Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
yellowjack said:
Yurp. You know that. You are correct. I knew that, hence my "fix" for that - turning the ASL box, or a 'no-man's-land' before it into a yellow box junction type affair, wherein you MUST be able to clear it, or should not enter it at all. But I was just having a bit of a rant, and I think, deep down, you know that, really 
I genuinely believe that a lot of the paint on the road aimed at helping cyclists is in fact a hindrance. Scrubbing a lot of it off would help the situation at many such junctions, as, rightly or wrongly, inexperienced cyclists tend to see the paint and think "this is official, therefore it must be safe to follow" and that's when they find themselves stuck alongside vehicles inappropriately with no exit strategy.
Just to say, in fairness, there is an exit strategy (particularly in this photo), the cyclist simply drops the bike where it stands, for the truck to plough over while the cyclist simply steps aside onto the pavement.I genuinely believe that a lot of the paint on the road aimed at helping cyclists is in fact a hindrance. Scrubbing a lot of it off would help the situation at many such junctions, as, rightly or wrongly, inexperienced cyclists tend to see the paint and think "this is official, therefore it must be safe to follow" and that's when they find themselves stuck alongside vehicles inappropriately with no exit strategy.
The driver then has to stop and explain why there's a bicycle under his wheels.
heebeegeetee said:
Just to say, in fairness, there is an exit strategy (particularly in this photo), the cyclist simply drops the bike where it stands, for the truck to plough over while the cyclist simply steps aside onto the pavement.
The driver then has to stop and explain why there's a bicycle under his wheels.
In many cases, yes there is that option. But equally, in many cases there is no access to the footway, and the rider ends up trapped rather tightly between a large vehicle and some railings. And by the time you realise you are being squashed, it's mostly too late to leap to safety from the bike. People just don't react that quickly, physically, because it takes a moment's delay for the brain to realise the danger and decide on what course of action to take. By the time that the movement is attempted, it's often impossible to carry out due to injury or restriction. What then follows is inevitable, unless the vehicle driver has already realised what's happening and is in the process of stopping.The driver then has to stop and explain why there's a bicycle under his wheels.
yellowjack said:
I genuinely believe that a lot of the paint on the road aimed at helping cyclists is in fact a hindrance. Scrubbing a lot of it off would help the situation at many such junctions, as, rightly or wrongly, inexperienced cyclists tend to see the paint and think "this is official, therefore it must be safe to follow" and that's when they find themselves stuck alongside vehicles inappropriately with no exit strategy.
I'm beginning to add the ASL strategy into this too.It encourages cyclists to squeeze to the front where many believe it's safe, but even if it is the safest place (and I'd now need some convincing) it's encouraged those who dont understand risk to carry out squeezing manouvres. Those who do understand hold back.
Are ASLs really a good idea?
Mr Gear said:
ASLs are the safest place to be at lights... As long as you can get there safely before the lights change to green.
That may be so (and I havent seen anything written on it) but if it's leading to a new unsafe behaviour to get there and then used elsewhere, the overall effect may be negative. How do they affect other road usersWhat have you seen written in their favour?
How do towns/cities compare with and without?
yellowjack said:
inexperienced cyclists tend to see the paint and think "this is official, therefore it must be safe to follow" and that's when they find themselves stuck alongside vehicles inappropriately with no exit straotegy.
It's not just the inexperienced riders doing this.I don't care what the layout is, I would never put myself in such a position.It doesn't matter that there are also bad drivers etc, the fact remains that you are severely vulnerable on a bike and your self preservation levels should be off the chart.You make it sound as though paint would be to blame should hundreds of riders fall to their death because you decide to paint a cycle path up to the cliff edge at Beachy Head.
Digby said:
yellowjack said:
inexperienced cyclists tend to see the paint and think "this is official, therefore it must be safe to follow" and that's when they find themselves stuck alongside vehicles inappropriately with no exit straotegy.
It's not just the inexperienced riders doing this.I don't care what the layout is, I would never put myself in such a position.It doesn't matter that there are also bad drivers etc, the fact remains that you are severely vulnerable on a bike and your self preservation levels should be off the chart.You make it sound as though paint would be to blame should hundreds of riders fall to their death because you decide to paint a cycle path up to the cliff edge at Beachy Head.
Can't say I disagree with most of that.There are cycle training schemes, but how many partake is a different matter.All HGV drivers however are required by law to attend CPC courses and for us, that included an entire day dedicated to how our city streets have changed due to the influx of cyclists.Some drivers were even forced to ride cycles as part of this module.
As I touched upon in another thread, it seems odd to me that we now require training to use a small ladder or pallet truck; are not in many cases allowed to change headlight bulbs etc on works vehicles because we are 'not trained' and have to be shown how to pick up a box; yet anyone can jump on a bike (possibly for the first time) and go mix it up with other road users in a congested city.
As I touched upon in another thread, it seems odd to me that we now require training to use a small ladder or pallet truck; are not in many cases allowed to change headlight bulbs etc on works vehicles because we are 'not trained' and have to be shown how to pick up a box; yet anyone can jump on a bike (possibly for the first time) and go mix it up with other road users in a congested city.
Digby said:
As I touched upon in another thread, it seems odd to me that we now require training to use a small ladder or pallet truck; are not in many cases allowed to change headlight bulbs etc on works vehicles because we are 'not trained' and have to be shown how to pick up a box; yet anyone can jump on a bike (possibly for the first time) and go mix it up with other road users in a congested city.
Non of that is for your benefit, it is to stop you making any injury claim at a later date if you f
k up. gazza285 said:
Digby said:
As I touched upon in another thread, it seems odd to me that we now require training to use a small ladder or pallet truck; are not in many cases allowed to change headlight bulbs etc on works vehicles because we are 'not trained' and have to be shown how to pick up a box; yet anyone can jump on a bike (possibly for the first time) and go mix it up with other road users in a congested city.
Non of that is for your benefit, it is to stop you making any injury claim at a later date if you fk up. Devil2575 said:
gazza285 said:
Digby said:
As I touched upon in another thread, it seems odd to me that we now require training to use a small ladder or pallet truck; are not in many cases allowed to change headlight bulbs etc on works vehicles because we are 'not trained' and have to be shown how to pick up a box; yet anyone can jump on a bike (possibly for the first time) and go mix it up with other road users in a congested city.
Non of that is for your benefit, it is to stop you making any injury claim at a later date if you fk up. Devil2575 said:
gazza285 said:
Same difference...
Do you think that companies should have to provide employees with proper training?A company will tend to protect itself when all they have is a bloke pulling a pallet truck around a warehouse.
Yet many cyclists go out into the rush hour traffic with zero training, none at all. Most legislation comes from the old mantra that some times you have to protect people from themselves, I see cycling as now warranting such intervention maybe they could pick a city for a trial.
NoNeed said:
Devil2575 said:
gazza285 said:
Same difference...
Do you think that companies should have to provide employees with proper training?A company will tend to protect itself when all they have is a bloke pulling a pallet truck around a warehouse.
Devil2575 said:
I think that some companies do it because they actually don't want employees to get injured at work. Sometimes people actually care about other people. Also colleagues being injured is bad for morale and terrible PR so bad for businesses.I think the cost of an injury claim isn't always significant compared to loss of business due to negative PR or reduction in productivity because employees are demotivated and don't feel valued.
Yes like I said after the line you quoted, sometimes you have to protect people from themselves, I don't see cyclists as an exception to that.Devil2575 said:
Do you think that companies should have to provide employees with proper training?
I work in the construction industry and would say that proper training is essential. Apart from anything else, without evidence of training there is no way that a company will pass a Pre Qualifying Questionnaire (PQQ)and be allowed to tender for work. NoNeed said:
Yes like I said after the line you quoted, sometimes you have to protect people from themselves, I don't see cyclists as an exception to that.
I'm not talking just about protecting people from themselves. I'm also talking about not expecting people to do jobs for which they have inadequate training. Devil2575 said:
I'm not talking just about protecting people from themselves. I'm also talking about not expecting people to do jobs for which they have inadequate training.
I simply don't understand where this idea that cyclists have no training comes from. You can't ride a bike without some practice and tuition because you fall straight off, so most are taught by their parents and indeed for many it is their introduction to learning about road safety. Cyclists get much the same tuition as pedestrians, but we rarely see untaught little children walking about on there own, do we?
Fact is, by the time people are making their way in the big bad world be it on foot or bike, they've had road safety drummed into them for years.
They usually then go on to learn to drive, and isn't there a stat that says some 70 odd percent of cyclist have a drivers licence?
'Course, it's as drivers that they'll kill and maim thousands a year, not as cyclists.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff