Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
GC8 said:
I saw a 7.5tonne van driver do it earlier. Not close enough to jeopardise the cyclist, but Id have been pissed off if Id seen an HGV driver do it. Some will sadly, but theyre a very small minority - you simply cannot f
k about in a monster-sized vehicle in that way.
Just to be clear, the driver approached a red light with a cyclist already there. The driver then pulled up beside the cyclist, indicated and tried to launch himself in front of the cyclist as the lights went green even though he knew there was a chance of crushing them etc as he turned?k about in a monster-sized vehicle in that way.If so, as suggested, throw the book at them.
GC8 said:
No, simply overtook very shortly before turning left. Grandfather right-entitled 7.5t van driver - possibly the worse driven vehicle on the road.
I have also seen this happen with various vehicles.What I have never seen is what others here are suggesting where an HGV tries to beat a cyclist away from the lights whilst immediately turning left across them.
I don't think they make an HGV capable of doing so, so the drivers must either not know the cyclists are there (common if cyclists pull alongside an indicating HGV which was there first) or they know the cyclist is there and just fancy some possible jail time.
walm said:
heebeegeetee said:
If Mr Aybee thinks he will be seen every time, if the driver looks, then I'm saying he could be totally wrong and could end up dead..
If Mr AyBee thinks that, then you are right.But he doesn't think that.
On planet earth when someone says, "if you have a blind spot sticker, you probably don't look" you don't for one minute mean to imply "I am a total moron who thinks blind spots don't exist".
You're hilarious heebeegeetee 
I've been riding in London daily for the last 5 years.The stickers make perfect sense on a large lorry which has blind spots and makes cyclists think about going up the inside. On small vans and trucks with no blind spots, they are just an excuse for laziness: "watch out for yourself because I can't be bothered to check my mirror", that's what I was saying was ridiculous.
And even if I had meant "I can't be bothered to check my nearside mirror" applied to big lorries, surely that's all the more reason to stay away from the inside of them and therefore safer?
AyBee said:
You're hilarious heebeegeetee I've been riding in London daily for the last 5 years.The stickers make perfect sense on a large lorry which has blind spots and makes cyclists think about going up the inside. On small vans and trucks with no blind spots, they are just an excuse for laziness: "watch out for yourself because I can't be bothered to check my mirror", that's what I was saying was ridiculous.
And even if I had meant "I can't be bothered to check my nearside mirror" applied to big lorries, surely that's all the more reason to stay away from the inside of them and therefore safer?
AyBee said:
The stickers make perfect sense on a large lorry which has blind spots and makes cyclists think about going up the inside. On small vans and trucks with no blind spots, they are just an excuse for laziness: "watch out for yourself because I can't be bothered to check my mirror", that's what I was saying was ridiculous.
I'm not even convinced theyre perfect sense - look at 'cyclists dismount' signs and how many times youve seen a cyclist do that.As soon as you have one of the 'cycling professionals' go up the inside of a van or truck with the sticker, all the people who have no idea about what is safe or not think - ok he's doing it it must be ok for me to do the same.
All of this stuff needs a led by example rather than some claim about training.
As for mirrors its not that vans/trucks dont look or use them. Its that they cant be looking in all of them all the time, and you can guess that the time theyre not being checked is the time someone chooses to sneak up the inside.
And around to ASLs again
The original idea was that bikes would stop at the front line and everything else could stop behind them at the second.
However in towns cities with cycle lanes theyve become a means for bikes to sneak up the inside and into the ASL often into the blind spot of the truck at the second line.
That in itself may not usually be a problem but in a very tiny number of cases it's the tipper (see what I did there)
But worse its encouraging the sneaky up the inside type of behaviour
ASLs need taking out
saaby93 said:
But worse its encouraging the sneaky up the inside type of behaviour
ASLs need taking out
You may have a point.ASLs need taking out
However, the problem is that it is far worse to have all those cycle lanes with NO ASL at the front.
You need to take BOTH out if you take out the ASL.
So no cycle lanes at all (unless they are completely segregated).
Although from a personal perspective I find the ASLs work very well.
But I only commute when most people are asleep or in the pub so they never fill up leaving someone stuck at the side of a truck.
AyBee said:
You're hilarious heebeegeetee I've been riding in London daily for the last 5 years.The stickers make perfect sense on a large lorry which has blind spots and makes cyclists think about going up the inside. On small vans and trucks with no blind spots, they are just an excuse for laziness: "watch out for yourself because I can't be bothered to check my mirror", that's what I was saying was ridiculous.
And even if I had meant "I can't be bothered to check my nearside mirror" applied to big lorries, surely that's all the more reason to stay away from the inside of them and therefore safer?
AyBee said:
Mr Will said:
Okay, I'll rise to this.
The ones that were complained about were these:
No attempt at education, just "stay out of the way" - despite the road network often encouraging the exact opposite.
Here are the replacements:
These explain the problem, resulting in an increased level of understanding amongst road users and a higher level of compliance.
Is that a bad thing?
I normally see these signs as "I can't be bothered to check my nearside mirror". They've started appearing on small vans now as well, ridiculous!The ones that were complained about were these:
No attempt at education, just "stay out of the way" - despite the road network often encouraging the exact opposite.
Here are the replacements:
These explain the problem, resulting in an increased level of understanding amongst road users and a higher level of compliance.
Is that a bad thing?
But crack right on.
I don't share your certainty of a lack of blind spots on vans and small trucks either, but you crack right on.
I know that in a small, car-derived van for instance, you can approach a tee-junction and stop, look to your left and not be able to see approaching traffic - and the mirror (same mirror as on the car which doesn't have these issues) is of no use either.
AyBee said:
The stickers make perfect sense on a large lorry which has blind spots and makes cyclists think about going up the inside.
I don't think it does, the stickers are a red herring. Education, maybe a law change and enforcement is the only answer. Cyclists will do as cyclists want and nothing will change that without making a fine or whatever legally enforceable.Have you noticed it's hardly ever the vocal, hard core lycra clad cyclists who are killed, it's the less able, less vocal and slower cyclists who take the biggest hit. How about cyclists doing something for their fellow cyclists rather than bellyaching about the way lorries drive ?
George111 said:
I don't think it does, the stickers are a red herring. Education, maybe a law change and enforcement is the only answer. Cyclists will do as cyclists want and nothing will change that without making a fine or whatever legally enforceable.
How would you change the law?As pointed out plenty of times, just banning "being next to a lorry" makes absolutely no sense at all from a practical perspective. (Although I admit that somehow preventing being next to a lorry would almost certainly save lives...)
Ironically the only ban that has been seriously considered is banning the lorries rather than the cyclists!
walm said:
George111 said:
I don't think it does, the stickers are a red herring. Education, maybe a law change and enforcement is the only answer. Cyclists will do as cyclists want and nothing will change that without making a fine or whatever legally enforceable.
How would you change the law?As pointed out plenty of times, just banning "being next to a lorry" makes absolutely no sense at all from a practical perspective. (Although I admit that somehow preventing being next to a lorry would almost certainly save lives...)
Ironically the only ban that has been seriously considered is banning the lorries rather than the cyclists!
George111 said:
I don't have the answer but I think this is the only approach which will work.
Why not do something that many other countries have done, and segregate them? Banning one or the other will mean London going off into uncharted territory. Why make it hard for ourselves, why not just copy other proven methods?And yes I know the instant response is that London doesn't have room, but that's hogwash imo. Where there's a will there's a way, if room can be found for big vehicles then it can be found for small ones.
Just copy what's already been done.
This week I have been commuting into central London on my motorbike
Most cyclists are fairly well behaved but there are a small minority who ride like absolute clowns! They do not look, undertake buses approaching their stops and other vehicles which are signalling to turn left.
It's a tricky one as often more than one person can be blamed for an accident and more than one person can also avoid an accident but it's very hard when cyclists are so small and there's only a finite amount of things any one brain can process.
Also a special shout out to the bell ends who ride aroun on tatty twist and go mopeds in their suits who literally come out of nowhere to under take you when you're turning left off Battersea Bridge.
Tw@s!!!!
Most cyclists are fairly well behaved but there are a small minority who ride like absolute clowns! They do not look, undertake buses approaching their stops and other vehicles which are signalling to turn left.
It's a tricky one as often more than one person can be blamed for an accident and more than one person can also avoid an accident but it's very hard when cyclists are so small and there's only a finite amount of things any one brain can process.
Also a special shout out to the bell ends who ride aroun on tatty twist and go mopeds in their suits who literally come out of nowhere to under take you when you're turning left off Battersea Bridge.
Tw@s!!!!
heebeegeetee said:
Why not do something that many other countries have done, and segregate them? Banning one or the other will mean London going off into uncharted territory. Why make it hard for ourselves, why not just copy other proven methods?
And yes I know the instant response is that London doesn't have room, but that's hogwash imo. Where there's a will there's a way, if room can be found for big vehicles then it can be found for small ones.
Just copy what's already been done.
Well, as we know, cyclists love a moan and a groan, so you can probably blame them for segregation not being put in to place when things were less crowded.And yes I know the instant response is that London doesn't have room, but that's hogwash imo. Where there's a will there's a way, if room can be found for big vehicles then it can be found for small ones.
Just copy what's already been done.
Back in the 30's, the then Minister for transport opened a 2.5 mile stretch of cycle track connecting Hanger Lane and Greenford road. This was done due to cycle death statistics for the time and it was hoped it would keep riders safer and lead on to similar projects.
Guess what? The cyclists didn't like it..
The National Cyclists Union complained that the lanes would "curtail their rights on the King's Highway" if they were forced to use them. Others complained that they gave a false sense of security and that accidents would be more likely once the cycle lanes ended.
Many cycle clubs also protested by suggesting they were not wanted or needed and instead, efforts should be made to train drivers.
There were protest demonstrations, (including a mass ride along the road beside the cycle lane rather than on it) In other parts of the country, pickets were placed at either end of another cycle lane project and if riders tried to use it, they were told to demonstrate their 'democratic right to the highway' and use the road instead.
There were also regular visits to the Ministry of transport offices to complain.
By 1938, there were 120 miles of tracks designed for cyclists, yet complaints continued well in to the 40's.
After the war, there was still opposition to segregate and focus and budgets turned to motorway networks etc.
As one report suggests "London missed its chance to develop a system of segregated cycle lanes, as is commonplace in cities like Amsterdam"
So there you have it. They f
ked it all up for themselves.italianjob1275 said:
CoolHands said:
Don't these new convex mirrors that are appearing around London work? Look good to me - no blindspots
Yes! Seen these in Manchester. The best idea yet in my opinion. Studies there showed they have a minimal impact on safety because they are only of any use when a driver is stopped in front of one.
It has also been suggested people just get used to them and their effect wears off.
heebeegeetee said:
George111 said:
I don't have the answer but I think this is the only approach which will work.
Why not do something that many other countries have done, and segregate them? Banning one or the other will mean London going off into uncharted territory. Why make it hard for ourselves, why not just copy other proven methods?And yes I know the instant response is that London doesn't have room, but that's hogwash imo. Where there's a will there's a way, if room can be found for big vehicles then it can be found for small ones.
Just copy what's already been done.
Whilst we are led to believe that there is a demand for such schemes this may be true during Monday to Friday rush hours. Certainly it was not the case when I was on that road on a recent Sunday. There was not a cyclist to be seen *. The traffic was at a standstill on the Embankment for over 30 minutes and I'm sure the queue stretched to the north side of Tower Bridge thus blocking that main junction and probably over the bridge to block roads south of the river.
Whilst my experience is of London no doubt there are similar cock-ups in other cities.
Obviously segregating vunerable road users like cyclists is a good idea but not at the expense of all other road users. Removing 50% of available road space for users (cyclists) that require it for only 12% of the time is ridiculous. Some sort of temporary barrier should have been constructed that could be removed when not required.
- In the several hours of driving round central London I saw 5 cyclists!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff