Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
braddo said:
A bit of info/context:
Back in 2011, in London there were 570,000 cycle trips DAILY.
That figure will be significantly higher in 2015. In 2012, during commuting hours in the City of London, cyclists made up a THIRD of all traffic!
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/te...
As with the other modes of traffic, there are very many cycle commuters in London who do obey road rules and have good awareness of other vehicles (and their own mortality!). There are also d
heads - they ps off other cyclists as well as other road users. 
I didn't even bother responding to his post given its about London and he has no knowledge of it. As you point out, if everyone was clueless it would be multiple deaths daily. Most people are not.Back in 2011, in London there were 570,000 cycle trips DAILY.
That figure will be significantly higher in 2015. In 2012, during commuting hours in the City of London, cyclists made up a THIRD of all traffic!
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/te...
As with the other modes of traffic, there are very many cycle commuters in London who do obey road rules and have good awareness of other vehicles (and their own mortality!). There are also d
heads - they ps off other cyclists as well as other road users. Regardless of who is wrong & who is right, if you are riding a bike then putting yourself into dangerous situations won't end well. Jumping red lights & riding up the side (either side) of large vehicles or even cars is just asking for trouble. You WILL get squashed by someone at some point.
Spoken as a keen driver, motor cyclist & cyclist.
Spoken as a keen driver, motor cyclist & cyclist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdGo6Yg0G_A
A coffin dodger
An accident waiting to happen
Or just a complete pillock
A coffin dodger
An accident waiting to happen
Or just a complete pillock
TheProfessor said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdGo6Yg0G_A
A coffin dodger
An accident waiting to happen
Or just a complete pillock
Which one A coffin dodger
An accident waiting to happen
Or just a complete pillock
If it was me I'd be one of the ones holding back within the queue rather than trying to beat it
Some of the gaps theyre squeezing through
saaby93 said:
hich one
If it was me I'd be one of the ones holding back within the queue rather than trying to beat it
Some of the gaps theyre squeezing through
Its waterloo bridge, there are no turnings, the gaps also look a lot smaller than they are likely, all looked fine apart from the div who didn't get a move on!If it was me I'd be one of the ones holding back within the queue rather than trying to beat it
Some of the gaps theyre squeezing through
emicen said:
ManFromDelmonte said:
As for jumping red lights. I think car drivers get hung up on it because they can't do it. The difference is that, on a bike you are far far more aware visually and aurally of what dangers are around you. Going through a red in a car is asking for trouble as you are largely blind and largely deaf whereas on a bike there are many situations where it is safer to jump than to not.
Most deaths are caused by cyclist riding up the inside of large vehicles turning left. If the cyclist, aware that the lights are about to change and that the road is clear, jumps the red by a few seconds, they are out of harms way. If they sit there waiting for the truck to move off with them, they are in far more danger.
I am not saying that all cyclists should jump the lights in all situations, I am just highlighting that it is not the same as doing it in a car.
Actually it is the same as doing it in a car.Most deaths are caused by cyclist riding up the inside of large vehicles turning left. If the cyclist, aware that the lights are about to change and that the road is clear, jumps the red by a few seconds, they are out of harms way. If they sit there waiting for the truck to move off with them, they are in far more danger.
I am not saying that all cyclists should jump the lights in all situations, I am just highlighting that it is not the same as doing it in a car.
Highway Code said:
69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
In either case, you are breaking the law.You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
In exactly the same way doing 50 MPH on a dry and empty stretch of 30mph dual carriageway is not the same as doing 50MPH past a school (in a 30mph zone) at kicking out time on a dark and icy morning even if both contravene the same law by the same margin (ignoring other laws e.g dangerous driving, that could apply).
Either way as said, if it comes down to a choice between breaking a law with an outside chance of receiving a small fine or putting myself in greater danger of death I will take the fine every time.
ZX10R NIN said:
The powers that be don't like motorbikes the BBC don't how else do you explain that when they done their race across London they didn't include a Motorbike? (both james May & Hammond ride motorbikes) okay so it would have won & then the message of using public transport because it's the fastest way around London would have been lost but hey when would a thing like facts get in the way of political will, whenever people talk about easing congestion they never mention Motorcycles.
We're still seen as rebels
Er, you do know that the Top Gear production team isn't the BBC? We're still seen as rebels
TG is an entertainment show. A motorbike mullering the competition is hardly entertaining. Being a political conspiracy is about as far fetched as the rebel notion...
As for the sad news about this fatality, I only hope it helps gets the message out that going up the inside of a lorry turning left is a gamble that could cost your life.
If both the driver and cyclist are careful it probably won't be, but I would be unwilling to throw the dice every day.
Is it realistic to ban goods vehicles from London during the day because of these deaths?
I would imagine the knock on consequences on London economically would be far worse than cyclists having to get up a bit earlier to make work on time.
However, I too suspect this is because of the fluffy image cyclists have created for themselves as saviours of the planet.
Don't skyride and other such charities offer training for adults?
On my m/cycle I take responsibility for myself to get to/from work alive, and don't just leave it up to assuming others will act as I want them to.
Ian
TheProfessor said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdGo6Yg0G_A
A coffin dodger
An accident waiting to happen
Or just a complete pillock
Ive driven a 44t artic in and around London many times, yes theres good and bad cyclists and drivers..... but I think the main people who are at fault are the ones who have as yet had very if little mention on this topic, that is the road designers.A coffin dodger
An accident waiting to happen
Or just a complete pillock
The video above perfectly illustrates the problem, two lanes, the bus in one, the truck in the other, where is the cyclist meant to go, there is no room for him (please don't think im excusing him, im not, hes a bellend, end of), i'll take a safe bet that originally that road was one lane in each direction, by making the lanes narrower the planners squeeze in an extra lane, or two, this is fine for cars, but then chuck buses and trucks into the mix and the lanes are to small. I notice this a lot and not just in London. If you make the lanes smaller you cram more traffic together, in my mind accidents are going to be unavoidable if your trying to squeeze to much into one space.
Personally I think buses and trucks are more essential than private cars in London, if you banned cars from the capital and just let trucks, buses and black cabs use the streets there would be less congestion, more room to manuver and conflicts/collisons should reduce.
That's my theory anyway.
It's waterloo bridge so difficult as been around a while - however you are still right in that it's poorly designed. The first 500m of the bridge have cycle lane and two lanes for traffic then the cycle lane disappears and suddenly there isn't enough room for two big vehicles and bikes. It's very stupid as there is a bus stop down the far end which means buses overtake all the riders only to then pull back in to stop. Why they need TWO bus stops actually on the bridge going the same direction I have NFI it's a 4 min walk between the two.
A point I'd make about lorries being involved in fatalities is that whilst the issue of blind spots and visibility is constantly raised it's also relevant that the drivers don't feel impacts. I Suspect very few London cycling deaths occur at any great speed and that many similar collisions occur with cars but these just result in a stopped car with stunned driver and bruised cyclist. A lorry driver won't feel or hear the initial impact like a car driver would and then 10-30 tonnes even at walking pace is deadly.
A running board down the side of a trailer with a pressure switch linked to a visual and audible alarm in the cab could perhaps save lives?
A running board down the side of a trailer with a pressure switch linked to a visual and audible alarm in the cab could perhaps save lives?
ManFromDelmonte said:
defblade said:
ManFromDelmonte said:
whereas on a bike there are many situations where it is safer to jump than to not.
Nope, can't think of any. Not if you're riding as if you were part of the "real" traffic around you (which you are).Do you take your chances that the truck driver has seen you and will let you go first or do you take your chance you'll out accelerate the truck and that you won't slip a gear etc.?
Me? I would move forward through the red light to give myself a clear view (and increase my chances of being seen by the driver) and, as soon as I could see it was clear I would go, thus giving me 3 or 4 seconds head start.
If, somehow, I did get in that position... I'd let the lorry go first. It's just the same as coming up next to a lorry/coach/etc on a 2 lane roundabout when driving, or riding a motorbike, or even a pushbike if you're reasonably fast - you stay behind them, let them finish their manoeuvre without getting caught out because they were swinging wide to go the other way or by catching the middle of the vehicle, then blast past them on the straight.
Patience and awareness will mostly see you home in one piece, albeit possibly 45 seconds slower than your PB.
Seen it in real life too many times, and too many videos, drivers rushing through the "it was definitely still on amber" to think that breaking that particular law will ever be sensible.
I regularly commute to work by bike and I have to agree that some cyclists have absolutely no concern for their safety. One time recently a lady on a Brompton tried to undertake a big white van with limited visibility at a t junction. The van either didn't or couldn't see her as they were both turning left but luckily the woman casually hoped off the bike into the pavement. There was no contact but only by inches. After it happened she seemed completely oblivious to how close she'd just come to serious injury.
Most large vehicles have stickers warning cyclists not to undertake on the left. Is it law now?
Continually shocked by how bad some of the cycling is, I'm amazed more don't die. Drivers can be equally as bad and at fault a lot of the time but surely as a cyclist you should assume you haven't been seen, the car will pull out etc...
Most large vehicles have stickers warning cyclists not to undertake on the left. Is it law now?
Continually shocked by how bad some of the cycling is, I'm amazed more don't die. Drivers can be equally as bad and at fault a lot of the time but surely as a cyclist you should assume you haven't been seen, the car will pull out etc...
gazza285 said:
A front blind spot mirror has been a legal requirement for over five years now, so combined with the close proximity mirror which looks down at the near side wheel any cyclists around the cab should be visible. Whether the drivers use these mirrors is another point.
Fresnel lenses / Dobli's or BDS mirrors are not currently a legal requirement and even still these leave blind spots. A HGV with only the mandatory Class IV, V and VI mirror correctly adjusted still leaves the driver with a fairly large blind spot.
gazza285 said:
A front blind spot mirror has been a legal requirement for over five years now, so combined with the close proximity mirror which looks down at the near side wheel any cyclists around the cab should be visible. Whether the drivers use these mirrors is another point.
Being a know-it-all, whilst not really knowing what you are talking about, will get you squashed. GC8 said:
Being a know-it-all, whilst not really knowing what you are talking about, will get you squashed.
It won't get me squashed, because I'm not a bloody idiot on a bike, not many HGVs on the minor roads in the Pennines either, and best of all, no jobs scheduled for London in the near future.v12Legs said:
What is clear is that trucks are over-represented in the stats for cyclist KSIs, so something about them is clearly much more dangerous than "normal" vehicles.
What is more dangerous than 'normal' is the fact that if a cyclist rides into a car that is turning left at 5mph there is a bang, the driver knows they've hit something immediately and the cyclist bounces off of the side of the car. If they do it to a lorry there is a squish, the driver only knows if they saw them in the mirror and they go under the wheels.So there may be 100 more accidents a month involving cars and cyclists, but the cyclist walks away with a grazed knee in 99% of those and nothing is reported. They never get a grazed knee from a lorry or bus though.
Edited by s p a c e m a n on Thursday 22 January 04:54
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff