed by someone who really should know better, Mikael Colville-Andersen of Copenhagenize, that this was some form of nihilist-anarchist demonstration.

It was not. Looking around I saw the full spectrum of London's cycling community, from couriers through to commuting City lawyers and accountants etc like myself. There was no chanting, no disorder, few banners, no sign of the Socialist Workers Party or "Workers' Institute of Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse Tug Thought". Several LCC luminaries were there (though I didn't see the CEO).

It was all very well behaved, quiet and respectful. The police had it all under control and there was no evident ill-feeling. We all wished each other a nice weekend afterwards.

It is just dumb of Gilligan and MCA to imply that we want to bring the economy to its knees or to frighten non-cyclists away from joining the cycling community. I think we all know that cycling is, statistically, relatively safe - safer indeed than many other activities - but it is not subjectively safe and it is not as safe as it should be. If other major world cities can aspire to zero cyclist deaths, and in some cases achieve it, so can London.