56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison
Discussion
will_ said:
If I jumped every red light that I came to because there was a truck behind me I wouldn't stop for any of them.
That article (which you'll note I linked to earlier) just indicates that space is required for cyclists at junctions so that they do not need to stop in a danger zone.
However the idea that cyclists should be jumping red lights to avoid being hit by trucks is bonkers - either get well ahead or stay well behind.
How do you get well ahead if you're first at the red light and the truck comes up behind you? ASLs aren't massive and are oft ignored. That article (which you'll note I linked to earlier) just indicates that space is required for cyclists at junctions so that they do not need to stop in a danger zone.
However the idea that cyclists should be jumping red lights to avoid being hit by trucks is bonkers - either get well ahead or stay well behind.
OTBC said:
You keep saying that, I keep asking you for an example. If it's so common how come you can't find any examples?
How is it you can't grasp basic logic?Cycle lanes leading to ask boxes actively encourage cyclists to do it, which is a terrible design in my view.
If you want to pretend you never see a cyclist go down the left of a vehicle in London, then you are lying to yourself, and literally nobody believes you.
will_ said:
It also ignores the fact that an indicator is nothing more than that - an indication. It's not sensible to head up the inside of an indicating vehicle, but nor is it acceptable to indicate and turn without actually checking that it's safe to do so.
But that is kinda my point. Trucks have such large blind spots that its easy to check and not be able to see.LucreLout said:
And any regular driver knows that very often cyclists ignore indicating vehicles as they try to undertake the queue of traffic to get to the front.
Fine, until the queue moves where they hadn't expected it, and a driver that had no cyclist on their left when they indicated now has one he can't see.
Some of that criticism doesn't quite add up. 'Undertaking' the queue to get to the front would, by definition, involve passing vehicles who are not at the head of the queue - i.e. vehicles that are not yet at the point where they would be turning. What's the problem with that? When I am back down the queue, signalling left and a cyclist comes past my nearside, I don't consider them to be ignoring my signal. In my experience (which is more Cambridge than London - don't know if that makes a difference) very, very few cyclists have passed my left signal when I'm at the point of turning.Fine, until the queue moves where they hadn't expected it, and a driver that had no cyclist on their left when they indicated now has one he can't see.
Based on no evidence at all I'm guessing that there are quite a few incidents with cars turning left in front of filtering bikes but very few deaths.
Lots of bruises, dents, scratches and bad language. Lots of blame and shouting and arguing about who should have given way or looked.
But I expect it's mostly lorries and buses that result in deaths where the cyclist goes under the vehicle rather than over the bonnet and the driver doesn't realise it's happened so keeps going.
Lots of bruises, dents, scratches and bad language. Lots of blame and shouting and arguing about who should have given way or looked.
But I expect it's mostly lorries and buses that result in deaths where the cyclist goes under the vehicle rather than over the bonnet and the driver doesn't realise it's happened so keeps going.
LucreLout said:
How is it you can't grasp basic logic?
Cycle lanes leading to ask boxes actively encourage cyclists to do it, which is a terrible design in my view.
If you want to pretend you never see a cyclist go down the left of a vehicle in London, then you are lying to yourself, and literally nobody believes you.
But you claimed that most cycling collisions are caused by rash filtering, I wondered if you had any examples? If most collisions happen the way you describe it's strange you have no actual examples.Cycle lanes leading to ask boxes actively encourage cyclists to do it, which is a terrible design in my view.
If you want to pretend you never see a cyclist go down the left of a vehicle in London, then you are lying to yourself, and literally nobody believes you.
SK425 said:
Some of that criticism doesn't quite add up. 'Undertaking' the queue to get to the front would, by definition, involve passing vehicles who are not at the head of the queue - i.e. vehicles that are not yet at the point where they would be turning. What's the problem with that? When I am back down the queue, signalling left and a cyclist comes past my nearside, I don't consider them to be ignoring my signal. In my experience (which is more Cambridge than London - don't know if that makes a difference) very, very few cyclists have passed my left signal when I'm at the point of turning.
The problem mostly occurs where there are side roads before the main junction and a car is signalling for the side road not the main junction.heebeegeetee said:
Yet the stats say that drivers are solely to blame 60-75% of the time. Show us where your fact is supported. The majority of deaths are accused by being run down from behind, followed by drivers pulling out of junctions. The majority of cyclist deaths are caused by drivers failing to look.
And that's it. No amount of obfuscation will change that.
Drivers failing to look properly is probably at the route of nearly all collisions.
Drivers failing to look totals 57%, and 43% for cyclists.And that's it. No amount of obfuscation will change that.
Drivers failing to look properly is probably at the route of nearly all collisions.
I simply rounded up from there. I'll revise my statement to Cyclists are partly or wholly to blame in more than 40% of accidents. Happy?
Cyclists have primary responsibility for their own safety. Passing indicating vehicles can only ever reduce that safety, as can sitting in front of a truck who may not be able to see you clearly or may not be looking at all. Which is why I am happy to jump lights to regain space away from them.
SK425 said:
Some of that criticism doesn't quite add up. 'Undertaking' the queue to get to the front would, by definition, involve passing vehicles who are not at the head of the queue - i.e. vehicles that are not yet at the point where they would be turning. What's the problem with that? When I am back down the queue, signalling left and a cyclist comes past my nearside, I don't consider them to be ignoring my signal. In my experience (which is more Cambridge than London - don't know if that makes a difference) very, very few cyclists have passed my left signal when I'm at the point of turning.
Which is fine as long as well before the junction you make sure the queue is going faster than you such that people see you as they approach.Doing the same speed bear a truck wont end well, and nor will going faster and having someone execute a last minute turn when you enter their blind spot.
There was a pic a while ago showing how many cyclists can 'hide' in the blind spots of a single truck. It's a lot.
OTBC said:
But you claimed that most cycling collisions are caused by rash filtering, I wondered if you had any examples? If most collisions happen the way you describe it's strange you have no actual examples.
I can't do links on mobile, but google the times 122 cyclists died in 2012 article and it'll give you a list including their names.There are many involving trucks with no action against the driver. Google their names and viola, there's your examples.
And I didn't say most, I said many. You've slipped back into making stuff up mode again.
LucreLout said:
No he's not. In London the vast majority of cyclists killed are passing a vehicle on the side to which its turning.
If they'd learn that they need to wait behind an indicating vehicle instead of sneaking up the side of it, then there would be very few adult cycle deaths.
Which fatality are you referring to? For example? You are blaming cyclists with zero evidence. The word 'most' would be correct with reference to 'very few', or do you disagree?If they'd learn that they need to wait behind an indicating vehicle instead of sneaking up the side of it, then there would be very few adult cycle deaths.
OTBC said:
Only if you include child stats- kids falling off a learner bike in a park. That's a bit dishonest.
Let's face it, you have a bias against cyclists and you misuse facts to demonise them.
Assuming that 43% included all 13 child cyclists, and assuming all adult cyclists to die are hit by a vehicle, which isn't the case, that gets you to around 35% caused in full ir in part by the cyclist not looking.Let's face it, you have a bias against cyclists and you misuse facts to demonise them.
I'm not demonising anyone you silly little boy. You're refusing to see reality that cyclists often die because they too make mistakes. Ffs, week one of the school holidays and I'm already counting the days until you go back.
LucreLout said:
And I didn't say most, I said many. You've slipped back into making stuff up mode again.
No, you said "vast majority".LucreLout said:
In London the vast majority of cyclists killed are passing a vehicle on the side to which its turning.
If they'd learn that they need to wait behind an indicating vehicle instead of sneaking up the side of it, then there would be very few adult cycle deaths.
If they'd learn that they need to wait behind an indicating vehicle instead of sneaking up the side of it, then there would be very few adult cycle deaths.
OTBC said:
Which fatality are you referring to? For example? You are blaming cyclists with zero evidence.
At this point, you're trolling, so I'm going to stop feeding you.Read London cyclist, Leigh day, or pretty well any cycling blog and you're going to find the grown ups have noticed that it happens.
LucreLout said:
The grown ups have noticed that it happens.
It does happen.Just not the "vast majority" of the time.
And as has been shown to you several times, drivers are more often to blame.
I understand that fact doesn't fit you world view and may be uncomfortable for you, but it is still a fact.
LucreLout said:
There are many involving trucks with no action against the driver.
Just because no action was taken against the driver does not mean you can assume that the cyclist was at fault.The criminal burden of proof is very high, there may not be sufficient evidence to prosecute or there may not have been any witnesses. That most certainly does not make the driver innocent - only not proven guilty (not the same thing at all).
It would be very dangerous for you to base your position that "often" cyclists cause their own deaths, or indeed to assert that only "few" adult cyclists would be killed if none of them went down the inside of lorries, based on such an assumption.
The study which I referred to earlier outlined that 40 of the 95 drivers involved in fatal accidents faced prosecution i.e. there was a good arguable case that they were in part to blame. Of those 40, 28 were convicted. Some of the cases were the subject of on-going enquiries so were not counted in the 40. That doesn't sound, to me, like only a "few" drivers were to blame, particularly not if you consider that not all blameworthy drivers will be prosecuted.
Other than a lack of action taken against the drivers is there anything else to support the position that cyclists who die under the wheels of lorries are predominantly at fault?
LucreLout said:
Drivers failing to look totals 57%, and 43% for cyclists.
I simply rounded up from there. I'll revise my statement to Cyclists are partly or wholly to blame in more than 40% of accidents. Happy?
Cyclists have primary responsibility for their own safety. Passing indicating vehicles can only ever reduce that safety, as can sitting in front of a truck who may not be able to see you clearly or may not be looking at all. Which is why I am happy to jump lights to regain space away from them.
Where do those figures come from, given that drivers are solely to blame up to 75% of the time?I simply rounded up from there. I'll revise my statement to Cyclists are partly or wholly to blame in more than 40% of accidents. Happy?
Cyclists have primary responsibility for their own safety. Passing indicating vehicles can only ever reduce that safety, as can sitting in front of a truck who may not be able to see you clearly or may not be looking at all. Which is why I am happy to jump lights to regain space away from them.
Where do you get your stat of cyclists failing to look for 43% of the time?
An example: in the Pettrerson case when the cyclist was run down from behind, he was deemed to be partly at fault for failing to take a longer, slower route to his destination, so cyclists can be held at fault for reasons other than not looking. How on earth do you know what part the cyclists hold (and would our imaginations be good enough to match the excuses the courts are coming up with?).
Cyclists are being held to blame for not wearing a helmet when they're run down from behind. Reasons to blame are being apportioned to cyclists that you'd never dream of applying to drivers.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 24th July 15:42
LucreLout said:
Read London cyclist, Leigh day, or pretty well any cycling blog and you're going to find the grown ups have noticed that it happens.
Of course it happens. It is no doubt a factor in some incidents.But you seem to have a very clear position that cyclists are often to blame when they are killed, despite statistics showing that cyclists are (generally) not to blame, and I wonder if there is any independent evidence to support it. Is your position that the other studies are wrong, or that there is something peculiar when it comes to fatal accidents?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff