Ludgate Circus cyclist tipper lorry
Discussion
thelawnet said:
J4CKO said:
Is it me or are lot of these type of accidents happening to ladies ?
There is a theory that women are less confident.It's safer to pass on the right, but women are more likely to ride in the gutter and get killed as a result.
Safest place to be is in the middle of the lane.
They dont get killed as a result of riding in the gutter as there is no gutter
<makes note to look up lawnet>
Anyone can cycle or drive safely on the left
Some of it's about awareness of what's going around you, women are naturally worse at that
but its about percentages rather than one or the other. Some men are no good at it either.
If you can see there's a space between a truck front wheels andthe kerb and space for a bike it might be logical to think it's a safe sapce. What you cant see is that the back wheels of the truck are right behind you and closing.
Rear wheel steer anyone?
The rear wheels follow the same arc as the front so the cycle gap doesnt close
thelawnet said:
saaby93 said:
ot neccesarily
They dont get killed as a result of riding in the gutter as there is no gutter
<makes note to look up lawnet>
Anyone can cycle or drive safely on the left
Some of it's about awareness of what's going around you, women are naturally worse at that
but its about percentages rather than one or the other. Some men are no good at it either.
If you can see there's a space between a truck front wheels andthe kerb and space for a bike it might be logical to think it's a safe sapce. What you cant see is that the back wheels of the truck are right behind you and closing.
But cycling on the left isn't comparable to driving on the left. If you are driving through London in the left of the lane, the only thing that will pass you is a motorbike or bicycle. That's because a car takes up most of the lane. Otoh a bike can fit in what I call the gutter, i.e. The foot of space between the kerb and traffic, They dont get killed as a result of riding in the gutter as there is no gutter
<makes note to look up lawnet>
Anyone can cycle or drive safely on the left
Some of it's about awareness of what's going around you, women are naturally worse at that
but its about percentages rather than one or the other. Some men are no good at it either.
If you can see there's a space between a truck front wheels andthe kerb and space for a bike it might be logical to think it's a safe sapce. What you cant see is that the back wheels of the truck are right behind you and closing.
Cycling on the left is dangerous because roads narrow and your foot of space disappears, vehicles turn left and you get crushed. These are not existential threats if you are driving a car.
Also things like cycle lanes run on the left, sometimes they just disappear without warning, sometimes they are used for car parking, impromptu taxi ranks, etc., you've got car doors being opened, and basically the near side is a dangerous place to be, even though it's where all beginner cyclists will cycle.
and stop using strawman
Diderot said:
How, and in what situations, is one of these deathtraps meant to be used then? Because clearly they're not ever intended to be used as designed on the road, in traffic, with a child in. 
I think youve missed a basic understanding of safetyYou might think parachure jumping safe or unsafe. The statistics tell us one way or the other.
Over the years there have been improvements to try to make parachute jumping safer. Trouble is, being human, if something looks safe we tend to take more risks with it. Despite improvements stats stay the same.
You'll need to look at the state for those buggies behind bikes to decide whether or not they're being used safely. When did you last hear of one being involved in an accident?
Back to the OP
Dammit said:
Vonhosen -that's absolute rubbish, also - what about Eilidh Cairns, run down by a lorry driver who refused to wear the glasses he needed to correct his vision?
Was it her fault that the lorry driver wouldn't wear his glasses? No, not at all.
It's absolutely baffling why people insist that the victims bear some blame for being the victim.
We're back to 1950's attitudes here, and it's frankly disgusting: "That black/gay/foreign guy should have known never to have gone in there, it's his own fault he got such a beating" etc etc.
Didn't sound like rubbish to me at all and the opposite to the example you give. Was it her fault that the lorry driver wouldn't wear his glasses? No, not at all.
It's absolutely baffling why people insist that the victims bear some blame for being the victim.
We're back to 1950's attitudes here, and it's frankly disgusting: "That black/gay/foreign guy should have known never to have gone in there, it's his own fault he got such a beating" etc etc.
He said if one party makes a mistake, often it's ok because the other party can make allowances and both parties go home happy. It's when the other party is unable to make allowance or also makes a mistake it goes pear shaped.
Assuming there is more than one party
Dammit said:
EH? So when he says "there is invariably fault on the side of both parties", how much fault (and of what nature is said fault) belongs to the cyclist for the lorry driver running her down due to uncorrected vision?
He didn't say always.but if youre on a bike and it looks like the truck driver hasnt seen you, if you can make allowances, all will be well with the world
If you cant, the outcome wont be too good
Is that any more than stating the obvious?
Dammit said:
saaby93 said:
He didn't say always.
but if youre on a bike and it looks like the truck driver hasnt seen you, if you can make allowances, all will be well with the world
If you cant, the outcome wont be too good
Is that any more than stating the obvious?
How does that work given the tendency of vehicles to pull alongside then turn in, when it comes to this kind of accident?but if youre on a bike and it looks like the truck driver hasnt seen you, if you can make allowances, all will be well with the world
If you cant, the outcome wont be too good
Is that any more than stating the obvious?
But that's not much use to any of us.
If youre on a bike and you see it happening dop back out of closing space, take to the pavement, anything before it gets you.
Do the same if you see a tiger stalking you
Dammit said:
Diderot said:
Simultaneously to educate cyclists about the dangers, and explore technological solutions for HGVs. But until I'm in charge of transport policy,the answer is really simple: don't filter up the inside of a lorry or bus.
I'll ask again - how does a cyclist defend against a vehicle coming up alongside and then turning in on them?That's not a filtering issue.
Similarly if the truck driver sees the cyclist there, they can try to make allowance too
It takes 2 to tango
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 19th October 10:13
Dammit said:
swisstoni said:
Dammit - trying to conflate Civil Rights with the road safety of cyclists is not doing your case any favours and is actually disrespectful to the people who fought for those causes.
I disagree.See: "Loads of my friends are black, but [racist rant]"
And: "My mates cycle, but [they bring it on themselves, practically dive under cars, red lights/helmets/pavements/blah".
It's prejudice, plain and simple, and as ugly as it always is.
Dammit said:
As I said before (and you ignored) I'm trying to provide a bit of balance to the 99% of people on here (seemingly including you) who are keen to blame the woman who got run over.
Was it her fault? Was it the lorry drivers fault? We don't know.
But based on the historical record, where it was overwhelmingly the lorry drivers fault we can make some assumptions.
Which -I totally agree- may be wrong.
However, if it's the lorry drivers fault 9 times out of 10 in all the other cases, then that suggests it may well be in this one, does it not?
lol noWas it her fault? Was it the lorry drivers fault? We don't know.
But based on the historical record, where it was overwhelmingly the lorry drivers fault we can make some assumptions.
Which -I totally agree- may be wrong.
However, if it's the lorry drivers fault 9 times out of 10 in all the other cases, then that suggests it may well be in this one, does it not?
I think what you've let yourself believe isn't quite as it seems
St John Smythe said:
Really I think that cyclists should use their built in sensor arrays, i.e. eyes. Doing this they won't turn on the inside of trucks.
At the risk of going around in a circle. They do use their eyes. They see this nice comfortable gap between the kerb and the front of the truck.What they dont see is the truck rear wheels behind heading straight for them
Or so we're led to believe
wsurfa said:
The picture is, as always, more complex.
The only reference to balance of attribution of blame(factor) I can find is 'attribution seems to be split fairly equally between cyclist and driver/rider of motorised vehicle'
The big swing is age and severity - the more severe the accident the more likely (factor)blame is shared. Also the younger (under 24) have majority cyclist only factor, those 25-54 the car is majority. Slight accident & serious above age 24 is majority car
Nice graph but it's based on each group adding up to 100%The only reference to balance of attribution of blame(factor) I can find is 'attribution seems to be split fairly equally between cyclist and driver/rider of motorised vehicle'
The big swing is age and severity - the more severe the accident the more likely (factor)blame is shared. Also the younger (under 24) have majority cyclist only factor, those 25-54 the car is majority. Slight accident & serious above age 24 is majority car
It would be useful to see each group scaled by the percentage size of each age group - notice the age group sizes vary too
Or make each age group the same size and ahow actual numbers
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff